Understanding the effects of different responses to supplier-induced disruptions: A configurational approach

Amid frequent supplier-induced disruptions, academic attention has increasingly focused on how suppliers respond to restore relationships with affected customer firms. While prior research has examined the influence of resolution justice, the individual and combined effectiveness of response tactics by suppliers, along with the conditional role of customers' attributions regarding disruption causes and stability, remains underexplored. Drawing from the attribution model of trust repair, this study explores how firms (suppliers) responsible for supply disruptions can respond verbally and/or substantively to manage these disruptions. Using data from 63 firms in China, the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) is employed to identify diverse response tactic configurations linked to successful and unsuccessful recovery outcomes (i.e., relationship continuance). The results reveal that the effectiveness of responses is associated with customers' attributions, dependence on the firms, and disruption severity. Notably, apologies are effective in managing unstable competence-based disruptions—those perceived to arise from firms' infrequent competence issues. In integrity-based disruptions—those attributed to firms' integrity issues—relationship preservation largely hinges on customers' dependence on the firms and perceived cause stability. When customers rely highly on firms, the firms may repair the damaged trust through substantive actions. Apologies alone may also work but often require the firms to possess strong power positions. In less dependent relationships, trust restoration may occur through apologies and optional substantive measures if disruption causes are perceived as unstable. This study contributes to the supply disruption management and interorganizational trust repair literature, offering salient implications for firms when addressing supply disruptions.