Andreas 2018

90 Int. J. Integrated Supply Management, Vol. 12, Nos.
1/2, 2018
The impact of procurement on supplier satisfaction:

service, communication, and speed
Andreas H. Glas
Procurement and Supply Management Department,
Bundeswehr University Munich,
W. Heisenberg-Weg 39,
85577 Neubiberg/Munich, Germany
Email: Andreas.Glas@UniBw.de
Abstract: A supplier performs best if the perception of the supply situation

satisfies the supplier’s expectations with regard to buyer behaviour. Recent
publications address that issue with the conclusion that even buyers benefit
from satisfied suppliers, getting preferential treatment and access to limited
supplier resources. This contribution focuses on the procurement function of
the buyer and its impact on supplier satisfaction. Structural equation modelling
is used to investigate the effect of three antecedent factors: 1) the service
quality; 2) the communication quality; 3) the time management quality of a
buyer’s procurement function. The findings show significant effects of all the
constructs, and communication quality is the most relevant. The results extend
the breadth of constructs explaining supplier satisfaction and highlight the role
of procurement and supply management as the points of interaction with the
supplier.
Keywords: supplier satisfaction; structural equation model; procurement;

quality; service; communication; time management.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Glas, A.H. (2018) ‘The
impact of procurement on supplier satisfaction: service, communication, and
speed’, Int. J. Integrated Supply Management, Vol. 12, Nos. 1/2, pp.90–117.
Biographical notes: Andreas H. Glas is an Assistant Professor at the

Bundeswehr University Munich, where he also obtained his PhD. 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 has published in various journals
including International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal and
Industrial Marketing Management. Currently, he is working on several
research topics linked to projects in the automotive, manufacturing and
aerospace industries.
1 Introduction
Relationships with suppliers can contribute in several ways to the competitive advantage
of a buying company; one such aspect relates to the goal of receiving better supplier
performance (Tchokogué et al., 2017). Firms that are capable of ensuring better supplier
Copyright © 2018 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

The impact of procurement on supplier satisfaction 91
performance, or in other words, firms that have better access to supplier resources than
other buying companies, will have an advantage (Pulles et al., 2016; Hunt and Davis,
2008).
Previous research already addressed this phenomenon and found that a supplier is
willing to give preferential treatment if there is a high level of supplier satisfaction, trust
and commitment with the buying company (Hüttinger, 2014). This rationale initiates a
discussion regarding how the buying company can influence supplier satisfaction in order
to achieve and exploit supplier resources in a preferential way. More specifically, and
from an organisational point of view, the procurement function is the connecting link
with a buying company’s upstream suppliers (Leenders et al., 1994). In that sense, the
procurement function might influence the supplier in order to safeguard better supplier
performance. However, research did not focus on the role of procurement in the context
of supplier satisfaction so far. Therefore, this research takes the perspective of the
procurement function and examines its influence on supplier satisfaction.
Recent academic publications explore how the constructs ‘customer attractiveness’
and ‘supplier satisfaction’ contribute to preferred customer status (Pulles et al., 2016).
Other studies focus on buyer-supplier alignment, supplier trust or supplier commitment
and their relation to supplier satisfaction (Wong et al., 2012; Ghijsen et al., 2010), while
yet others explore the antecedents of supplier satisfaction. A range of antecedent factors
is analysed with factors such as buyers’ growth potential, operative excellence, or
relational behaviour (Vos et al., 2016). Even factors such as payment policy or corporate
image have been examined with respect to their effect on supplier satisfaction (Meena et
al., 2012). Procurement quality has not been regarded as a key driver of supplier
satisfaction.
So there are a couple of research gaps in this field of interest, which are expressed in
the literature recently and which will be addressed by this research: Pulles et al. (2016)
claimed for doing research on a broader empirical basis, as most studies are located in the
automotive sector. From a content perspective, Andersen et al. (2016) called for research
on different paths which influence the strategic status of suppliers. More specifically,
Weigelt (2013) called for more research on the interaction between buyer and suppliers.
This paper addresses these gaps and focuses on the antecedents of satisfaction from a
procurement point of view, e.g., communication, time management, and service of the
buying company, as these interaction constructs are not or only rarely found to be
connected to the supplier satisfaction construct so far.
The phenomenon is illustrated with an example from the aerospace industry. In one
case, a European producer of airplanes switched priorities from a transport airplane
project to a passenger airplane project. Approximately 1,000 employees, most of them
specialised engineers, were moved to solve the problems in the passenger airplane project
first. The supplier perceived it was better to have trouble with the transport buyer than
with big civilian airliners (Kurbjuweit et al., 2015). Briefly, the supplier acts
opportunistic and gives preferential treatment to the buyer who is perceived most
beneficial/less problematic. This exemplifies how preferential treatment in practice could
look alike. Overall, it should be of great interest for industrial buyers to understand how
their procurement function can influence supplier perceptions and behaviour.
If we follow the reasoning that preferential treatment by a supplier can be achieved if
supplier satisfaction is high, then the guiding research question of this paper is how the
procurement function influences supplier satisfaction.
92 A.H. Glas
In more detail, this work addresses the causes and effects among the constructs of
service quality, communication quality, and time management quality of the procurement
function and the satisfaction of the suppliers. Thus, it aims to explore and further identify
the antecedents of supplier satisfaction. It also helps to identify the size of the effects of
the diverse aspects of procurement work. The analysis comprises further effects of
supplier satisfaction on supplier commitment and supplier trust as well as several control
tests. Methodologically, the research question is operationalised through hypotheses and
analysed by applying structural equation modelling (SEM) and applies new, prediction
oriented analysis techniques (PLS predict).
For this purpose, this study analyses data from a specific buyer-supplier relationship.
The specialty of the data refers to the fact that all respondent suppliers provided their
perception of supplier satisfaction with regard to one specific buying organisation.
Therefore, the suppliers are from several sectors but have business relations with one
homogenous procurement buyer. On the one hand side, this widens the empirical scope
for which Vos et al. (2016) and Pulles et al. (2016) called for. On the other hand, this
really allows for the analysis of the influence of procurement antecedents on supplier
satisfaction, as the procurement processes, procedures, and communication style from the
sole procurement organisation are stable and equal during the survey. Effects are
measured based on the expectations and perceptions of the suppliers.
This research contributes to the literature in several ways. First, the relevance and
effect sizes of three antecedents of supplier satisfaction are evaluated in the specific and
focused setting of multiple suppliers and one homogenous buyer, what allows for more
fine-grained managerial and theoretical implications. Second, by showing the influencing
effects of service, communication, and time management, this research strengthens the
importance of the mode of interaction in contrast to other sources of supplier satisfaction.
For this purpose, it is necessary to first review, in Section two, the theoretical
background of the supplier satisfaction literature. Next, in Section three, five hypotheses
are developed based on the literature. This is followed by the methodology section, which
provides insights into the sample and the measurement of the variables. The fifth section
provides information about the measurement of the variables, while Section six presents
the survey findings. These are discussed afterwards in Section seven. Suggestions for
future research based on the research limitations as well as theoretical and managerial
implications are proposed in the concluding Section eight.
2 Theoretical and conceptual background
This section provides the theoretical background for the construct of satisfaction in
buyer-supplier relationships. First, supplier satisfaction is explained using insights from
expectation confirmation theory and social exchange theory (Section 2.1). Then, the most
current research on supplier satisfaction in the literature is presented, and the previously
analysed causes and effects of supplier relationships regarding trust, commitment and
preferential customer treatment are reviewed (Section 2.2).
2.1 Satisfaction in supply relationships

Satisfaction is a latent construct, which has been already analysed in the marketing
context, where customer satisfaction is the core focus. There, marketing scholars have
shown that satisfaction is positively affected by expectations (Oliver, 1980). Generally,

satisfaction as a construct can be defined as a positive affective state resulting from the
Author: Please provide full reference or delete from the text if not required.appraisal of
all aspects of a firm’s working relationship with another firm (Anderson and Narus,
1990). Here, it is used in reference to the supplier’s working relationship with a specific
buyer. Expectations regarding that relationship are formed to forecast a supplier’s ability
to deliver quality in the future. The evaluation of supplier performance against buyers’
expectations leads to the confirmation or disconfirmation of expectations. If
disconfirmation of expectations is perceived to have occurred, then buyer satisfaction
increases or decreases (Oliver, 1980). Adapting these findings of the expectations
confirmation theory to the buyer-supplier context, suppliers have expectations about the
performance and quality of a buyer with respect to the work and communication quality
of the buyers’ business functions, such as procurement. If the buyer’s performance is
below expectations, satisfaction decreases, while over-performance leads to an increase
in supplier satisfaction.
The argument of social exchange theory is quite similar to the expectations
confirmation theory. Its focus is to explain business-to-business relational exchanges
(Lambe et al., 2001). A basic assumption of social exchange theory is that humans
choose between alternative potential courses of action by evaluating the experiences with
each alternative in terms of a preference ranking and then selecting the best alternative
[Blau, (1964), p.18]. In a consumer context, buyers are expected to purchase goods or
services that they anticipate will maximise their satisfaction. Hence, if a consumer
expects the satisfaction from a good or service to be high, then he/she is more likely to
choose that brand (Anderson and Sullivan, 1993). If expectations are too low, the good or
service will not attract buyers (Anderson et al., 1994). Adapting these findings to a
business-to-business context and to the supplier’s perspective, it could be reasoned that
suppliers deliver the best performance to buyers that they anticipate will maximise their
(long-term) satisfaction. If a supplier expects the satisfaction from a specific buyer to be
high, then the supplier is more likely to deliver better performance to that buyer.
Both theoretical approaches, the expectations confirmation and the social exchange
theory, support the high relevance of satisfaction in the business-to-business context.
These theoretical perspectives explain that satisfaction is a latent construct, which is
assessed by individuals through a comparison of the buyer-supplier situation against its
alternatives or against expectations, and which influences business behaviour.
2.2 Supplier commitment, supplier trust, and preferential customer treatment

In marketing research and most recently also in the area of supply and operations
management, there is significant scientific research interest in supplier satisfaction (Vos
et al., 2016). More specifically, there is a multitude of articles that address antecedents
and outcomes of supplier satisfaction (Luo and Homburg, 2007; Hüttinger et al., 2012). A
key premise and assumption in this context is that a supplier grants preferential customer
treatment if the suppliers’ perception of latent constructs on the buyer relationship is
positive (Kumar and Routroy, 2016). Following this reasoning, it is relevant how latent
constructs of the supplier can be influenced by the buyer in order to get preferential
customer treatment. As the procurement function is the link between the buyer and the
supplier, this research focuses on the antecedents of supplier satisfaction from a
94 A.H. Glas
procurement perspective. However, it is necessary to show that an increase in satisfaction

induced by the procurement function really has effects on the supplier. This is why this
research also analyses how satisfaction usually effects other latent constructs and finally
how satisfaction effects supplier behaviour.
Geyskens et al. (1999) found that satisfaction positively influences trust, which is also
supported by Ganesan (1994) who argues that satisfaction indicates a perception of equity
in the exchange and leads to a perception of trust. In addition, satisfaction is often viewed
as an important antecedent to commitment (Wilson and Mummalaneni, 1986; Dwyer
et al., 1987). In other words, satisfied suppliers may make an implicit or explicit pledge
to continue a business relationship (Dwyer et al., 1987, Gundlach and Murphy, 1993).
Both aspects are already empirically researched and, e.g., the link between supplier
satisfaction and trust or supplier commitment have found support in prior studies
(Geyskens et al., 1999; Ulaga and Eggert, 2006; Abdul-Muhmin, 2005). Hüttinger (2014)
found that supplier satisfaction has a strong positive impact on trust and commitment.
Overall, it is widely acknowledged that supplier satisfaction influences trust and
commitment. This is why also this study uses trust and commitment as outcome variable
of satisfaction.
Furthermore, a number of scholars have related supplier satisfaction with preferential
treatment to specific buyers. In cases where there are high levels of satisfaction, trust and
commitment, preferential treatment is given (Vos et al., 2016; Nollet et al., 2012; Pulles
et al., 2016). Hüttinger (2014) modelled a structural equation model where satisfaction
effects preferential customer treatment via the mediating variables of trust and
commitment. The research herein builds on the one hand on this previous knowledge.
Concurrently, the outcome predictions of satisfaction, e.g., effects on trust and
commitment, should be similar to previous works, as it is assumed that trust and
commitment lead to preferential customer treatment. On the other hand, this research
answers calls for more research by Andersen et al. (2016) and Weigelt (2013) to address
research gaps at the intersection between buyer and suppliers. Following their reasoning,
it is of importance to analyse hitherto hardly regarded paths, which might influence
supplier satisfaction. As the procurement function is contractually linking the buyer with
the suppliers, this research explicitly models the antecedents of supplier satisfaction from
a procurement perspective.
The initial starting point is the finding that procurement interacts with its suppliers
not only through the content of formal contracts, but also through means of relational
exchange as well as through the complex interplay of both formal and informal
governance mechanisms (Cao and Lumineau, 2015; Poppo and Zenger, 2002). However,
the interplay of formal and informal governance is complex, e.g., formal governance has
positive functionalities, such as the coordination and control of the exchange between
two parties, but can also lead to dysfunctions such as overregulation or extreme time
pressure (Howard et al., 2017). Overall, the functionality of governance mechanisms is
context-dependent (Roehrich and Lewis, 2014; Howard et al., 2017). Therefore, it is the
supplier who perceives specific buyer behaviour as functional or dysfunctional and it is
the supplier who translates this information via latent constructs (e.g., satisfaction,
commitment, trust) into own behaviour (e.g., preferential treatment). Following this
reasoning and expectations confirmation theory, the perceived degree of procurement
quality (e.g., related to service, communication, or speed) can be used as antecedents for
supplier satisfaction.
3 Hypothesis development
The perception of quality is a predictor of satisfaction (Olsen, 2002). This fundamental

cause and effect relationship follows the expectation confirmation theory, as the
respondents compare their expectations of quality with the real quality perceived. Related
to the topic of this research, quality is operationalised with three dimensions:
1 service (Human and Naudé, 2014)
2 communication (Van der Valk and Rozemeijer, 2009; Mohr and Spekman, 1994)
3 time management (Hawkins et al., 2015).
It can be expected that these quality dimensions of a procurement function influence the
satisfaction of suppliers, what is outlined in more detail in the following paragraphs.
Generally, it is expected that increased service quality has a positive impact on
satisfaction, which has already been researched in the marketing literature (e.g., Cronin
and Taylor, 1992; Fornell, 1992; Hallowell, 1996). Service quality in this research is
defined as the functional quality dimension (‘how service is performed’) of the service
quality model (Grönroos, 1984). So it is analysed how the procurement function performs
its service to the supplier. It is acknowledged that service quality is also related to service
content constructs (technical quality dimension), which influence the perception of the
service recipient, e.g., the level of service complexity (Kreye et al., 2015), but the focus is
on functional service quality. In that sense, this research follows the already empirically
tested finding, that the service quality of a provider had positive influences on the buyer
satisfaction (Human and Naudé, 2014). This research uses that cause and effect
relationship with changed perspectives, as it investigates the service quality of the buyer
(the procurement department) and the satisfaction of the supplier.
H1 Better service quality from the procurement department has a positive influence on
The next considered construct refers to the interface function of procurement in the
supplier market, as coordination and information sharing affects performance (Caldwell
et al., 2017). In that sense, procurement can be seen as the most relevant communication
channel from a buying organisation to its supplier base. Therefore, the communication
quality of the procurement department should have a relevant influence on supplier
satisfaction. Communication quality refers to all formal and informal exchanges of
information (Anderson and Narus, 1990). Monczka et al. (1998) have found that
communication is essential for the development of strong supplier relations. Particularly,
the exchange of sensitive information is necessary to coordinate the planning of future
joint tasks and schedules (Monczka et al., 1998). The quality of a communication
depends on the validity and reliability of information sharing, the communication’s
accuracy and timeliness, as well as the communication’s efficiency (Hawkins et al.,
2015). It is supposed that communication has a positive effect on buyer-supplier
performance (Paulraj et al., 2008) and that the communication quality of the procurement
function has a positive influence on supplier satisfaction (Mohr et al., 1996). This is not
surprising given the dependence of many steps in the procurement process on effective
communication (Van der Valk and Rozemeijer, 2009). In particular, Mohr and Spekman
(1994) found a positive influence of communication on satisfaction in business relations.
96 A.H. Glas
The following hypothesis focuses on the communication of the procurement department

with suppliers and the effect on suppliers’ satisfaction.
H2 Better communication quality from the procurement department has a positive
influence on supplier satisfaction.
Hawkins et al. (2015) already analysed the effect of sufficient procurement lead time in
the context of procurement service quality. While, on the one hand, the internal
customers of the buying company can attempt to accelerate the procurement process to
meet operational needs (Hawkins et al., 2015), it is also stated that successful supply
management is only possible if sufficient time is allocated to procurement processes.
Additional time is not necessarily always advantageous, but there should be at least
sufficient time to conduct procurement processes properly. This includes sufficient time
for the supplier to respond to procurement processes. Here, the construct ‘time
management quality’ is defined as the time pressure under which the supplier must act.
This is similar to the findings of Hawkins et al. (2015), but the focus is not on internal
buying processes but on the time given to the supplier. Therefore, the quality of time
management is high if the supplier perceives that there is sufficient time available to
devote to a contract, clarify requirements and deliver the required performance as
specified in the contract. It is assumed that the time management quality should have a
positive effect on supplier satisfaction.
H3 Better time management by the procurement department has a positive influence on
The presented hypotheses H1 to H3 are antecedents of supplier satisfaction. Vos et al.
(2016) have shown, in accordance with other work, e.g., Nollet et al. (2012) or Pulles
et al. (2016), a direct effect of supplier satisfaction on preferential customer treatment.
However, it is researched that other concepts, such as trust or commitment, are important
drivers of preferential customer treatment and are mediators between supplier satisfaction
and preferential treatment. Hüttinger (2014) has shown that supplier satisfaction has a
strong positive and significant impact on trust and commitment and that there is a strong
(and partially mediating) effect of both constructs on the preferential treatment of a
buyer. This is also in line with findings from Morgan and Hunt (1994) or Garbarino and
Johnson (1999), who found a positive relationship between trust and future behavioural
intentions. Overall, it is widely acknowledged that supplier satisfaction positively effects
trust and commitment. As this paper explores the antecedents of supplier satisfaction
from a procurement function perspective, it is expected that supplier satisfaction will
demonstrate these positive effects on commitment and trust. Thus, H4 and H5 control the
supplier satisfaction construct.
H4 Supplier satisfaction has a positive influence on supplier commitment.
H5 Supplier satisfaction has a positive influence on the supplier’s trust.
Figure 1 presents the overall research model corresponding to the five hypotheses.
Figure 1 Research model (without control variables and indicators)
4 Method
Data was collected with a survey questionnaire addressed to 270 German companies in
2015. Before conducting the survey, pretests were performed. In the first pretest, five
researchers from the faculty at the author’s university received the questionnaire and
responded to it while checking for comprehensibility, structure and length. After revision
an initial version of the questionnaire was tested with a small sample of practitioner
respondents in 2014. The provided data was used to check the time required to complete
the survey and the construct comprehensibility.
The final survey was conducted from October to December 2015 as an online survey
using Unipark software. After the initial e-mail invitation two reminders were sent: one
after four weeks and the second three weeks later. Another three weeks later, the survey
was closed.
The recipients of the survey were selected in a sampling procedure. The sampling
procedure followed the filter requirements of a purposeful sampling method (Patton,
1990), which aims to pick a (small) homogenous group concerned with the same
phenomenon. Because this study analyses latent perceptions of suppliers about their
relation to one specific buyer, it was important to consider informants with appropriate
knowledge about the topic within a homogenous setting. The selection of informants was
dictated by two key imperatives:
1 an individual’s familiarity and expert knowledge about the buyer
2 the individual’s ability to report accurately and comprehensively on perceived latent
constructs.
98 A.H. Glas
Given these requirements, the survey targeted respondents, who have expert insights into
the relationship of their company with the buyer. The expert status is identified through
their role as key account manager. The German industry association (Deutsche
GesellschaftfürWehrtechnike.V.) has contacts to 270 supplier companies of which all are
in business relations with one distinct (public) buying organisation. Each company is
registered with a personal contact, who is usually the responsible manager for the
business to that buyer. The role title of these persons differ, e.g., bigger suppliers in
corporate group structures even have board members, while smaller suppliers title their
key accounts as ‘sales manager’ or simply as ‘product manager’. However, all of these
persons are key account contact persons for the supplier company to the specific buyer
organisation and therefore, are able to provide information about perceived latent
constructs in that specific relationship.
The sample was selected by purpose, but with several constraints which should be
reflected considering the requirement of sample homogeneity. First, all respondents work
for supplier companies located in Germany. This enhances sample homogeneity because
at least the wider (economic, legal, and political) business environment is the same. This
ensures that business expectations about the specific buyer are homogenous for the
sample. Additionally, using this constraint improved research efficiency, as all
communication with the respondents (and the questionnaire) could be conducted in one
language (German). Second, the sample had the constraint to allow industry
heterogeneity but buyer homogeneity. In other words, the supplier industry is
heterogeneous referring to the technological specialisation. It can be argued that this is in
contrast to the requirement of sample homogeneity. However, only informants who
address the single buyer and its needs supplier market and rank it at least to a certain
extent as important for their company are included in the sample. Therefore, the sample is
highly homogenous as all respondents are experiencing the procurement organisation of
the same buyer (called BundesamtfürAusrüstung, Informationstechnik und Nutzung der
Bundeswehr).
That buying organisation is the central interface between the German military and its
suppliers. It is organised in dimensions (air, land, sea), projects, and spares with around
11,000 employees, but the workflow in that agency follows highly standardised
procurement processes (BAAINBw, 2016). The buying organisation requires a high
number of different goods or services, but this survey focuses for representativeness
reasons on industrial suppliers of market-common goods or services. Overall, the chosen
sample (key account contact persons listed in the German industry association) and focus
(German suppliers addressing the same buyer) seems to be highly suitable for the purpose
of this study.
Besides, the country and market setting of Germany stands for a situation in a
well-developed industrial economy. This suits to the aim of this study, as supplier
companies to not only rely on single buyers but also interact in a complex and dynamic
international market environment, and buyers must compete for best supplier resources.
More specifically, the supplier companies of this buying organisation specialise in several
technological fields (e.g., automotive, aerospace, telecommunication), but also share
some characteristics. The buyer-supplier relationship between the buying organisation
and its suppliers is characterised through long-term relationships, as the procurement and
usage of products or services in the military usually can last for a very long time. Thus,
the majority of questioned supplier companies should have a high level of prior
experience with the buying organisation. Also, there is a significant degree of complexity
in the buyer-supplier relationship, which is expressed by complicatedness (high number

of components interrelated with each other) and difficulty (required effort and resources
to fulfil required processes) (Kreye et al., 2015). As the military usually asks for
customisation of the products or services (from painting to technical adaptations) and the
military is acting with specific processes, software or IT-systems, both complicatedness
and difficulty in the buyer-supplier relationship is relatively high. Overall, the market and
industry setting suits to the purpose of this study to analyse if suppliers provide
preferential customer treatment and if a buying organisation might influence this.
In the course of the survey, a total of 85 respondents out of the 270 German
companies participated. Questionnaires that were invalid, due to a high number of
missing values, have been omitted from the evaluation. All questionnaires with more than
five missing values have been excluded (applying a list-wise deletion). After that step,
responses with only one or a few missing values were completed using the median
replacement method (Kline, 2011; Hair et al., 2017). Only 26 out of 2184 values were
substituted by median imputation. Then, the final sample comprised 78 questionnaires,
which allows for calculating a response rate of 28.9%.
The partial least squares (PLS) method was used to estimate the structural equation
model. As a precondition, the distribution of the measurement variables has been checked
for skewness and kurtosis (Hair et al., 2017). Four out of all measurement scales had an
absolute value greater than 2 (skewness) and greater than 7 (kurtosis). All four refer to
scales of the construct supplier commitment. Considering the content of that variable, the
questioned suppliers tend toward high commitment, which is not very surprising. Overall,
that means that that sample did not follow a normal distribution. However, opposite to
covariance-based SEM, the applied methodology of PLS SEM does not require the data
to be normally distributed (Hair et al., 2017).
Furthermore, the sample was tested for bias referring to early or late responses
(Armstrong and Overton, 1977). The goal was to test whether the initial assumption –
namely that relational perception are not dependent on the time of response – could be
verified. Two groups were created according to the return date of the questionnaires. A
parameter-free, two-tailed Mann-Whitney U-test revealed no significant differences at the
5% level for most variables. Interestingly, there are minor differences in two items
referring to the timing and frequency of the buyer-supplier interaction (construct of time
management quality). Late respondents differed from early respondents in their responses
to the statements ‘Our contacts with this buyer are frequent enough’, ‘The milestones for
awarding this contract were quite feasible’ and ‘This buyer wanted us to award the
contract very quickly’. The interpretation is that there is no indication of a structural bias
problem for the sample because the late respondents show that they struggle with
timelines in general and this explains their more critical perception of time related items.
To estimate the SEM, this research used the software application SmartPLS 3.7
(Henseler et al., 2009). PLS is a variance-based method and offers certain advantages and
disadvantages compared with a covariance-based method. PLS has advantages when the
goal is to predict a key target construct and to identify key ‘driver’ constructs (Hair et al.,
2011). This is the case in this study, as it is the aim to identify the antecedents of supplier
satisfaction. The antecedent paths of service quality, communication and time
management quality, on supplier satisfaction are hardly researched. Therefore, the model
has an exploratory character. Furthermore, PLS is chosen as the sample size of this study
is clearly below the minimum threshold of the 250 recommended for a covariance-based
100 A.H. Glas
method (Reinartz et al., 2009). On the other hand, it is a clear advantage of structured
equation modelling with PLS that interpretable results can be achieved even from very
small sample sizes (Anderson et al., 2002). Interpretable results are possible with a
sample size as low as only 20 observations (Chin and Newsted, 1999). The 78 cases in
this dataset are more than sufficient for exploring effects.
The evaluation of the model followed the classic approach of using two main model
assessment steps (Chin, 2010). First, the reflective measurements were evaluated using
indicator reliability, which should be higher than 0.7; construct reliability, which should
be higher than 0.6; average variance extracted (AVE), which should be larger than 0.5;
and Cronbach’s α, which should be larger than 0.7. Furthermore, discriminant validity is
assessed by checking if the square root of the AVE is higher than the absolute value of
correlation shared between any of the other constructs (Götz et al., 2010).
Second, the structural model is evaluated (Chin, 2010). As a goodness-of-fit index,
the coefficient R2 is used. Additionally, f2 provides information on the relative effect of a
variable (Chin, 1998). F2 values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 indicate that an exogenous
variable has a small, medium, or large influence, respectively, on an exogenous variable
(Cohen, 1988). In addition, the Stone-Geisser criterion (Q2) was used to assess the
model’s predictive relevance (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974). A Q2 value higher than 0
indicates predictive relevance of the model.
5 Variable measurement
To measure the latent constructs, the operationalisation referred to in the previous

literature was used with minor adjustments. The questions from the German
questionnaire, retranslated into English, can be found in Appendix A. All constructs and
items were measured on a five-point scale ranging from ‘totally disagree’ to ‘totally
agree’.
To measure the service quality, this study used an operationalisation that is-based on
the works of Busacca and Padula (2005) and Matzler (2004). That operationalisation
comprises 6 items and the construct was similarly measured in the work of Human and
Naudé (2014).
The construct of communication quality is measured by five items. These are
operationalised on the basis of propositions by Morgan and Hunt (1994). This present
study follows Hawkins et al. (2015) who already adapted that scale to the buyer-supplier
context.
Also referring to the study of Hawkins et al. (2015) and their measurement of lead
time, the construct of time management quality is operationalised using five items. Two
items were altered slightly in wording and scale direction. Pre-test evaluation caused the
sharpening of the wording and the alignment of scale here. For example, the item ‘the
milestones for awarding this contract were too aggressive’ has been changed to ‘the
milestones for awarding this contract were quite feasible’.
Supplier satisfaction is the focal construct of this research. It is measured on the basis
of four items. The questions are identical to the operationalisation of Human and Naudé
(2014). Therefore, this study used high-validity measurements for its core construct. The
same for the construct of commitment, which is measured using the approach from
Hüttinger (2014) with three items. Finally, the construct of supplier trust has been
measured using three items from Human and Naudé (2014). The measurement was
identical to their work and already has been used in other works in similar forms
(Hüttinger, 2014).
Several control variables were included in the model to check if sample
characteristics influence the analysis results (Lewicki et al., 1998). The control variable
‘gender’ was measured as female (code 1) or male (code 2). The question about the
company size focused on the classification of the respondent’s firm as a small-or-medium
sized company (code 1) or not (code 2, big company). Similarly, the market relevance of
the buyers’ market segment was measured using a four-point scale from 1 (not important)
to 4 (key market). It is assumed that these control variables should not have an effect on
the perception of the constructs.
6 Findings
6.1 Descriptive survey results

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics regarding the questionnaire responses. The
sample is splital most evenly into two halves with regard to company size. According to
the EU’s definition of small- or medium-sized enterprises (SME) (< 250 employees, < 50
million EUR turnover, European Commission, 2006), 52.6% of the companies are SME,
while 47.4% are large enterprises. This also reflects the prevalence of SMEs in Germany.
The respondents of the survey work in a variety of 20 different measured technology
fields from aerospace (10.4%), communications/IT (10.0%), logistics (8.4%), electronics
(8.4%), to vehicles (7.4%) and other sectors. The distribution of technologies/sectors
represents the German industrial situation quite well. In addition, the relevance of the
specific buyer has been evaluated. For 42.3% of the companies, this is the key market,
and for another 48.7%, it is at least an important market. Only 6.4% rank this market as
less important for the company.
6.2 Measurement model assessment

After the measurement of the variables, several validity tests were performed. The values
for the assessment of the reflective measurement are shown in Table 2. Convergent
validity is used to identify the extent to which a single measure variable correlates
positively with alternative measures of the same construct. A couple of items were
deleted due to their low loadings (SQ1, TMQ5) or due to discriminant validity reasons
(TRU2). After this step, item loadings showed sufficiently high results (> 0.7). Only the
loadings of SQ2 were slightly below the critical value of 0.7; however, it was not deleted
because it displayed acceptable construct reliability and AVE values for the construct of
procurement service quality (Chin, 2010). In addition, AVE measures convergent validity
at the construct level, and values of 0.50 and higher are considered acceptable. The AVE
values ranged from 0.537 to 0.854.
Internal consistency reliability refers to a form of reliability used to determine the
consistency of results across items on the same test. PLS uses composite reliability and
the Cronbach’s alpha for its criteria. Composite reliability over 0.6 and Cronbach’s alpha
values over 0.7 are acceptable. Our composite reliability values satisfy the thresholds.
102 A.H. Glas
Table 1 Sample description
Variable n (%)
Company size
Small-/medium-size or 41 52.6
Large enterprise 37 47.4
Σ (n) 78 100.0
Gender of respondent(in line with German situation, e.g., Holst and Wiemer, 2010)
Male 73 93.6
Female 5 6.4
Σ (n) 78 100.0
Technology focus of the company (several answers per respondent possible)
Aerospace 31 10.4
Communications/IT 30 10.0
Logistics 25 8.4
Electronics 25 8.4
Vehicles 22 7.4
Subcomponent systems 18 6.0
Operating supplies 13 4.4
Personnel equipment 12 4.0
Ships 10 3.4
Other categories 11 37.6
n.a. 2 0.7
Σ (n) 199 100.0
Industry relevance for the company
Key market 33 42.3
Very important 24 30.8
Important 14 17.9
Less important 5 6.4
n.a. 2 2.6
Σ (n) 78 100.0
Next, the discriminant validity is examined, which is used to measure the extent to which
a construct is truly distinct from other constructs in two ways. As recommended by
Fornell and Larcker (1981), the square root of the AVE for each construct should be
greater than its highest correlation with any other construct. As Table 3 shows, all the
square roots of the AVE values satisfy the criteria.
In addition, discriminant validity is assessed by controlling the cross-loadings of the
measurement variables. The cross-loading should check whether each construct shares a
larger variance with its own measures than with other measures. Thus, an indicator’s
outer loadings should be higher than all its cross-loadings with other constructs.
Appendix B shows that the model meets the cross-loading requirements. Coupled with
validity assessment, the multicollinearity is assessed.
Table 2 Estimation of the reflective measurement parameters (n = 78)
Convergent validity Internal consistency

Construct Item Average variance Composite Cronbach’s
Loading extracted (AVE) reliability α
Critical values > 0.7 > 0.5 > 0.6 > 0.7
Service quality 0.537 0.852 0.791
SQ2 0.611
SQ3 0.707
SQ4 0.714
SQ5 0.857
SQ6 0.755
Communication quality 0.627 0.894 0.853
CQ1 0.775
CQ2 0.873
CQ3 0.776
CQ4 0.749
CQ5 0.782
Time management quality 0.761 0.904 0.841
TMQ1 0.907
TMQ2 0.773
TMQ3 0.928
Supplier satisfaction 0.661 0.886 0.828
SAT1 0.779
SAT2 0.892
SAT3 0.804
SAT4 0.772
Supplier commitment 0.854 0.946 0.924
COM1 0.917
COM2 0.920
COM3 0.935
Supplier trust 0.745 0.887 0.745
TRU1 0.891
TRU3 0.894
Furthermore, the analysis also assessed the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT), and
followed Henseler et al. (2015), who suggest that a threshold of 0.9 is acceptable for
constructs which are conceptually very similar (such as trust, commitment or satisfaction
of this study) and HTMT is acceptable with a threshold of 0.85 for conceptually different
constructs. The findings show that HTMT values have a maximum of 0.75 and are,
therefore, even below the conservative threshold of 0.85 (Kline, 2011). Only one HTMT
(trust on supplier satisfaction) shows a value of 0.89 what is still within the threshold for
similar constructs of 0.9 (Teo et al., 2008). The upper confidence interval of HTMT
104 A.H. Glas
bootstrapping analysis shows for trust on supplier satisfaction a value of 0.995. Overall,
also the other upper confidence intervals indicate no values above 1.0 (maximum of
confidence interval 95% of HTMT≤ 0.87).
Table 3 Discriminant validity coefficients
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Service quality 0.733
2 Communication quality 0.629 0.792
3 Time management quality 0.211 0.182 0.872
4 Supplier satisfaction 0.607 0.660 0.376 0.813
5 Supplier commitment 0.230 0.357 0.173 0.317 0.924
6 Supplier trust 0.468 0.449 0.391 0.704 0.210 0.893
Note: The data in italic indicate the square roots of the AVE.
In summary, the results show satisfactory discriminant validity at both the construct and
item levels. Overall, the evaluation of the outer models showed satisfactory results, which
allows for the further examination of the inner structural model in the second step (Chin,
2010).
6.3 Structural model assessment

Figure 2 summarises the structural model tested by PLS analysis, and Tables 4 and 5
display the findings in detail. First, the findings show that the control variables play only
a minor role. All path coefficients for these variables (company size, gender, and market
relevance) are below the critical value of 0.1 (Chin, 1998), which means that these
control variables have no effect. This check supports the relevance and effects of the
measured latent constructs.
The results, referring to H1 to H3, indicate that all three quality constructs of the
procurement function are positively associated with supplier satisfaction. Therefore, it is
possible to confirm H1, as the path has a moderate effect and is highly significant (0.279,
p = 0.004, f2 = 0.103). Additionally, H2 is confirmed, so communication has a significant
and strong positive influence on supplier satisfaction (0.442, p = 0.000, f2 = 0.262).
Finally, H3 is confirmed, so time management has a significant and moderate positive
influence on supplier satisfaction (0.237, p = 0,001, f2 = 0.119). These results show that
all three antecedents have a significant effect, and communication has the strongest
influence. Overall, the R2 for supplier satisfaction (R2 = 0.551, Q2 = 0.322) indicates that
the antecedents have good predictive accuracy (Hair et al., 2011).
The results also support H4 and H5. Supplier satisfaction is positively linked to
commitment and trust. The path coefficient from supplier satisfaction to supplier
commitment is highly significant and has a medium effect size (0.317, p = 0.000,
f2 = 0.112). Supplier satisfaction also has a very strong effect on supplier trust (0.704,
p = 0.001, f2 = 0.981). It will be discussed later in this article that this is not surprising, as
these relations have already been analysed and confirmed in several studies. The R2 for
supplier commitment (R2 = 0.100, Q2 = 0.062) shows a weak predictive relevance, while
for supplier trust (R2 = 0.495, Q2 = 0.378) it indicates a high predictive relevance.
Overall, the model indicates a moderate explanatory power.
Figure 2 Results of the research model including control variables
Table 4 Results of the coefficient of determination and predictive relevance (n = 78)
f2 in relation to
2 2
Construct R Q Supplier Supplier Supplier
satisfaction commitment trust
Service quality n.a. n.a. 0.103
Communication quality n.a. n.a. 0.262
Time management quality n.a. n.a. 0.119
Supplier satisfaction 0.551 0.322 0.112 0.981
Supplier commitment 0.100 0.062
Supplier trust 0.495 0.378
Table 5 Results of the path coefficient without control variables (n = 78)
Path Standard
Path t-value p-value
coefficient error
Service quality → supplier satisfaction 0.279 0.103 2.633 0.004
Communication → supplier satisfaction 0.442 0.106 4.288 0.000
Time management → supplier satisfaction 0.237 0.079 3.019 0.001
Supplier satisfaction → commitment 0.317 0.067 4.711 0.000
Supplier satisfaction → trust 0.704 0.050 14.035 0.000
106 A.H. Glas
The predictive performance of the model has been further validated using the method of
Shmueli et al. (2016), which is also supported by PLS predict software package. The
results of the 10-fold cross-validated point predictions show that the Q2 value of PLS
predict is positive for all variables, thus the prediction error of the PLS-SEM results is
smaller than the prediction error of simply using the mean values. In that case, the
PLS-SEM models offer better predictive performance (Evermann and Tate, 2016).
Besides, the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) shows that the model seems to have
a normal error rate which ranges from 0.08 to 0.31 with an average of 0.19 (Table 6),
e.g., Vos et al. (2016) report on MAPE for two models which range from 0.26 to 0.51
with an average of 0.35 for model 1 and from 0.08 to 0.59 with an average of 0.25 for
model 2. Overall, the procedure of PLS predict indicates predictive power of the model.
A final approach to investigate the model was to do a multi-group analysis comparing
SME with non-SME suppliers or comparing suppliers for which the specific buyer
market is either key or less important. The calculation of the multi-group analysis showed
no significant path differences with the two-sided test procedure.
Table 6 Assessing the predictive performance of the model according to PLS predict
Item RMSE MAE MAPE Q2

SAT1 0.683 0.563 0.204 0.347
SAT2 0.715 0.578 0.209 0.408
SAT3 0.728 0.546 0.197 0.298
SAT4 0.833 0.656 0.214 0.208
COM1 0.543 0.313 0.084 0.041
COM2 0.501 0.323 0.079 0.047
COM3 0.560 0.398 0.099 0.115
TRU1 0.886 0.680 0.240 0.136
TRU3 0.926 0.749 0.298 0.306
Average 0.708 0.534 0.180 0.212
7 Discussion
The guiding research question of this paper is if and to which extend the quality of the
procurement function effects supplier satisfaction in order to influence suppliers
behaviour so that preferential resources are given to the buyer. This guiding research aim
is twofold and firstly addresses the procurement effects on supplier satisfaction, while
second the satisfaction effects on trust and commitment as antecedents of a preferential
resource allocation are also within the scope of interest. The discussion is divided
according to these two aspects.
7.1 Procurement effects on supplier satisfaction

The empirical testing of the model suggests that all three constructs of procurement
quality affect supplier satisfaction, which explains 55.1% of the supplier satisfaction
variance, indicating strong predictive accuracy (Hair et al., 2017). H1 to H3 are
supported. The finding that an increase in procurement quality has an impact on supplier
satisfaction is also in line with previous research (Human and Naudé, 2014). This
supports that it is the procurement function with the strongest impact on the buying
company’s upstream suppliers (Leenders et al., 1994) and that the degree of
professionalisation and the quality of the procurement function are key drivers of supplier
satisfaction. This is also the first and general answer to the research question: Yes, there
is a significant effect on supplier satisfaction, which has its roots in the quality of the
procurement function.
This general finding gets even more support, when recalling the setting of this study.
All suppliers have been evaluated regarding their perceptions about one buyer. In other
words, the buyer and the procurement function are kept stable for this research. All
suppliers face procurement behaviour and quality from the same procurement
organisation. The treatment and quality of one buyer to a multitude of suppliers has
shown that the degree of procurement quality has a significant and strong effect on
supplier satisfaction. In other words, if a buyer wants to enhance supplier satisfaction
through behaviour, then a major instrument is to increase the quality of the procurement
organisation. This complements other views on supplier satisfaction, which investigate
customer profitability, innovation, or growth opportunities (supplier marketing view) as
antecedents of supplier satisfaction (Vos et al., 2016).
Second, a more detailed view on the procurement effects on supplier satisfaction
reveals that communication quality has the strongest effect, but even time management
and service quality significantly affect supplier satisfaction. This is an initial step for a
fine-grained analysis of procurement quality, but builds on already tested constructs (e.g.,
Human and Naudé, 2014). However, the theoretical background of this study provides
further indications how to evaluate these effects for a supplier-specific procurement
quality approach. Recalling the expectation confirmation theory, suppliers have
individual expectations to procurement service quality. Furthermore, social exchange
theory indicates that suppliers refer their degree of satisfaction to their individual utility
rationale, what includes the comparison of a buyer behaviour with alternative buyers. The
setting of the study – homogenous buyer, heterogeneous suppliers – showed that effect.
Suppliers perceive their degree of satisfaction very differently. The cause might be the
behaviour of individual buyers, but expectation confirmation and social-exchange
theories in contrast imply that procurement quality should meet individual expectations
and utility preferences. Therefore, communication quality has the strongest effect,
followed by time management and service quality. However, the implication for the
buying organisation is to manage quality in accordance and in consideration of different
and individual supplier expectations and preferences in the future. This could be the basis
for further expectation-confirmation and social-exchange theory-based studies to examine
how these dimensions of procurement quality are linked to individual preferences and
expectations.
Third, it is worth to mention that this research did not question special supplier
development practices. Instead, it addressed the usual level of service, communication
and time management quality of a procurement department. The measurement of
procurement quality constructs followed an operationalisation that evaluates standard
quality levels, not extraordinary procurement performance. For example, the item of
communication quality, CQ3, analyses if the exchanged information in the buyer-supplier
relationship is helpful to both parties; there is no question about the exchange
of confidential information, sensitive data, or other supplier-specific practices
108 A.H. Glas
(Appendix A). Therefore, the procurement quality in standard and routine procurement
tasks significantly affects supplier satisfaction. Thus, the ability to deliver a high degree
of quality in procurement and to meet suppliers’ expectations is not related in this study
to any special and sophisticated supplier treatment. It focuses on the pure quality of
procurement core tasks, e.g., order communications, complaints, service contacts or the
reasonable scheduling of award procedures. This study setting and the interpretation of
the findings do not neglect that there could also be an influence on supplier satisfaction
that has its origin in special supplier development activities, such as customised
influencing strategies (Ghijsen et al., 2010), but the study emphasises the high
importance of procurement quality in core/routine procurement tasks.
7.2 Satisfaction effects on commitment and trust

While the antecedents of supplier satisfaction show new or refocused insights, as
mentioned in the previous section, the empirical testing of the model also suggests that
supplier satisfaction effects commitment and trust. Supplier satisfaction can explain
49.5% of supplier trust, indicating strong prediction accuracy (Hair et al., 2017). Supplier
satisfaction can explain only around 10% of supplier commitment, which indicates only a
very weak prediction accuracy (Hair et al., 2017). The latter aspect might be explained by
the fact that there are different ways to assess commitment in that context. Human and
Naudé (2014) model commitment so that it is not linked directly to satisfaction but serves
an intermediary function between trust and loyalty. Hüttinger (2014) model commitment
on the same level as trust but also include an effect of trust on commitment. It seems as if
the role and function of the latent construct of commitment is not consolidated yet in the
context of supplier satisfaction. However, the basic cause-and-effect relationship that
higher supplier satisfaction increases commitment could be shown, in part because there
are significant path relations. Therefore, H4 and H5 are also supported.
Pulles et al. (2016) generally state that satisfaction has an effect on the preferential
resource allocation of suppliers for buyers. Hüttinger (2014) also claims that supplier
satisfaction, together with trust and commitment, increases preferential treatment by the
supplier. Following their reasoning, this research showed that an increase in procurement
quality affects supplier satisfaction and could increase other latent constructs (e.g., trust
and commitment) that then result in preferential resource allocation and treatment by the
supplier for the buyer. As mentioned above, the antecedents of supplier satisfaction refer
to core procurement tasks and standard/routine quality levels. Therefore, the results of
this model emphasise that even standard procurement tasks can support higher supplier
performance if properly executed and if they meet the supplier’s quality expectations.
7.3 Implications
On a theoretical level, the results of this study underline the high relevance of the
procurement function as the interface between an organisation and its upstream supplier
base. It revealed that the suppliers expect a level of quality in the core and routine tasks
of procurement and that this level of quality is already sufficient to enhance supplier
satisfaction, which then could lead to supplier behaviour granting preferential treatment
to the buyer. The causes and effects are in line with the research on expectation
confirmation theory (Oliver, 1980) and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). More
broadly, these results call for more behaviour-oriented operations management regarding
the analysis of human interactions in the business-to-business context (e.g., Bendoly
et al., 2006). This is particularly the case here, as communication or service quality have
strong effects on supplier satisfaction while suppliers have individual expectations and
preferences and the individual employees of the procurement department do not all
behave according to standards. Future behaviour-oriented operations management
research cold deepen the analysis at the micro-level to evaluate the influence of
individuals on supplier satisfaction.
Another theoretical implication refers to the line of research regarding how
procurement can achieve a high degree of quality and performance. This study indicates
that quality in core procurement tasks is a standard expectation of suppliers. This
contributes to the stock of knowledge around procurement competencies and
procurement professionalisation (e.g., Shub and Stonebraker, 2009). The findings might
link procurement quality with research on procurement professionalisation what would
then and call for further research to enhance the degree of professionalisation in
procurement as a basis for better procurement quality and then preferential customer
treatment by the supplier.
Both aspects are the basis for managerial implications. As the findings of this paper
see the starting point of preferential supplier treatment in the procurement function of the
buyer, the recommendation is to enhance the quality of standard and core tasks as the
fundamental basis to increase supplier satisfaction. Similar to the standards for customer
relationship management in the marketing literature (Kumar and Reinartz, 2012), a high
and standardised quality level for supplier relationship management could align the
rendered quality with the expectations of the supplier. Priority could be given to
communication quality, which has the strongest effect.
7.4 Limitations
The limitations of this study refer on the one hand to the context specificity of the
measurement, which focuses on a focal buying organisation. Future studies might employ
enhanced measurement methodologies, which allow for the evaluation of supplier
perceptions under stable buying behaviour conditions from different buying
organisations. Additionally, enhanced empirical methodologies might allow for the use of
covariance-based SEM. This might further facilitate the broader empirical testing of the
hypotheses explored in this study.
Furthermore, this study focused on the antecedents of supplier satisfaction and
excluded other variables, which are analysed when the effects of supplier satisfaction are
evaluated. The three constructs of procurement quality were not intended to be
exhaustive and may be expanded or further refined to examine more detailed effects.
Other constructs, such as the quality of order and billing processing in the contract
execution phase, may be relevant as well. Therefore, the model of this study is open to
further predictor constructs. In addition, future studies may obtain a more complete
picture of the supplier satisfaction construct and its effects. Enhanced measurement
methodologies might evaluate more outcome variables of supplier satisfaction to
complete the picture on dependent constructs. Business loyalty (Human and Naudé,
2014) or customer attractiveness (Pulles et al., 2016) are some examples for such
constructs.
110 A.H. Glas
8 Outlook
This research is contrasted with two views regarding how supplier performance could be
enhanced. Two articles illustrate the ambiguity whether procurement efforts can achieve
preferential treatment from suppliers. First, Cox (2001a) focused on the power
distribution between a buyer and a supplier. The argument is that specific power
mechanisms enable a proactive supply development. In other words, the power
(dominance) of a buyer or a supplier is the cause of receiving prioritised access to
supplier resources (Cox, 2001a, 2001b). A different view is presented by, e.g.,
Sánchez-Rodriguez et al. (2005), who examine the effect of supplier development
initiatives. Their study revealed that the more advanced supplier development is, the
higher the procurement performance is. In other words, customised treatment of suppliers
through training, information exchange or early involvement in the product development
processes enhance the supplier’s willingness to perform. Briefly, ‘pressure or pamper’
(Pulles et al., 2014), are prominent views on suppliers.
This research highlights that procurement quality has a strong influence on supplier
satisfaction. Thus, the delivery of high procurement quality is an important driver of
supplier satisfaction and consequently of preferential treatment by suppliers. Therefore,
this research provides support for adding a view on procurement quality to existing
approaches, e.g., power and supplier development, in order to enhance suppliers’
willingness to allocate preferential treatment to the buyer.
References
Abdul-Muhmin, A.G. (2005) ‘Instrumental and interpersonal determinants of relationship
satisfaction and commitment in industrial markets’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58,
No. 5, pp.619–628.
Andersen, P.H., Ellegaard, C. and Kragh, H. (2016) ‘I’m your man: how suppliers gain strategic
status in buying companies’, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 22, No. 2,
pp.72–81.
Anderson, E.W. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993) ‘The antecedents and consequences of customer
satisfaction for firms’, Marketing Science, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.125–143.
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Lehmann, D.R. (1994) ‘Customer satisfaction, market share and
profitability: findings from Sweden’, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp.53–66.
Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1990) ‘A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working
partnerships’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp.42–58.
Anderson, S.W., Hesford, J.W. and Young, S.M. (2002) ‘Factors influencing the performance of
activity based costing teams: a field study of ABC model development time in the automobile
industry’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.195–211.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977) ‘Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys’, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.396–402.
BAAINBw (2016) Customer Product Management (nov.) [online] http://www.baainbw.de/
resource/resource/NmU3NTZjNmMzNjM1MzMzMDMwMzAzMDMwMzAzMDMwMzAz
MDMwMzAzMDZhMzgzNTczNzA3NTZjNjIyMDIwMjAyMDIw/CPM_(nov.).pdf
(accessed 25 October 2017).
Bendoly, E., Donohue, K. and Schultz, K. (2006) ‘Behavior in operations management: assessing
recent findings and revisiting old assumptions’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24,
No. 6, pp.737–752.
Blau, P.M. (1964) Power and Exchange in Social Life, Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Busacca, B. and Padula, G. (2005) ‘Understanding the relationship between attribute performance
and overall satisfaction: theory, measurement and implications’, Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp.543–561.
Caldwell, N.D., Roehrich, J.K. and George, G. (2017) ‘Social value creation and relational
coordination in public-private collaborations’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 54, No. 6,
pp.906–928.
Cao, Z. and Lumineau, F. (2015) ‘Revisiting the interplay between contractual and relational
governance: a qualitative and meta-analytic investigation’, Journal of Operations
Management, Vols. 33, No. 1, pp.15–42.
Chin, W.W. (1998) ‘The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling’, in
Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.): Modern Methods for Business Research, pp.295–358, Erlbaum,
Mahwah.
Chin, W.W. (2010) ‘How to write up and report PLS analyses’, in Esposito, V.V., Chin, W.W.,
Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds.): Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and
Applications, pp.655–690, Springer, Heidelberg.
Chin, W.W. and Newsted, P.R. (1999) ‘Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples
using partial least squares’, in Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.): Statistical Strategies for Small Sample
Research, pp.307–341, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Cox, A. (2001a) ‘Understanding buyer and supplier power: a framework for procurement and
supply competence’, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp.8–15.
Cox, A. (2001b) ‘Managing with power: strategies for improving value appropriation from supply
relationships’, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp.42–47.
Cronin Jr., J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992) ‘Measuring services quality: a reexamination and
extension’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp.55–68.
Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H. and Oh, S. (1987) ‘Developing buyer-seller relationships’, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp.11–27.
European Commission (2006) The New SME Definition: User Guide and Model
Declaration [online] http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/sme_definition/sme_user
_guide_en.pdf (accessed 4 November 2009).
Evermann, J. and Tate, M. (2016) ‘Assessing the predictive performance of structural equation
model estimators’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69, No. 10, pp.4565–4582.
Fornell, C. (1992) ‘A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience’, Journal of
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981) ‘Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.35–90.
Ganesan, S. (1994) ‘Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships’, Journal of
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999) ‘The different roles of satisfaction, trust and commitment
in customer relationships’, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp.70–87.
Geisser, S. (1974) ‘A predictive approach to the random effects model’, Biometrika, Vol. 61, No. 1,
pp.101–107.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. and Kumar, N. (1999) ‘A meta-analysis of satisfaction in
marketing channel relationships’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp.223–238.
Ghijsen, P.W.T., Semeijn, J. and Ernstson, S. (2010) ‘Supplier satisfaction and commitment: the
role of influence strategies and supplier development’, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.17–26.
Götz, O., Liehr-Gobbers, K. and Krafft, M. (2010) ‘Evaluation of structural equation models using
the partial least squares (PLS) approach’, in Eposito, V.V., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and
112 A.H. Glas
Wang, H. (Eds.): Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications,
pp.691–711, Springer, Heidelberg.
Grönroos, C. (1984) ‘A service quality model and its marketing implications’, Eur. J. Mark,
Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.36–44.
Gundlach, G.T. and Murphy, P.E. (1993) ‘Ethical and legal foundations of relational marketing
exchanges’, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp.35–46.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2017) A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed., Sage, Los Angeles.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011) ‘PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet’, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.139–151.
Hallowell, R. (1996) ‘The relationship of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty and profitability:
An empirical study’, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 7, No. 4,
pp.27–42.
Hawkins, T.G., Gravier, M.J., Berkowitz, D. and Muir, W. (2015) ‘Improving services supply
management in the defense sector: how the procurement process affects B2B service quality’,
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.81–94.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015) ‘A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp.115–135.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009) ‘The use of partial least squares path
modeling in international marketing’, in Sinkovics, R.R. and Ghauri, P.N. (Eds.): New
Challenges to International Marketing, pp.277–319, Emerald, UK.
Holst, E. and Wiemer, A. (2010) On the Underrepresentation of Women in Top Boards of Large
Companies, DIW Berlin Discussion Paper No. 1001 [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.1641068 (accessed 20 October 2017).
Howard, M., Roehrich, J.K., Lewis, M.A. and Squire, B. (2017) ‘Converging and diverging
governance mechanisms: the role of (Dys) function in long‐term inter‐organizational
relationships’, British Journal of Management (in press).
Human, G. and Naudé, P. (2014) ‘Heterogeneity in the quality–satisfaction–loyalty framework’,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp.920–928.
Hunt, S.D. and Davis, D.F. (2008) ‘Grounding supply chain management in resource-advantage
theory’, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp.10–21.
Hüttinger, L. (2014) Preferential Customer Treatment by Suppliers, Logos, Berlin.
Hüttinger, L., Schiele, H. and Veldman, J. (2012) ‘The drivers of customer attractiveness, supplier
satisfaction and preferred customer status: a literature review’, Industrial Marketing
Kline, R.B. (2011) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed., Guilford
Publications, New York.
Kreye, M.E., Roehrich, J.K. and Lewis, M.A. (2015) ‘Servitising manufacturers: the impact of
service complexity and contractual and relational capabilities’, Production Planning and
Control, Vol. 26, Nos. 14–15, pp.1233–1246.
Kumar, S.C. and Routroy, S. (2016) ‘Analysis of preferred customer enablers from supplier’s
perspective’, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp.1170–1191.
Kumar, V. and Reinartz, W. (2012) Customer Relationship Management, 2nd ed., Springer, Berlin.
Kurbjuweit, D., Repinski, G. and Traufetter, G. (2015) ‘Zufettzumfliegen’, Spiegel, No. 5,
pp.16–23 [online] http://magazin.spiegel.de/EpubDelivery/spiegel/pdf/131464315 (accessed
10 September 2017).
Lambe, C.J., Wittmann, C.M. and Spekman, R.E. (2001) ‘Social exchange theory and research on
business-to-business relational exchange’, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, Vol. 8,
No. 3, pp.1–36.
Leenders, M.R., Nollet, J. and Ellram, L. (1994) ‘Adapting purchasing to supply chain
management’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 24, No. 1, pp.40–42.
Lewicki, R.J., McAllister, D.J. and Bies, R.J. (1998), ‘Trust and distrust: new relationships and
realities’, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp.438–458.
Luo, X. and Homburg, C. (2007) ‘Neglected outcomes of customer satisfaction’, Journal of
Matzler, K. (2004) ‘The asymmetric relationship between attribute-level performance and overall
customer satisfaction: a reconsideration of the importance-performance analysis’, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp.271–286.
Meena, P., Sarmah, S.P. and Sinha, S. (2012) ‘Measuring satisfaction in buyer-supplier relationship
from suppliers perspective’, International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain
Modelling, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.60–74.
Mohr, J. and Spekman, R. (1994) ‘Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes,
communication behavior and conflict resolution techniques’, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.135–152.
Mohr, J.J., Fisher, R.J. and Nevin, J.R. (1996) ‘Collaborative communication in interfirm
relationships: moderating effects of integration and control’, The Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 60, No. 3, pp.103–115.
Monczka, R.M., Petersen, K.J., Handfield, R.B. and Ragatz, G.L. (1998) ‘Success factors in
strategic supplier alliances: the buying company perspective’, Decision Sciences, Vol. 29,
No. 3, pp.553–577.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994) ‘The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing’, The
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp.20–38.
Nollet, J., Rebolledo, C. and Popel, V. (2012) ‘Becoming a preferred customer one step at a time’,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 41, No. 8, pp. 1186–1193.
Oliver, R.L. (1980) ‘A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.460–469.
Olsen, S.O. (2002) ‘Comparative evaluation and the relationship between quality, satisfaction,
and repurchase loyalty’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30, No. 3,
pp.240–249.
Patton, M. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Paulraj, A., Lado, A.A. and Chen, I.J. (2008) ‘Inter-organizational communication as a relational
competency: antecedents and performance outcomes in collaborative buyer-supplier
relationships’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.45–64.
Poppo, L. and Zenger, T. (2002) ‘Do formal contracts and relational governance function as
substitutes or complements?’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23, No. 8, pp.707–725.
Pulles, N.J., Schiele, H., Veldman, J. and Hüttinger, L. (2016) ‘The impact of customer
attractiveness and supplier satisfaction on becoming a preferred customer’, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp.129–140.
Pulles, N.J., Veldman, J., Schiele, H. and Sierksma, H. (2014) ‘Pressure or pamper? The effects of
power and trust dimensions on supplier resource allocation’, Journal of Supply Chain
Reinartz, W.J., Haenlein, M. and Henseler, J. (2009) ‘An empirical comparison of the efficacy of
covariance-based and variance-based SEM’, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 26, No. 4, pp.332–344.
Roehrich, J. and Lewis, M. (2014) ‘Procuring complex performance: implications for exchange
governance complexity’, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 34, No. 2, pp.221–241.
114 A.H. Glas
Sánchez-Rodriguez, C., Hemsworth, D. and Martínez-Lorente, A.R. (2005) ‘The effect of supplier
development initiatives on purchasing performance: a structural model’, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.289–301.
Shmueli, G., Ray, S., Velasquez Estrada, J.M. and Chatla, S.B. (2016) ‘The elephant in the room:
evaluating the predictive performance of PLS models’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69,
No. 10, pp.4552–4564.
Shub, A.N. and Stonebraker, P.W. (2009) ‘The human impact on supply chains: evaluating the
importance of ‘soft’ areas on integration and performance’, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.31–40.
Stone, M. (1974) ‘Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions’, Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp.111–147.
Tchokogué, A., Nollet, J. and Robineau, J. (2017) ‘Supply’s strategic contribution: an empirical
reality’, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.105–122.
Teo, T.S.H., Srivastava, S.C. and Jiang, L. (2008) ‘Trust and electronic government success: an
empirical study’, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp.99–132.
Ulaga, W. and Eggert, A. (2006) ‘Relationship value and relationship quality: broadening the
nomological network of business-to-business relationships’, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 40, Nos. 3/4, pp.311–327.
Van der Valk, W. and Rozemeijer, F. (2009) ‘Buying business services: towards a structured
service purchasing process’, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.3–10.
Vos, F.G.S., Schiele, H. and Hüttinger, L. (2016) ‘Supplier satisfaction: explanation and
out-of-sample prediction’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69, No. 10, pp.4613–4623.
Weigelt, C. (2013). ‘Leveraging supplier capabilities: the role of locus of capability deployment’,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp.1–21.
Wilson, D.T. and Mummalaneni, V. (1986) ‘Bonding and commitment in supplier relationship: a
preliminary conceptualization’, Industrial Marketing and Purchasing, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.44–58.
Wong, C., Skipworth, H., Godsell, J. and Achimugu N. (2012) ‘Towards a theory of supply chain
alignment enablers: a systematic literature review’, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.419–437.
Appendix A
Table A1 Constructs and questionnaire insights
Service quality
SQ1* Our personal contacts with this buyer are Busacca and Padula (2005), Matzler
frequently enough. (2004) and Human and Naudé (2014)
SQ2 I feel that it is easy to lodge complaints Busacca and Padula (2005), Matzler
with this buyer. (2004) and Human and Naudé (2014)
SQ3 I am happy with the time taken to reach a Busacca and Padula (2005), Matzler
support consultant. (2004) and Human and Naudé (2014)
SQ4 The contact persons of this buyer are Busacca and Padula (2005), Matzler
helpful. (2004) and Human and Naudé (2014)
SQ5 I am happy with the time this buyer take Busacca and Padula (2005), Matzler
to solve my problem. (2004) and Human and Naudé (2014)
SQ6 The contact persons of this buyer are Busacca and Padula (2005), Matzler
experts. (2004) and Human and Naudé (2014)
Communication quality
CQ1 In our relationship, the buyer and us Morgan and Hunt (1994) and Hawkins
effectively communicate expectations for et al. (2015)
each others performance goals.
CQ2 In our relationship, the buyer and us keep Morgan and Hunt (1994) and Hawkins
each other informed of new et al. (2015)
developments.
CQ3 In our relationship, the buyer and us Morgan and Hunt (1994) and Hawkins
provide each other with information that et al. (2015)
helps both parties.
CQ4 I am able to communicate my needs Morgan and Hunt (1994) and Hawkins
effectively to this buyer. et al. (2015)
CQ5 This buyer listens carefully to my Morgan and Hunt (1994) and Hawkins
requests. et al. (2015)
Time management quality
TMQ1 We had enough time to submit a Hawkins et al. (2015)
high-quality application for the contract.
TMQ2 We had enough time to address and Similar to Hawkins et al. (2015)
clarify enquiries.
TMQ3 The milestones for awarding this contract Hawkins et al. (2015)
were quite feasible.
TMQ4 This buyer wanted us to award the Similar to Hawkins et al. (2015)
contract very fast.
TMQ5* We had sufficient time to provide the Hawkins et al. (2015)
performance specified in the contract.
Supplier satisfaction
SAT1 Overall, we are satisfied with this buyer. Human and Naudé (2014)
Notes: All variables are measured with a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ‘totally
disagree’ to 5 ‘totally agree’.
*Deleted with regards to composite reliability. **Deleted with regards to
discriminant validity (HTMT).
116 A.H. Glas
Table A1 Constructs and questionnaire insights (continued)
Supplier satisfaction
SAT2 We are pleased with what this buyer does Human and Naudé (2014)
for us.
SAT3 Both us and this buyer contributes to a Human and Naudé (2014)
positive relationship.
SAT4 I enjoy interacting with this buyer. Human and Naudé (2014)
Supplier commitment
COM1 We want to stay a supplier of this buyer. Hüttinger (2014)
COM2* We want to support a long-term Hüttinger (2014)
relationship with this buyer.
COM3 We intend to maintain the relationship Hüttinger (2014)
with this buyer for a long time.
Supplier trust
TRU1 This buyer can be trusted. Human and Naudé (2014)
TRU2** We rely on this buyer to do/decide what is Human and Naudé (2014)
right.
TRU3 This buyer has high integrity and loyalty. Human and Naudé (2014)
Notes: All variables are measured with a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ‘totally
disagree’ to 5 ‘totally agree’.
*Deleted with regards to composite reliability. **Deleted with regards to
discriminant validity (HTMT).
Appendix B
Table B1 Cross loading analysis results
Service Communication Time management Supplier

Indicators Commitment Trust
quality quality quality satisfaction
SQ2 0.611 0.474 –0.159 0.288 0.271 0.103
SQ3 0.707 0.376 0.023 0.253 0.134 0.162
SQ4 0.714 0.435 0.354 0.468 0.198 0.465
SQ5 0.857 0.462 0.160 0.490 0.158 0.406
SQ6 0.755 0.536 0.211 0.575 0.127 0.408
CQ1 0.457 0.774 0.069 0.486 0.303 0.347
CQ2 0.553 0.873 0.118 0.641 0.347 0.482
CQ3 0.477 0.776 0.224 0.562 0.339 0.432
CQ4 0.468 0.749 –0.038 0.330 0.135 0.136
CQ5 0.528 0.782 0.282 0.512 0.229 0.276
TMQ1 0.192 0.121 0.907 0.321 0.135 0.397
TMQ2 0.107 0.177 0.773 0.274 0.146 0.286
TMQ3 0.235 0.179 0.928 0.379 0.170 0.339
SAT1 0.563 0.537 0.292 0.779 0.109 0.535
SAT2 0.549 0.604 0.369 0.892 0.223 0.728
SAT3 0.438 0.530 0.304 0.804 0.352 0.539
SAT4 0.419 0.467 0.246 0.772 0.364 0.454
COM1 0.087 0.285 0.109 0.194 0.917 0.101
COM2 0.128 0.269 0.126 0.200 0.920 0.106
COM3 0.319 0.386 0.203 0.391 0.935 0.287
TRU1 0.364 0.334 0.271 0.624 0.102 0.891
TRU3 0.471 0.467 0.427 0.633 0.272 0.894

Andreas 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Andreas 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

90 Int. J. Integrated Supply Management, Vol. 12, Nos.

The impact of procurement on supplier satisfaction:

Abstract: A supplier performs best if the perception of the supply situation

Keywords: supplier satisfaction; structural equation model; procurement;

Biographical notes: Andreas H. Glas is an Assistant Professor at the

Copyright © 2018 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

2 Theoretical and conceptual background

2.1 Satisfaction in supply relationships

shown that satisfaction is positively affected by expectations (Oliver, 1980). Generally,

2.2 Supplier commitment, supplier trust, and preferential customer treatment

procurement perspective. However, it is necessary to show that an increase in satisfaction

The perception of quality is a predictor of satisfaction (Olsen, 2002). This fundamental

The following hypothesis focuses on the communication of the procurement department

Figure 1 Research model (without control variables and indicators)

in the buyer-supplier relationship, which is expressed by complicatedness (high number

To measure the latent constructs, the operationalisation referred to in the previous

6.1 Descriptive survey results

6.2 Measurement model assessment

Table 1 Sample description

Table 2 Estimation of the reflective measurement parameters (n = 78)

Convergent validity Internal consistency

6.3 Structural model assessment

Figure 2 Results of the research model including control variables

Table 4 Results of the coefficient of determination and predictive relevance (n = 78)

Table 5 Results of the path coefficient without control variables (n = 78)

Item RMSE MAE MAPE Q2

7.1 Procurement effects on supplier satisfaction

7.2 Satisfaction effects on commitment and trust

Table A1 Constructs and questionnaire insights

Table A1 Constructs and questionnaire insights (continued)

Table B1 Cross loading analysis results

Service Communication Time management Supplier

You might also like