Importer and exporter capabilities, governance mechanisms, and environmental factors determining customer-perceived relationship value

Abstract

Although value creation is the overarching goal of interfirm exchange relationships, there is little research on relationship value in business markets in general and in global business markets in particular. The current research draws on the theoretical perspectives of dynamic capabilities, relational contracting, industry structure view, and Uppsala model of internationalization and synthesizes their insights to develop a model of customer-perceived relationship value in importer-exporter relationships. A mail survey was used to collect data from 211 import distributors of industrial products. The study results indicate that exporter core offering and customer responsiveness capabilities, importer market-sensing and customer relationship management capabilities, relational governance, psychic distance, and environmental munificence are important determinants of relationship value, while contractual governance has no detectable effect. Theoretical and managerial implications of the findings are discussed and future research directions are presented

A systematic review of responsiveness to develop future research agenda: a TCCM and bibliometric analysis

“…The complete dataset has been analyzed to identify the role of responsiveness as an independent variable and dependent variable in different contexts. The literature reviewed has identified responsiveness as an independent variable to generate various outcomes emphasizing firm performance (Pehrsson, 2014); financial performance (Gorane and Kant, 2017); relationship value (Skarmeas et al, 2019); customer value creation (Kim et al, 2013); customer performance (Theoharakis et al, 2009); market performance (Kim and Lee, 2010); retail performance (Bendoly et al, 2018); customer satisfaction (Gorane and Kant, 2017); loyalty (Famiyeh et al, 2018); trust (Balaji et al, 2016); service quality (Negi, 2009) and behavioral intentions (Baumann et al, 2007); whereas, responsiveness has been emphasized as a dependent variable by analyzing the impact of several independent variables acting as antecedents toward the subject area. These independent variables include demand visibility (Williams et al, 2013); customer participation (Sheng, 2019); social media use (Agnihotri et al, 2016); innovation (Genc and De Giovanni, 2018); flexibility (Shekarian et al, 2020); strategic collaboration (Kim and Lee, 2010); customer relationship management (Balaji et al, 2016) and strategic partnering (Theoharakis et al, 2009).…”

How relational drivers affect relationship value in key exporter-importer relationships: a dark side perspective

“…As a result, B2B exporting practitioners lack academic guidance on how to increase relational advantage in their key E-I relationships by properly managing their relational assets. By building on these gaps, this study extends relationship value literature (Skarmeas et al , 2016; Skarmeas et al , 2018; Skarmeas et al , 2019) by showing the importance of boundary conditions that enhance or diminish the impact of relational drivers on relationship value within key E-I relationships. In the following, the specific contributions that arise from the study’s findings are showcased.…”

“…We define E-I relationship value as the exporter’s assessment of overall benefits and costs related to working relationship with the importer (Skarmeas et al , 2016). How relationship value is built was the topic of several B2B studies in domestic (Ritter and Walter, 2012; Ulaga and Eggert, 2006a; Ulaga and Eggert, 2006) and E-I setting (Lai et al , 2015; Skarmeas et al , 2016; Skarmeas et al , 2018; Skarmeas et al , 2019) (see Table I). However, this study focuses on two previously unexplored antecedents of E-I relationship value, namely: relational capital and importer’s RSIs.…”

An examination of SME involvement in public procurement under bid lot sizing

“…The positive influence of SME governance mechanisms on SME involvement in public procurement is supported in previous research. Both contractual and relational governance mechanisms enhance role integrity, mutuality, solidarity, flexibility, bilateral information exchange, harmonious conflict resolution and long-term orientation (Skarmeas et al, 2019;Um and Kim, 2019), aspects necessary for SME participation in public procurement. Contractual governance also enables exchange relationships to take place (Choi, 2020).…”

“…Contractual governance refers to the extent to which a collaborative relationship is governed by a formal contract, which specifies formal rules, SME involvement in public procurement obligations and duties (Cao and Lumineau, 2015;Skarmeas et al, 2019) whilst relational governance refers to the extent to which inter-firm relationships are governed by social relations and shared norms (Skarmeas et al, 2019;Toylan and Semerciöz, 2020). Both contractual and relational governance mechanisms enhance role integrity, mutuality, solidarity, flexibility, bilateral information exchange, harmonious conflict resolution and long-term orientation (Skarmeas et al, 2019;Um and Kim, 2019), aspects necessary for SME participation in public procurement. Contractual governance also enhances the stability necessary for exchange relationships to deepen (Choi, 2020).…”