Research on trust in buyer–supplier relationships has tended to focus on the performance outcomes of a trusting relationship, as well as the processes that serve to build trust. Largely absent from the buyer–supplier literature is an in‐depth examination of activities that break down trust, and the resulting effect on supplier trust in the buyer. The authors propose and test a model that evaluates psychological contract violations between a buyer and a supplier as a mediating variable of the effect of unethical activities on trust within a partnership. Survey data was collected from 110 tier one suppliers of major corporations in the state of Ohio. Our results show how a supplier's perception of a violation of the psychological contract either partially mediates or fully mediates the relationship between the buyers unethical activity and the suppliers trust in that buyer. We discuss how suppliers may demonstrate bounded ethicality when they overlook perceived unethical behaviors by the buyer.

Research has shown that superior supply chain effectiveness can yield enhanced firm financial performance. However, existing research does not use a consistent definition or a comprehensive list of supply chain leader firms. Using matched sample comparison, this study investigates the robustness of the relationship between supply chain effectiveness and the overall financial health of firms viewed as supply chain leaders by using AMR's supply chain top 25 list. We hypothesize that firms that have been identified by AMR as supply chain leaders will be more financially healthy than nonsupply chain leaders. That is, they will have better cost, activity, and liquidity ratios. The findings indicate that firms identified as supply chain leaders outperform their nonsupply chain leader peers in accounting-based activity, cost, and liquidity measures.

The coordination required to successfully implement supply chain initiatives suggest that supply chain management change processes may possess some unique characteristics. Yet, empirical studies are scarce to support this logic. Using an empirical design and data obtained from managers, and drawing largely from Lewin's change process conceptualization, this study compares the process of supply chain management change to non‐supply chain management change. Further investigation into monitoring and control of supply chain management change is advised.