Moderating effects of institutional factors on relationship quality: a comparative analysis of the US, Brazil, and China

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this research is to show how institutional factors affect buyer–supplier relationships. Specifically, the authors examine a model of relationship quality and its antecedents across rule-based, relation-based and family-based governance environments. Design/methodology/approach A conceptual model and accompanying research hypotheses are tested on data from a survey of 169 US (rule-based), 110 Brazilian (family-based) and 100 Chinese (relation-based) managers and buyers. Structural equation modeling is used to test the relationship quality framework and the hypothesized moderation of governance environment. Findings Results suggest that the informal institutions which shape a nation’s governance environment impact the relationship building process between buyers and suppliers. Communication quality was found to influence relationship quality more in developed economies where relationships are protected and managed under rule-based governance. Interaction frequency was found to be more relevant in emerging market firms characterized by relation-based societies. relationship benefits are applied more to relationships in emerging markets operating under family-based governance. No differences were found across governance environments for the influence that conflict resolution has on relationship quality. Practical implications Results provide insight into how the fairness and effectiveness of political and economic institutions surrounding a buyer’s nation of operation impact “rules of the game” differently for developed and emerging market firms. Originality/value This study extends research on cross-cultural relationship marketing to more than just communications context and cultural heritage. Results demonstrate that a buyer’s quest for legitimacy impacts its sensitivity to what supplier behaviors matter the most.

The impact of supply chain relationship quality on knowledge sharing and innovation performance: evidence from Chinese manufacturing industry

“…We used SEM to analyze the proposed conceptual model with software AMOS 26.0. The main reason for using SEM is that it is suitable to examine the direct and indirect (through Trust, commitment and communication quality IT outsourcing suppliers and clients Tsai and Hung (2016) Trust, adaptation, communication and cooperation Supply chain partners Bandara et al (2017) Trust, commitment and satisfaction Suppliers of organic fruits and vegetables Shin et al (2018) Trust and commitment Shipping firms, shippers and freight forwarders in Singapore Barry and Graca (2019) Trust, commitment and satisfaction Buyer-supplier relationships in USA, Brazil and China Hüseyino glu et al (2020) Communication, cooperation, adaptation and trust Manufacturing companies mediation) relationships among variables (Hair et al, 2010) as investigated in this study. In addition, the sample size of this study is quite small, for which SEM is the appropriate method of data analysis (Hair et al, 2010).…”

A Global PSS Framework for Sustainable B2B Partnership

“…Significant correlations between relationship benefits with the relationship capital outcomes (trust, satisfaction and commitment) have been established in past studies and reported in Palmatier et al's meta-analysis of RM [19]. In addition, there is evidence of strong correlations between relationship benefits and the relationship connectors (mutual cooperation and information exchange) found in other studies [18,29]. Although traditional RM models include both relationship benefits and communication as direct antecedent to trust and commitment, the empirical examination of the reversed relationship is warranted.…”

Do control mechanisms always promote collaborative performance: the role of formal institutions and business ties

“…Interfirm relationships are influenced by the social, economic and political forces of the institutions concerned (Barry and Graca, 2019;Gao et al, 2018;Scott, 2001;Xie et al, 2019), encouraging firms to obtain the institutional legitimacy necessary to reduce environmental uncertainty (Xie et al, 2019;Zhou and Poppo, 2010). We use the framework proposed by Child et al (2003), considering two major formal institutional forces (i.e.…”

“…An efficient legal system helps build consensus on appropriate behavior and prevents companies from engaging in harmful behavior (Wang et al, 2016;Weber and Mayer, 2014;Xie et al, 2019). Therefore, an efficient legal system can reduce transaction uncertainty and provide a stable, transparent exchange environment for business partners (Barry and Graca, 2019;Cai et al, 2010;Gao et al, 2018;Xie et al, 2019).…”