The key role of opportunism in business relationships

Abstract

PurposeThis study seeks to examine the key role of opportunism in business relationships relative to environment uncertainty (i.e. competitive intensity and market turbulence), bonding structure (i.e. specific assets and dependence), and relationship quality (i.e. trust and commitment).Design/methodology/approachInitially, informants were contacted by phone and a total of 581 surveys were mailed to small‐ and medium‐sized manufacturers asking them to answer questions about their suppliers. In total, 212 surveys were returned generating a response rate of 36.5 percent. To test the measurement properties and hypothesized relationships between the constructs in focus, confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling were used.FindingsThe results supported all six hypotheses. The principal findings are competitive intensity leads to market turbulence and market turbulence, in turn, is positively associated with opportunism; specific assets leads to dependence and dependence is, in turn, positively associated with opportunism; and supplier opportunism is negatively associated with both trust and commitment.Research limitations/implicationsThe research model tests a sample of business relationships between small‐ and medium‐sized manufacturers and their suppliers in Norway. Findings may not be generalized to larger companies in other countries.Practical implicationsThe results are of interest to manufacturing executives since they provide a framework of contextual variables and relational characteristics that need to be considered in corporate efforts to control supplier opportunism.Originality/valueThis study is unique in testing key constructs of two important theories of business marketing – transaction cost analysis and social exchange theory (i.e. relationship quality) rarely, if ever, used in the same empirical study.

Technology readiness in a B2B online retail context: An examination of antecedents and outcomes

“…Technical readiness determines how capable a firm is to adopt an innovation (Iacovou et al, 1995;Kuan & Chau, 2001), but the technical complexities inherent in dynamic web technologies demand both technical skills and knowledge about the technology. Where these are lacking, managers may feel increasingly vulnerable to the possibility of being exploited (Mysen, Svensson & Payan, 2011), amplifying their perceptions of risk and therefore reducing their trust in adopting or using the technology (Pavlou, 2002;Pressey & Ashton, 2009). …”

The Mediating Effect of Relationship Quality on the Transaction Cost–Export Performance Link: Bangladeshi Exporters' Perspectives

“…We took five items from Leonidou et al (2006) to measure uncertainty. Three items from Mysen et al (2011) served to measure specific assets. Of the RELQUAL focal constructs, we measured satisfaction with a three-item scale adapted from C. Lages et al (2005) and ; for commitment, we used a three-item scale adapted from C. Lages et al (2005); and to measure trust, we adapted a two-item scale from Ganesan (1994) and Zaheer, McEvily, and Perrone (1998).…”

“…As suggested by Kumar, Stern, andAnderson (1993, p. 1634), we used a key informant methodology and chose respondents "because they are supposedly knowledgeable about the issues being researched and able and willing to communicate about them." As suggested by Campbell (1955) and Mysen, Svensson, and Payan (2011), we checked the respondents' knowledge levels with two items: (a) "How much do you know about your firm's perspective on the study topics?" and (b) "How much do you know about specific experiences with importers?"…”

Determinants of moral hazard in research and development supply relations: Empirical results beyond the agency‐theory explanation

“…Even though this issue has been conceptualized slightly differently in the research, several empirical studies have confirmed the opportunism‐increasing effect of environmental uncertainty in exchange relationships (Katsikeas et al, ; Lai et al, ; Liu et al, ; Luo, ; Mysen et al, ; Skarmeas et al, ; Wang & Yang, ). Carson et al (), however, found that environmental uncertainty in contract R&D only unfolds its opportunism‐driving force under formal contract regimes but not under relational contract regimes.…”

“…However, there is reason to assume the benefits of a refined explanation of opportunism that considers the specific features of a specific exchange situation. According to that view, some empirical studies have previously been conducted (e.g., Anderson (), Carson, Madhok, and Wu (); John (); Katsikeas, Skarmeas, & Bello, ; Lai, Tian, & Huo, ; Liu, Su, Li, & Liu, ; Luo, ; Mysen, Svensson, & Payan, ; Skarmeas, Katsikeas, & Schlegelmilch, ; Steinle, Schiele, & Ernst, ; Ting, Chen, & Bartholomew, ). However, as we will demonstrate, these studies show inconsistent results.…”