Building the supplier's trust: Role of institutional forces and buyer firm practices

Hemmert, Martin; Kim, Daesoo; Kim, Jisun; Cho, BooYun

doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.05.023

Cited by 50 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 96 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although a firm rarely depends on only one type of trust to manage partnerships, with few exceptions (Levin and Cross, 2004;Jiang et al, 2013), previous studies have typically employed unidimensional or global measures to empirically investigate the effects of inter-firm trust (e.g., Yeung et al, 2009;Cai et al, 2010;Molina-Morales et al, 2011;Hemmert et al, 2016). This approach ignores the complex nature of interfirm trust, leading to mixed empirical findings.…”

Section: Competence and Goodwill Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unreliable and unstable legal systems may increase collaboration uncertainties and risks, which reduce firms' anticipation of the value of knowledge creation (Hemmert, et al, 2016;Zhang et al, 2017). Legal inadequacy thus drives firms to rely on trust to resolve their disputes and gain institutional supports, and hence influences the effectiveness of trust (Cai et al, 2010;Sheng et al, 2013;Kuo, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Legal inadequacy thus drives firms to rely on trust to resolve their disputes and gain institutional supports, and hence influences the effectiveness of trust (Cai et al, 2010;Sheng et al, 2013;Kuo, 2013). Therefore, an institutional contingency perspective provides an important lens to examine how inter-firm trust affects knowledge creation in R&D alliances (Cai et al, 2010;Jiang et al, 2013;Hemmert, et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Trust and knowledge creation: the moderating effects of legal inadequacy

Wang

Zhang

2017

IMDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to empirically investigate the effects of competence and goodwill trust on knowledge creation and the moderating effects of legal inadequacy on those relationships.Design/methodology/approach A questionnaire survey was used to collect data from 196 research and development alliances in China. Hierarchical moderated regression was used to test the research hypotheses.Findings We find that competence trust has a positive and linear relationship with knowledge creation while goodwill trust has an inverted U-shaped relationship with it.The results also reveal that the inverted U-shaped relationship between goodwill trust and knowledge creation is stronger when legal inadequacy is high, while the impact of competence trust on knowledge creation is not influenced by legal inadequacy. Originality/valueThe findings provide insights into the distinctive effects of competence and goodwill trust on knowledge creation in partnerships, deepening current understandings of the bright and dark sides of inter-firm trust. This study also clarifies the influences of legal inadequacy on the effectiveness of competence and goodwill trust, which enhances existing knowledge about the impact of legal systems on the relationships between inter-firm trust and knoweldge management.

show abstract

Section: Competence and Goodwill Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trust and knowledge creation: the moderating effects of legal inadequacy

Wang

Zhang

2017

IMDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The relationships between buyers and sellers of goods and services have come under increasing scrutiny in the literature since the results and consequences of negotiations between them can be critical to the competitiveness and integrity of firms operating within international networks. Examples of relevant issues that have been investigated include trust (Schoenherr et al, 2015;Hemmert et al, 2016), transaction costs (Schneider et al, 2013;Abd Rahman et al, 2009), ethics and social responsibility (Goebel et al, 2012;Govindan et al, 2016). In this paper we examine the behavioural issue of ambiguity, which is a concern involving both sides during negotiations between buyers and sellers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We also add to buyer-seller literature concerned with behaviour, ambiguity and information asymmetry (e.g. Esmaeilia and Zeephongsekul, 2010;Hazen et al, 2012;Schoenherr et al, 2015;Hemmert et al, 2016) by developing new theoretical propositions for empirical research. We analyse the effects of negotiators' ambiguity aversion on their real options prospects, with and without network control, using a multiple-priors expected utility (MEU) with non-extreme outcomes (hereafter called NMEU) in continuous-time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ambiguity aversion in buyer-seller relationships: A contingent-claims and social network explanation

Gao

Driouchi

Bennett

2018

International Journal of Production Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Negotiations between buyers and sellers (or suppliers) of goods and services have become increasingly important due to the growing trend towards international purchasing, outsourcing and global supply networks together with the high uncertainty associated with them. This paper examines the effect of ambiguity aversion on price negotiations using multiple-priors-based real options with non-extreme outcomes. We study price negotiation between a buyer and seller in a dual contingentclaims setting (call option holding buyer vs. put option holding seller) to derive optimal agreement conditions under ambiguity with and without social network effects. We find that while higher ambiguity aversion raises the threshold for commitment for the seller, it has equivocal effects on the buyer's negotiation prospects in the absence of network control. Conversely when network position and relative bargaining power are accounted for, we find the buyer's implicit price (or negotiation threshold) decreases (or increases) unequivocally with increasing aversion to ambiguity. Extending extant real options research on price negotiation to the case of ambiguity, this set of results provides new insights into the role of ambiguity aversion and network structures in buyer-seller relationships, including how they influence the range of negotiation agreement between buyers and sellers. The results also help assist managers in formulating robust buying/selling strategies for bargaining under uncertainty. By knowing their network positions and gathering background information or inferring the other party's ambiguity tolerance beforehand, buyers and sellers can anticipate where the negotiation is heading in terms of price negotiation range and mutual agreement possibilities.

show abstract

Commitment to Learning, Knowledge, and Strategic Renewal: Do Family Firms Manage Them Differently?

Pérez-Pérez

Hernández-Linares

2019

Entrepreneurship and Family Business Vitality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building the supplier's trust: Role of institutional forces and buyer firm practices

Cited by 50 publications

References 96 publications

Trust and knowledge creation: the moderating effects of legal inadequacy

Trust and knowledge creation: the moderating effects of legal inadequacy

Ambiguity aversion in buyer-seller relationships: A contingent-claims and social network explanation

Commitment to Learning, Knowledge, and Strategic Renewal: Do Family Firms Manage Them Differently?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About