See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260016362

Developing Social Capital in Buyer-Supplier Relationships: The Contingent

Effect of Relationship-Specific Adaptations

Article  in  International Journal of Production Economics · May 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.01.008

CITATIONS READS

53 641

2 authors:

Sinéad Roden Benn Lawson

City, University of London University of Cambridge
5 PUBLICATIONS   156 CITATIONS    44 PUBLICATIONS   4,724 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Benn Lawson on 04 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Int. J. Production Economics 151 (2014) 89–99

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Int. J. Production Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe

Developing social capital in buyer–supplier relationships:

The contingent effect of relationship-specific adaptations
Sinéad Roden a,n, Benn Lawson b,1
a
Cass Business School, City University London, 106 Bunhill Row, London, United Kingdom
b
Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1AG, United Kingdom

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Strategic buyer–supplier relationships are increasingly viewed in both the scholarly and practitioner
Received 20 November 2012 literatures as key drivers of sustainable competitive advantage. In particular, relationship specific
Accepted 7 January 2014 adaptations – the extent to which exchange members make tangible or intangible adaptations for a
Available online 27 January 2014
partner – are acknowledged as one of the central issues. Such adaptations need to be examined in
Keywords: context, taking into consideration the social ties that connect a firm and its suppliers. Using the lens of
Relationship-specific adaptation social capital, we examine the contingent effect of buyer and supplier relationship adaptations, and
Social capital theory structural and cognitive capital on the development of relational capital. A sample of 163 buyer–supplier
Supplier relationship management relationships within UK manufacturing firms is used to test a series of three-way moderated regressions.
The data indicate that the relationship between structural and cognitive forms of social capital and the
level of relational capital is moderated by the extent of the relationship adaptations made by each firm
and its supplier. Contrary to expectations, the relationship between cognitive capital and relational
capital was significantly negative when high levels of buyer adaptations and supplier adaptations were
present, indicating a substitution effect between cognitive capital and relationship adaptations.
Structural capital was found to be most strongly related to relational capital when adaptations were
reciprocated by both actors. However, unilateral adaptations by either actor resulted in significantly
lower levels of relational capital as structural capital increased. Implications for theory and managers are
discussed, relating to the impact of different combinations of relationship-specific adaptations on social
capital components in a buyer–supplier relationship.
& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction exchange, or invest in idiosyncratic assets…”. To date, however,

The formation and maintenance of social relationships between
buyers and suppliers is regarded as one of the most difficult
operational challenges for managerial decision makers (Johnston
et al., 2004; Narasimhan and Nair, 2005). According to the
‘relational view’ (Dyer and Singh, 1998), firms can leverage
advantage in their social relationships by moving away from
arm's-length exchanges, and instead focusing on specific invest-
ments, knowledge exchange, complementary competencies, and
more effective governance mechanisms. Increasingly, the contri-
bution of specific investments (relationship-adaptations) between
buyers and suppliers is recognised as a key characteristic of
strategic supplier relationships (Cannon and Perreault, 1999; Luo
et al., 2009). Dyer and Singh (1998, p. 662), for example, empha-
size that relational rents can be realized when partners “combine,
n
Corresponding author. Tel: þ 44 20 7040 0974.
E-mail addresses: Sinead.Roden.1@city.ac.uk (S. Roden),
lawson@jbs.cam.ac.uk (B. Lawson).
1
Tel.: þ44 1223 760587; fax: þ 44 1223 339701.
much of the focus in this area has been on unilateral investments
made by either the firm or its supplier, with little attention paid to
the different combinations of buyer and supplier relationship-
adaptations. The non-fungible nature of relationship-specific
adaptations also means they are not easily transferable; they
represent a sunken commitment with little value outside the
relationship, adding further complexity to the managerial process.
Using Social Capital Theory (SCT) as a lens through which to
understand the complex nature of social exchange relationships
(Carey et al., 2011; Krause et al., 2007; Lawson et al., 2008), we
examine the effect of buyer and supplier adaptations on the social
fabric of strategic buyer–supplier relationships using the three
dimensions of SCT: structural capital; cognitive capital; and,
relational capital. SCT recognizes that relationships between actors
in the supply chain are composed of people, and that the interac-
tions between individuals shape the relationship and its effective-
ness (Ketchen Jr. and Hult, 2007). The value of social capital and its
dimensions also depends on contingent and moderating factors
(Maurer and Ebers, 2006), like relationship-specific adaptations,
which are unique to the relationship, as opposed to exogenous

0925-5273/$ - see front matter & 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.01.008
90 S. Roden, B. Lawson / Int. J. Production Economics 151 (2014) 89–99
environmental factors over which managers have little influence.
Our paper thus helps decision makers within the firm to address
the important question of if, to what extent, and under what
conditions, they should make relationship-specific investments in
their strategic partner. To date, there has been limited testing of
this in a supply chain context.
Specifically, there is a paucity of work considering the con-
tingent effect of adaptations made by the buyer and supplier on
the relationship between structural capital, cognitive capital and
relational capital. Described as one of the most important dimen-
sions of buyer–supplier relationship performance (Williamson,
1985), relationship adaptations are not made in a vacuum and
need to be examined in context, taking into consideration the
social ties that connect both actors, and the duration of the
relationship (Hwang, 2006). Some work has examined buyer
adaptations and supplier adaptations as individual constructs,
with different motivators and performance outcomes (Joshi and
Stump, 1999; Schmidt and Tyler, 2007). However, increasingly
both decision makers and academics are concerned with the
impact of joint or reciprocal adaptations, where both buyers and
suppliers make idiosyncratic, non-transferable changes for the
other actor.
We develop and test a theoretical model which examines these
constructs of interest. Closely tied, inter-organizational relation-
ships are presented as infrastructure which is crucial for support-
ing resources (adaptations) contributed by both actors (Luo et al.,
2009). Consistent with previous literature (Carey et al., 2011;
Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998), cognitive capital and structural
capital are positioned as the infrastructure, or building blocks, of
strategic buyer–supplier relationships. We then examine the
contingent effect of relationship-specific adaptations made by
the firm and its supplier on the relationship between these
building blocks, and the development of relational capital. Pre-
vious work has indicated that cognitive capital and structural
capital are antecedent factors in the development of relational
capital (Carey et al., 2011; Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998). This study
develops this research further by examining the contingent effect
of relationship-specific adaptions made by the buyer and the
supplier on the relationships between cognitive capital, and
structural capital, and the development of relational capital. Rather
than creating a perceived lock-in situation, we argue that adapta-
tions made by buyer and supplier act as a joint signal of commit-
ment and perceived relationship longevity, reinforcing the positive
effect of frequent and diverse social interaction ties (structural
capital) and shared vision, norms and values (cognitive capital). A
series of three-way interaction hypotheses are tested which posit
that relationship-specific adaptations made by buyer and supplier
act to complement cognitive capital and structural capital, thereby
increasing the level of relational capital in the relationship.
This paper makes a number of contributions to the literature.
First, where previous research has typically assumed that the
relationships between SCT dimensions are direct (cf. Villena et al.,
2011), we add a contingent view by examining the role of relation-
ship adaptations on relational capital development. The literature
has also viewed relationship-specific adaptations made by buyer or
supplier (Artz, 1999), or the combination of both (Poppo et al.,
2008). Our paper provides a more nuanced view of the relationship
by examining, via three-way moderated regressions, the effect on
relational capital of buyer adaptations, supplier adaptations, and
cognitive or structural capital. Thus, whilst our regression controls
for all combinations of two-way interactions in our analysis, our
interest is in gaining a more detailed understanding of the
dynamics around relationship-specific investments and social
capital. Second, in contrast to previous studies highlighting the
need to safeguard against opportunism in the presence of
relationship-specific adaptations (Lonsdale, 2001; Mesquita and
Brush, 2008; Poppo and Zenger, 2002), we provide evidence that
reciprocal adaptations can fulfil an assurance role (Rokkan et al.,
2003). In doing so, we take a contrasting approach to studies
(Mukherji and Francis, 2008) that position adaptations as an
outcome of exchange, by adopting a process view of relationship
adaptations. Our findings are relevant for practitioners as they
refine understandings of the interplay between social capital
dimensions and relationship-specific adaptations, relevant for
decisions related to safeguarding the relationship, effective
resource allocation and supplier relationship development.
The remainder of the paper proceeds as follows. The theoretical
rationale which informs this study is developed first, followed by
the development of our hypotheses. An overview of the research
adopted is then provided, followed by the presentation of results.
In the final section, the managerial and theoretical implications of
the study are discussed.
2. Theoretical foundations
2.1. Social capital theory
SCT gained popularity in the 1990s by directing attention
toward the role of a firm's social networks as a source of
competitive advantage (Baker, 1990; Burt, 1997). SCT also acknowl-
edges that many economic transactions are embedded within a
larger social, political and legal context (Granovetter, 1973, 1985).
Relationships are viewed as a valuable resource for the conduct of
social affairs and social capital helps to characterize an organiza-
tion's complete set of relationships, whilst its focus on the flow of
resources between organizations enables the explanation of per-
formance differences within and between organizations (Koka and
Prescott, 2002). The supply chain management literature has
extensively applied SCT, particularly in examining the character-
istics of buyer–supplier relationships and impact on performance
(Matthews and Marzec, 2012).
Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) define social capital in relation to
three dimensions: relational, cognitive, and structural. Relational
capital refers to the “trust, obligation, and identification present
between actors in a relationship” (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998,
p. 251). Trust in this context refers to the expectation that both
actors will behave in a mutually acceptable manner, including an
expectation that neither party will exploit the other's vulnerabil-
ities (Sako and Helper, 1998, p. 388). Identification is “the process
whereby individuals see themselves as one with another person or
group of people” (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998, p. 256), whilst
obligation represents a commitment or duty to undertake some
activity in the future. As a store of ‘goodwill between actors’ (Burt,
2000; Dyer and Singh, 1998), relational capital addresses the role
of direct links between individuals and the relational outcomes of
interactions (Inkpen and Tsang, 2005).
Cognitive capital represents the shared goals, norms, vision and
values between actors (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998) and can thus be
aligned with Cai and Yang's (2008) interpretation of cooperative
norms. Symbolic of the commonality across the relationship,
cognitive capital helps actors to make sense of, and perceptually
classify new information and knowledge (Grant, 1996; Nonaka,
1994). It facilitates the development of common understandings
and collective ideologies, outlining appropriate ways for buyers
and suppliers to coordinate their exchange, and share each other's
thinking processes (Caniëls and Gelderman, 2010; De Carolis and
Saparito, 2006). The characteristics of cognitive capital have been
linked to positive and cooperative behaviours due to the develop-
ment of a positive psychological environment (Kostova and Roth,
2003; Ring and Van De Ven, 1992; Zaheer et al., 1998).
 S. Roden, B. Lawson / Int. J. Production Economics 151 (2014) 89–99
Structural capital is the configuration of linkages between
people and units (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998, p. 244) and has
been operationalized at a number of levels, including the network
(Ahuja, 2000; Burt, 2000; Zaheer and Bell, 2005); informational/
knowledge sharing (Koka and Prescott, 2002; Lawson et al., 2008);
and as socialisation (Krause et al., 2007; Oh et al., 2004; Yli-Renko
et al., 2001). We operationalize structural capital as social inter-
action ties existing between buyer and supplier (Carey et al., 2011;
Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998). Social interaction ties refer to the extent
of social processes and activities implemented between a buyer
and supplier to coordinate and structurally embed the relationship
(Larson, 1992; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Yli-Renko et al., 2001).
Examples include organised social events, regularly planned team
building exercises, joint problem solving workshops and the
establishment of cross-functional teams. Lawson et al. (2008)
report that the managerial and technical communication sharing
embodied in these social ties helps to directly leverage operational
performance improvements for the buying firm. Building on the
logic of the ‘relational view’ (Dyer and Singh, 1998), social inter-
action ties are similar to knowledge sharing routines in that they
promote a close, regular pattern of interaction between buyer and
supplier using formal and informal methods, during which spe-
cialised partner specific knowledge is shared (Cousins and Lawson,
2007).
2.2. Relationship-specific adaptations
From a transaction cost economics perspective, relationship-
specific adaptations have been described as a ‘hostage’ for future
dealings (Heide and John, 1990; Williamson, 1975; Williamson,
1983), contributing to the creation of risk and accentuating the
exchange hazards (Wever et al., 2012; Williamson, 1985). However,
a growing stream of literature has adopted a more positive
perspective on the effect of adaptations made in close buyer–
supplier relationships (Bensaou and Anderson, 1999; Jap and
Ganesan, 2000; Joshi and Stump, 1999; Madhok and Tallman,
1998; Nair et al., 2011). Amit and Schoemaker's (1993) assertion
that the specialisation of assets is a necessary condition for rent
implies that in a buyer–supplier relationship, organizations should
do something specialised or unique to develop a competitive
advantage. As a form of specific investment, relationship-specific
adaptations engender inter-firm dependence and obligation (Dyer
and Singh, 1998), which by their very nature are idiosyncratic to a
relationship and would have minimal value outside it (Heide and
Miner, 1992). Over time, these adaptations have the potential to
transform an economic exchange into a socially embedded rela-
tionship (Granovetter, 1985; Ring and Van De Ven, 1994), reducing
the risk of opportunistic behaviour (Caniëls and Gelderman, 2010).
While traditionally buyer–supplier relationships were charac-
terized as arms-length, adversarial exchanges (Dyer, 1997), more
recent studies have explored how closer, more integrated supplier
relationships with a long-term focus can leverage competitive
advantage (Artz, 1999). The transfer of complementary skills and
knowledge between actors, bilateral sharing of information and
sharing of risk are now considered representative of ‘best-practice’
in buyer–supplier relationships. The extent to which buyers and
suppliers make adaptations for each other is also acknowledged as
a defining component of successful relationships (Dyer and Singh,
1998).
The extent to which buyers and suppliers make adaptations for
each other is acknowledged as a defining component of these
more collaborative, integrated relationships (Dyer and Singh,
1998). Relationship-specific adaptations are characteristic of an
evolutionary process whereby buyers and suppliers connect with
one another in an effort to make their relationship more enduring
and productive (Sambasivan et al., 2013). Such adaptations are
91
viewed as assets that have little value outside a specific relation-
ship and can therefore be considered increased risky (Williamson,
1985). Dyer and Singh (1998) assert that firms can realize
advantage or ‘relational rents’ through the unique combination
of idiosyncratic firm linkages, highlighting that a firm's critical
resources often span firm boundaries, embedded in inter-firm
routines and processes. As manufacturing firms increasingly seek
to rationalise their supply base, many business products, ranging
from industrial coatings to machine tools, the skills acquired are
customised to the needs of a particular organization. Defined as
adaptations made to modify processes, product technologies, or
procedures to the specific needs or capabilities of a partner (Hallén
et al., 1991), relationship-specific adaptations can also include
investments in research, new manufacturing technologies, or
distribution systems.
Reciprocated adaptations are made when two or more organi-
zations adapt to specific organizational needs by modifying
products and production to suit the requirements of the other
actor (Hallén et al., 1991). Described as self-enforcing agreements,
these adaptations represent credible commitments (Heide, 1994),
indicating strength and durability in the relationship (Anderson
and Weitz, 1992; Morgan and Hunt, 1994) and a desire for the
continuance of the relationship (Anderson and Narus, 1990;
Siguaw et al., 2003). If both parties are respectively engaged in
making specific adjustments, they can consolidate, strengthen
(Joshi and Stump, 1999), and enhance the stability of their
relationship (Kang et al., 2009). The commitment of specific
adaptations by both buyer and supplier creates an endogenous
safeguard, which may attenuate the need for other forms of
governance (Joshi and Stump, 1999). As a source of relational
quasi-rent, the importance of both actors making adaptations is
linked to the performance gains that result from their existence
(Hagberg-Andersson, 2006; Williamson, 1985).
3. Hypotheses development
We develop and test two three-way interaction hypotheses for
the relationship between buyer adaptations (BRSA), supplier
adaptations (SRSA), cognitive capital, and structural capital on
the level of relational capital within a strategic buyer–supplier
relationship (as outlined in Fig. 1). First, we hypothesize a relation-
ship between cognitive capital, buyer adaptation and supplier
adaption in the development of relational capital. Second, we
examine the relationship between structural capital, buyer adap-
tation and supplier adaption in relational capital development.
Given our interest in understanding the dynamics between both
supplier and buyer adaptations, and social capital components, we
do not hypothesize any two-way interactions, though these lower-
order effects are controlled for in the regression analysis.
Fig. 1. Theoretical framework.
92 S. Roden, B. Lawson / Int. J. Production Economics 151 (2014) 89–99
3.1. Cognitive capital and relationship adaptations
Cognitive capital, as shared understandings and representa-
tions, is essentially a product of the past (Coleman, 1990). It
signifies a degree of solidarity built up over time as actors resist
short-term benefits and self-interested behaviour. In a study of
intra-organizational entrepreneurial behaviour, Simsek et al.
(2003) argue that cognitive embeddedness between two actors
is positively associated with relational embeddedness, in that
alignment between beliefs, assumptions and expectations rein-
forces norms of reciprocity. We build on this in asserting that
when adaptations are made by both buyer and supplier, they serve
to reinforce and update norms, shared systems of meaning and
terminologies.
Adaptations represent purposeful actions or measures taken by
actors (buyers and suppliers in this case) to guide joint activities in
pursuit of joint payoff (Luo et al., 2009). When applied in a
relational environment in which values and ambitions are shared
between actors, such adaptations act as a mechanism for improv-
ing the positive effect of shared systems of belief on the level of
trust. Put another way, when buyers and suppliers both adapt
their products, processes, or schedules, it indicates a degree of
reciprocity that supercharges the positive impact of common
vision and ambition (cognitive capital) for an efficacious relation-
ship, on relational capital development. Rokkan et al. (2003), in a
study of matched buyer–supplier dyads, also found support for the
bonding effect of specific adaptations, when the relationship is
characterized by shared norms. Further, they suggest that adapta-
tions made by either party alone under conditions of low norms
were perceived as risky and vulnerable to opportunism (Rokkan
et al., 2003). Similarly, Zajac and Olsen (1993) find that norms
(cognitive capital) ease the negative effects of adaptations, allow-
ing buyers and suppliers to act in a relationship that is more
certain and trusting (indicative of relational capital). Sambasivan
et al. (2013) fail to find support for the direct effect of adaptations
on relational capital development which lends support for our
assertion that a moderating effect rather than a straightforward
direct effect, exists. Building on these studies, we propose that
joint adaptations made in a relationship help to develop ‘social
solidarity’ between actors, and an environment of generalised
reciprocity (Sandefur and Laumann, 1998). We expect that the
highest level of relational capital will be formed where actors'
share common norms, values and ambition for the relationship,
and have each made high levels of adaptation to the relationship.
Any other combination is likely to be suboptimal. Thus, we
propose the following:
Hypothesis 1. Cognitive capital has the strongest, most positive
relationship with relational capital when buyer adaptations and
supplier adaptations are both high.
3.2. Structural capital and relationship adaptations
Building on previous studies (Anderson and Weitz, 1992;
Rokkan et al., 2003), it is proposed that, as a signal of credible
commitment and long-term relational orientation, reciprocal
adaptations will increase the effectiveness of structural capital in
developing relational capital between buyers and suppliers. The
contribution of adaptations as joint action emphasize these
embedded social ties that firms can use to develop the resources
necessary for creating a productive partnership and in the process
fostering relational capital. Adaptations increase information shar-
ing as buyers and suppliers interact on a formal and informal basis.
When both buyers and suppliers make adaptations in a relation-
ship, they tend to interact more frequently, utilising joint work-
shops and social events, in order to ensure that the adaptations, or
changes made in the relationship, are operating effectively (Dyer
and Chu, 2000). For example, the installation of highly specialised
inventory ordering systems between organizations will require
that both buyers and suppliers meet at a variety of levels to ensure
the system is tailored to fit its purpose and meets the needs of the
relationship. Smith and Aldrich (1991) also found that increasing
levels of relationship-specific adaptations, facilitated the develop-
ment of trust through the information exchange encouraged. In a
comparative study of automotive relationships in the USA and
Japan, Dyer (1997) found that relationship-specific adaptations, in
the form of co-location, meant that both parties were able to
discover new ways to enhance performance through increased
ad-hoc interaction and communication, developing the trust in the
relationship.
Structural capital (as operationalized as social interaction ties)
enables both parties to influence the nature of the adaptations,
and thus manage their applicability to the relationship and needs
of both organizations. The transparency facilitated through social
interaction ties also ensures the equitable sharing of relational
rents or benefits, reduced risk of deceit, and minimises the need to
monitor and safeguard information and assets. Adaptations made
by both buyer and supplier, when supported by structural capital,
reduce the risk identified by Edelman et al. (2004) that structural
capital could result in asymmetric information distribution and
disincentive. The associated information exchange makes it
difficult for either party to take advantage of the benefits as
both parties have symmetrical information and have made
relationship-specific adaptations. Thus, adaptations to the rela-
tionship, when made by both parties, serve to strengthen the
effect that structural capital has on the development of relational
capital.
Hypothesis 2. Structural capital has the strongest, most positive
relationship with relational capital when buyer adaptations and
supplier adaptations are both high.
4. Method
Data were collected via a survey of 1600 medium-to-large UK-
based manufacturing organizations, sampled from a database
held by the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply, UK
(a professional education and qualification body for professionals
in purchasing and supply). After accounting for 15 surveys
returned due to company policy and 20 incomplete surveys, a
total of 163 valid responses were received (10.3% response rate).
The unit of analysis is the industrial relationship between buyer
and a supplier considered strategic to the performance of their
business unit. We examine relationships that are strategic to the
firm as they are more likely to exhibit characteristics of interest in
this study. A strategic supplier is defined as one that provides the
firm with a critical material or component. Data were collected
primarily from senior buyers and purchasing/supply chain man-
agers as they are found to be the individuals who make decisions
pertaining to supplier investment strategies. Sample characteris-
tics are provided in Table 1. The knowledge of respondents was
validated through post-hoc survey items which showed that
respondents evaluated their knowledge of the supplier relation-
ship as 5.8 out of seven.
The questionnaire was pilot tested and validated through semi-
structured interviews with thirteen purchasing executives and six
academic experts in supply chain management. Following the total
design method (Dillman, 2000) the initial postal mailing involved
distributing hard copies of the cover letter, survey and return
envelope. A reminder email was sent two weeks after the first
mailing, with a second reminder two weeks later.
 S. Roden, B. Lawson / Int. J. Production Economics 151 (2014) 89–99 93

Table 1 A five-item scale, building on previously tested and validated

Sample characteristics. measures of social interaction (Carey et al., 2011; Cousins et al.,
2006; Cousins and Menguc, 2006), was used, measuring the extent
(1) Industry Frequency %
to which the buyer and supplier engage in social events, joint
Electronic equipment and industrial equipment 27 16.6 workshops, cross functional teams, team building exercises, and
General manufacturing 34 20.8 co-location.
Aerospace and automotive 37 22.7 Relationship-specific adaptations were examined separately for the
Chemicals and chemical products 12 7.4
Pulp and paper products 11 6.7
buyer and supplier using identical formative scales which capture the
Basic metals and fabricated metal products 10 6.2 range and extent of adaptations made to the relationship. Formative
Not reported 32 19.6 modelling was considered theoretically more appropriate to capture
Total 163 100 the nature of the constructs (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001).
(2) Business units' annual sales Items developed by Cannon et al. (2000) were used, and additional
Under d25 M 30 18.4 items added based on a review of the literature and pilot interviews.
d25–50 M 17 10.4 The seven-item buyer adaptation scale assessed the extent to which
d50–100 M 14 8.6
d100–250 M 19 11.7
the buyer had specifically re-trained personnel, changed inventory
d250–500 M 22 13.5 and distribution channels, operating equipment and tools, informa-
Over d500 M 47 28.8 tion technology systems, storage and transportation equipment,
Missing 14 8.6 production facilities, and invested in quality improvement pro-
Total 163 100.0
grammes in order to support the supplier relationship. Identical
(3) Titles questions were used to capture the buyer's perceptions of adapta-
Purchasing manager 33 20.2 tions made by the supplier.
Senior buyer 48 29.4
Supply chain manager 24 14.7
Control variables: Six control variables were included.
Procurement director 28 17.3 To account for the possibility that larger firms can influence
Other 16 9.8 behaviour and investment in the relationship, we included the
Missing 14 8.6 log of the number of full-time employees as a measure of firm size.
Total 163 100.0
The volume of trade taking place between both parties can reflect
the importance and frequency of the relationship and hence
influence the efficacy of inter-firm co-ordination (Buvik and
Non-response bias was examined through a comparison of Gronhaug, 2000; Cannon et al., 2000). As a result, the log of the
early and late waves of returned surveys (Armstrong and Overton, buyer firm's percentage of annual purchasing volume obtained
1977). Responses between early and late respondents were from this key supplier was captured to control for the level of
compared using two tailed t-statistics across all the variables dependency the buyer has on the supplier (Buvik and Gronhaug,
included in the survey (po .10). No statistically significant differ- 2000). Given the importance of relationship duration in influen-
ences among the variables were identified, suggesting that non- cing the outcomes from specific adaptations (Sako and Helper,
response may not be a concern in this study and that the sample of 1998; Uzzi, 1997; Weiss and Kurland, 1997), we controlled for
responses obtained was representative of the population. relationship duration using the log of the total number of months
In collecting additional data from a second subset of respon- the relationship had existed. Three dummy control variables
dents (30) we were able to address concerns related to single (aerospace and automotive, electronics and industrial equipment,
informant bias and common method bias (Kumar et al., 1993; and general manufacturing) were used to control for the effects of
Pagell and Krause, 2005). The data were examined to test the level industry-specific factors.
of agreement between primary and secondary responders within
the same organization. The Interclass Correlation (ICC) method 4.2. Measure validation
(Futrell, 1995) was used to compare within group variance
(between primary and secondary respondents) to group variation The formative and reflective constructs required different
(between the primary responses). All correlations are above the validation procedures. Formative scales were used to capture the
suggested .60 standard, indicating acceptable inter-rater reliability multiple aspects of relationship-specific adaptations on either side
and lending validity to our results (Boyer and Verma, 2000). of the dyadic relationship, representing what is held in common
across the set of measures (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer,
4.1. Construct measurement 2001). The content validity of each scale was examined at the
pilot testing stage through subjective assessment by both practi-
This study used either established scales or developed scales tioners and academics. Their reliability was examined through the
from the extant literature (see Appendix A for list of constructs internal consistency of the items in the scale including the item-
and items used). Relational capital was assessed using a five item to-total correlation (ITTC). The results of this analysis are pre-
scale developed by Kale et al. (2000), and validated by Carey et al. sented in Table 2. Hair et al. (2006) suggest that ITTC should
(2011). This scale examined the extent to which the supplier exceed .50, a condition which was met by all the items in the
relationship was characterized by close interaction, mutual trust, supplier relationship-specific adaptations construct. For buyer
mutual respect, mutual friendship; and high levels of reciprocity. adaptations all items exceeded the .50 guide, except for two items
Cognitive capital was assessed using items originally developed with reported correlations of .47 and .49, which were considered
for use in intra-firm networks (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998; suitably close to the benchmark. The overall fit of the CFA
Weick, 1995) and validated by Carey et al. (2011) in an inter- measurement model to the data was satisfactory: [χ2(74) ¼
organizational context. This scale examined the extent to which 126.46, p ¼.00; TLI ¼.95; CFI ¼.96; and RMSEA ¼.066]. These
the respondents felt they shared the same business values, criteria confirm that the constructs tested in our model satisfy the
ambitions and vision, goals for the business, and agree on what requirements of unidimensionality.
is in the best interest of the relationship, with their key supplier. Items were validated via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in
Structural capital was operationalized as social interaction ties, AMOS v20. CFA provides a more stringent test of construct validity
consistent with Tsai and Ghoshal (1998) and Carey et al. (2011). and unidimensionality using latent and manifest variables. Each
94 S. Roden, B. Lawson / Int. J. Production Economics 151 (2014) 89–99

Table 2
Reliability analysis of formative indicators.

Construct Items ITTCa

Buyer Relationship-specific Adaptations (BRSA) We re-trained our personnel .47

We changed our inventory and distribution channels .51
We changed our information technology systems .55
We changed our storage and transportation equipment .57
We changed our production facilities .54
We changed our operating equipment and tools .56
We invested in quality improvement programmes .49

Supplier Relationship-specific Adaptations (SRSA) This supplier re-trained its personnel .56
This supplier changed its inventory and distribution channels .71
This supplier changed their information technology systems .52
This supplier changed their storage and transportation equipment .70
This supplier changed their production facilities .74
This supplier changed their operating equipment and tools .74
This supplier invested in quality improvement programmes .63

a
ITTC – Item-to-Total Correlation.

Table 3 attributed to the construct of interest (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Confirmatory factor analysis. Composite reliability indicators ranged from .83 to .89.
All tests of discriminant validity were similarly supportive. That
Variable Standardized C.R.
estimate is, no confidence intervals of the correlations for the constructs (ϕ
values) included 1.0 (p o.05) (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988), and
Relational capital: The relationship is characterized by. the square of the intercorrelations between two constructs, ϕ2,
Close interaction at multiple levels .74 –
was less than the AVE estimates of the two constructs. This was
Mutual trust at multiple levels .92 11.98
.89 11.69 true for all pairs of constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The
Mutual respect at multiple levels
Mutual friendship at multiple levels .70 8.98 inter-item correlations, Cronbach's alpha, composite reliabilities
High levels of reciprocity .75 9.64 (CR), and the values of average variance extracted (AVE) for the
Cognitive capital constructs operationalized in this study are shown in Table 4.
Both parties often agree on what is in the best interest –
.68
of the relationship
Both parties share the same business values .91 10.06
5. Results
This supplier does not share our goals for this 8.51
.74
business1;a
We share the same ambitions and vision .87 9.80 Hierarchical moderated regression models were used to exam-
Structural capital
ine the hypothesized multiple interaction effects. To mitigate the
Social events .78 – potential threat of multicollinearity, all independent variables that
Joint workshops .66 7.94 constituted an interaction term were mean-centred (Aiken and
Cross functional teams .76 9.14 West, 1991). The largest variance inflation factor (VIF) is 1.81, well
Co-location .68 8.22 below the recommended threshold (Hair et al., 2006). Table 5
Team building exercises .62 7.44
presents the results for each hypothesis. Variables were entered
a
Reversed scored item. into the model in the following steps: (Step 1) the control variables
and main effects; (Step 2a, 3a) the two-way interactions; and (Step
2b, 3b) the three-way interactions.
construct was made scale-variant by fixing one of the loadings in Hypothesis 1 predicted a three-way interaction between buyer
each construct to a value of 1.0 (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993). Each adaptation, supplier adaptation and cognitive capital, asserting that
indicator within the measurement model was then checked for when buyer adaptation and supplier adaptation are both high,
low factor loadings ( o.40), high residuals (i.e., normalized resi- cognitive capital has the strongest positive relationship with rela-
duals 42.58), and modification indices (43.84). One item (reci- tional capital. A significant, positive three-way interaction would
procity) was dropped from the analysis due to a potential face indicate variation in relational capital across combinations of buyer
validity problem. Table 3 provides the loadings and the manifest adaptation, supplier adaptation and cognitive capital (Dawson and
variables onto each latent variable. Richter, 2006). As cognitive capital and structural capital are corre-
A number of procedures were followed to assess convergent lated with each other, structural capital was also included as a control
validity (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) and discriminant validity (Anderson variable (with cognitive capital controlled for in H2) (George and
and Gerbing, 1988; Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The convergent Zhou, 2007; Hekman et al., 2009). Table 5 indicates the presence of a
validity of the scales (extent to which the measurement items significant, yet negative, three-way interaction (β ¼  .15, po.05)
reflect a common underlying construct) was supported, with between buyer adaptation, supplier adaptation and cognitive capital.
estimated coefficients of all indicators being significant (t42.0). Following the Aiken and West (1991) procedure, simple slopes
The average variance extracted (AVE), which measures the var- were plotted of the interaction at high and low levels (one
iance captured by the indicators relative to measurement error, standard deviation above and below the mean) of the moderators.
was also greater than the .50 minimum necessary to justify the use Simple slope significance calculations were also performed
of a construct (Hair et al., 1998). Composite reliability values were (Dawson and Richter, 2006; Dearing and Hamilton, 2006). Fig. 2
also calculated to provide a further assessment of internal con- shows that cognitive capital has the weakest positive relationship
sistency. A minimum value of .70 is recommended, as it indicates to relational capital, when both buyer adaptation and supplier
that around .50 of the item's variance (the squared loading) can be adaptation are high. In addition, under conditions of high cognitive
 S. Roden, B. Lawson / Int. J. Production Economics 151 (2014) 89–99 95

Table 4
Correlation matrix and descriptive statistics.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Relational capital .90

Cognitive capital .50nn .88
Structural capital .41nn .18n .82
Buyer adaptation .13 .02 .22nn .78
Supplier adaptation .21nn .19n .23nn .49nn .88
Industry – electronic .07 .07  .04  .04 .1 –
Industry – general manufacturing .06 .18n .07  .03 .05  .20n –
Industry – aerospace  .1  .22nn .08 0  .08  .21nn  .27nn –
Buyer dependency .13 .02 .02 .06  .09 .04 .08 .02 
Organization size (employees)  .06  .01 .07  .02 .07 .09 .01 .18n  .17n –
Relationship duration (years) .07 .15  .01  .03  .06  .03 .16n .11 .03 .01 –
Mean 4.54 4.82 2.99 20.19 25.02 .13 .20 .23 .20 2288.00 11.48
Standard deviation 1.27 1.26 1.39 8.24 9.74 .34 .40 .42 .20 5385.00 8.16
Composite reliability .89 .88 .83 – – – – – – – –
Average variance extracted (AVE) .67 .65 .49 – – – – – – – –

n
Significant at .10 (two-tailed) n¼ 163.
nn
Signifcant at .05 (two-tailed).

Table 5
Results of regression analysis for three-way interactions (relational capital as dependent variable).

Step and independent variables Step 1 β Step 2 β Step 3anβ Step 3bnβ Step 4anβ Step 4bnβ

Industry – electronic .05 .03 .04 .05 .03 .03

Industry – general manufacturing .03  .06  .06  .05  .05  .05
Industry  aerospace  .08  .03  .05  .04  .03  .04
Buyer dependency .12 .11n .15n .15n .11n .13n
Organization size  .02  .06  .05  .05  .06  .06
Relationship duration .08 .02 .04 .05 .03 .03
Structural capital .33nnn .30nnn .29nnn .32nnn .26nnn
Cognitive capital .43nnn .41nnn .47nnn .43nnn .46nnn
Buyer adaptation .02 .04 .05 .03 .01
Supplier adaptation .05 .05 .04 .05 .02
Cognitive capital  buyer adaptation  .06  .03  
Cognitive capital  supplier adaptation  .17n  .14  
Buyer adaptation  supplier adaptation  .09  .11n  
Structural capital  buyer adaptation   .07  .02
Structural capital  supplier adaptation    .02 .01
Buyer adaptation  supplier adaptation    .08  .10
Cognitive capital  buyer adaptation  supplier adaptation  .15n
Structural capital  buyer adaptation  supplier adaptation .20nn
ΔR2 .38 .05 .02 .01 .02
ΔF 9.43nnn 4.21nn 3.23n .67 5.74nn
Overall R2 .38 .43 .44 .39 .41
Adjusted R2 .34 .38 .39 .34 .36
Overall model F 9.43nnn 8.69nnn 8.42nnn 7.36nnn 7.46nnn

n
p o.05.
nn
p o .01.
nnn
p o .001.

capital, relational capital is lowest when buyer adaptation and

Fig. 2. Buyer adaptations and supplier adaptations as moderators of the relation-
ship between cognitive capital and relational capital.
supplier adaptation are high, thus support for Hypothesis 1 was
not found. To further probe the interaction, we calculated t-tests of
differences between each pair of slopes (Dawson and Richter,
2006; Dearing and Hamilton, 2006). Results from Table 6 indicate
that the slope of high buyer adaptation, high supplier adaptation is
significantly negatively different to all other possible combinations
of moderator variables, under the range of cognitive capital.
Hypothesis 2 predicted a three-way interaction among buyer
adaptation, supplier adaptation and structural capital, proposing
that when buyer adaptation and supplier adaptation are both high,
structural capital has the strongest positive relationship to rela-
tional capital. The results in Table 5 indicate a significant and
positive three-way interaction (β ¼ .20, po.01). The slopes pre-
sented in Fig. 3 show that structural capital has the strongest
positive relation to relational capital when both buyer adaptation
96 S. Roden, B. Lawson / Int. J. Production Economics 151 (2014) 89–99
Table 6
Relational capital and cognitive capital for combinations of high and low buyer and supplier adaptations.
Slope difference
ΔBuyer adaptationhigh, supplier adaptationhigh/buyer adaptationhigh, supplier adaptationlow
ΔBuyer adaptationhigh, supplier adaptationhigh/ΔBuyer adaptationlow, supplier adaptationhigh
ΔBuyer adaptationhigh, supplier adaptationhigh/ΔBuyer adaptationlow, supplier adaptationlow
Fig. 3. Buyer adaptations and supplier adaptations as moderators of the relation-
ship between structural capital and relational capital.
and supplier adaptation are high; and further, that relational capital
is highest when buyer adaptation, supplier adaptation and struc-
tural capital are all high, thereby supporting Hypothesis 2.
Further, the t-tests of slope difference (Table 7) indicate the
presence of significant slope differences. Conditions of high buyer
and high supplier adaptation show a significantly steeper slope to
relational capital, as structural capital increases, relative to uni-
lateral adaptations (low buyer, high supplier adaptations or high
buyer, low supplier adaptations). However, where both the buyer
and supplier had each made low levels of adaptations, the positive
slope to relational capital was found to not be significantly
different to the high buyer–high supplier adaptation combination.
6. Discussion
This study explored the multi-dimensional nature of social
relationships and the contingent effect of relationship specific
adaptations. We examined the effect of relationship-specific
adaptations on strategic buyer–supplier relationships, operationa-
lized through the dimensions of social capital: relational capital;
structural capital; and cognitive capital. Building on previous work
in the area that has examined the configuration of social capital
dimensions (Carey et al., 2011; Lawson et al., 2008), we show that
adaptations by buyer and supplier have differential effects on the
development of relational capital depending on the existing social
conditions – characterized by either cognitive capital or structural
capital. These results are discussed in further detail below.
We proposed that the effect of cognitive capital and structural
capital (operationalized as social interaction ties) on the develop-
ment of relational capital is strengthened when buyer and supplier
both make high levels of adaptations. Hypothesis 1 proposed that
specific adaptations by both buyer and supplier would have a
significant, positive effect on the relationship between cognitive
capital and relational capital. The literature would argue that
adaptations made by buyers and suppliers under conditions of
low norms (cognitive capital) are perceived as risky and vulnerable
Cognitive capital
t p  value
 3.02 .00
 1.710 .09
 2.842 .00
to opportunism (Rokkan et al., 2003), so high cognitive capital
would be preferred. Contrary to expectations, our results show
that high levels of specific adaptations by both buyer and supplier
have a significant, negative effect on the relationship between
cognitive capital and relational capital development. Indeed, the
negative effect on the cognitive capital–relational capital link was
significantly different from all other possible combinations of
buyer and supplier adaptations.
This result suggests that where relationship-specific adapta-
tions by both buyer and supplier are concurrently high, cognitive
capital and adaptations operate as substitutes. In this situation,
increasing the level of cognitive capital in the relationship will
have no significant effect on the level of relational capital. It is
likely that these investments provide both buyer and supplier
with security and facilitate a lock-in situation offering stability to
the actors. In effect, when both parties make specific investments
in their production processes, they are signalling their commit-
ment and desire for the continuance of the relationship, with
their goals and intentions embodied in specific adaptations, as
opposed to cognitive capital. The results do show, however, that
low levels of reciprocal adaptations, or asymmetric adaptations
by either buyer or supplier, do benefit from increasing levels of
cognitive capital.
Consistent with prediction in Hypothesis 2, buyer adaptation
and supplier adaptation were found to have a positive influence on
the relationship between structural capital and relational capital.
The results of the three-way interaction show that high buyer
adaptation, combined with high supplier adaptation, has the
strongest association with relational capital. In support of
Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998), we find that structural capital
(operationalized as social interaction ties), when reinforced by
reciprocal relationship-specific adaptations, have a greater ability
to drive relational capital and socially embed the relationship
between both actors. By comparison, unilateral adaptations where
buyer and supplier have made high/low or low/high adaptations,
respectively, result in significantly less stocks of relational capital,
as structural capital increases. This finding points to the impor-
tance of social interaction ties in unlocking the value from these
non-transferable adaptations. Social interaction ties act as a
mechanism for information sharing and socialisation which
enables buyer and supplier to evaluate the usefulness of relation-
ship adaptations, and the value that could be extracted (Terpend
et al., 2008).
6.1. Implications for theory
A number of contributions to theory are evident. First, the
paper is one of the few studies examining the factors which
influence the configuration of the dimensions of social capital. The
framework integrated the literature on relationship-specific adap-
tations and social capital theory in supply chain management. In
particular, the results of the three-way interaction tests highlight
the complementarity and substitution effects playing out between
cognitive and structural capital, and different combinations of
relationship-specific adaptations by buyer and supplier. Second,
 S. Roden, B. Lawson / Int. J. Production Economics 151 (2014) 89–99
Table 7
Relational capital and structural capital for combinations of high and low buyer and supplier adaptations.
Slope difference
ΔBuyer adaptationhigh, supplier adaptationhigh/buyer adaptationhigh, supplier adaptationlow
ΔBuyer adaptationhigh, supplier adaptationhigh/ΔBuyer adaptationlow, supplier adaptationhigh
ΔBuyer adaptationhigh, supplier adaptationhigh/ΔBuyer adaptationlow, supplier adaptationlow
previous work identified the risks of opportunism in the presence
of specific relationship investments (Mesquita and Brush, 2008;
Poppo and Zenger, 2002). However, we provide evidence that joint
adaptations, operating in isolation, can substitute for cognitive
capital in an assurance role in buyer–supplier relationships
(Rokkan et al., 2003). For all other configurations of relationship-
specific adaptations, consistent with other literatures such as
Caniëls and Gelderman (2010), we find cognitive capital has a
positive effect on relational capital. Edelman et al. (2004), in the
exploratory work on the ‘pitfalls’ of social capital, also provide an
alternative explanation. In an intra-organizational context, they
proposed that strong ties that bind also act as barriers to new
knowledge and ideas. Thus whilst, cognitive capital may enable
organizational sense-making and develop cohesiveness, it can also
act as a barrier to new information which may eventually impact
the relationship effectiveness and ability to further generate
relational capital.
6.2. Implications for managers
Several implications for managers are apparent from our
results. First, we show high levels of reciprocal relationship-
specific adaptations act as substitutes with cognitive capital.
Where both parties have low levels of understanding of the other's
vision, values and goals, managers on either side can use adapta-
tions in operating procedures, personnel, production facilities or
information systems, as a tangible and direct signal of commit-
ment to build trust, identification and a sense of shared obligation.
By contrast, as the level of cognitive capital increases, the relation-
ship to relational capital is strongest where relationship-specific
adaptations are low or asymmetric. Indeed, the highest level of
relational capital is shown under conditions of high cognitive
capital, high buyer adaptations and low supplier adaptation. This
infers that for buyers wishing to build relational capital, invest-
ment in cognitive capital, combined with unilateral adaptations,
will achieve the highest return, at least in terms of building trust
and understanding with the supplier. This finding points towards
the importance of working with a strategic supplier to gain
complementarity of operating vision and business values.
Second, whilst many firms have rationalised their supply bases
and are moving towards supplier collaboration in order to support
the development of their most important supplier relationships,
firms need to also pay attention to how, and how often, they
interact socially. The evidence suggests that organizations can
benefit by encouraging the development of structural capital (as
social interaction ties) with their suppliers, at both informal and
formal levels. Firms should consider how to leverage the social
environment surrounding the exchange (Jap, 1999). The allocation
of resources to facilitating social events, cross-functional team
working, and joint workshops, can improve the behavioural health
of buyer–supplier relationships. When buyer and suppliers make
adaptations within a relationship, characterized by a high degree
of social interaction, they increase the effectiveness of this social
interaction. Moreover, managers who wish to develop trusting
relations with their key suppliers should support not only one-off
97
Structural capital
t p-value
1.63 .10
3.28 .00
.72 .47
social events or team-working activities, but recurring exchanges
that are supported by specific changes or investments made in line
with the requirements of the relationship.
7. Limitations and future research
While considerable attention has been paid to ensure the validity
and reliability of this research, there are limitations that should be
recognized when interpreting the results. First, a cross-sectional study
limits the understanding that can be applied to a concept as complex
as social capital, as relational behaviours between actors develop over
time. The framework we developed was static and hypotheses focused
on the associations among variables of interest. This cross-sectional
approach also impedes the assumption of causality as it restricts the
examination of relationships between variables at one point in time.
The use of longitudinal data would help shed light on the interplay
among these variables. A longitudinal approach would also enable
exploration of any broader spillover effects from different combina-
tions of adaptations made, such as capability development or learning
by either actor in the relationship. This would contribute to the on-
going area of interest around the performance effects of adaptations
(Artz, 1999; Heide and Stump, 1995; Kang et al., 2009). From a
methodological point of view, there are alternative approaches that
we could have taken which might have further addressed any
concerns related to common methods bias. The inclusion of an ideal
marker variable (a variable which is theoretically unrelated to the
main variables in the model illustrated by an expected correlation with
these variables of 0), for example, would have strengthened our results
in this regard (Richardson et al., 2009). Also, we acknowledge the
increasing concern directed towards existing approaches to testing
non-response bias and appreciate that the collection of objective firm
level data which would have allowed us to test non-response in
alternative ways.
Another limitation relates to the examination of contingent factors
on the formation of social capital and its links to performance in
buyer–supplier relationships. Little theoretical guidance for identifying
relevant contingency factors exists, and future research could build on
this study, and other similar studies in supply chain management, to
develop a more comprehensive understanding of SCT in buyer–
supplier relationships. We also used a formative measure to examine
the range of adaptations that can be made in a buyer–supplier
relationship. It would be interesting to examine if there are differential
effects related to the type of adaptation (such as technical, logistical,
knowledge, financial and administrative (Johanson and Mattson,
1987), or between formal and informal approaches as suggested by
Luo et al. (2009)).
Finally, the research targeted only companies in the UK, which
potentially limits the generalizability of findings of this research to
companies in other countries. Other studies have examined the
influence of cultural factors on the tendency of firms to make
resource investments, and the resultant performance gains lever-
aged (Kang et al., 2009; Luo et al., 2009). Extending the research
context in this paper to explore the effect of cultural and institu-
tional factors could also have yielded interesting results.
98 S. Roden, B. Lawson / Int. J. Production Economics 151 (2014) 89–99
8. Conclusion
Effective buyer–supplier relationships depend, in part, on the
actions of both firms in how they interact socially (structural
capital), the norms of the relationship (cognitive capital), and the
specific investments they make in plant, process and processes.
Applying a social capital theory lens, our study examined the
dynamics of social context and tangible relationship-specific
adaptations by buyers and suppliers. We show that, depending
on the combination of joint or asymmetric relationship-specific
investments made by the parties, varying levels of relational
capital will result. We also add to a growing body of literature
which views adaptations, not as an exchange hazard to be
reactively guarded against, but a proactive relationship develop-
ment tool which bonds the actors together. Further investigation
of relationship-specific adaptations and relational aspects of
buyer–supplier exchange processes is encouraged.
Appendix A. Constructs and items
Relational Capital: (Not at all – A very great extent)
To what extent do the following statements describe your firm's
relationship with this supplier?
The relationship is characterized by close interaction at
multiple levels.
The relationship is characterized by mutual trust at multiple
levels.
The relationship is characterized by mutual respect at multiple
levels.
The relationship is characterized by mutual friendship at
multiple levels.
The relationship is characterized by high levels of reciprocity.
Cognitive Capital: (Strongly disagree – strongly agree)
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following
statements regarding your firm's relationship with this supplier?
Both parties often agree on what is in the best interest of the
relationship.
Both parties share the same business values.
This supplier does not share our goals for this business
(reversed).
We share the same ambitions and vision.
Structural Capital: (Not at all – A very great extent)
To what extent do you engage in the following types of activities
with this supplier?
Organized social events
Joint workshops
Cross-functional teams
Co-location
Team building exercises
Buyer Relationship-Specific Adaptations (BRSA) (Not at all – A
very great extent)
To what extent do the following statements describe the level of
adaptation made by your firm at the start of the relationship
with this supplier?
We re-trained our personnel
We changed our inventory and distribution channels
We changed our information technology systems
We changed our storage and transportation equipment
We changed our production facilities
We changed our operating equipment and tools
We invested in quality improvement programmes
Supplier Relationship-Specific Adaptations (SRSA) (Not at all
– A very great extent)
To what extent do the following statements describe the level of
adaptation made by this supplier at the start of your
relationship?
This supplier re-trained its personnel
This supplier changed its inventory and distribution channels
This supplier changed their information technology systems
This supplier changed their storage and transportation
equipment
This supplier changed their production facilities
This supplier changed their operating equipment and tools
This supplier invested in quality improvement programmes
References
Ahuja, G., 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a long-
itudinal study. Adm. Sci. Q. 45, 425–455.
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G., 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interac-
tions. Sage Publications Inc, Newbury Park, CA
Amit, R., Schoemaker, P.J.H., 1993. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strateg.
Manag. J. 14, 33–46.
Anderson, E., Weitz, B., 1992. The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment
in distribution channels. J. Mark. Res. 29, 18–34.
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice:
a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103, 411–423.
Anderson, J.C., Narus, J.A., 1990. A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm
working relationships. J. Mark. 54, 42–58.
Armstrong, S.J., Overton, T.S., 1977. Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys.
J. Mark. Res. 14, 396–402.
Artz, K.W., 1999. Buyer–supplier performance: the role of asset specificity, recipro-
cal investments and relational exchange. Br. J. Manag. 10, 113–126.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 16,
74–94.
Baker, W., 1990. Market networks and corporate behaviour. Am. J. Sociol. 96, 589–625.
Bensaou, M., Anderson, E., 1999. Buyer–supplier relations in industrial markets: when
do buyers risk making idiosyncratic investments? Organ. Sci. 10, 460–481.
Boyer, K.K., Verma, R., 2000. Multiple raters in survey-based operations manage-
ment research: a review and tutorial. Prod. Oper. Manag. 9, 128–140.
Burt, R.S., 1997. The contingent value of social capital. Adm. Sci. Q. 42, 339–365.
Burt, R.S., 2000. The network structure of social capital. In: Sutton, R.I., Staw, B.M. (Eds.),
Research in Organizational Behavior.. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 3345–3423
Buvik, A., Gronhaug, K., 2000. Inter-firm dependence, environmental uncertainty and
vertical co-ordination in industrial buyer-seller relationships. Omega 28, 445–454.
Cai, S., Yang, Z., 2008. Development of cooperative norms in the buyer–supplier
relationship: the Chinese experience. J. Supply Chain Manag. 44, 55–70.
Caniëls, M.C.J., Gelderman, C.J., 2010. The safeguarding effect of governance
mechanisms in inter-firm exchange: the decisive role of mutual opportunism.
Br. J. Manag. 21, 239–254.
Cannon, J., Perreault, W.D.J., 1999. Buyer–seller relationships in business markets.
J. Mark. Res. 36, 439–460.
Cannon, J.P., Achrol, R.S., Gundlach, G.T., 2000. Contracts, norms, and plural form
governance. Acad. Mark. Sci., 28
Carey, S., Lawson, B., Krause, D.R., 2011. Social capital configuration, legal bonds and
performance in buyer–supplier relationships. J. Oper. Manag. 29, 277–288.
Coleman, J.S., 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA
Cousins, P.D., Handfield, R.B., Lawson, B., Petersen, K.J., 2006. Creating supply chain
relational capital: the impact of formal and informal socialization processes.
J. Oper. Manag. 24, 851–863.
Cousins, P.D., Lawson, B., 2007. Sourcing strategy, supplier relationships and firm
performance: an empirical investigation of UK organisations. Br. J. Manag. 18,
123–137.
Cousins, P.D., Menguc, B., 2006. The implications of socialization and integration in
supply chain management. J. Oper. Manag. 24, 604–620.
Dawson, J.F., Richter, A.W., 2006. Probing three-way interactions in moderated
multiple regression: development and application of a slope difference test.
J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 917–926.
De Carolis, D.M., Saparito, P., 2006. Social capital, cognition, and entrepreneurial
opportunities: a theoretical framework. Entrep. Theory Pract., 30
Dearing, E., Hamilton, L.C., 2006. Contemporary advances and classic advice for
analyzing mediating and moderating variables. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 71,
88–104.
Diamantopoulos, A., Winklhofer, H.M., 2001. Index construction with formative
indicators: an alternative to scale development. J. Mark. Res. 38, 269–277.
Dillman, D.A., 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2nd
ed.. John Wiley, New York, Chichester
Dyer, J.H., 1997. Effective interfirm collaboration: how did firms maximize transac-
tion costs and minimize transaction value. Strateg. Manag. J. 18, 535–556.
 S. Roden, B. Lawson / Int. J. Production Economics 151 (2014) 89–99
Dyer, J.H., Chu, W., 2000. The determinants of trust in supplier–automaker
relationships in the U.S., Japan, and Korea. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 31, 259–285.
Dyer, J.H., Singh, H., 1998. The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of
interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23, 660–679.
Edelman, L.F., Bresnen, M., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., 2004. The benefits
and pitfalls of social capital: empirical evidence from two organisations in the
united kingdom. British Journal of Management 15, S59–S69.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unob-
servable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 39–50.
Futrell, D., 1995. When quality is a matter of taste, use reliability indexes. Qual.
Prog. 28, 81–86.
George, J., Zhou, J., M., 2007. Dual tuning in a supportive context: joint contribu-
tions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviours to
employee creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 50, 605–622.
Granovetter, M.S., 1973. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78, 1360–1380.
Granovetter, M.S., 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of
embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol. 91, 481–510.
Grant, R.M., 1996. Towards a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J.
17, 109–122.
Hagberg-Andersson, A., 2006. Does adaptation pay off? Ind. Mark. Manag. 35, 202–209.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis,
5th ed.. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, USA
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2006. Multivariate Data
Analysis, 6th ed.. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, USA
Hallén, L., Johanson, J., Seyed-Mohamed, N., 1991. Inter-firm adaptations in
business relationships. J. Mark. 55, 29–37.
Heide, J., Stump, R.L., 1995. Performance implications of buyer–supplier relation-
ships in industrial-markets: a transaction cost explanation. J. Bus. Res. 32, 57.
Heide, J.B., 1994. Interorganizational governance in marketing channels. J. Mark. 58,
71–85.
Heide, J.B., John, G., 1990. Alliances in industrial purchasing: the determinants of
joint action in buyer–supplier relationships. J. Mark. Res. 27, 24–36.
Heide, J.B., Miner, A.S., 1992. The shadow of the future: effects of anticipated
interaction and frequency of contact on buyer-seller cooperation. Acad. Manag.
J. 35, 265–291.
Hekman, D.R., Bigley, G.A., Steensma, H.K., Hereford, J.F., 2009. Combined effects of
organizational and professional identification on the reciprocity dynamic for
professional employees. Acad. Manag. J. 52, 506–526.
Hwang, P., 2006. Asset specificity and the fear of exploitation. J. Econ. Behav. Organ.
60, 423–438.
Inkpen, A.C., Tsang, E.W.K., 2005. Social capital, networks and knowledge transfer.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 30, 146–165.
Jap, S.D., 1999. Pie-expansion efforts: collaboration processes in buyer-supplier
relationships. Journal of Marketing Research 26 (4), 461–475.
Jap, S.D., Ganesan, S., 2000. Control mechanisms and the relationship life cycle:
implications for safeguarding specific investments and developing commit-
ment. J. Mark. Res. 37, 227–245.
Johanson, J., Mattson, L.G., 1987. Interorganizational relations in industrial system:
a Network approach compared with the transaction cost approach. Int. Stud.
Manag. Organ. Sci. 17, 34–48.
Johnston, D.A., McCutcheon, D.M., Stuart, I.F., Kerwood, H., 2004. Effects of supplier trust
on performance of cooperative supplier relationships. J. Oper. Manag. 22, 23–38.
Jöreskog, K.G., Sörbom, D., 1993. LISREL 8: Analysis of Linear Structural Relation-
ships by Maximum Likelihood, Instrument Variables and Least Squares Meth-
ods, 8th ed.. Scientific SoftwareMorresville, IN
Joshi, A.W., Stump, R.L., 1999. The contingent effect of specific asset investments on
joint action in manufacturer–supplier relationships: an empirical test of the
moderating role of reciprocal asset investments, uncertainty and trust. Acad.
Mark. Sci. 27, 291–305.
Kale, P., Singh, H., Perlmutter, H., 2000. Learning and protection of proprietary assets in
strategic alliances: building relational capital. Strateg. Manag. J. 21, 217–237.
Kang, M.-P., Mahoney, J.T., Tan, D., 2009. Why firms make unilateral investments specific
to other firms: the case of OEM suppliers. Strateg. Manag. J. 30, 117–135.
Ketchen , D.J., Hult, G.T.M., 2007. Bridging organization theory and supply chain
management: the case of best value supply chains. J. Oper. Manag. 25, 573–580.
Koka, B.R., Prescott, J.E., 2002. Strategic alliances as social capital: a multidimen-
sional view. Strateg. Manag. J. 23, 795–816.
Kostova, T., Roth, K., 2003. Social capital in multinational corporations and a micro-
macro model of its formation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28, 297–317.
Krause, D., R., Handfield, R., B., Tyler, B.B., 2007. The relationships between supplier
development, commitment, social capital accumulation and performance
improvement. J. Oper. Manag. 25, 528–545.
Kumar, N., Stern, L.W., Anderson, J.C., 1993. Conducting interorganizational research
using key informants. Acad. Manag. J. 36, 1633–1651.
Larson, A., 1992. Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: a study of the
governance of exchange processes. Adm. Sci. Q. 37, 76–104.
Lawson, B., Tyler, B.B., Cousins, P.D., 2008. Antecedents and consequences of social
capital on buyer performance improvement. J. Oper. Manag. 26, 446–460.
Lonsdale, C., 2001. Locked-ln to supplier dominance: on the dangers of
asset specificity for the outsourcing decision. J. Supply Chain Manag. 37, 22–27.
Luo, Y., Liu, Y., Xue, J., 2009. Relationship investment and channel performance: an
analysis of mediating forces. J. Manag. Stud. 46, 1113–1137.
Madhok, A., Tallman, S.B., 1998. Resources, transactions and rents: managing value
through interfirm collaborative relationships. Organ. Sci. 9, 326–339.
Matthews, R.L., Marzec, P.E., 2012. Social capital, a theory for operations manage-
ment: a systematic review of the evidence. Int. J. Prod. Res. 50, 7081.
View publication stats
99
Maurer, I., Ebers, M., 2006. Dynamics of social capital and their performance
implications: lessons from biotechnology start-ups. Adm. Sci. Q. 51, 262–292.
Mesquita, L.F., Brush, T.H., 2008. Untangling safeguard and production coordination
effects in long-term buyer–supplier relationships. Acad. Manag. J. 51, 785–807.
Morgan, R.M., Hunt, S.D., 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship
marketing. J. Mark. 58, 20–38.
Mukherji, A., Francis, J.D., 2008. Mutual adaptation in buyer–supplier relationships.
J. Bus. Res. 61, 154–161.
Nahapiet, J., Ghoshal, S., 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organisa-
tional advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23, 242–266.
Nair, A., Narasimhan, R., Bendoly, E., 2011. Coopetitive buyer–supplier relationship:
an investigation of bargaining power, relational context, and investment
strategies. Decis. Sci. J. 42, 93–127.
Narasimhan, R., Nair, A., 2005. The antecedent role of quality, information sharing
and supply chain proximity on strategic alliance formation and performance.
Int. J. Prod. Econ. 96, 301–313.
Nonaka, I., 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ.
Sci. 5, 14–37.
Oh, H., Chung, M.-H., Labianca, G., 2004. Group social capital and group effective-
ness: the role of informal socializing ties. Acad. Manag. J. 47, 860–896.
Pagell, M., Krause, D.R., 2005. Determining When Multiple Respondents are needed
in Supply Chain Management Research, Academy of Management Meeting,
Honolulu, Hawaii, pp. 1–32.
Poppo, L., Zenger, T., 2002. Do formal contracts and relational governance function
as substitutes or complements? Strateg. Manag. J. 23, 707–725.
Poppo, L., Zhou, K.Z., Zenger, T.R., 2008. Examining the conditional limits of
relational governance: Specialised assets, performance ambiguity, and long-
standing ties. J. Manag. Stud. 45, 1195–1216.
Richardson, H.A., Simmering, M.J., Sturman, M.C., 2009. A tale of three perspectives:
examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of
common method variance. Organ. Res. Methods 12, 762–800.
Ring, P., Van De Ven, A.H., 1992. Structuring cooperative relationships between
organisations. Strateg. Manag. J. 13, 483–498.
Ring, P.S., Van De Ven, A.H., 1994. Developmental, processes of cooperative
interorganizational relationships. Acad. Manag. Rev. 19, 90–118.
Rokkan, A.I., Heide, J.B., Wathne, K.H., 2003. Specific investments in marketing
relationship: expropriation and bonding effects. J. Mark. Res. 40, 210–224.
Sako, M., Helper, S., 1998. Determinants of trust in supplier relations: evidence
from the automotive industry in Japan and the United States. J. Econ. Behav.
Organ. 34, 387–417.
Sambasivan, M., Siew-Phaik, L., AbidinMohamed, Z., ChoyLeong, Y., 2013. Factors
influencing strategic alliance outcomes in a manufacturing supply chain: Role
of alliance motives, interdependence, asset specificity and relational capital. Int.
J. Prod. Econ., 141 (1), 339–351.
Sandefur, R.L., Laumann, E.O., 1998. A paradigm for social capital. Ration. Soc. 10,
481–501.
Schmidt, S.-O., Tyler, K., 2007. Adaptation in inter-firm relationships: classification,
motivation, calculation. J. Serv. Mark. 21, 530–537.
Siguaw, J.A., Baker, T.L., Simpson, P.M., 2003. Preliminary evidence on the composi-
tion of relational exchange and its outcomes: the distributor perspective. J. Bus.
Res. 56, 311–322.
Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M.H., Floyd, S.W., 2003. Inter-firm networks and entrepreneur-
ial behaviour: a structural embeddedness perspective. J. Manag. 29, 427–442.
Smith, A.D., Aldrich, H.E., 1991. The Role of Trust in the Transaction Cost Economics
Framework: Transaction Contexts and Governance structures in U.S. Manufac-
turer–Supplier Relations, Academy of Marketing Meetings, Miami, FL.
Terpend, R., Tyler, B.B., Krause, D.R., Handfield, R.B., 2008. Buyer–supplier relation-
ships: derived value over two decades. J. Supply Chain Manag. 44, 28–55.
Tsai, W., Ghoshal, S., 1998. Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm
networks. Acad. Manag. J. 41, 464–476.
Uzzi, B., 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox
of embeddedness. Adm. Sci. Q. 42, 35–67.
Villena, V.H., Revilla, E., Choi, T.Y., 2011. The dark side of buyer–supplier relation-
ships: a social capital perspective. J. Oper. Manag. 29, 561–576.
Weick, K. E, 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, London
Weiss, A.M., Kurland, N., 1997. Holding distribution channel relationships together:
the role of transaction-specific assets and length of prior relationship. Organ.
Sci. 8, 612–623.
Wever, M., Wognum, P.M., Trienekens, J.H., Omta, S.W.F., 2012. Supply chain-wide
consequences of transaction risks and their contractual solutions: towards an
extended transaction cost economics framework. J. Supply Chain Manag. 48, 73–91.
Williamson, O.E., 1975. Markets and Hierarchies. Free Press, New York
Williamson, O.E., 1983. Credible commitments: using hostages to support
exchange. Am. Econ. Rev. 73, 519–540.
Williamson, O.E., 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets,
Relational Contracting. Free Press, New York
Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., Sapienza, H.J., 2001. Social capital, knowledge acquisition,
and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strateg. Manag. J.
22, 587–613.
Zaheer, A., Bell, G.G., 2005. Benefiting from network position: firm capabilities,
structural holes, and performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 26, 809–825.
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., Perrone, V., 1998. The strategic value of buyer–supplier
relationships. Int. J. Purch. Mater. Manag. 34, 20–26.
Zajac, E.J., Olsen, C.P., 1993. From transaction cost to transaction value analysis:
implications for the study of interorganizational strategies. J. Manag. Stud. 30,
131–145.