Much of the recent literature on interfirm relationships has focused on strategies for controlling opportunism. Somewhat surprisingly, little attention has been paid in this literature to the opportunism construct itself. Specifically, prior research has failed to recognize the different types of behavior that are hidden behind the general opportunism label. As a consequence, the knowledge of strategies for managing opportunism remains incomplete. The authors review the original and emergent conceptualizations of opportunism and illustrate them using actual industry cases. The authors also develop a conceptual framework of governance strategies that can be used to manage different forms of opportunism.

Specific investments, which are tailored to a particular company or value-chain partner, are important components of firms' marketing strategies. At the same time, extant theory suggests that such investments pose considerable risk, because they put the receiver in a position to opportunistically exploit the investor. In this article, the authors examine this "expropriation" scenario but also consider whether specific investments, because of their specialized nature, may actually "bond" the receiver and reduce opportunism under certain conditions. These conditions involve a focal relationship's time horizon (i.e., its extendedness) and particular norms. The key theoretical argument is that the effect of specific investments on opportunism will shift in a nonmonotonic fashion over the range of these relationship conditions. The authors test their research hypotheses empirically through parallel analyses on each side of 198 matched buyer-supplier dyads. The empirical tests provide general support for the predictions but also reveal differences between buyers and suppliers regarding the focal effects. The authors discuss the implications of the findings for marketing theory and practice.

This article examines the effects of monitoring on interfirm relationships. Whereas some research suggests that monitoring can serve as a control mechanism that reduces exchange partner opportunism, there is also evidence showing that monitoring can actually promote such behavior. The authors propose that the actual effect of monitoring depends on (1) the form of monitoring used (output versus behavior) and (2) the context in which monitoring takes place. With regard to the form of monitoring, the results from a longitudinal field study of buyer–supplier relationships show that output monitoring decreases partner opportunism, as transaction cost and agency theory predict, whereas behavior monitoring, which is a more obtrusive form of control, increases partner opportunism. With regard to the context, the authors find that informal relationship elements in the form of microlevel social contracts serve as buffers that both enhance the effects of output monitoring and permit behavior monitoring to suppress opportunism in the first place.

Recent research has documented how exchanges between buyers and sellers are frequently embedded in social relationships. An unresolved question, however, is the extent to which such relationships protect incumbent suppliers from new competitors and their marketing programs. The authors develop a conceptual framework of how relationship and marketing variables influence choice of supplier and test the framework empirically in the context of business-to-business services. The results show that interpersonal relationships between buyers and suppliers serve as a switching barrier but are considerably less important than both firm-level switching costs and marketing variables. Moreover, unlike switching costs, interpersonal relationships do not play the frequently mentioned role of a buffer against price and product competition. Finally, the authors show that buyers and suppliers hold systematically different views of the determinants of switching.

The authors examine how a firm's strategy in a (downstream) customer relationship is contingent on how a related relationship outside of the focal dyad is organized. Drawing on emerging perspectives on interfirm governance and networks, the authors propose that the ability to show flexibility toward a (downstream) customer under uncertain market conditions depends on the governance mechanisms that have been deployed in an (upstream) supplier relationship. The governance mechanisms take the form of (1) supplier qualification programs and (2) incentive structures based on hostages. The authors develop a set of contingency predictions and test them empirically in the context of vertical supply chain networks in the apparel industry. The tests show good support for the hypotheses. The authors discuss the implications of the findings for marketing theory and practice.