IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i2p1266-d1030258.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Cooperation Establishment Mechanism of EPC Project Consortium in Context of China: Form the Perspective of Trust

Author

Listed:
  • Weiping Jiang

    (School of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China)

  • Shanqing Tang

    (School of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explore the establishment mechanism of an EPC consortium from the perspective of trust. Questionnaire surveys were undertaken to collect data from the experienced project managers of a design company group and a construction contractor group. Structural equation modeling was used to test the hypotheses in this research. The results reveal that reputation and communication are important factors in the generation of trust (including calculative trust and relational trust) from the design company perspective. Meanwhile, reputation, reciprocity and communication are important factors for the generation of trust from the construction company perspective. Both calculative trust and relational trust are positive factors that affect the intent of both the design company and the construction contractor to cooperate. This research has innovatively added to and contributed to the existing knowledge of EPC consortium establishment mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Weiping Jiang & Shanqing Tang, 2023. "The Cooperation Establishment Mechanism of EPC Project Consortium in Context of China: Form the Perspective of Trust," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-19, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:2:p:1266-:d:1030258
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/2/1266/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/2/1266/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dufwenberg, M. & Gneezy, U., 1996. "Efficiency, Reciprocity and Expectations in an Experimental Game," Other publications TiSEM 96e64bdc-6dc3-4d49-9d1c-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. Mohammad Ajmal Nikjow & Li Liang & Xijing Qi & Samad Sepasgozar, 2021. "Engineering Procurement Construction in the Context of Belt and Road Infrastructure Projects in West Asia: A SWOT Analysis," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-17, February.
    3. Andreas Ortmann & John Fitzgerald & Carl Boeing, 2000. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History: A Re-examination," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(1), pages 81-100, June.
    4. Malhotra, Deepak, 2004. "Trust and reciprocity decisions: The differing perspectives of trustors and trusted parties," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 61-73, July.
    5. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    6. E. S. Wong & Danny Then & Martin Skitmore, 2000. "Antecedents of trust in intra-organizational relationships within three Singapore public sector construction project management agencies," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(7), pages 797-806.
    7. Jan Terje Karlsen, 2008. "Forming relationships with stakeholders in engineering projects," European Journal of Industrial Engineering, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1), pages 35-49.
    8. Alessandro Tavoni, 2013. "Building up cooperation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(9), pages 782-783, September.
    9. Gina Xu & Steven Dellaportas, 2021. "Challenges to Professional Independence in a Relational Society: Accountants in China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 168(2), pages 415-429, January.
    10. Currall, Steven C. & Judge, Timothy A., 1995. "Measuring Trust between Organizational Boundary Role Persons," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 151-170, November.
    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. Polterovich, V., 2024. "The formation of domestic value-added networks," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 64(3), pages 251-257.

    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. Song, Fei, 2009. "Intergroup trust and reciprocity in strategic interactions: Effects of group decision-making mechanisms," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 164-173, January.
    2. Levine, Emma E. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2015. "Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 88-106.
    3. Huang, Li & Murnighan, J. Keith, 2010. "What's in a name? Subliminally activating trusting behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 62-70, January.
    4. Bill McEvily, 2011. "Reorganizing the Boundaries of Trust: From Discrete Alternatives to Hybrid Forms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1266-1276, October.
    5. Bellemare, Charles & Kroger, Sabine, 2007. "On representative social capital," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 183-202, January.
    6. Solnick, Sara J., 2007. "Cash and alternate methods of accounting in an experimental game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 316-321, February.
    7. repec:tiu:tiucen:200457 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Bernd Irlenbusch & Lars Schade, 1999. "Zur Wirksamkeit nicht bindender Verträge — Eine experimentelle Untersuchung," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 51(7), pages 730-752, July.
    9. Danielson, Anders J. & Holm, Hakan J., 2007. "Do you trust your brethren?: Eliciting trust attitudes and trust behavior in a Tanzanian congregation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 255-271, February.
    10. Ashraf, Nava & Bohnet, Iris & Piankov, Nikita, 2003. "Is Trust a Bad Investment?," Working Paper Series rwp03-047, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    11. Cochard, Francois & Nguyen Van, Phu & Willinger, Marc, 2004. "Trusting behavior in a repeated investment game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 31-44, September.
    12. Ganglmair, Bernhard & Holcomb, Alex & Myung, Noah, 2020. "Expectations of reciprocity when competitors share information: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 244-267.
    13. Klaus Abbink & Heike Hennig-Schmidt, 2006. "Neutral versus loaded instructions in a bribery experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(2), pages 103-121, June.
    14. Luo, Jun & Wang, Xinxin, 2020. "Hukou identity and trust—Evidence from a framed field experiment in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    15. Bruni, Luigino & Tufano, Fabio, 2017. "The value of vulnerability: The transformative capacity of risky trust," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(4), pages 408-414, July.
    16. Maurice E. Schweitzer & Teck-Hua Ho & Xing Zhang, 2018. "How Monitoring Influences Trust: A Tale of Two Faces," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 253-270, January.
    17. Rigdon, Mary, 2009. "Trust and reciprocity in incentive contracting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 93-105, May.
    18. Attanasi, Giuseppe & Rimbaud, Claire & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2023. "Guilt aversion in (new) games: Does partners' payoff vulnerability matter?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 690-717.
    19. Güth, Werner & Mugera, Harriet & Musau, Andrew & Ploner, Matteo, 2014. "Deterministic versus probabilistic consequences of trust and trustworthiness: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 28-40.
    20. Cassar, Alessandra & Rigdon, Mary, 2011. "Trust and trustworthiness in networked exchange," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 282-303, March.
    21. Fairley, Kim & Sanfey, Alan & Vyrastekova, Jana & Weitzel, Utz, 2012. "Social risk and ambiguity in the trust game," MPRA Paper 42302, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:2:p:1266-:d:1030258. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.