Governance mechanisms in domestic and international buyer–supplier relationships: An empirical study

Burkert, Michael; Ivens, Björn Sven; Shan, Jialu

doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.06.019

Cited by 74 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 102 publications

(189 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most studies find a positive association between risks to inter-firm exchange and the use of formal controls. For example, Burkert, Ivens & Shan (2012) find that in more complex settings, formal controls are used more intensively, while Ding, Dekker and Groot (2013) establish that, as risks increase in the transaction context, firms place more emphasis on developing more complex (inclusive and specific) contracts to manage the collaboration.…”

Section: Formal Contractsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relational contracting and the myth of trust: Control in a co-opetitive setting

Grafton

Mundy

2017

Management Accounting Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we investigate the role of formal and relational contracts in managing alliance risks that arise in co-opetitive collaborations. We undertake a case study of a co-opetitive sales alliance within the independent publishing sector, incorporating data from all firms to the alliance. We provide empirical evidence of the relational risks of misappropriation and opportunism as manifest in both vertical (buyer-supplier) and horizontal activities within the alliance and identify a further relational risk relating to concerns of introducing homogeneity into the product offerings of firms. We also examine the nature of compliance and regulatory risk, which is salient in this setting given the potential for anti-competitive behaviour towards customers and suppliers. We find that the firms mitigate alliance risks primarily through the use of relational contracts (informal self-enforcing agreements). Formal contracts are evident in the buyer-supplier relationship, but are used mainly for ex post co-ordination. We adopt an organisational economics perspective to explain the specific mechanisms that support

show abstract

Section: Formal Contractsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relational contracting and the myth of trust: Control in a co-opetitive setting

Grafton

Mundy

2017

Management Accounting Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Firms may handle this contradiction by relying on complementary, but different mechanisms. These include transactional mechanisms such as specific contracts, IP agreements and sometimes even specific investments (Arranz & de Arroyabe 2012;Burkert, et al 2012;Jap & Ganesan 2000) and relational mechanisms such as trust, frequent transactions and shared goals .…”

Section: Transactional and Relational Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several advantages of contracts have been highlighted; contracts can create a ground for mutual understanding and commitments in collaborative NPD projects, coordinate agreements on intellectual property rights, and result in specific investments (Blomqvist, et al 2005;Burkert, et al 2012). Therefore, complex customized contracts can be considered as a hybrid form of governance suited for higher degrees asset specificity (Jagdev & Thoben 2001).…”

Section: Transactional and Relational Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Governance of supplier collaboration in technologically uncertain NPD projects

Melander

Lakemond

2015

Industrial Marketing Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Within that category, extant literature investigated formal contracts (e.g. Burkert et al, 2012;Cannon & Perreault, 1999;Genctürk & Aulakh, 2007); relational norms (e.g. Ivens, 2005;Zhang et al, 2003); transaction-specific investments (e.g.…”

Section: Relationship Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a trusting relationship, one party believes that the other party is reliable to fulfill its promises . Trust is regarded as a major factor to develop a long-term relationship (Anderson & Weitz, 1989) since it tends to strengthen a future orientation (Burkert et al, 2012). On the other hand, low or lack of trust in a relationship is very likely to stimulate unfavorable attitudes and hence negative results Lenonidou et al, 2013).…”

Section: Inter-firm Governance and Relationship Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%