Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 27 (2021) 100672

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management

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

Questioning the relevance of supplier satisfaction for preferred customer

treatment: Antecedent effects of comparative alternatives and
multi-dimensionality
Steffen Piechota *, Andreas H. Glas, Michael Essig
Department of Purchasing and Supply Management, Bundeswehr University Munich, Neubiberg, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Through the construct of supplier satisfaction, recent research explains the supplier’s preferred treatment of a
Supplier satisfaction given customer. This cause-and-effect phenomenon is often not contrasted with other reasons or controlled for.
Preferred customer treatment This work addresses this issue and uses two tactics to elaborate upon social exchange theory, namely, construct
Construct splitting
splitting and construct contrasting, to analyse the development of preferential customer treatment. For this
Construct contrasting
Survey
purpose, a structural equation model is used with data from the international automotive industry. The results
Structural equation model extend the breadth of constructs explaining preferred customer treatment (PCT) and challenge the existing
reasoning by questioning the relative importance of supplier satisfaction. While supplier satisfaction does affect
PCT, the relative supplier satisfaction defined as a comparison of outcomes between the actual and the best
alternative business relationships influences PCT much more.
Furthermore, by distinguishing between the economic and non-economic dimensions of supplier satisfaction,
the study indicate that economic satisfaction has a higher influence on the relative satisfaction whereas social
satisfaction a higher one on absolute supplier satisfaction.
These findings imply that despite the current debate about the importance of behavioural constructs such as
supplier interaction and social capital, supplier resource allocation decisions are actually dominated by economic
and relative aspects of satisfaction. This outcome calls for a more economically driven debate about behavioural
supply management approaches.

1. Introduction
In industries characterized by a high level of competition, which
results in a continuous need for price or product differentiation (e.g., the
international automotive industry), the success of a firm depends on
resources such as suppliers’ capabilities and the materials they deliver
(Corswant and Fredriksson, 2002; Koufteros et al., 2012; Schiele, 2015).
However, with the increasing importance of the supplier as a source of
innovation and differentiation, competition for limited supplier re­
sources is inherent in these industries (Pulles et al., 2016b; Schiele,
2015a; Schiele and Vos, 2015). Thus, purchasing and supply manage­
ment must initiate, maintain and secure supplier relationships to ensure
privileged access to supplier resources (Nollet et al., 2012; Schiele et al.,
2011, 2012a; Wynstra et al., 2019).
Creating competitive advantages through strategic external collab­
oration–especially in supply markets characterized by supplier
oligopoly–is not a straightforward task when the supply base is shared
with competitors. The creation of competitive advantages depends on
the buying firm’s ability to position itself as a preferred customer
(Huettinger et al., 2012; Pulles et al., 2014, 2016b; Steinle and Schiele,
2008). The term ‘preferred customer’ refers to a buying organization
that receives better treatment from a supplier in comparison to other
customers. Better treatment may refer to product quality (Nollet et al.,
2012), improved availability of products, services and resources (Nollet
et al., 2012; Steinle and Schiele, 2008), price benefits (Schiele et al.,
2011), and early and exclusive access to supplier innovations (Ellis et al.,
2012; Schiele, 2015a; Schiele et al., 2011). These benefits are based on a
customer prioritization decision made by suppliers (DeWulf et al., 2001;
Wetzel et al., 2014), which results in a selected customer receiving
elevated social status recognition and preferred resource allocation
(Steinle and Schiele, 2008).
In this context, purchasing and supply management (PSM) studies

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: steffen.piechota@unibw.de (S. Piechota), andreas.glas@unibw.de (A.H. Glas), michael.essig@unibw.de (M. Essig).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2021.100672
Received 29 September 2019; Received in revised form 13 December 2020; Accepted 31 January 2021
Available online 5 February 2021
1478-4092/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Piechota et al.
such as Huettinger et al. (2012), Vos et al. (2016), Pulles et al. (2016a),
and Nollet et al. (2012) emphasize the importance of supplier satisfac­
tion for a customer to achieve preferential status. The general proposi­
tion is that in a business relationship, satisfied suppliers are more willing
to grant the buying firm preferential status and treatment in comparison
to other customers (Brokaw and Davisson, 1978).
However, as will be shown in the following, supplier satisfaction
research is scarce (Essig and Amann 2009; Schiele et al., 2012a). Sup­
plier satisfaction as a concept is still missing a common understanding of
how it should be defined and operationalized as an object of research
(see Table 1). In addition, there are heterogeneous empirical findings of
the possible cause-and-effect relationship between satisfaction and the
resource allocation decisions of a supplier.
Positive validation can be found in studies from Pulles et al. (2016a)
and Vos et al. (2016). Pulles et al. (2016a) showed in their survey
analysis that the overall satisfaction of automotive suppliers has a sig­
nificant positive influence on their preferential treatment of a German
car manufacturer. In addition, the work of Vos et al. (2016) extended the
previous study from Huettinger et al. (2014), showing that supplier
satisfaction has a positive effect on preferred customer status, which
results in preferential customer treatment. In contrast, Baxter (2012)
found no evidence of a direct influence of supplier satisfaction on
preferred customer treatment (PCT). Instead, PCT could be explained by
the development of supplier commitment, which was positively influ­
enced by supplier satisfaction (Baxter, 2012). Based on these contra­
dictory empirical results, this paper draws attention to two major
research or evidence gaps:
First, Pulles et al. (2016a) and Vos et al. (2016) both conducted
surveys within the German automotive industries, whereas Baxter
(2012) and Baxter and Kleinaltenkamp (2015) referred to diverse in­
dustries such as food and tobacco, printing and publishing, pulp, paper,
and machinery. This approach leads to the potential existence of un­
identified relationship- or industry-specific factors mediating or
moderating supplier satisfaction as a predictor for PCT.
Accordingly, empirical studies regarding supplier satisfaction have
so far failed to contrast socio-psychological construct satisfaction with
alternative explanatory approaches to test its general predictive power.
With reference to Schiele et al.’s (2012a) proposed model, the relative
evaluation of a customer relationship in comparison to other business
relationship outcomes (Anderson and Narus, 1990; Christiansen and
Maltz, 2002) has not yet been empirically tested regarding its
Table 1
Supplier Satisfaction definitions in Purchasing and Supply (Chain) Management
Literature.
Author(s) Definition
Soetanto/Proverbs “[Contractor] Satisfaction is regarded as an internal frame
(2002) of mind, tied only to mental interpretations of
performance levels"
Benton/Maloni (2005) “A feeling of equity with the supply chain relationship no
matter what power imbalances exists between the
buyer–seller dyad"
Essig/Amann (2009) “Supplier satisfaction is defined as a supplier’s feeling of
fairness with regard to buyer’s incentives and supplier’s
contributions within an industrial buyer–seller
relationship."
Nyaga et al. (2010) “Satisfaction is defined as an overall positive measure or
evaluation of the aspects of a firm’s working relationship
with another firm"
Schiele et al. (2012) “Supplier satisfaction is a condition that is achieved if the
quality of outcomes from a buyer-supplier relationship
meets or exceeds the supplier’s expectations."
Börekci et al. (2014) “Supplier satisfaction is an evaluative attitude that has
affective, cognitive and behavioural aspects. It represents
a supplier’s current state of mind about its relation with a
buyer."
Pulles et al. (2016a) “Satisfaction refers to the perceived feeling of equity or
fulfillment when the outcomes are actually achieved in the
relationship"
2
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 27 (2021) 100672
significance as an antecedent to PCT. Thus, it remains unclear what
influence supplier satisfaction has compared with alternative explana­
tions and whether there are interactions between these factors.
Second, in comparison with the wide range of scientific contributions
regarding customer or employee satisfaction (Brown and Lam, 2008;
Garbarino and Johnson, 1999; Homburg and Rudolph, 2001; Kenett and
Salini, 2012), the concept of supplier satisfaction has received much less
attention (Essig and Amann, 2009; Huettinger et al., 2012; Johnson
et al., 2011). Thus, it can be argued that the contradictory empirical
findings could be the result of different satisfaction conceptualizations
and operationalization approaches. Moreover, current supplier satis­
faction conceptualizations emphasize different dimensions of supplier
satisfaction but do not evaluate whether and how specific dimensions
might be more relevant for PCT than others.
Therefore, our research aims to answer two questions: ‘Does supplier
satisfaction maintain its explanatory power for PCT when contrasted
with alternative constructs?’ and ‘Do specific satisfaction dimensions
play a dominant role in attaining PCT?’
In this context, the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Thibaut and
Kelley, 1959) acts as a theoretical framework for developing our
research model and hypotheses. The latter are tested by using partial
least squares (PLS)-based statistical analyses with survey data gathered
from the international supplier base of a German car manufacturer. Our
study extends the existing supplier satisfaction research in several ways.
First, the data show that supplier satisfaction, while in general main­
taining its role as a predictor for PCT, loses its predictive power when
contrasted with the perceived relative net benefit from other relation­
ships. This finding confirms Thibaut and Kelley’s (1959) original
postulation about the decisive role of the relative attractiveness of a
business relationship for the maintenance of relationship continuity, as
well as Schiele et al.’s (2012a) ‘cycle of preferred customership’.
Furthermore, economic satisfaction is revealed to be the most relevant
factor for fostering the perceived relative attractiveness of a business
relationship. As a result, these findings contribute to future research by
refining the role and operationalization of supplier satisfaction in the
prediction of PCT.
We organized the paper by starting with a comprehensive literature
review of supplier satisfaction research followed by the derivation of the
research hypothesis. Thereafter, the methodology and results are pre­
sented in several subsections. We conclude with a discussion of our
findings and managerial implications while pointing out our study’s
limitations and providing an outlook for future research.
2. Conceptual background
2.1. Understanding supplier satisfaction
To conceptualize supplier satisfaction, this study systematically
reviewed the literature following the approach of Tranfield et al. (2003)
to ensure the accuracy and relevance of the identified potential sources
and the replicability of their research. The first step of the review started
by limiting the scope to English-language, peer-reviewed journals. The
literature was identified by using database searches within the EBSCO
host database (Business Source Premier) and the ScienceDirect and
Emerald databases. The timeframe comprised publications from 1980 to
2018. The search keywords included “satisfaction”, “supplier”,
“vendor”, “contractor” and “distributor”, as well as the related abbre­
viation combination “supplier” + “satis*”. The articles we found were
reviewed and prioritized by title, abstract and keyword entry. For the
second step of the review, we examined the citations in these articles to
identify additional sources. In total, 34 scientific contributions were
identified as relevant for the purpose of conceptualizing supplier
satisfaction.
Next, we used data extraction techniques to conduct both quantita­
tive and qualitative analyses. The majority of the publications, 13 out of
34, can be traced back to purchasing and supply management (PSM)
S. Piechota et al.
literature, followed by 7 publications within the field of supply chain
management (SCM), 6 in operations management (OM), 5 in manage­
ment research (MR) and 3 in marketing research (MARR). Supplier
satisfaction has thus been researched to date primarily from a buyer’s
perspective (Essig and Amann, 2009; Huettinger et al., 2012) and with
regard to the operative design and optimization of interorganizational
interactions (Johnson et al., 2011; Mohanty, 2011; Schiele et al., 2015).
The primary methodology applied is a survey-based research design (25
out of 34 studies). In total, 8 studies were identified as conceptual, and
only one study was based on a case study approach.
The qualitative analysis showed that the existing studies regarding
supplier satisfaction can be broadly classified as contributions investi­
gating determinants or antecedents of supplier satisfaction (Caniëls
et al., 2018; Essig and Amann, 2009; Forker and Stannack, 2000; Ghijsen
et al., 2010; Maunu, 2003; Meena and Sarmah, 2012; Praxmarer-Carus
et al., 2013; Soetanto and Proverbs, 2002; Börekçi et al., 2014) and
contributions focusing on the direct effects of supplier satisfaction in
business relationships (Baxter, 2012; Baxter and Kleinaltenkamp, 2015;
Huettinger et al., 2012; Pulles et al., 2016a; Schiele et al., 2012a; Vos
et al., 2016) or its indirect effects (Ha and Muthaly, 2008; Lawrence,
2004; Leonidou et al., 2008; Wong, 2000, 2002).
Moreover, following Seuring and Gold’s (2012) process of content
analysis, we derive five content categories based on the definitions we
identified (see Table 1) to establish a systematic framework for
describing the current state of satisfaction research. These categories
show supplier satisfaction as the subject of the research (perceiving
satisfaction), the object of the research (causing satisfaction), the theo­
retical basis (explaining the role of satisfaction in business relationships and
the emerging of satisfaction), and supplier satisfaction as the operation­
alization of the research.
Regarding the subject of perceiving satisfaction, there is general
consensus that supplier satisfaction is an organizational, multi-person
phenomenon (Essig and Amann, 2009; Schiele et al., 2012a, 2012b).
In addition, although it can also be related to single transactions, the
majority of contributions refer to supplier satisfaction with business
relationships as a sequence of repetitive interactions (Benton and
Maloni, 2005; Essig and Amann, 2009; Nyaga et al., 2010; Pulles et al.,
2016a) and comprise the evaluation of all observable aspects of a
business relationship (i.e., business profit, partner behaviour) and its
non-observable aspects (i.e., relationship atmosphere, know-how ex­
change) (Essig and Amann, 2009; Huettinger et al., 2012; Nyaga et al.,
2010; Praxmarer-Carus et al., 2013).
Social exchange theory (SET) established the main theoretical base
for explaining the role of satisfaction in business relationships (Ellis et al.,
2012; Eringa and Groenveld, 2016; Glas, 2017; Huettinger et al., 2012;
Nollet et al., 2012; Pulles et al., 2016a; Schiele et al., 2012a, 2012b). SET
has its origins in sociology (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1976; Homans, 1950,
1958) and social psychology (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959) and postulates
that human beings (individuals and groups) choose between exchange
relationships by evaluating expected and actual outcomes (Blau, 1964;
Glas, 2017; Kelley and Thibaut, 1978). Individuals will stay in (leave) a
relationship when the outcomes are considered to be (not) rewarding
compared to other alternatives (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958; Thibaut and
Kelley, 1959).
Schiele et al. (2012a) used SET to explain the influence of satisfaction
on preferred resource allocation and built a coherent causal chain for the
explanation of PCT in industrial relationships. According to Schiele et al.
(2012a), the initiation and continuation of a relationship basically de­
pends upon whether it is perceived to be attractive and if the experi­
enced outcomes are satisfying. Attractiveness and satisfaction from a
supplier’s point of view depends on the outcome or benefit achieved that
meets or exceeds the supplier’s comparison level (CL) in comparison
with the best available business relationship alternative (CLalt).
Up to this point, this cycle of preferred customer treatment remains
the sole conceptual framework that explains the role of supplier satis­
faction on the basis of the SET for achieving PCT (Huettinger et al.,
3
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 27 (2021) 100672
2012; Schiele et al., 2012a).
Furthermore, the majority of sources refer to the confirmation-
disconfirmation (C/D) paradigm to explain the emergence of supplier
satisfaction (Essig and Amann, 2009; Schiele et al., 2012a; Schiele et al.,
2012a, 2012a). According to the C/D paradigm, satisfaction is the result
of a complex, psychological evaluation process in which a perceived
level of performance or outcome is compared with an expected level of
performance (Churchill and Surprenant, 1982; Oliver, 1980, 2010). As a
consequence, the C/D paradigm relies on the concept of cognition in
predicting satisfaction judgement (Churchill and Surprenant, 1982;
Homburg et al., 2006; Oliver, 1980).
In contrast with the majority of studies referring to the C/D para­
digm, Rodríguez del Bosque et al. (2006) and Börekçi et al. (2014)
explicitly define satisfaction as an affective state, which raises questions
about whether supplier satisfaction can be seen as an organizational
phenomenon anticipating individuals’ preferences.
Moreover, satisfaction in general is seen as a post-decision construct
that allows us to distinguish satisfaction from other related psycholog­
ical constructs, such as attitude and attractiveness (Han and Ryu, 2012;
Oliver, 1980). Attitude and attractiveness can, according to LaTour and
Peat (1980) and Churchill and Surprenant (1982), be positioned as a
pre-decision construct, which can occur even if no experiences regarding
performance occur (Woodruff et al., 1983). Nevertheless, operational
satisfaction is, according to Churchill and Surprenant (1982), similar to
attitude because it can be formulated as the sum of satisfactions with
various attributes of an evaluation object (e.g., interaction process
outcomes or atmosphere). Therefore, supplier satisfaction can be seen as
the global judgement of a customer relationship (uni-dimensional) or as
the sum of specific aspects or multiple dimensions of the relationship.
The literature review reveals that supplier satisfaction is widely
considered an uni-dimensional construct, though some
multi-dimensional operationalization approaches exist (Table 2).
The dimensions of the multi-dimensional construct of supplier satis­
faction differ from source to source. One multi-dimensional approach
was developed by Maunu (2003), who identified business-related and
communication-related dimensions of supplier satisfaction.
Business-related dimensions of supplier satisfaction comprise perceived
profitability, adherence to agreements, early supplier integration,
business continuity and perceived quality of forecasting and planning. In
addition, Essig and Amann (2009) developed and tested a
multi-dimensional, index-based approach to operationalize supplier
satisfaction, distinguishing among strategic, operational and accompa­
nying levels of satisfaction. In addition, Huettinger et al. (2012) iden­
tified four different dimensions, namely, technical excellence, supply
value, mode of interaction and operational excellence, which determine
a supplier’s satisfaction with a specific customer. On this basis, Pulles
et al. (2016a) also identified several dimensions for supplier satisfaction
via a guided multigroup discussion (the World Café method), including
relational aspects such as chemistry and trust between acting people, as
well as economic aspects such as continuous income flow and shared
resource spending.
However, when investigating the effects of different dimensions of
satisfaction with regard to their importance for predicting PCT, the vast
majority of existing studies operationalize supplier satisfaction as an uni-
dimensional construct. In this context, Huettinger et al. (2014) show that
supplier satisfaction and PCT are influenced by the growth opportunity
stemming from the customer relationship, as well as by the customer’s
reliability. Vos et al. (2016) extended these findings by confirming that
profitability also has a significant influence on supplier satisfaction.
Unlike Huettinger et al. (2014), Vos et al. (2016) did not investigate
whether the different relational aspects have a positive influence on PCT
but revealed that specific aspects of the relationship can be subsumed in
economic and relational factors with corresponding first- and
second-order constructs.
Therefore, on the basis of these findings, it can be concluded that in
addition to global satisfaction judgement, at least two different
S. Piechota et al. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 27 (2021) 100672

Table 2
Supplier satisfaction related publications.
Author(s) Back- Determinants of supplier satisfaction Effect of supplier Theoretical background Method Satisfaction
ground satisfaction on operationalization

Kumar et al. (1992) MARR Contribution to sales & profit, resellers – Rational goal model; Survey Uni-dimensional
competence, compliance, loyalty, Human relations model;
adaptation, contribution to growth, Internal process model;
customer satisfaction, influence over Open System model
supplier/dependency, conflict
Backhaus and MR Conflict, influence, cooperation, evaluation – TCE (Transaction Cost Conceptual –
Büschken (1999) of relationship results Economics)
Forker and PSM Role of top management & quality policy, – TCE Survey Uni-dimensional
Stannack (2000) product & service design, supplier quality
management, role of quality department,
process management/operating
procedures, quality data/reporting,
employee relations, Training
Forker and OM Importance of quality in supplier selection, – – Survey Uni-dimensional
Hershauer (2000) utility of customer’s supplier rating system,
appropriateness of customer’s education,
clarity of customer specification
Wong (2000) OM Co-operative culture, Commitment to Customer Satisfaction (+) – Conceptual –
supplier satisfaction, constructive
controversy
Wong (2002) OM Co-operative culture, Commitment to Customer Satisfaction (+) Theory of cooperation Survey Uni-dimensional
supplier satisfaction, cooperative goals, and competition
competitive goals, constructive
controversy
Soetanto and SCM support provided to contractors, Clients’ – – Survey Multi-dimensional
Proverbs (2002) attitude, Clients’ understanding of their
own needs, Quality of clients’ brief,
Financial aspects of performance
Maunu (2003) SCM Profitability, agreements, early supplier – Marketing Theory Survey Multi-dimensional
involvement, business continuity,
forecasting/planning, roles &
responsibilities, openness & trust,
feedback, company values, commitment;
quality, innovation, flexibility/time,
communication
Lawrence (2004) SCM – Trust (+) – Conceptual –
Benton and Maloni OM Performance, cooperation, commitment, – Power-Conflict-Theory Survey Uni-dimensional
(2005) trust, conflict, conflict resolution,
compliance
Leonidou et al. PSM Exercised coercive power, non-Coercive Trust (+) Power-Conflict-Theory Survey Uni-dimensional
(2008) power
Ha and Muthaly OM Cooperation, flexibility, communication Trust (+), Commitment (+) Commitment - Trust - Survey Uni-dimensional
(2008) Theory
Essig and Amann PSM Strategic factors, operational factors, – C/D Paradigma Survey Multi-dimensional
(2009) accompanying factors
Nyaga et al. (2010) SCM Trust, commitment – TCE Survey Multi-dimensional
Ghijsen et al. (2010) PSM Indirect influence strategies, promises, – Commitment - Trust - Survey Uni-dimensional
Other direct influence strategies, Human- Theory
specific supplier development, capital-
specific supplier development, supplier
dependence
Mohanty (2011) SCM Order management, partnership approach, – Power-Conflict-Theory Survey Multi-dimensional
communication, strategic importance,
conflict Management
Prakash (2011) SCM External service quality Supplier Loyalty (+) Service Dominant Logic Survey Uni-dimensional
(SDL)
Baxter (2012) PSM Customer financial attractiveness Commitment (+), Preferred Resource-based view; Survey Uni-dimensional
Customer Treatment (+) IMP-Model
Meena and Sarmah MR Coordination policy, payment/finance – – Survey Multi-dimensional
(2012) policy, corporate image, purchase policy
Huettinger et al. PSM Technical excellence, supply value, mode Preferred Customer Status Social Exchange Theory Conceptual Multi-dimensional
(2012) of interaction, operational excellence. (+) (SET)
Nollet et al. (2012) PSM Attraction SET Conceptual –
Schiele et al. PSM Customer attractiveness Preferred Customer Status SET Conceptual –
(2012a,b) (+)
Hald (2012) PSM Achieve best possible product/material, Customer attractiveness (+) Relational view Case-Study –
kknow-how-development, process
optimization, Customer binding, Price
adjustments
Praxmarer-Carus PSM Perceived distributive fairness – SET Survey Multi-dimensional
and Durst (2013)
Ramsay et al. OM Supplier value, supplier expectations Behavioral intentions (+) Marketing Theory Conceptual –
(2013)
(continued on next page)

4
S. Piechota et al. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 27 (2021) 100672

Table 2 (continued )
Author(s) Back- Determinants of supplier satisfaction Effect of supplier Theoretical background Method Satisfaction
ground satisfaction on operationalization

Xiong et al. (2014) MR Client’s clarity of objectives, promptness of – – Survey Multi-dimensional

payments, designer carefulness,
construction risk management, the
effectiveness of their contribution, mutual
respect and trust
Börekci et al. (2014) MR Perceived benefits from Buyer-Supplier- – SET; Social Cognitive Survey Uni-dimensional
rrelationship, supplier rresilience Theory
Huettinger et al. SCM Growth opportunity, Innovation potential, – SET Survey Multi-dimensional
(2014) Operative excellence, reliability, support of
suppliers, supplier involvement, contact
accessibility, relational behavior
Gorton et al. (2015) PSM Buyer trustworthiness – Power-Conflict-Theory Survey Uni-dimensional
Schiele et al. (2015) MARR Structural, cognitive, relational capital, – Social Capital Theory Conceptual –
power of buyer on supplier, uncertainty on
relationship continuation
Baxter and MARR – Accessibility of customer’s Relational view, SDL Survey Uni-dimensional
Kleinaltenkamp resources (+), Relationship
(2015) value (+), Supplier intended
resource input (+)
Pulles et al. (2016) PSM Customer attractiveness Preferential Resource SET Survey Uni-dimensional
allocation (+)
Vos et al. (2016) MR Growth opportunity, innovation potential, Preferred Customer Status SET Survey Multi-dimensional
operative excellence, reliability, support, (+)
involvement, contact accessibility,
relational behavior, pprofitability
Caniels et al. (2017) PSM Mutual dependence, asymmetric – SET Survey Uni-dimensional
dependence

subdimensions of satisfaction exist that have a significant positive in­
fluence on PCT. However, as shown by the literature review, empirical
analysis of the impact of multi-dimensional satisfaction operationali­
zation on PCT is scarce. This circumstance might be a possible expla­
nation for the mixed empirical results: The limitation due to uni-
dimensional satisfaction operationalizations results in a potential loss
of construct validity and reliability with regard to the prediction of
resource allocation decisions (Homburg and Rudolph, 2001).
2.2. Leaving the track of uni-dimensionality: construct splitting of supplier
satisfaction
The discourse on the possible effects of uni- and multi-dimensional
understanding of satisfaction comes from organizational sciences
(Heneman and Schwab, 1985; Law and Wong, 1999) and marketing
research (Fiol et al., 2011; Homburg and Rudolph, 2001; Lin et al., 2005;
Zhao et al., 2012). The potential differences in satisfaction dimensions
were demonstrated by Geyskens et al. (1999) in the context of channel
member satisfaction.
Based on the multi-dimensional approaches of Maunu (2003), Essig
and Amann (2009) and Huettinger et al. (2012), this study will follow
the general subdivisions of Geyskens et al. (1999) and Geyskens and
Steenkamp (2000a; 2000b), who differentiate between economic and
non-economic satisfaction.
Non-economic or social satisfaction can be defined as the evaluation
of psychosocial aspects of a relationship, in that interactions with the
exchange partner are fulfilling, gratifying and facile (Geyskens and
Steenkamp, 2000a, 2000b; Geyskens et al., 1999). In contrast, economic
satisfaction is defined as “a channel member’s evaluation of the eco­
nomic outcomes that flow from the relationship with its partner such as
sales volume margins, and discounts” (Geyskens and Steenkamp,
2000b). It refers to the suppliers’ overall goal attainment by evaluating
the general effectiveness and productivity of the relationship, as well as
the financial outcomes (Geyskens et al., 1999).
Overall, Geyskens et al. (1999) underline that different dimensions of
satisfaction relate to different antecedents and, more importantly,
different behavioural consequences. According to Geyskens et al.
(1999), social satisfaction plays an important role in building trust
among business partners (Ha et al., 2016). In addition, Geyskens and
Steenkamp’s (2000b) empirical study shows that social satisfaction in­
creases the likelihood of constructive supplier response strategies such
as proactively addressing problems while decreasing the likelihood of
destructive response strategies such as neglecting the occurrence of
problems or leaving the relationship.
In contrast, economic satisfaction has no influence on the willingness
to engage in a proactive dialog but incentivizes the supplier to stay in the
relationship. Drawing on Geyskens et al.’s (1999) conceptualization,
other empirical studies confirmed the general existence of different
consequences (Ferro et al., 2016; Ha et al., 2016; Pil et al., 2012; Ting,
2011) and antecedents (Rodríguez del Bosque et al., 2006; Ferro et al.,
2016; Nyaga et al., 2010) of economic and social satisfaction dimensions
in industrial business relationships.
In this context, Geyskens and Steenkamp (2000b, p. 13) concluded
that a “failure to distinguish between these two types of satisfaction will
lead to contradictory research results and will reduce the firm’s ability
to effectively manage channel relationships”. These insights justify the
need to refine the uni-dimensional supplier satisfaction operationaliza­
tion approaches used in current purchasing and supply management
research (Fisher and Aguinis, 2017).
3. Hypotheses development
Based on the identified shortcomings, the research model of this
study focuses specifically on two aspects (see Fig. 1):
1) Contrasting supplier satisfaction in its role as an antecedent of PCT
with an alternative explanatory construct to investigate its explan­
atory power to predict PCT, and
2) Subdividing the construct of supplier satisfaction to test its validity
and reliability and operationalizing supplier satisfaction as a multi-
dimensional construct.

5
S. Piechota et al.
Fig. 1. Research model.
3.1. Hypotheses on construct contrasting
As shown in previous studies (Huettinger et al., 2012, 2014; Pulles
et al., 2016b; Vos et al., 2016), the overall satisfaction of a supplier with
a customer can have a positive effect on the willingness to preferentially
allocate resources to that specific customer. In this context, we refer to
social exchange theory as the theoretical basis for Schiele et al.’s (2012)
preferred customer cycle. According to SET, a relationship is (not)
satisfying for an exchange partner if the outcomes exceed (fall below) its
expectations. The outcomes of a relationship are determined by the
comparison of the benefits (e.g., profit, knowledge, patents, social sta­
tus) with the associated costs of the repetitive exchange (Blau, 1964;
Emerson, 1976; Kelley and Thibaut, 1978; Thibaut and Kelley, 1959). As
the basis of an exchange relationship, the satisfaction of a business
partner also represents the basic condition for relationship investments
or an allocation of resources (Wilson and Mummalaneni, 1986).
Therefore, it can be concluded that the higher the satisfaction of a
supplier is with a specific customer, the higher the likelihood is for this
customer to achieve PCT.
H1. Supplier satisfaction has a positive effect on PCT.
Moreover, social exchange theory states that actors in an exchange
relationship will not only evaluate the outcomes received from this
relationship but also compare them with outcomes from other re­
lationships (CLalt) (Kelley and Thibaut, 1978; Thibaut and Kelley,
1959). Consequently, if outcomes resulting from the best existing or
potential relationship alternatives are perceived as more promising, the
corresponding actor will leave the exchange relationship for the more
lucrative business opportunity. Therefore, this comparison of relation­
ship outcomes with the best available alternative, described by Ander­
son and Narus (1990) as the (net) “outcomes given comparison level of
alternatives”, is according to Thibaut and Kelley (1959, p.80), a neces­
sary prerequisite for the continuation of and investment in an exchange
relationship. Schiele et al. (2012a) and Huettinger et al. (2012) adopted
6
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 27 (2021) 100672
this original stay or leave decision criteria by stating that if the outcomes
of a business relationship drop below the (potential) outcomes of the
best alternative business relationship, this customer will lose the
preferred customer status to the more beneficial customer.
H2. The outcomes of a business relationship, given comparison level of
alternatives, have a positive effect on PCT.
Furthermore, according to social exchange theory, satisfaction forms
the basis for the establishment of norms of reciprocity (Cropanzano and
Mitchell, 2016; Kelley and Thibaut, 1978; Lambe et al., 2001). Reci­
procity can be defined as “a mutually contingent exchange of benefits
between two or more units” (Gouldner, 1960), which creates an obli­
gation on the part of the beneficiary towards the benefactor (Mavondo
and Rodrigo, 2001). This mechanism is designed to drive the partners’
behaviours towards each other and acts as one form of relationship
governance (Lambe et al., 2001).
Thus, it can be concluded that satisfaction diminishes the inclination
of an exchange partner to engage in opportunistic behaviour, fosters the
development of trust (Geyskens et al., 1999; Geyskens et al., 1999;
Geyskens and Steenkamp, 2000b; Ha et al., 2016; Leonidou et al., 2008)
and lowers the perception of behavioural risks (Johnson et al., 2008;
Schiele et al., 2015), resulting in reduced efforts in contract monitoring
and enforcement (Dyer and Chu, 2003).
Consequently, it can be concluded that the higher the satisfaction
with a specific customer, the less effort is required to secure or control
the outcomes from the relationship and thus the higher the relative net
benefit compared with other business relationships.
However, adapting the SET logic to supplier resource allocation
decisions, even highly satisfied suppliers can lower a customer’s status if
more attractive outcomes are expected from other customer relation­
ships. Thus, supplier satisfaction can be seen as a sufficient but not
necessary prerequisite for developing PCT. In this context, the outcomes
of a business relationship, given the comparison level of alternatives,
can play a mediating role in predicting the influence of supplier
S. Piechota et al. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 27 (2021) 100672

satisfaction on PCT.1 a business relationship, given the comparison level of business alternatives.
H3a. Supplier satisfaction has a positive effect on the outcomes of a busi­ H4d. The outcomes of a business relationship, given the comparison level of
ness relationship, given the comparison level of alternatives. alternatives, mediate the positive effect of economic supplier satisfaction on
PCT.
H3b. The outcomes of a business relationship, given the comparison level of
alternatives, mediate the positive effect of supplier satisfaction on PCT. H4e. Overall supplier satisfaction mediates the positive effect of economic
supplier satisfaction on PCT.
Non-economic or social satisfaction refers to the affective state
3.2. Hypotheses on construct splitting
arising from the evaluation of interaction experiences (Scheer and Stern,
1992) and is linked to the perceived mode and quality of interaction
In a multi-dimensional operationalization, parts or single dimensions
with the exchange partner (Gassenheimer and Ramsey, 1994; Huet­
of supplier satisfaction might also contribute to the assumed effects.
tinger et al., 2012, 2014). According to Rodríguez del Bosque et al.
Referring to section 2.2, it can be concluded that supplier satisfaction
(2006) and Geyskens et al. (1999), the social satisfaction dimension
consists of at least two different dimensions (Geyskens et al., 1999): The
focuses on aspects of social contact, exchange of information and ideas
economic dimension of supplier satisfaction refers to strategic and
and shared values.
operational supplier objectives attainment (Essig and Amann, 2009) and
In this context, the importance of social aspects for a supplier was
comprises aspects such as contribution to profit, absolute sales, and sales
empirically confirmed by recent supplier satisfaction research contri­
growth (Huettinger et al., 2012; Kumar et al., 1992; Maunu, 2003;
butions. According to recent studies, the quality and availability of so­
Börekçi et al., 2014), supply value and technical excellence (Huettinger
cial contact (Essig and Amann, 2009; Huettinger et al., 2014; Vos et al.,
et al., 2012; Maunu, 2003). The economic satisfaction dimension is
2016), conflict management (Benton and Maloni, 2005; Mohanty,
based on the obtained value from engaging in a customer relationship
2011), the customer’s relational behaviour and support provided
(Ramsay et al., 2013) to contribute to the supplier’s overall corporate
(Huettinger et al., 2014; Soetanto and Proverbs, 2002; Vos et al., 2016),
goals through the fulfilment of the relationship functions (Ramsay et al.,
communication and information exchange (Essig and Amann, 2009;
2013; Walter et al., 2003). Therefore, “economic satisfaction is the
Maunu, 2003) and the perceived commitment of the exchange partner
prime reason why firms engage in exchange with other firms” (Coughlan
(Wong, 2000, 2002) are positively and significantly linked to the overall
et al., 2006) and thus is considered to have a positive effect on the
perceived satisfaction with a customer from a supplier’s point of view.
overall satisfaction of the customer relationship. In addition, defining
Therefore, it can be concluded that social supplier satisfaction has a
PCT as the result of a strategic resource allocation process, it can be
positive effect on overall satisfaction (Geyskens and Steenkamp, 2000b)
concluded that the resource allocation decision is mainly driven by the
and on PCT. Furthermore, a high level of social satisfaction leads to the
degree to which a specific customer relationship contributes to the
development of social capital (Adler and Kwon, 2002), which enables
overall corporate goals of a supplier (Hwang et al., 2004; Kim et al.,
the creation of a competitive advantage for a buying firm against
2006; Kumar et al., 2004). High economic satisfaction can be seen as the
alternative, competing customer relationships (Schiele et al., 2015).
determination of economic goal achievement, which is, according to
Additionally, analogous to H3b, H4d and H4e, the influence of social
Schiele et al. (2012a), a necessary prerequisite for obtaining PCT. With
satisfaction on PCT can be mediated through the comparison with out­
reference to H3b, it can be concluded that the influence of economic
comes achievable with alternative business relationships or overall
supplier satisfaction is mediated through the comparison with the out­
supplier satisfaction. Important to note is that although there are theo­
comes achievable from alternative business relationships. Additionally,
retical arguments for assuming a positive influence of economic and
with reference to Churchill and Surprenant (1982), an individual aspect
social satisfaction on overall satisfaction as well as on other constructs,
of the relationship is not decisive for strategic resource allocation but the
research work such as Kano et al. (1984) or Homburg (2001) in the area
combination of all experiences with a specific customer is decisive.
of customer satisfaction indicate that satisfaction dimensions can have
Therefore, the influence of economic supplier satisfaction on PCT can be
different levels of importance for the overall satisfaction. Consequently,
mediated by the overall, uni-dimensional evaluation of supplier
H4 to H5 aims to analyse the structure of supplier satisfaction by
satisfaction.
deriving hypotheses about the underlying sub-dimensions.
H4a. Economic supplier satisfaction has a positive effect on overall supplier
H5a. Social supplier satisfaction has a positive effect on overall supplier
satisfaction.
satisfaction.
H4b. Economic supplier satisfaction has a positive effect on PCT.
H5b. Social supplier satisfaction has a positive effect on PCT.
H4c. Economic supplier satisfaction has a positive effect on the outcomes of
H5c. Social supplier satisfaction has a positive effect on the outcomes of a
business relationship, given the comparison level of alternatives.
1
Additionally, marketing research has shown that experiences with alter­ H5d. The outcomes of a business relationship, given the comparison level of
native business partners can have a potential influence on the expectancy level alternatives, mediate the positive effect of social supplier satisfaction on PCT.
of actual customer relationships (Anderson and Narus, 1990; Parasuraman
et al., 1994; Zeithaml et al., 1993). Therefore, the relationship between business H5e. Overall supplier satisfaction mediates the positive effect of social
outcomes, given the comparison level of alternatives, and satisfaction can be supplier satisfaction on PCT.
described as reciprocal (Caniëls et al., 2018). However, the availability and
quality of alternative relationships reflect the level of relative dependence 4. Methodology
(Anderson and Narus, 1990). Furthermore, it has been discovered that the
perceived level of dependence can have either positive (Caniëls et al., 2018) or 4.1. Variable measurement
negative effects (Kumar et al., 1992) on satisfaction. Therefore, a comparison
between relationship outcomes can have either a positive or negative effect on
This study uses multi-item scales for measuring the independent and
satisfaction, depending on the perceived level of relative dependence. As a
consequence of this effect ambiguity and with reference to marketing research, dependent constructs. All constructs are measured with a six-point scale
which has shown that a predisposition to compare alternatives exists when ranging from “Strongly disagree” to “Totally agree” (see Appendix A).
determining satisfaction (Olsen, 2002), this study focuses on the direct or in­ Social supplier satisfaction was measured by adapting the oper­
direct effects of supplier satisfaction on PCT and the relative business outcome ationalization of non-economic satisfaction by Rodríguez del Bosque
evaluation described in hypotheses 3a and 3b. et al. (2006) using the indirect satisfaction measurement approach

7
S. Piechota et al. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 27 (2021) 100672

developed by Ruekert and Churchill (1984) to measure satisfaction with defined requirements of potential respondents, 3149 individuals in total,
social interactions in industrial relationships. Based on the unambiguous supplier contacts were identified as informants from 1427
multi-dimensional approach of Maunu (2003), operationalization com­ supplying companies. The questionnaire was conducted from February
prises the satisfaction of a supplier with the overall communication and to April 2017 by inviting the supplier contacts via e-mail to participate
information exchange, as well as the quality of support and profes­ in an online survey. As a standard requirement of customer X’s
sionalism provided by the functional departments of the customer. compliance policy and to avoid social acceptance bias, the questionnaire
Furthermore, economic supplier satisfaction refers to the overall respondents were completely anonymous.
function of a business relationship by evaluating the contribution of a In total, 250 out of the 3149 e-mail addresses proved to be invalid or
customer relationship to the corporate goals of a supplier. To oper­ incorrect. Out of the remaining 2899 valid contacts, 435 contacts
ationalize economic supplier satisfaction, we drew on the operationali­ completed the web-based survey, resulting in an overall response rate of
zation initially developed by Gassenheimer and Ramsey (1994) and 15.05 percent. With reference to similar surveys in automotive supply
adapted it in regards to the contribution of the relationship outcomes to research, this response rate lies within the standard range (Caniëls et al.,
the overall corporate goals of a supplier. Referring to Walter et al.’s 2013; Corsten et al., 2011; Vos et al., 2016).
(2003) relationship function categorization, the formative items To avoid bias due to missing data, we applied a case-wise deletion for
comprise the fulfilment of direct (profitability, turnover and safeguards) questionnaires with missing values (Hair et al., 2011, 2017). Further­
and indirect (market and innovation) relationship functions. more, 11 outliers were identified and removed from the dataset (list-­
Overall supplier satisfaction was measured via items used by Cannon wise deletion) by computing and comparing the Mahalanobis distances
and Perreault (1999) and Huettinger et al. (2014). with reference to the chi-square distribution (p < 0.001). In total, 174
To measure the perceived CLalt, we adopted the operationalization questionnaires had to be eliminated from the survey due to missing
of Anderson and Narus (1984) and Anderson et al. (1994). As a values or outlier identification, which resulted in a total of 238 datasets.
perceptional reference, the participants were asked to evaluate the Table 3 provides some insights into the sample characteristics. With
overall relationship, the level of support and the profitability of the 133 responses, the majority (55.88 percent of responders were sales and
relationship compared with the best existing alternative customer marketing managers. The second largest group with 53 responders was
relationship. positioned in logistics management (22.26 percent), followed by
Using the operationalization of Vos et al. (2016), preferential treat­ corporate management with 34 participants (14.28 percent) and the
ment was measured by three formative indicators referring to preferred quality and production management with a combined 14 responses
access to suppliers’ production capacities and physical resources, (5.29 percent). Four responders (0.92 percent) stated other positions
preferred allocation of financial resources and preferred access to the such as “project manager”, which could not be traced to a specific
best ideas of the supplier. functional area of responsibility (see Table 4).
In addition, the questionnaire also focused on the characteristics of The majority (57.98 percent) of participants had more than 5 years of
the participating suppliers, the supplier-business relationship and the work experience in their current functional area of responsibility,
market situation, such as product complexity and demand volatility, whereas 74 participants (31.09 percent) stated that they had between
relationship length and supplier size. In previous studies, the relation­ one and five years of experience in their functional area. Only 16 par­
ship length showed a significant influence on relationship antecedents ticipants (6.72 percent) stated that they had less than one year of
and outcomes (Nagati and Rebolledo, 2013), such that the length of the experience within their current functional area. In total, 10 participants
business relationship was included as a control variable (Vos et al., (4.20 percent) refused to provide information about their position
2016).
Table 3
4.2. Sample and data collection Sample descriptive.
Characteristics of sample Characteristics of respondents
For data collection, an online survey was conducted among supplier
contacts from a German car manufacturer (hereafter called customer X). 1. Length of business relationship 1. Position of the respondent
N % N %
The questionnaire was pretested by a pilot with 21 suppliers. In addi­
More than 10 years 176 73.95 Board member/CEO 29 12.18
tion, four members within the purchasing department of the buying Between 5 and 10 37 15.55 Business unit/division/ 51 21.43
company and five researchers with marketing and supply management years department head
backgrounds also participated in the pretest. The pretest assessed the Between 1 and 5 19 7.98 Manager 61 25.63
comprehensibility, structure, usability and length of the survey. The years
Less than 1 year 2 0.84 Sales or product manager 97 40.76
resulting modifications were entered, and a second pretest was con­ n/a 4 1.68
ducted with a separate group consisting of three purchasers from 2. Annual turnover 2. Tenure of respondent in this position
customer X and four key account managers. N % N %
The survey recipients were selected in a purposeful sampling pro­ Less than 50 Mio. 73 30.67 More than 10 years 87 36.55
Euros
cedure (Kuzel, 1997; Miles and Huberman, 2008; Patton, 2015) that
More than 50 Mio. 160 67.23 Between 5 and 10 years 51 21.43
aimed to ensure that a homogenous group comprising the same phe­ Euros
nomenon was being selected. n/a 5 2.10 Between 1 and 5 years 74 31.09
The general purpose of this research is to analyse the perception of 3. Number of employees Less than 1 year 16 6.72
direct material suppliers about their relationship with customer X and N % n/a 10 4.20
More than 10,000 47 19.75 3. Functional area of the respondent
similar customer relationships. Therefore, only informants with appro­ Up to 10,000 96 40.33 N %
priate knowledge and insights into the automotive industry, a business Up to 500 95 39.92 Corporate Management 34 14.28
relationship with customer X and involvement in the supplier’s resource Sales 133 55.88
allocation decisions directly affecting the business relationship with 4. Product complexity Logistics 53 22.26
N % Quality & Production 14 5.88
customer X were chosen. To accomplish this analysis, the primary tar­
High (systems & 95 39.92 Other 4 1.68
geted respondents were identified as senior members of the functional modules)
area of sales, production and operations management, as well as mem­ Middle 135 56.72
bers of the board of directors or owners. (Components)
In total, 1427 suppliers worldwide were listed as active direct ma­ Low (Raw 8 3.36
materials)
terial suppliers in customer X’s supplier database. In regards to the

8
S. Piechota et al. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 27 (2021) 100672

Table 4
Estimation of the measurement parameters (n = 238).
Construct Reliability and Validity Item Loading Cronbach’s Alpha rho_A Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted (AVE)

Critical Value >0.7 >0.7 >0.7 >0.6 >0.5

Outcomes given comparison level for alternatives (CLAlt) CLALT1 0.913 0,848 0849 0,908 0768
CLALT2 0.879
CLALT3 0.836
Preferential Customer Treatment (PCT) PCT1 0.889 0,840 0846 0,904 0758
PCT2 0.892
PCT3 0.830
Supplier Satisfaction (SS) SS1 0.852 0,834 0849 0,900 0750
SS2 0.871
SS3 0.876
Supplier Social Satisfaction (SSS) SSS1 0.772 0,876 0884 0,911 0671
SSS2 Eliminated
SSS3 0.788
SSS4 0.853
SSS5 0.867
SSS5 0.830
Supplier Economic Satisfaction (SES) SES1 0.949 Formative
SES2 0.706
SES3 Eliminated
SES4 0.738

tenure. A total of 80.25 percent of the respondents work in small or
medium size companies.
In terms of the length of the business relationship between the
participating suppliers and customer X, 176 participants (73.95 percent)
stated that their company has had a business relationship for more than
10 years with customer X. Furthermore, 37 participants (15.55 percent)
stated the duration of their business relationship as 5–10 years, and 19
participants (7.98 percent) stated that this duration was between one
and five years. Only two participants (0.84 percent) stated that their
company established a business relationship with the specific customer
less than one year ago. Four participants (1.68 percent) provided no
information about the duration of the business relationship.
Furthermore, data were analysed for potential bias by scanning for
heteroscedasticity and analysing the independence or residuals. To
identify a potential nonresponse bias problem, we compared the data of
early and late respondents by conducting parametric t-tests and
nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests to identify potential significant
differences among the first quartile of respondents and the fourth
quartile (Field, 2018). In addition, both tests were also used to identify
potential ethnic biases by examining the provided geographical location
of the participant’s company site (Hagendoorn, 1995). All tests showed
no significant differences.
4.3. Choice of statistical analyses
This study focuses on second-generation techniques that can be
distinguished as two different types: covariance-based (CB) or partial
least squares (PLS)-based statistical analyses (Boari and Cantaluppi,
2012; Hair et al., 2017). Comparing the characteristics and advantages
of both types, PLS provides more flexibility in dealing with formative
and reflective latent factors (Diamantopoulos et al., 2008; Roldán and
Sánchez-Franco, 2012). Considering the overall objective of this study,
CB analysis focuses on theory testing rather than on explanatory
research (Hair et al., 2011, 2012). Because the overall purpose of this
study is to find alternative explanations for PCT, we choose the
PLS-based approach for exploring supplier satisfaction. In addition,
compared with CB techniques, Reinartz et al. (2009) showed that PLS
analysis is recommended for dealing with formative latent factors and
when the number of observations is less than 250.
For computing the path model, this study used SmartPLS 3.0
software (Ringle et al., 2015). In addition, IBM SPSS 21 software was
used to apply descriptive statistics and tests for data characteristics, such
as common factor loadings, outliers, data distribution, hetero­
scedasticity and independence of residuals.
4.4. Quality assessment of data structure, measurement items and latent
factors
Although PLS is considered to provide relatively robust outputs
(Vilares et al., 2010) when the underlying dataset is not normally
distributed, Henseler et al. (2014) showed that non-normally distributed
datasets can have an impact on reliability. Therefore, the dataset was
checked for normal distribution on both univariate and multivariate
levels. The analysis of skewness and kurtosis revealed that the latent
variable items for supplier satisfaction, supplier economic satisfaction
and supplier social satisfaction are likely not normally distributed due to
skewness and kurtosis factors exceeding 1 (Hair et al., 2017) (see Ap­
pendix C). To avoid any influence on the model fit, all items of the
affected latent variable were transformed by a logarithmic function with
a factor basis of 10 (log10). After the transformation, all variables
showed acceptable factors for skewness and kurtosis (<±1), and the
corresponding Q-Q plots indicated no violation of the normal distribu­
tion prerequisite.
To analyse the statistical influences by the heteroscedasticity of the
residuals, we calculated the latent factor scores of all items in
SMARTPLS 3.0 and imported them back to SPSS (Vos et al., 2016). The
first visual assessment of potential heteroscedasticity using the corre­
sponding scatter dot diagram and fitting lines indicated that the indi­
vidual items of the dependent variables are all very close to linear
functions. The corresponding regression of the four latent, independent
factors on the dependent factor PCT showed that the residuals are in­
dependent (Durbin Watson test, DW = 1.960 > 1). In addition, the test
for normal distribution of the residuals by applying the Shapiro-Wilk
and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for the standardized residuals indicated
that the residuals were normally distributed (KS = 0.044, p =
0.200; W = .992, p = .251). Following Podsakoff et al. (2003), the
unmeasured latent method factor test revealed no indication of common
method bias with a means of squared method factor loadings below 0.01
and the means of squared construct loadings above 0.73. In addition,
Harman’s single factor score revealed an explained variance of 0.36,

9
S. Piechota et al. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 27 (2021) 100672

which is beyond the 0.5 threshold for indicating a common method bias Table 6
(Podsakoff et al., 2012). Regarding the data structure, we conducted a Discriminant validity factors (n = 238).
principal component analysis (Field, 2018) to assess the factor loadings Fornell-Larcker Criterion CLALT PCT SES SS SSS
and variance of items on latent constructs. We apply the default options
CLALT 0.876
for direct oblimin (delta = 0, maximum iterations = 25) because we PCT 0.602 0.870
expected the socio-psychological constructs to be correlated (Fabrigar SES 0.635 0.412
et al., 1999). The resulting five components showed all an eigenvalue of SS 0.582 0.464 0.517 0.866
above 1 with a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of 0.855 (p < 0.001) (see SSS 0.575 0.409 0.520 0.585 0.819

Appendix B).

4.5. Quality criteria of constructs Table 7

Results of the coefficient of determination and predictive relevance.

Regarding the quality criteria of the identified latent factors, the
corresponding Cronbach’s alpha (α) and composite reliability (CR)
scores were above 0.80, and the average variance extracted was above
0.60, which indicates good convergent validity (Field, 2018). Further­
more, the items SES3 and SSS6 were eliminated due to a factor loading
below the acceptable threshold of 0.70.
To ensure discriminant validity, we first checked for multi­
collinearity by analysing the variance inflation factors (VIF) for all latent
factors. All VIFs were below the threshold of 5, indicating the absence of
multicollinearity (Hair et al., 2011, 2017).
Furthermore, the results of the Fornell-Larcker procedures stated in
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Table 6 indicated that there were no correlations higher than the AVE
present (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2011; Henseler et al.,
2015) (see Table 5). In addition, the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio
analysis showed that the corresponding HTMT matrix values had a
maximum of 0.710 below the maximum threshold of 0.85 (Henseler
et al., 2015; Vos et al., 2016). The additional HTMT bootstrapping
analysis of the upper confidence intervals revealed that there were no
values above the threshold of 1.0 (CL97.5 − HTMTmax ≤ 0.800).
4.6. Structural model assessment
A blindfolding procedure was conducted to evaluate the overall
prediction relevance of the model (omission distance of 10) (Evermann
and Tate, 2016; Hair et al., 2011; Henseler et al., 2015; Ringle et al.,
2009). The blindfolding procedure revealed a Stone-Geisser Q2 value of
0.276 for the latent variable of PCT, which provides support for the
model’s overall predictive relevance, since the Q2 values were clearly
above 0 (Evermann and Tate, 2016; Evermann and Tate, 2016; Hair
et al., 2011; Henseler et al., 2015; Ringle et al., 2009). In a second step,
the analysis of the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR)
goodness of fit indicator revealed a good fit with a value of 0.066, since
the SRMR value was below the general threshold 0.08 (Hair et al., 2017).
5. Findings
To test the derived hypothesis, the PLS analysis was conducted by
applying a path-weighting scheme (maximum of 3000 iterations) to
estimate the hypothesized paths and employed a bootstrapping pro­
cedure with replacement using 5000 resamples to estimate the signifi­
cance of these paths.
The results of the bootstrapping procedure stated in Table 7 and
Fig. 2 indicate a positive impact of supplier satisfaction on PCT (H1: T =
Table 5
Variance inflation factors.
Item VIF (min-max)
CLALT1− 3 1.677–2.878
PCT1− 3 1.745–2.283
SES1− 4 1.507–2.052
SS1,3 1.577–2.508
SSS1− 5 1.656–2.534
Construct R2 Q2 Omission distance = 10 F2 in relation to
CLALT PCT SS
CLALT 0.522 0.379 0.185
PCT 0.384 0.276
SES 0.209 0.000 0.105
SS 0.404 0.281 0.077 0.022
SSS 0.065 0.001 0.229
RL 0.002
2.397, β = 0.157). In addition, the perceived CLalt shows a significant
positive influence (H2: T = 7.449, β = 0.489) on preferential treatment.
The data also revealed that in contrast to the effect size of supplier
satisfaction, which can be characterized as low (f2 = 0.022), the com­
parison level of alternatives shows a medium effect size with an f2
measure of 0.185 (Cohen, 1988; Hair et al., 2011).
Furthermore, the decomposition of satisfaction in an economic and
social dimension shows no significant effects for supplier economic
(H4b: T = 0.098, β = 0.007, f2 = 0.000) and supplier social satisfaction
(H5b: T = 0.493, β = 0.035, f2 = 0.001) on PCT. In addition, the control
variable (relationship length) showed no significant effect (T = 0.335, β
= − 0.039) on the dependent variable. Therefore, the overall variance of
PCT can be explained by 38.4 percent (R2 = 0.384).
Furthermore, the results show that supplier satisfaction has a posi­
tive impact on the perceived relative outcomes of a customer relation­
ship from a supplier’s point of view (H3a: T = 4.383, β = 0.248). The
corresponding effect size of the overall supplier satisfaction evaluation
on the perceived relative evaluation of relationship outcomes appears to
be small (f2 = 0.077). In addition to the direct effect, the analysis of the
specific indirect effects revealed a mediating effect of CLalt (H3b: T =
3.633; β = 0.121).
Concerning hypotheses 4a and 5a, the data support the assumption
that economic and social aspects have a significant influence on supplier
satisfaction. In this context, social supplier satisfaction (H5a: T = 8.166,
β = 0.433) shows with a medium effect of 0.229, a higher direct effect
size than the small effect size of the economic satisfaction dimension
(H4a: T = 4.827, β = 0.292, f2 = 0.105).
Furthermore, analysing the mediating role of supplier satisfaction
and the relative evaluation of relationship outcomes (CLalt), all hy­
pothesized indirect effects (H4d, H4e, H5d and H5e) are statistically
significant (see appendix D). Overall, the decomposition of the cumu­
lative, reflective supplier satisfaction operationalization in two latent
factors results in a proportion of explained variance of 40.4 percent (R2
= 0.404).
The circumstance that social and economic satisfaction show no
significant direct effect on PCT (H4b and H5b) whereas the overall
supplier satisfaction shows a significant impact indicates that the utili­
zation of single sub-dimensions is not sufficient to predict supplier
resource allocation decisions.
However, the deconstruction of satisfaction allows a more holistic
picture of the factors determining the comparison level of alternatives
and confirms the mediating role of the construct in predicting PCT. Both
economic supplier satisfaction (T = 6.606, β = 0.388) and social supplier
satisfaction (T = 3.435, β = 0.228) show significant direct effects on

10
S. Piechota et al.
Fig. 2. Results of the original model including control variables.
CLalt, as well as significant indirect effects on PCT through CLalt (H4d:
T = 4.632, β = 0.190; H5d: β = T = 3.374, 0.111). In this context, the
data revealed a higher direct influence of the economic dimension on the
perceived relative outcome evaluation, with a medium effect size for
supplier economic satisfaction (f2 = 0.209) and a small effect size of
supplier social satisfaction (f2 = 0.065). As a consequence, the variance
of CLalt can be explained by 52.2 percent (R2 = 0.522).
6. Discussion
By measuring supplier satisfaction, previous researchers (Huettinger
et al., 2014; Schiele, 2015a; Vos et al., 2016) assume that sociopsy­
chological factors exist that have a significant influence on the
supplier-specific resource allocation process. The influence of these so­
ciopsychological factors represents an alternative to existing,
sales-oriented approaches to customer prioritization. Existing ap­
proaches are based on the premises of bounded rationality and cognitive
limitations (Cyert and March 1963; Simon, 1957) and take an
economically based explanatory approach to support rational strategic
decision-making (Bauer and Hammerschmidt, 2005; Ernst and Cohen,
1992; Hwang et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2006; Kumar et al., 2004).
In this regard, the investigation of supplier satisfaction as an affective
construct and a possible determinant of strategic resource allocation
decisions stands in apparent contradiction with rational decision-
making models for customer prioritization (DeWulf et al., 2001; Ernst
and Cohen, 1992; Homburg et al., 2008). Therefore, this study aims to
show the current status of the conceptualization of supplier satisfaction
and review and empirically tests the role of satisfaction in strategic
resource allocation decisions.
In this regard, it can be shown that supplier satisfaction is mostly
understood as an organizational phenomenon based on the element of
cognition instead of an affective evaluation of experiences.
By contrasting supplier satisfaction with the perceived CLalt and
splitting the common uni-dimensional construct of supplier satisfaction,
this study contributes to the current research by testing the explanatory
power of current perception of supplier satisfaction and identifying
potential differences in satisfaction dimensions for supplier resource
allocation.
The results of the study show that a relative evaluation of the
11
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 27 (2021) 100672
interaction outcomes from the supplier’s point of view is more impor­
tant than the relationship-specific evaluation to confer preferred
customer status. Although both constructs show significant influence on
preferential treatment, the comparison of the direct and indirect effect
sizes shows that CLalt has a far higher influence on preferential treat­
ment than that of the cumulative supplier satisfaction.
These insights suggest the role of supplier satisfaction is as a suffi­
cient but not necessary condition for gaining PCT (Backhaus and
Büschken, 1999) and reveal that achieving preferred customer status not
only refers to a buyer’s behaviour or obtained rewards but is mediated
by a relative outcome evaluation of the business relationships.
Thus, achieving preferred customer status necessarily depends on
external relationship factors such as the availability and quality of
alternative business relationships from a supplier’s view. Although the
latter can hardly be influenced by the customer, it was discovered that
supplier satisfaction have a positive influence on the perceived relative
attractiveness of a business relationship. Therefore, it sets the basis for a
positive relative evaluation, confirming the statement that managing
supplier satisfaction goes beyond “establishing good relationships” but
refers to understanding the needs and preferences of strategic suppliers
(Ramsay et al., 2013; Ramsay and Wagner, 2009), as well as knowing
the perceived attractiveness of competing customers.
In this context, this study aims to identify specific satisfaction di­
mensions or aspects of repetitive exchange that dominate resource
allocation decisions (Huettinger et al., 2014). In accordance with
Geyskens et al. (1999) and Geyskens and Steenkamp (2000b), it was
shown that the evaluation of economic aspects of a business relationship
has higher direct effects on the relative evaluation of the business
relationship, as well as higher indirect effect sizes on PCT, than social
satisfaction. Furthermore, these results are in line with similar findings
of Huettinger et al. (2014) and Vos et al. (2016), which revealed the
perceived growth opportunity and profitability of a customer relation­
ship in addition to the reliability of a customer as the main drivers for
achieving PCT. Overall, the results build a bridge between supplier
satisfaction research and rational decision-making models for customer
prioritization. Economic satisfaction relies on the element of cognition
rather than affection (Bauer and Hammerschmidt, 2005; Kim et al.,
2006; Kumar et al., 2004).
This emphasis on economic aspects could lead to the assumption that
S. Piechota et al.
social aspects such as the creation of a beneficial relationship atmo­
sphere (e.g., a high level of trust) are not worthwhile due to the non-
existent direct influence on PCT. However, according to Jong et al.
(2014) and Tse et al. (2019), contractual (formal) and relational
(informal) control mechanisms should not be regarded as substitutive
but as complementary or reinforcing.
From a relational view (Dyer and Singh, 1998), a key consequence of
the embeddedness of economic transactions in a social structure of
trustworthiness and satisfaction is that exchange partners are likely to
have greater confidence in predicting each other’s actions which lowers
the fear of opportunistic behaviour. (Dyer and Singh 1998; Granovetter,
1985; Gulati and Garguilo 1999). In this context, satisfaction plays a
vital role in developing trust (Bunduchi, 2005; Chiles and McMackin,
1996; Dyer and Chu, 2003) and helps to determine the likelihood of
future economic outcomes of a customer relationship (Burkert et al.,
2012; Dekker, 2004; Lambe et al., 2001). In addition, based on norms of
reciprocity, a high level of non-economic satisfaction can lead to a
higher level of interorganizational information sharing, which can lead
to economic benefits by improving supply chain coordination, reducing
inventory carrying costs and enabling interorganizational learning
(Fiala, 2005; Scott, 2000; Simatupang et al., 2002; Tsanos and Zografos,
2016). From a purchasing and supply management perspective, this
outcome leads to the creation of competitive advantages over rival
customers striving for strategic supplier resources (Barney and Hansen,
1994; Dyer and Singh, 1998) and helps to explain the confirmed indirect
effect of social satisfaction on PCT.
Finally, the comparison between uni-dimensional and multi-
dimensional operationalization confirmed that for predicting PCT, an
uni-dimensional, reflective measurement approach is more suitable than
a disaggregated operationalization, which stands in line with similar
insights for industrial customer satisfaction research (Churchill, 1979;
Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001; Gerbing and Anderson, 1988).
Nevertheless, for management purposes, an overall satisfaction evalua­
tion does not provide practical implications for improving buyer-seller
relationships; therefore, a disaggregation of specific aspects of the
customer relationship is needed.
6.1. Practical implications
In this sense, supplier satisfaction is seen as a “close proxy for con­
cepts such as perceived effectiveness” (Anderson and Narus, 1990) of a
customer relationship. The distinction between different dimensions of
supplier satisfaction can help to implement a holistic supplier gover­
nance approach that encompasses formal and informal control strategies
to ensure a preferred customership.
A survey of supplier satisfaction within the framework of supplier
management initially provides the customer with clues for improving
the exchange process and the relationship atmosphere. In this context,
non-economic satisfaction plays a decisive role, as social interaction can
be used to improve relationship quality (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Yen
et al., 2011). At the same time, the investigation of non-economic
satisfaction can provide indications for an improvement in supplier
performance, since the quality of the information exchange, especially
in complex exchange relationships (e.g., in the automotive industry),
has a demonstrable influence on supplier performance results (Cousins
and Lawson, 2007; Whipple et al., 2002; Wilson and Vlosky, 1998).
Understanding aspects of social satisfaction helps buying companies
determine the optimal level of information exchange required to set the
basis for supplier performance (Essig and Amann, 2009; Maunu, 2003;
Meena and Sarmah, 2012; Vos et al., 2016).
Furthermore, by investigating the economic dimensions of supplier
satisfaction, a buying company can identify potential risks and oppor­
tunities regarding the willingness to intensify or discontinue a business
relationship from a supplier’s point of view. As a consequence, from a
supplier relationship management perspective, economic satisfaction
can be seen as an early indicator for future supplier performance.
12
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 27 (2021) 100672
Knowledge of this indicator allows the development of appropriate
supplier (control) strategies (Cousins and Lawson, 2007; Sharma et al.,
1999); Handfield et al. (2014).
Furthermore, by conducting supplier satisfaction surveys, the
customer also sends a strong signal of willingness to understand the
needs and preferences of a supplier, which can help foster trust between
the exchange partners (Essig and Amann, 2009; Spence, 1976).
As a result, supplier satisfaction can serve, on the one hand, as an
input control variable for the direct influence strategies of supplier
resource allocation decisions by fostering relationship commitment and
socialization (Andaleeb, 1996; Essig and Amann, 2009; Morgan and
Hunt, 1994). It also offers the possibility for improving the comparison
level of alternatives by enabling the creation of relationship-specific
switching barriers and ensuring preferred customership (Dyer and
Singh, 1998; Yen et al., 2011).
6.2. Research implications, limitations and future research
The research results contribute to purchasing and supply manage­
ment but also to the wider field of B2B market research by validating the
influence of social norms on resource allocation decisions. This study
revealed the dominance of comparative, economically driven aspects of
satisfaction. These insights stand in line with marketing-oriented
research regarding customer prioritization, which assumes that to
ensure profitability and firm performance, resource allocation depends
on a customer’s importance in regards to the supplier’s overall corporate
goals (Reinartz et al., 2004; Wetzel et al., 2014). Customer importance is
usually reflected by the actual or potential sales volumes or the net
present value of current and future cash flows (also known as customer
lifetime value) (Homburg et al., 2008; Lacey et al., 2007; Venkatesan
and Kumar, 2004). The minor influence of supplier satisfaction in
contrast to economic relative comparison to alternative relationships
does not represent a limitation of existing studies on the topic of supplier
satisfaction but emphasizes the necessity of a relative consideration of
the relationship results in line with SET.
Furthermore, this study revealed, similar to studies regarding
customer satisfaction (Geyskens et al., 1999; Geyskens and Steenkamp,
2000b), the importance of the multi-dimensionality of supplier satis­
faction when investigating effects on behavioural intentions.
However, the findings are limited, as the survey data refers to the
supplier base of one international automotive manufacturer. Future
research could broaden the empirical basis by comparing data from
different industries. Next, this research focused on selected constructs,
while others were not regarded. Namely, trust and commitment are
often taken into account when analysing PCT and supplier satisfaction.
Future research could consider such constructs. In particular, it is of
interest to know whether the different dimensions of supplier satisfac­
tion also have different effects on trust, commitment, or other
constructs.
Additionally, research on customer satisfaction in business-to-
business relationships indicates the existence of temporal (e.g.,
primacy-recency effect), situational (e.g., contrast effect) or individual
interference effects (e.g., halo effect) on the overall satisfaction evalu­
ation (Garnefeld and Steinhoff, 2013). With regard to supplier satis­
faction, the influence of these sources of interference on an overall
supplier satisfaction evaluation has not yet been investigated. Further­
more, due to a lack of appropriate instrument variables in the study
design and appropriate instrumental variable-free statistical analysis,
the risk of endogeneity is immanent. Endogeneity refers to the existence
of nonrandom effects such as industry- or firm-specific characteristics,
which leads to a correlation between the independent variables and the
error term potentially triggering type I and type II errors (Hult et al.,
2018). Consequently, future studies need to derive appropriate instru­
ment variables to analyse the effect of industry-, firm- or situationally
specific factors (Wangenheim, 2003). In addition, it is to mention that
the item CLALT3 shows a high cross-loading in the principal component
S. Piechota et al. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 27 (2021) 100672

analysis on latent factor of economic satisfaction. Although the factor
operationalization is based on tested indicators, this cross-loading shows
that an improvement in the measurement can be achieved by developing
new items. In addition, a reflective measurement model for economic
satisfaction instead of a formative measurement approach would be
conceivable and worth testing.
Finally, the survey was conducted within the special context of the
German automotive industry. Although a separate control comparison
of responses from Asian participants with the overall sample did not
reveal any significant differences, it could be assumed that the findings
could differ depending on the cultural background. In particular, it has
been discovered that social norms have a higher influence on relation­
ship commitment in Asia compared to Western countries (Cheng et al.,
2012; Gao et al., 2010; Leung et al., 2005). An investigation of inter­
cultural influences on the importance of supplier satisfaction in
connection with the granting of preferential customer treatment repre­
sents a possible future field of research.
Authorship statement
S. Piechota: Conception and design of study, acquisition of data,
analysis and/or interpretation of data, Drafting the manuscript, revising
the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, Approval of
the version of the manuscript to be published. A. Glas: Conception and
design of study, Drafting the manuscript, revising the manuscript criti­
cally for important intellectual content, Approval of the version of the
manuscript to be published. M. Essig: Conception and design of study,
revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content,
Approval of the version of the manuscript to be published.
Declaration of competing interest
None.

Appendix A. Constructs and questionnaire insights

Variable Supplier satisfaction (CL)*

SS1 We are very satisfied with the business relationship with Customer X
SS2 Overall, our company is very pleased to have Customer X as a business partner
SS3 We would always choose Customer X again as a business partner
Variable Outcomes given comparison level of alternatives (CLALT)*
Compared to your best customers …
CLALT1 … the relationship with Customer X is much better
CLALT … the support service of Customer X is much better
CLALT3 … the business relationship with Customer X is more profitable
Variable Preferred customer treatment*
Compared to your best customers …
PCT1 … we grant Customer X the best utilization of our physical resources (e.g. equipment capacity, scarce materials)
PCT2 … we invest more in the relationship with Customer X
PCT3 … we provide Customer X with ideas and innovations before other competitors
Variable Supplier social satisfaction*
SSS1 Customer X clearly communicates its expectations of the procurement targets to be achieved
SSS2 I know the relevant contact persons in the functional departments of Customer X in case of questions and/or problems
SSS3 We receive sufficient support from Customer X departments in case of queries
SSS4 Customer X informs us on time about important news
SSS5 The information provided by Customer X is reliable
SSS6 Customer X departments are generally characterized by their high professional competence
Variable Supplier economic satisfaction*
My company is satisfied with regard to …
SES1 … the current profitability of the business relationship to Customer X
SES2 … the current turnover with Customer X
SES3 … the current utilization of production capacities by Customer X
SES4 … the usefulness of Customer X as a reference customer in customer acquisition
*All items employ six-point scales ranging from Strongly agree, Agree, Partly agree, Partly disagree, Disagree, and Strongly disagree.

Appendix B. Results of Principal Component Analysis (Oblimin, direct, Delta 0) for satisfaction related factors

Component

1 2 3 4 5

CLALT2 0,944 0492 0,422 0420 0,489

CLALT1 0,942 0415 0,465 0452 0,521
CLALT3 0,766 0295 0,688 0371 0,462
SSS3 0,459 0796 0,294 0357 0,247
SSS5 0,467 0785 0,410 0476 0,329
SSS1 0,396 0779 0,359 0310 0,181
SSS4 0,387 0776 0,392 0279 0,198
SSS6 0,337 0756 0,414 0414 0,382
SSS2 0,237 0735 0,134 0146 0,222
SES1 0,469 0334 0,879 0421 0,362
SES2 0,378 0316 0,855 0227 0,311
SES3 0,332 0336 0,842 0291 0,284
SES4 0,341 0367 0,679 0461 0,283
SS2 0,316 0304 0,328 0920 0,391
SS3 0,422 0309 0,332 0905 0,309
SS1 0,562 0542 0,428 0711 0,380
(continued on next page)

13
S. Piechota et al. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 27 (2021) 100672

(continued )
Component

1 2 3 4 5

PCS2 0,433 0202 0,360 0349 0,888

PCS1 0,472 0244 0,371 0338 0,873
PCS3 0,439 0321 0,249 0286 0,837
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin, direct, Delta 0.

Appendix C. Descriptive Analysis results (N ¼ 238)

N Mean Std. Dev. Variance Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error

LOG10SS1* 238 0,242 0175 0,031 − 0,190 0158 − 0,871 0314

LOG10SS2 * 238 0,119 0160 0,025 0813 0,158 − 0,577 0314
LOG10SS3 * 238 0,118 0162 0,026 0868 0,158 − 0,491 0314
LOG10CLALT1 * 238 0,358 0194 0,038 − 0,454 0158 − 0,411 0314
LOG10CLALT2 * 238 0,366 0196 0,038 − 0,532 0158 − 0,383 0314
LOG10CLALT3 * 238 0,474 0197 0,039 − 0,960 0158 0,426 0314
LOG10SES1 * 238 0,427 0185 0,034 − 0,908 0158 0,513 0314
LOG10SES2 * 238 0,418 0205 0,042 − 0,527 0158 − 0,321 0314
LOG10SES3 * 238 0,382 0194 0,038 − 0,413 0158 − 0,233 0314
LOG10SES4 * 238 0,282 0193 0,037 − 0,123 0158 − 0,646 0314
LOG10SSS1 * 238 0,265 0188 0,035 − 0,119 0158 − 0,786 0314
LOG10SSS2 * 238 0,239 0203 0,041 0202 0,158 − 0,827 0314
LOG10SSS3 * 238 0,298 0203 0,041 − 0,142 0158 − 0,743 0314
LOG10SSS4 * 238 0,307 0195 0,038 − 0,202 0158 − 0,579 0314
LOG10SSS5 * 238 0,261 0176 0,031 − 0,319 0158 − 0,873 0314
LOG10SSS6 * 238 0,248 0186 0,034 − 0,102 0158 − 0,928 0314
LOG10PCT1 * 238 0,314 0209 0,044 − 0,221 0158 − 0,898 0314
LOG10PCT2 * 238 0,282 0196 0,038 − 0,260 0158 − 1034 0,314
LOG10PCT3 * 238 0,287 0207 0,043 − 0,220 0158 − 1147 0,314
SS1 ** 238 1,89 0,740 0548 0,750 0158 1099 0,314
SS2 ** 238 1,42 0,602 0362 1734 0,158 5380 0,314
SS3 ** 238 1,42 0,616 0379 1747 0,158 5014 0,314
CLALT1 ** 238 2,50 1034 1070 0,485 0158 − 0,248 0314
CLALT2 ** 238 2,55 1045 1092 0,447 0158 0,032 0314
CLALT3 ** 238 3,25 1227 1506 − 0,036 0158 − 0,659 0314
PCS1 ** 238 2,30 1051 1105 0,632 0158 − 0,160 0314
PCS2 ** 238 2,11 0,892 0795 0,477 0158 − 0,318 0314
PCS3 ** 238 2,16 0,966 0934 0,533 0158 − 0,036 0314
SSS1 ** 238 2,02 0,862 0742 0,846 0158 0,725 0314
SSS2 ** 238 1,94 0,959 0920 1313 0,158 2270 0,314
SSS3 ** 238 2,21 1017 1033 0,963 0158 1276 0,314
SSS4 ** 238 2,24 0,983 0966 0,885 0158 0,933 0314
SSS5 ** 238 1,97 0,754 0569 0,465 0158 − 0,044 0314
SSS6 ** 238 1,93 0,814 0662 0,835 0158 1010 0,314
SES1 ** 238 2,90 1067 1137 0,224 0158 0,190 0314
SES2 ** 238 2,89 1233 1521 0,379 0158 − 0,588 0314
SES3 ** 238 2,64 1111 1235 0,631 0158 0,100 0314
SES4 ** 238 2,11 0,935 0874 1030 0,158 1656 0,314
*Transformed variable statistic (logarithm 10); ** Non-transformed variable statistics.

Appendix D. Indirect effect sizes

Hypothesis Specific indirect effects Loading T statistic P – value

H3b SS → CLALT → PCT 0.121 3.633 0.000

H4d SES → CLALT → PCT 0.190 4.632 0.000
H4e SES → SS → PCT 0.046 2.033 0.042
H5d SSS → CLALT → PCT 0.111 3.374 0.001
H5e SSS → SS → PCT 0.068 2.275 0.023

References Anderson, J.C., Narus, J.A., 1990. A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm
working partnerships. J. Market. 54 (1), 42.
Anderson, J.C., Hakansson, H., Johanson, J., 1994. Dyadic business relationships within
Adler, P.S., Kwon, S.-W., 2002. Social capital: prospects for a new concept. AMR (Adv.
a business network context. J. Market. 58 (4), 1.
Magn. Reson.) 27 (1), 17–40.
Backhaus, K., Büschken, J., 1999. The paradox of unsatisfying but stable relationships—a
Andaleeb, S.S., 1996. An experimental investigation of satisfaction and commitment in
look at German car suppliers. J. Bus. Res. 46 (3), 245–257.
marketing channels: the role of trust and dependence. J. Retailing 72 (1), 77–93.
Barney, J.B., Hansen, M.H., 1994. Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage.
Anderson, J.C., Narus, J.A., 1984. A model of the distributor’s perspective of distributor-
Strat. Manag. J. 15 (S1), 175–190.
manufacturer working relationships. J. Market. 48 (4), 62.

14
S. Piechota et al.
Bauer, H.H., Hammerschmidt, M., 2005. Customer-based corporate valuation. Manag.
Decis. 43 (3), 331–348.
Baxter, R., 2012. How can business buyers attract sellers’ resources? Ind. Market. Manag.
41 (8), 1249–1258.
Baxter, R., Kleinaltenkamp, M., 2015. How relationship conditions affect suppliers’
resource inputs. Austr. Mark. J. 23 (2), 117–123.
Benton, W., Maloni, M., 2005. The influence of power driven buyer/seller relationships
on supply chain satisfaction. J. Oper. Manag. 23 (1), 1–22.
Blau, P.M., 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life, vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons, New
York, London, Sydney.
Boari, G., Cantaluppi, G., 2012. PLS models. In: Kenett, R., Salini, S. (Eds.), Modern
Analysis of Customer Surveys: with Applications Using R. Statistics in Practice.
Wiley, Chichester, pp. 309–329.
Börekçi, Y.D., Işeri Say, A., Kabasakal, H., Rofcanin, Y., 2014. Quality of relationships
with alternative suppliers: the role of supplier resilience and perceived benefits in
supply networks. J. Manag. Organ. 20 (6), 808–831.
Brokaw, A.J., Davisson, C.N., 1978. “Positioning” a company as a preferred customer.
J. Purch. Mater. Manag. 14 (1), 9–11.
Brown, S.P., Lam, S.K., 2008. A meta-analysis of relationships linking employee
satisfaction to customer responses. J. Retailing 84 (3), 243–255.
Bunduchi, R., 2005. Business relationships in internet-based electronic markets: the role
of goodwill trust and transaction costs. Inf. Syst. J. 15 (4), 321–341.
Burkert, M., Ivens, B.S., Shan, J., 2012. Governance mechanisms in domestic and
international buyer–supplier relationships: an empirical study. Ind. Market. Manag.
41 (3), 544–556.
Caniëls, M.C.J., Gehrsitz, M.H., Semeijn, J., 2013. Participation of suppliers in greening
supply chains: an empirical analysis of German automotive suppliers. J. Purch.
Supply Manag. 19 (3), 134–143.
Caniëls, M.C.J., Vos, F.G.S., Schiele, H., Pulles, N.J., 2018. The effects of balanced and
asymmetric dependence on supplier satisfaction: identifying positive effects of
dependency. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 24 (4), 343–351.
Cannon, J.P., Perreault, W.D., 1999. Buyer-seller relationships in business markets.
J. Market. Res. 36 (4), 439–4600.
Cheng, T.C.E., Yip, F.K., Yeung, A.C.L., 2012. Supply risk management via guanxi in the
Chinese business context: the buyer’s perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 139 (1), 3–13.
Chiles, T.H., McMackin, J.F., 1996. Integrating variable risk preferences, trust, and
transaction cost economics. Acad. Manag. Rev. 21 (1), 73–99.
Christiansen, P.E., Maltz, A., 2002. Becoming an “interesting” customer: procurement
strategies for buyers without leverage. Int. J. of Logistics Res. Appl. 5 (2), 177–195.
Churchill, G.A., 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. J. Market. Res. 16 (1), 64–73.
Churchill, G.A., Surprenant, C., 1982. An investigation into the determinants of customer
satisfaction. J. Market. Res. 19 (4), 491–504.
Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, second ed. Taylor
and Francis, Hoboken.
Corsten, D., Gruen, T., Peyinghaus, M., 2011. The effects of supplier-to-buyer
identification on operational performance-An empirical investigation of inter-
organizational identification in automotive relationships. J. Oper. Manag. 29 (6),
549–560.
Corswant, F. von, Fredriksson, P., 2002. Sourcing trends in the car industry. Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manag. 22 (7), 741–758.
Coughlan, A.T., Anderson, E., Stern, L.W., Ansary, A.I.e., 2006. Marketing Channels, vol.
7. Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Cousins, P.D., Lawson, B., 2007. The effect of socialization mechanisms and performance
measurement on supplier integration in new product development. Br. J. Manag. 18
(3), 311–326.
Cropanzano, R., Mitchell, M.S., 2016. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary
review. J. Manag. 31 (6), 874–900.
Cyert, R.M., March, J.G., 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Dekker, H.C., 2004. Control of inter-organizational relationships: evidence on
appropriation concerns and coordination requirements. Account. Org. Soc. 29 (1),
27–49.
DeWulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G., Iacobucci, D., 2001. Investments in consumer
relationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration. J. Market. 65 (4),
33–50.
Diamantopoulos, A., Winklhofer, H., 2001. Index construction with formative indicators:
an alternative to scale development. J. Market. Res. 38 (2), 269–277.
Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., Roth, K.P., 2008. Advancing formative measurement
models. J. Bus. Res. 61 (12), 1203–1218.
Dyer, J.H., Chu, W., 2003. The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and
improving performance: empirical evidence from the united alls, Japan, and Korea.
Organ. Sci. 14 (1), 57–68.
Dyer, J.H., Singh, H., 1998. The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of
interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23 (4), 660–679.
Ellis, S.C., Henke, J.W., Kull, T.J., 2012. The effect of buyer behaviors on preferred
customer status and access to supplier technological innovation: an empirical study
of supplier perceptions. Ind. Market. Manag. 41 (8), 1259–1269.
Emerson, R.M., 1976. Social exchange theory. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2 (1), 335–362.
Eringa, K., Groenveld, R., 2016. Achieving preferred customer status in the Dutch plastics
recycling industry. Res. Hospitality Manag. 6 (2), 177–188.
Ernst, R., Cohen, M.A., 1992. Customer prioritization strategies for distribution
management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 12 (3), 25–37.
Essig, M., Amann, M., 2009. Supplier satisfaction: conceptual basics and explorative
findings. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 15 (2), 103–113.
15
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 27 (2021) 100672
Evermann, J., Tate, M., 2016. Assessing the predictive performance of structural
equation model estimators. J. Bus. Res. 69 (10), 4565–4582.
Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C., Strahan, E.J., 1999. Evaluating the use
of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol. Methods 4 (3),
272–299.
Ferro, C., Padin, C., Svensson, G., Payan, J., 2016. Trust and commitment as mediators
between economic and non-economic satisfaction in manufacturer-supplier
relationships. J. Bus. Ind. Market. 31 (1), 13–23.
Fiala, P., 2005. Information sharing in supply chains. Omega 33 (5), 419–423.
Field, A., 2018. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, fifth ed. Sage, Los
Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne.
Fiol, C., Tena, M., García, S.J., 2011. Multi-dimensional perspective of perceived value in
industrial clusters. J. Bus. Ind. Market. 26 (2), 132–145.
Fisher, G., Aguinis, H., 2017. Using theory elaboration to make theoretical
advancements. Organ. Res. Methods 20 (3), 438–464.
Forker, L., Hershauer, J.C., 2000. Some determinants of satisfaction and quality
performance in the electronic components industry. Prod. Inventory Manag. J. 41
(2), 14–20.
Forker, L.B., Stannack, P., 2000. Cooperation versus competition: do buyers and
suppliers really see eye-to-eye? Eur. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 6 (1), 31–40.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18 (1), 39.
Gao, H., Ballantyne, D., Knight, J.G., 2010. Paradoxes and guanxi dilemmas in emerging
Chinese–Western intercultural relationships. Ind. Market. Manag. 39 (2), 264–272.
Garbarino, E., Johnson, M.S., 1999. The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and
commitment in customer relationships. J. Market. 63 (2), 70.
Garnefeld, I., Steinhoff, L., 2013. Primacy versus recency effects in extended service
encounters. J. Serv. Manag. 24 (1), 64–81.
Gassenheimer, J.B., Ramsey, R., 1994. The impact of dependence on dealer satisfaction: a
comparison of reseller-supplier relationships. J. Retailing 70 (3), 253–266.
Gerbing, D.W., Anderson, J.C., 1988. An updated paradigm for scale development
incorporating uni-dimensionality and its assessment. J. Market. Res. 25 (2),
186–192.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B., 2000a. Economic and social satisfaction: measurement
and relevance to marketing channel relationships. J. Retailing 76 (1), 11–32.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., 2000b. Economic and social satisfaction:
measurement and relevance to marketing channel relationships. J. Retailing 76 (1),
11–32.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B., Kumar, N., 1999. A meta-analysis of satisfaction in
marketing channel relationships. J. Market. Res. 36 (2), 223–238.
Ghijsen, P.W.T., Semeijn, J., Ernstson, S., 2010. Supplier satisfaction and commitment:
the role of influence strategies and supplier development. J. Purch. Supply Manag.
16 (1), 17–26.
Glas, A.H., 2017. Preferential treatment from the defense industry for the military. J. Def.
Analytics & Log. 1 (2), 96–119.
Gorton, M., Angell, R., Dries, L., Urutyan, V., Jackson, E., White, J., 2015. Power, buyer
trustworthiness and supplier performance: evidence from the Armenian dairy sector.
Ind. Market. Manag. 50, 69–77.
Gouldner, A.W., 1960. The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am. Socio. Rev.
25 (2), 161.
Ha, H.-Y., Muthaly, S., 2008. Alternative retailer-partner relationships: the role of
satisfaction. Int. J. Bus. Excel. 1 (1/2), 32–54.
Ha, H.-Y., Lee, M.-S., Janda, S., 2016. Effects of economic and social satisfaction on
partner trust. Eur. J. Market. 50 (1/2), 100–123.
Hagendoorn, L., 1995. Intergroup biases in multiple group systems: the perception of
ethnic hierarchies. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 6 (1), 199–228.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2011. PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Market.
Theor. Pract. 19 (2), 139–152.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Mena, J.A., 2012. An assessment of the use of
partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J. Acad.
Market. Sci. 40 (3), 414–433.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2017. A Primer on Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), second ed. ed. Sage, Los Angeles,
London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne.
Hald, K.S., 2012. The role of boundary spanners in the formation of customer
attractiveness. Ind. Market. Manag. 41 (8), 1228–1240.
Han, H., Ryu, K., 2012. The theory of repurchase decision-making (TRD): identifying the
critical factors in the post-purchase decision-making process. Int. J. Hospit. Manag.
31 (3), 786–797.
Handfield, R.B., Cousins, P.D., Lawson, B., Petersen, K.J., 2014. How can supply
management really improve performance? A knowledge-based model of alignment
capabilities. J Supply Chain Manag n/a.
Heneman, H.G., Schwab, D.P., 1985. Pay satisfaction: its multi-dimensional nature and
measurement. Int. J. Psychol. 20 (1), 129–141.
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T.K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D.W.,
Ketchen, D.J., Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Calantone, R.J., 2014. Common beliefs and
reality about PLS. Organ. Res. Methods 17 (2), 182–209.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 43 (1),
115–135.
Homans, G.C., 1950. The Human Group. Harcourt Brace & World, Oxford.
Homans, G.C., 1958. Social behavior as exchange. Am. J. Sociol. 63 (6), 597–606.
Homburg, C., Rudolph, B., 2001. Customer satisfaction in industrial markets:
dimensional and multiple role issues. J. Bus. Res. 52 (1), 15–33.
Homburg, C., Koschate, N., Hoyer, W.D., 2006. The role of cognition and affect in the
formation of customer satisfaction: a dynamic perspective. J. Market. 70 (3), 21–31.
S. Piechota et al.
Homburg, C., Droll, M., Totzek, D., 2008. Customer prioritization: does it pay off, and
how should it Be implemented? J. Market. 72 (5), 110–130.
Huettinger, L., Schiele, H., Veldman, J., 2012. The drivers of customer attractiveness,
supplier satisfaction and preferred customer status: a literature review. Ind. Market.
Manag. 41 (8), 1194–1205.
Huettinger, L., Schiele, H., Schröer, D., 2014. Exploring the antecedents of preferential
customer treatment by suppliers: a mixed methods approach. Supply Chain Manag.
19 (5/6), 697–721.
Hult, G.T.M., Hair, J.F., Proksch, D., Sarstedt, M., Pinkwart, A., Ringle, C.M., 2018.
Addressing endogeneity in international marketing applications of partial least
squares structural equation modeling. J. Int. Market. 26 (3), 1–21.
Hwang, H., Jung, T., Suh, E., 2004. An LTV model and customer segmentation based on
customer value: a case study on the wireless telecommunication industry. Expert
Syst. Appl. 26 (2), 181–188.
Johnson, M.S., Sivadas, E., Garbarino, E., 2008. Customer satisfaction, perceived risk and
affective commitment: an investigation of directions of influence. J. Serv. Market. 22
(5), 353–362.
Johnson, P.F., Leenders, M.R., Flynn, A.E., 2011. Purchasing and supply management. In:
The McGraw-Hill/Irwin Series Operations and Decision Sciences, fourteenth ed. ed.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York.
Jong, B.A. de, Bijlsma-Frankema, K.M., Cardinal, L.B., 2014. Stronger than the sum of its
parts? The performance implications of peer control combinations in teams. Organ.
Sci. 25 (6), 1703–1721.
Kano, K.H., Hinterhuber, H.H., Bailon, F., Sauerwein, E., et al., 1984. How todelight your
customers. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 5 (2), 6–17.
Kelley, H.H., Thibaut, J.W., 1978. Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence.
Wiley, New York.
Kenett, R., Salini, S. (Eds.), 2012. Modern Analysis of Customer Surveys: with
Applications Using R. Statistics in Practice. Wiley, Chichester.
Kim, S.-Y., Jung, T.-S., Suh, E.-H., Hwang, H.-S., 2006. Customer segmentation and
strategy development based on customer lifetime value: a case study. Expert Syst.
Appl. 31 (1), 101–107.
Koufteros, X., Vickery, S.K., Dröge, C., 2012. The effects of strategic supplier selection on
buyer competitive performance in matched domains: does supplier integration
mediate the relationships? J. Supply Chain Manag. 48 (2), 93–115.
Kumar, N., Stern, L.W., Achrol, R.S., 1992. Reseller performance from the perspective of
the supplier. J. Market. Res. 29 (2), 238–253.
Kumar, V., Ramani, G., Bohling, T., 2004. Customer lifetime value approaches and best
practice applications. J. Int. Market. 18 (3), 60–72.
Kuzel, A.J., 1997. Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In: Crabtree, B.F. (Ed.), Doing
Qualitative Research. Research Methods for Primary Care, 3. Sage Publ, Newbury
Park, Calif, pp. 31–44.
Lacey, R., Suh, J., Morgan, R.M., 2007. Differential effects of preferential treatment
levels on relational outcomes. J. Serv. Res. 9 (3), 241–256.
Lambe, C.J., Wittmann, C.M., Spekman, R.E., 2001. Social exchange theory and research
on business-to-business relational exchange. J. Bus.-to-Bus. Mark. 8 (3), 1–36.
LaTour, S., Peat, N., 1980. The role of situationally-produced expectations, others’
experiences, and prior experience in determining consumer satisfaction. Adv.
Consum. Res. (7), 588–592.
Law, K.S., Wong, C.-S., 1999. Multi-dimensional constructs M structural equation
Analysis: an illustration using the job perception and job satisfaction constructs.
J. Manag. 25 (2), 143–160.
Lawrence, J.J., 2004. The case for measuring supplier satisfaction. Acad. Inf. Manag. Sci.
J. 7 (2), 115–125.
Leonidou, L.C., Talias, M.A., Leonidou, C.N., 2008. Exercised power as a driver of trust
and commitment in cross-border industrial buyer–seller relationships. Ind. Market.
Manag. 37 (1), 92–103.
Leung, T.K.P., Lai, K.-h., Chan, R.Y.K., Wong, Y.H., 2005. The roles of xinyong and
guanxi in Chinese relationship marketing. Eur. J. Market. 39 (5/6), 528–559.
Lin, C.-H., Sher, P.J., Shih, H.-Y., 2005. Past progress and future directions in
conceptualizing customer perceived value. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 16 (4), 318–336.
Maunu, S., 2003. Supplier satisfaction: the concept and a measurement system ; a study
to define the supplier satisfaction elements and usage as a management tool. In: Acta
Universitatis Ouluensis. Series C. Technica, 190. Oulun yliopisto, Oulu.
Mavondo, F.T., Rodrigo, E.M., 2001. The effect of relationship dimensions on
interpersonal and interorganizational commitment in organizations conducting
business between Australia and China. J. Bus. Res. 52 (2), 111–121.
Meena, P.L., Sarmah, S.P., 2012. Development of a supplier satisfaction index model.
Ind. Manag. Data Systems112 (8), 1236–1254.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 2008. In: Qualitative Data Analysis: an Expanded
Sourcebook, 2. Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif [reprint.].
Mohanty, M., 2011. Small Scale Supplier Satisfaction: an Explorative Finding from Indian
Manufacturing Industry, vol. 3. Isles Internationale Université Press and Research
Centre A.C, Brussels. School of Doctoral Studies European Union.
Morgan, R.M., Hunt, S.D., 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
J. Market. 58 (3), 20–38.
Nollet, J., Rebolledo, C., Popel, V., 2012. Becoming a preferred customer one step at a
time. Ind. Market. Manag. 41 (8), 1186–1193.
Nyaga, G.N., Whipple, J.M., Lynch, D.F., 2010. Examining supply chain relationships: do
buyer and supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ? J. Oper.
Manag. 28 (2), 101–114.
Oliver, R.L., 1980. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions. J. Market. Res. 17 (4), 460.
Oliver, R.L., 2010. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. In:
Sharpe, M.E. (Ed.), second ed. ed. Armonk, N.Y.
16
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 27 (2021) 100672
Olsen, S.O., 2002. Comparative evaluation and the relationship between quality,
satisfaction, and repurchase loyalty. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 30 (3), 240–249.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1994. Reassessment of expectations as a
comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for further research.
J. Market. 58 (1), 111–124.
Patton, M.Q., 2015. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and
Practice, fourth ed. ed. Sage, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore,
Washington DC.
Pil, Y.J., Pysarchik, D.T., Kim, Y.K., 2012. Korean retailers’ dependence lεvel: the impact
of power sources, satisfaction, conflict, and long-term orientation. J. Glob. Acad.
Mark. Sci. 18 (1), 81–114.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, N.P., 2012. Sources of method bias in social
science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63,
539–569.
Prakash, G., 2011. Service quality in supply chain: empirical evidence from Indian
automotive industry. Supply Chain Manag. 16 (5), 362–378.
Praxmarer-Carus, S., Sucky, E., Durst, S.M., 2013. The relationship between the
perceived shares of costs and earnings in supplier development programs and
supplier satisfaction. Ind. Market. Manag. 42 (2), 202–210.
Pulles, N., Veldman, J., Schiele, H., Sierksma, H., 2014. Pressure or pamper? The effects
of power and trust dimensions on supplier resource allocation. J Supply Chain
Manag, n/a.
Pulles, N.J., Schiele, H., Veldman, J., Huettinger, L., 2016a. The impact of customer
attractiveness and supplier satisfaction on becoming a preferred customer. Ind.
Market. Manag. 54, 129–140.
Pulles, N.J., Veldman, J., Schiele, H., 2016b. Winning the competition for supplier
resources. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 36 (11), 1458–1481.
Ramsay, J., Wagner, B.A., 2009. Organisational Supplying Behaviour: understanding
supplier needs, wants and preferences. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 15 (2), 127–138.
Ramsay, J., Wagner, B., Kelly, S., 2013. Purchase offering quality: the effects of buyer
behaviour on organizational supplying behaviour. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 33
(10), 1260–1282.
Reinartz, W., Krafft, M., Hoyer, W.D., 2004. The customer relationship management
process: its measurement and impact on performance. J. Market. Res. 41 (3),
293–305.
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., Henseler, J., 2009. An empirical comparison of the efficacy of
covariance-based and variance-based SEM. Int. J. Res. Market. 26 (4), 332–344.
Ringle, C.M., Sinkovics, R.R., Henseler, J., 2009. The use of partial least squares path
modeling in international marketing. In: New Challenges to International Marketing.
Advances in International Marketing, vol. 20. Emerald Group Publishing Limited,
pp. 277–319.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J.-M., 2015. SmartPLS 3.
Rodríguez del Bosque, I.R., Agudo, J.C., San Martín Gutiérrez, H., 2006. Determinants of
economic and social satisfaction in manufacturer–distributor relationships. Ind.
Market. Manag. 35 (6), 666–675.
Roldán, J.L., Sánchez-Franco, M.J., 2012. Variance-based structural equation modeling.
In: Mora, M. (Ed.), Research Methodologies, Innovations, and Philosophies in
Software Systems Engineering and Information Systems. IGI Global, Hershey, Pa,
pp. 193–221.
Ruekert, R.W., Churchill, G.A., 1984. Reliability and validity of alternative measures of
channel member satisfaction. J. Market. Res. 21 (2), 226–233.
Schiele, H., 2015. Accessing supplier innovation by being their preferred customer. Res.-
Tech. Mgnt 55 (1), 44–50.
Schiele, H., Vos, F.G.S., 2015. Dependency on suppliers as a peril in the acquisition of
innovations?: the role of buyer attractiveness in mitigating potential negative
dependency effects in buyer–supplier relations. Austr. Mark. J. 23 (2), 139–147.
Schiele, H., Veldman, J., Huettinger, L., 2011. Supplier innovativeness and supplier
pricing: the role of preferred customer status. Int. J. Innovat. Manag. 15 (1), 1–27.
Schiele, H., Calvi, R., Gibbert, M., 2012a. Customer attractiveness, supplier satisfaction
and preferred customer status: introduction, definitions and an overarching
framework. Ind. Market. Manag. 41 (8), 1178–1185.
Schiele, H., Veldman, J., Huettinger, L., Pulles, N., 2012b. Towards a social exchange
theory perspective on preferred customership — concept and practice. In:
Bogaschewsky, R., Eßig, M., Lasch, R., Stölzle, W. (Eds.), Supply Management
Research. Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp. 133–151.
Schiele, H., Ellis, S.C., Eßig, M., Henke, J.W., Kull, T.J., 2015. Managing supplier
satisfaction: social capital and resource dependence frameworks. Austr. Mark. J. 23
(2), 132–138.
Scott, J.E., 2000. Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology.
J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 17 (2), 81–113.
Seuring, S., Gold, S., 2012. Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in
supply chain management. Supply Chain Manag. 17 (5), 544–555.
Sharma, S., Niedrich, R.W., Dobbins, G., 1999. A framework for monitoring customer
satisfaction. Ind. Market. Manag. 28 (3), 231–243.
Simatupang, T.M., Wright, A.C., Sridharan, R., 2002. The knowledge of coordination for
supply chain integration. Bus. Process Manag. J. 8 (3), 289–308.
Simon, H.A., 1957. Models of Man; Social and Rational. Wiley, Oxford.
Soetanto, R., Proverbs, D.G., 2002. Modelling the satisfaction of contractors: the impact
of client performance. Eng. Construct. Architect. Manag. 9 (5–6), 453–465.
Spence, M., 1976. Informational aspects of market structure: an introduction. Q. J. Econ.
90 (4), 591.
Steinle, C., Schiele, H., 2008. Limits to global sourcing? J. Purch. Supply Manag. 14 (1),
3–14.
S. Piechota et al.
Thibaut, J.W., Kelley, H.H., 1959. The Social Psychology of Groups. John Wiley & Sons,
New York, London.
Ting, S.-C., 2011. The role of justice in determining relationship quality. J. Relatsh. Mark.
10 (2), 57–75.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J.
Manag. 14 (3), 207–222.
Tsanos, C.S., Zografos, K.G., 2016. The effects of behavioural supply chain relationship
antecedents on integration and performance. Supply Chain Manag. 21 (6), 678–693.
Tse, Y.K., Zhang, M., Tan, K.H., Pawar, K., Fernandes, K., 2019. Managing quality risk in
supply chain to drive firm’s performance: the roles of control mechanisms. J. Bus.
Res. 97, 291–303.
Venkatesan, R., Kumar, V., 2004. A customer lifetime value framework for customer
selection and resource allocation strategy. J. Market. 68 (4), 106–125.
Vilares, M.J., Almeida, M.H., Coelho, P.S., 2010. Comparison of likelihood and PLS
estimators for structural equation modeling: a simulation with customer satisfaction
data. In: Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J., Wang, H. (Eds.), Handbook of
Partial Least Squares. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 289–305.
Vos, F.G.S., Schiele, H., Huettinger, L., 2016. Supplier satisfaction: explanation and out-
of-sample prediction. J. Bus. Res. 69 (10), 4613–4623.
Walter, A., Müller, T.A., Helfert, G., Ritter, T., 2003. Functions of industrial supplier
relationships and their impact on relationship quality. Ind. Market. Manag. 32 (2),
159–169.
Wangenheim, F., 2003. Situational characteristics as moderators of the satisfaction-
loyalty link: an investigation in a business-to-business context. J. Cons. Satis.,
Dissatis. Compl. Beh. 16, 145–156.
Wetzel, H., Hammerschmidt, M., Zablah, A.R., 2014. Gratitude versus Entitlement: a
Dual Process Model of the Profitability Gratitude versus entitlement a dual process
model of the profitability implications of customer prioritization. J. Market. 78 (2),
1–19.
Whipple, J.M., Frankel, R., Daugherty, P.J., 2002. Information support for alliances:
performance implications. J. Bus. Logist. 23 (2), 67–82.
Wilson, D.T., Mummalaneni, V., 1986. Bonding and commitment in buyer-seller
relationships: a preliminary conceptualisation. Ind. Market. Purch 1 (3), 44–58.
Wilson, D.T., Vlosky, R.P., 1998. Interorganizational information system technology and
buyer-seller relationships. J. Bus. Ind. Market. 13 (3), 215–234.
Wong, A., 2000. Integrating supplier satisfaction with customer satisfaction. Total Qual.
Manag. 11 (4–6), 427–432.
Wong, A., 2002. Sustaining company performance through partnering with suppliers.
Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 19 (5), 567–580.
17
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 27 (2021) 100672
Woodruff, R.B., Cadotte, E.R., Jenkins, R.L., 1983. Modeling consumer satisfaction
processes using experience-based norms. J. Market. Res. 20 (3), 296.
Wynstra, F., Suurmond, R., Nullmeier, F., 2019. Purchasing and supply management as a
mul-tidisciplinary research field: unity in diversity? J. Purch. Supply Manag. 25 (5),
100578.
Xiong, B., Skitmore, M., Xia, B., Masrom, M.A., Ye, K., Bridge, A., 2014. Examining the
influence of participant performance factors on contractor satisfaction: a structural
equation model. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (3), 482–491.
Yen, Y.-X., Shih-Tse Wang, E., Horng, D.-J., 2011. Suppliers’ willingness of
customization, effective communication, and trust: a study of switching cost
antecedents. J. Bus. Ind. Market. 26 (4), 250–259.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., 1993. The nature and determinants of
customer expectations of service. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 21 (1), 1–12.
Zhao, L., Lu, Y., Zhang, L., Chau, P.Y.K., 2012. Assessing the effects of service quality and
justice on customer satisfaction and the continuance intention of mobile value-added
services: an empirical test of a multi-dimensional model. Decis. Support Syst. 52 (3),
645–656.
Steffen Piechota holds an MSc Degree in Business Administration and is working for an
international automobile manufacturer for more than eight years. He has managed
numerous projects in the field of supplier relationship management, supply management
and logistics. Besides his job as Head of Parts Distribution North East Europe, he is an
external PHD student at the Chair for Materials Management and Distribution at the
Bundeswehr University Munich. His research is related to supplier satisfaction as part of a
holistic supplier relationship management approach.
Andreas H. Glas is an Assistant Professor at the Competence Network Performance Based
Logistics at Bundeswehr University Munich. His research investigates the buyer-supplier
cooperation and is in particular focusing on performance-based contracts and service-
based innovation. He co-edited the book Performance-Based Logistics and is working on
several research topics linked to projects in the automotive, manufacturing and aerospace
industries.
Michael Essig holds the Chair for Materials Management and Distribution at the Bundes­
wehr University Munich and is the Co-Director of the Research Center for Law and Man­
agement of Public Procurement as well as the Competence Network Performance Based
Logistics. From 2009 to 2012, he acted additionally as the Vice President for Research at
Bundeswehr University. His main research interests are strategic supply management,
supply networks, supply chain management and public procurement.