Relational capital quality and client loyalty: firm-level evidence from pharmaceuticals, Pakistan

Abstract

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

Balancing innovation and exploitation in the fourth industrial revolution: Role of intellectual capital and technology absorptive capacity

“…In this regard, relational or social capital is considered as the bond that is formed with organizational relationships with stakeholders, and that impacts the lives of the organization. Researchers (e.g., Eisenhardt and Sull, 2001 ; Kang et al., 2007 ; Mom et al., 2015 ; Mubarik et al., 2016 ) explain relational or social capital as being a blend of different relationships such as market relationships, power relationships and cooperation. RC encompasses trust, stronger understanding, collaboration and the relationship among the strategic partners in this regard, and it characterizes interactions, connection stocks, closeness, linkages, loyalty, and goodwill between an organization and downstream clients, upstream suppliers, external stakeholders, and strategic partners ( Lazzarotti et al., 2017 ; Mubarik et al., 2019a , Naghavi and Mubarak, 2019 ).…”

An Exploration of the Measurement of Relational Capital in Supply Chains

“…There were also other items proposed in the conceptual models developed by authors, such as: friendship (Kale et al, 2000;Carey et al, 2011;Villena et al, 2011;Roden and Lawson, 2014;Villena and Craighead, 2017), fairness (Kohtamäki et al, 2013), family like atmosphere (Lee, 2015), length of the relationship in years (Krause et al, 2007), long-term partnership (Lee, 2015), expectation the relationship to continue for a long time or relationship as a long-term alliance (Jer et al, 2017), not misleading partner (Kulangara et al, 2016), communication (Sambasivan, 2013), satisfaction (Mubarik et al, 2016), avoiding exercising power in the relationship (Preston et al, 2017), similar approach in fostering teamwork between one antoher (Preston et al, 2017), similar pattern on how to best cooperate with each other (Preston et al, 2017), compatibility of goals and objectives (Jer et al, 2017), shared destiny (Huikkola et al, 2013), obligation, identification and norms (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998;Johnson et al, 2013), goodwill and prior beliefs (Hammervoll, 2011), network relational embeddedness (Preston et al, 2017), socialization (Yim and Leem, 2013), buyer and supplier dependency (Krause et al, 2007), financial resources (Léger, 2010;Hammervoll, 2011). Although, the aforementioned mentioned elements characterize meaningful aspects of relationship management within supply chain management, other essential items were chosen as a reference due to the higher frequency of their usage in reviewed models presented in research papers published in the period 2004-2017.…”

“…Trust occurs usually as a single research item. However, in some papers it is developed into several components (Mubarik et al, 2016, Verwaal, 2017 with reference to the previous works, like Crosby et al (1990), or Morgan and Hund (1998). In this case, trust is defined using not only qualitative indicators (e.g.…”

“…, Villena et al (2011), Hammervoll (2011), Carey et al (2011), Sambasivan et al (2013), Yim and Leem (2013), Johnson et al (2013), Kohtamäki et al (2013), Huikkola et al (2013), Blonska et al (2013), Roden and Lawson (2014), Lee (2015), Mubarik et al (2016), Kulangara et al (2016), Verwaal (2017), Preston et al (2017), Villena and Craighead (2017), Ruy et al et al (2006), Chang and Gotcher (2007), Lawson et al (2008), Petersen et al (2008), Villena et al (2011), Huikkola et al (2013), Roden and Lawson (2014), Villena and Craighead (2017), Verwaal (2017), Preston et al (2017) Respect 9 Cousins et al (2006), Lawsonet al (2008),Petersen et al (2008),Carey et al (2011),Villena et al (2011),Kohtamäki et al et al (2013),Sambasivan et al (2013),Yim and Leem (2013),Mubarik et al (2016) Source: own elaboration.…”

Governance-Led Intellectual Capital Disclosure: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan

“…Besides conventional forms of capital, i.e., physical and financial, intellectual capital (IC) has recently gained a vital position in the assessment of organizational performance (Cuozzo et al, 2017). Majority of scholastic literature on this topic (e.g., (Keenan and Aggestam, 2001;Muttakin et al, 2015;Mubarik et al, 2016;Kamath, 2017;Duff, 2018)) ties the success of an organization with its ability to capitalize on the intellectual capital and efficiency of its corporate governance process. In the context of corporate governance, Keenan and Aggestam (2001) among others, identified and propounded the conceptual association between intellectual capital disclosure (ICD) and firms' governance.…”