IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/proeco/v142y2013i1p158-171.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences in buyers’ and suppliers’ perceptions of supply chain attributes

Author

Listed:
  • Oosterhuis, Marian
  • Molleman, Eric
  • van der Vaart, Taco

Abstract

This paper presents a model that explains why and when buyers and suppliers may differ in the ways they perceive certain relationship attributes. Understanding when buyers and suppliers will share perceptions, and when not, can help future researchers in deciding how to measure these attributes. The paper analyses survey data from 86 dyadic buyer–supplier relationships, involving 388 respondents. Our results indicate that buyers and suppliers form different perceptions of attributes that are closely related to the identity of their firms, such as supplier performance, or, of attributes about which they have different information, such as technology uncertainty. Moreover, we found that also the associations between attributes differ significantly between buyers and suppliers. Our results suggest that, for some attributes, key informants from the supplier side will deliver the most reliable information whereas, for other attributes, the buying side will deliver the most reliable data. Further, not only do buyers’ and suppliers’ perceptions of particular attributes differ, the way these attributes are associated with each other also seems to differ, which may have important implications for theory development in the field of supply chain management. For future research we recommend to use objective data where possible. If this is not possible use the perceptions of the best informed party or the party whose identity is least related to the construct to measure. Further, we recommend using additional research methods that result in similarity of perceptions. Finally, we suggest using ex-post statistical remedies.

Suggested Citation

  • Oosterhuis, Marian & Molleman, Eric & van der Vaart, Taco, 2013. "Differences in buyers’ and suppliers’ perceptions of supply chain attributes," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 158-171.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:proeco:v:142:y:2013:i:1:p:158-171
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.11.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925527312004677
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.11.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van der Vaart, Taco & van Donk, Dirk Pieter, 2008. "A critical review of survey-based research in supply chain integration," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 42-55, January.
    2. José M. Peiró & Vicente Martínez-Tur & José Ramos, 2005. "Employees' overestimation of functional and relational service quality: A gap analysis," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 773-788, September.
    3. Yeung, Jeff Hoi Yan & Selen, Willem & Zhang, Min & Huo, Baofeng, 2009. "The effects of trust and coercive power on supplier integration," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 66-78, July.
    4. Armstrong, J. Scott & Overton, Terry S., 1977. "Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys," MPRA Paper 81694, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Akbar Zaheer & Bill McEvily & Vincenzo Perrone, 1998. "Does Trust Matter? Exploring the Effects of Interorganizational and Interpersonal Trust on Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 141-159, April.
    6. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1996. "What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(5), pages 502-518, October.
    7. Samaddar, Subhashish & Nargundkar, Satish & Daley, Marcia, 2006. "Inter-organizational information sharing: The role of supply network configuration and partner goal congruence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(2), pages 744-765, October.
    8. Fynes, Brian & de Burca, Sean & Mangan, John, 2008. "The effect of relationship characteristics on relationship quality and performance," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 56-69, January.
    9. Lai, Kee-hung & Cheng, T.C.E. & Yeung, A.C.L., 2005. "Relationship stability and supplier commitment to quality," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 397-410, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Isaksson, Olov H.D. & Seifert, Ralf W., 2016. "Quantifying the bullwhip effect using two-echelon data: A cross-industry empirical investigation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(P3), pages 311-320.
    2. Nabila Arfaoui & Eric Brouillat & Maïder Saint-Jean, 2015. "The Impact of REACH on Eco-Innovation: How Perception Misfits on Policy Stringency Matter," GREDEG Working Papers 2015-45, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    3. Liu, Shan & Wang, Lin & Huang, Wei (Wayne), 2017. "Effects of process and outcome controls on business process outsourcing performance: Moderating roles of vendor and client capability risks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(3), pages 1115-1128.
    4. Jianqi Qiao & Suicheng Li & Antonio Capaldo, 2022. "Green supply chain management, supplier environmental commitment, and the roles of supplier perceived relationship attractiveness and justice. A moderated moderation analysis," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(7), pages 3523-3541, November.
    5. Marika Makkonen & Anna Aminoff & Katri Valkokari, 2018. "Stimulating Supplier Innovation In A Complex And Regulated Business Environment — A Dyadic Case Study," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(03), pages 1-34, April.
    6. Gao, Yongling & Driouchi, Tarik & Bennett, David J., 2018. "Ambiguity aversion in buyer-seller relationships: A contingent-claims and social network explanation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 50-67.
    7. Seda Turk, 2022. "Taguchi Loss Function in Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets along with Personal Perceptions for the Sustainable Supplier Selection Problem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.
    8. Vos, F.G.S. & Van der Lelij, R. & Schiele, H. & Praas, N.H.J., 2021. "Mediating the impact of power on supplier satisfaction: Do buyer status and relational conflict matter?," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yu, Wantao & Jacobs, Mark A. & Salisbury, W. David & Enns, Harvey, 2013. "The effects of supply chain integration on customer satisfaction and financial performance: An organizational learning perspective," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 346-358.
    2. Prajogo, Daniel & Chowdhury, Mesbahuddin & Yeung, Andy C.L. & Cheng, T.C.E., 2012. "The relationship between supplier management and firm's operational performance: A multi-dimensional perspective," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 123-130.
    3. Jacobs, Mark A. & Yu, Wantao & Chavez, Roberto, 2016. "The effect of internal communication and employee satisfaction on supply chain integration," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(P1), pages 60-70.
    4. Kim, Yusoon & Choi, Thomas Y., 2021. "Supplier relationship strategies and outcome dualities: An empirical study of embeddedness perspective," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    5. Vijayasarathy, Leo R., 2010. "Supply integration: An investigation of its multi-dimensionality and relational antecedents," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 489-505, April.
    6. Yang, Jie & Wong, Christina W.Y. & Lai, Kee-hung & Ntoko, Alfred Ngome, 2009. "The antecedents of dyadic quality performance and its effect on buyer-supplier relationship improvement," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 243-251, July.
    7. Santanu Mandal & Rathin Sarathy, 2018. "The Effect of Supply Chain Relationships on Resilience: Empirical Evidence from India," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 19(3_suppl), pages 196-217, June.
    8. Jayaram, Jayanth & Xu, Kefeng, 2013. "The relative influence of external versus internal integration on plant performance in China," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 59-69.
    9. Huo, Baofeng & Han, Zhaojun & Zhao, Xiande & Zhou, Honggeng & Wood, Craig H. & Zhai, Xin, 2013. "The impact of institutional pressures on supplier integration and financial performance: Evidence from China," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 82-94.
    10. P. Everaert & G. Sarens & J. Rommel, 2006. "Outsourcing of Accounting Tasks in SMEs: An extended TCE Model," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 06/409, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    11. Wang, Daojuan & Hain, Daniel S. & Larimo, Jorma & Dao, Li T., 2020. "Cultural differences and synergy realization in cross-border acquisitions," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(3).
    12. Judit Oláh & Attila Bai & György Karmazin & Péter Balogh & József Popp, 2017. "The Role Played by Trust and Its Effect on the Competiveness of Logistics Service Providers in Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-22, December.
    13. Wang, Chun-Ju & Wu, Lei-Yu, 2012. "Team member commitments and start-up competitiveness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(5), pages 708-715.
    14. Laurence Capron & Will Mitchell, 2009. "Selection Capability: How Capability Gaps and Internal Social Frictions Affect Internal and External Strategic Renewal," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 294-312, April.
    15. Paul A. Pavlou & David Gefen, 2004. "Building Effective Online Marketplaces with Institution-Based Trust," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 37-59, March.
    16. Hong, Paul & Jagani, Sandeep & Kim, Jinhwan & Youn, Sun Hee, 2019. "Managing sustainability orientation: An empirical investigation of manufacturing firms," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 71-81.
    17. Ludwig Bstieler & Martin Hemmert, 2010. "Trust formation in Korean new product alliances: How important are pre-existing social ties?," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 299-319, June.
    18. Camisón, César & Forés, Beatriz, 2011. "Knowledge creation and absorptive capacity: The effect of intra-district shared competences," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 66-86, March.
    19. Bauer, Florian & King, David & Matzler, Kurt, 2016. "Speed of acquisition integration: Separating the role of human and task integration," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 150-165.
    20. Ghosh, R.K. & Eriksson, M. & Istamov, A., 2018. "Food waste due to coercive power in agri-food chains: Evidence from Sweden," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277496, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:proeco:v:142:y:2013:i:1:p:158-171. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.