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

net/publication/373864129

Identifying the determinants and consequences of post-recovery satisfaction

in B2B customers: a multidimensional justice theory perspective

Article in Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing · September 2023

DOI: 10.1108/JBIM-08-2022-0366

CITATIONS READS

0 42

4 authors, including:

Bilal Ahmad Muhammad Ashfaq

Riphah International University Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University
26 PUBLICATIONS 395 CITATIONS 30 PUBLICATIONS 1,059 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bilal Ahmad on 16 September 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Identifying the determinants and consequences
of post-recovery satisfaction in B2B customers:
a multidimensional justice theory perspective
Bilal Ahmad and Jingbo Yuan
College of Management, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China
Naeem Akhtar
Institute of Business and Management, University of Engineering and Technology Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan, and
Muhammad Ashfaq
The Business School, RMIT University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Abstract
Purpose – Drawing on justice theory, this study aims to investigate the determinants and consequences of post-recovery satisfaction in a business-
to-business (B2B) sales environment. In addition, customer demandingness is used as a moderator in this study to assess the relationship between
distributive justice (DJ), procedural justice (PJ) and interactional justice (IJ) and post-recovery satisfaction.
Design/methodology/approach – A conceptual framework was developed by testing five hypotheses based on data collected from 337
salesperson–customer dyads.
Findings – The findings of this study reveal that DJ, PJ and IJ are positively linked with post-recovery satisfaction. In addition, post-recovery
satisfaction negatively impacts customer distrust. On the contrary, customer distrust positively influences value co-creation behavior and has a
negative impact on trusting intention. Finally, the customer’s level of demandingness significantly and positively moderates the linkage between the
dimensions of justice perception and post-recovery satisfaction.
Originality/value – Despite extensive literature on distrust, a research model that examines customers’ distrust attitudes toward service failure and
B2B recovery satisfaction needs to be developed and validated. In this regard, the authors developed a framework to measure post-recovery
satisfaction and its association with customers’ distrust in B2B a context.
Keywords Justice perception, Post-recovery satisfaction, Customers’ distrust, Value co-creation behavior, Trusting intention,
Customer demandingness, B2B sales
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction Xerox) because B2B services make it easier for them to

Despite some similarities in terms of resource allocation and
planning, business-to-business (B2B) markets differ from
consumer markets regarding customer demand, purchasing
cycles and logistics costs (Mora Cortez and Johnston, 2017;
Oflac et al., 2021). In particular, B2B service processes usually
involve more participants than B2C transactions, making them
more complicated (Keränen and Jalkala, 2013; Lilien, 2016).
It is imperative for B2B sales organizations to maintain
relationships after service failures (SF) because B2B contacts
tend to be more relational (Coviello and Brodie, 2001). The
increasing importance of B2B recovery satisfaction after SF is
due to its dynamic nature, for example, with the growth of the
global economy, competition in the B2B market has become
increasingly intense. In recent years, a large number of B2B
firms have switched to a service-centric model (e.g. IBM,
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/0885-8624.htm
establish long-term relationships with both direct and indirect
customers. It is important to note that profits cannot be solely
realized by selling products alone. Therefore, embracing a
service-centric model aligns with the principles of the S-D
logic, which emphasizes the co-creation of value through the
integration of resources, capabilities and services (Vargo and
Lusch, 2008). Similarly, customers are demanding more from
their B2B suppliers, and they are increasingly expecting their
needs to be met quickly and efficiently (Mora Cortez and
Johnston, 2019). This puts salespeople under more pressure to
prevent failures or to take corrective action promptly to
improve post-recovery customer satisfaction. In this regard,
Baliga et al. (2021) suggest that there are certain complexities
that have resulted in SFs and negative effects on customer
Funding: This paper was financially supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Grant Number: 72172094, 71972082);
Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of the Ministry of Education
in China (Grant Number: 21YJC630160).

Received 3 August 2022

Revised 2 April 2023
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 17 June 2023
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0885-8624] 26 July 2023
[DOI 10.1108/JBIM-08-2022-0366] Accepted 5 August 2023
 Post-recovery satisfaction in B2B customers
Bilal Ahmad, Jingbo Yuan, Naeem Akhtar and Muhammad Ashfaq
satisfaction, and that attempts have been made to recover from
these failures. Therefore, a thorough knowledge of the subject
matter is necessary to determine which factors contribute to B2B
recovery satisfaction after an SF to avoid adverse outcomes.
When customer complaints are treated fairly, there is a
higher likelihood that customers may tend to forgive the service
providers (contingent upon various factors). This, in turn, can
enable salespeople to facilitate not only the better recovery of
customers but also the recovery of employees and processes
(Michel et al., 2009). According to Oflac et al. (2021), one way
to obtain post-recovery satisfaction in B2B environment
might be through reformed organizational justice procedures,
compensation or fairness of service delivery. The justice
perception may play a significant role in resolving customer
problems related to service interruptions or failures. Roschk
and Gelbrich (2014) demonstrated that organizations must
respond to SFs in a manner that corresponds to the type of
failure. For instance, service recovery efforts should match the
type of SF – outcome or process failure – to enhance customer
perceptions of justice and prevent negative inheritance of
domino effect and dissatisfaction (Zhu and Zolkiewski, 2015).
Therefore, based on the justice theory (JT), we developed a
model for restoring B2B recovery satisfaction after failure by
considering three dimensions of justice perception.
The term “justice perception” encompasses customers’
viewpoints on a service provider’s efforts to recover from an SF,
and it significantly impacts their subsequent decision on whether
to continue engaging with the provider. When these recovery
efforts are executed effectively, they contribute to the rebuilding of
better relationships (Casidy and Yan, 2022; Chai et al., 2020;
Choi and La, 2013). As a result of a trustworthy environment,
business transactions become smoother, contracts between two
parties become more efficient and financial exchanges are
simplified, which all contribute to increased sales and profitability
(Padgett et al., 2020). In recent years, researchers have begun
focusing their attention on the adverse effects of customer’s
distrust on business performance. For instance, Zhao et al. (2020)
argue that distrust is a construct that leaves a bad impression and
negatively impacts a customer’s behavioral intention. In a similar
vein, Lee et al. (2015) also claimed a negative association between
customer distrust and loyalty toward online businesses. In light of
this evidence, the existing literature has predominantly focused
on identifying the adverse effects of distrust on behavioral
intentions. Nevertheless, the present study suggests that
customer’s distrust is not always linked with adverse behavioral
outcomes. It may also be associated with positive behavioral
outcomes. In addition, high-level expectations of B2B customers
tend to facilitate customer demandingness, which can strengthen
the impact of perceived justice on post-recovery satisfaction.
Customer demandingness is contingent upon various factors, such
as individual characteristics, prior experiences, cultural influences
and situational factors (Hossain et al., 2023). It is important to
understand that these contingency factors have a significant
influence on customers’ expectations of service providers. As a
result, we advance our current understanding and predict that
customers’ demands will positively moderate the relationship
between justice perception and post-recovery satisfaction.
As a result, three noteworthy contributions to the literature are
made in this research. First, this study significantly contributes
to service management literature by exemplifying the relevance
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
of post-recovery satisfaction in B2B markets under the
mechanism of justice perception. In the current research, we
applied the JT to further understand how sales organizations’
justice perception may contribute to driving post-recovery
satisfaction. Second, our findings contribute to the literature by
opening up a “black box” of how post-recovery satisfaction may
undermine customers’ distrust mentality. In the existing
literature, trust theories have been used in relation to B2B
transactions (Casidy and Yan, 2022; Chai et al., 2020; Henseler,
2018); however, the distrust model has not been used in B2B
context. Despite extensive literature on distrust, a research
model that examines customers’ distrust behaviors toward SF
and B2B recovery satisfaction needs to be developed and
validated. For example, if the company is successful in resolving
the issue and the customer is satisfied with the outcome, it can
lead to lower level of distrust and loyalty toward the company.
However, if the post-recovery phase is mishandled, it can lead to
decreased satisfaction and increased distrust. Therefore, in
response to the recent calls from Zhu and Zolkiewski (2015) and
Oflac et al. (2021), we developed a framework to measure post-
recovery satisfaction and its association with other contingency
factors, such as distrust. Finally, the present study fills a research
gap in the literature by highlighting that highly demanding
customers in the B2B sector have higher expectations for service
recovery outcomes, and if their expectations are not met, they
are less likely to be satisfied with the service recovery efforts.
Nevertheless, it is possible to mitigate the negative impact of
their demandingness on post-recovery satisfaction by building a
trusting relationship, as well as ensuring justice and fair
treatment. The following research questions – within a B2B sales
context – can be derived from the arguments above:
RQ1. How much does a customer’s justice perception
contribute to post-recovery satisfaction?
RQ2. To what extent does post-recovery satisfaction impact
distrust of business customers?
RQ3. How does customers’ distrust influence behavioral
responses (i.e. value co-creation behavior and trusting
intentions)?
RQ4. To what extent does customer demandingness
moderate the linkage between justice perception and
post-recovery satisfaction?
To address these research questions, we conducted the study as
follows: First, the literature regarding the antecedents and
consequences of post-recovery satisfaction is reviewed. Second,
data collection procedures and a sampling structure are explained
to determine the methodology for investigating the research
questions. Third, we deliberate the results of the empirical
analysis. In conclusion, the paper outlines the research limitations
and future research opportunities for practitioners and possible
management implications.
2. Theoretical foundation and research
hypotheses
2.1 Justice perception and post-recovery satisfaction
JT is believed to be derived from social exchange theory
(Homans, 1958) and equity theory. JT can also be applied in
 Post-recovery satisfaction in B2B customers
Bilal Ahmad, Jingbo Yuan, Naeem Akhtar and Muhammad Ashfaq
the context of sales, where customers evaluate their experiences
based on the fairness of the sales encounter (Homburg and
Fürst, 2005; Moliner et al., 2008; Tax et al., 1998). The three
dimensions of JT, distributive justice (DJ), procedural justice
(PJ) and interactional justice (IJ) are also relevant in the context
of sales and can influence customers’ perceptions of fairness
and justice during the sales encounter (Migacz et al., 2018).
According to JT, customers who perceive their service
encounters as fair and just are more likely to be satisfied, loyal
and advocate for the service provider. Because SFs are
common conflicts, efforts to resolve an SF can be measured
based on perceived justice. Therefore, service providers need to
ensure that their service encounters are perceived as fair and
just by customers, which can be achieved by delivering high-
quality outcomes.
Because of a B2B SF, the customers’ perceptions are formed
based on the solutions provided during and at the end of the
recovery process (Baliga et al., 2021). Therefore, it affects both
satisfaction and dissatisfaction evaluations based on whether
the failure was fairly recovered. In post-recovery satisfaction,
customers rate the salesperson’s subsequent efforts (corrective
action) differently from how they rate the first service
encounter. The level of perceived justice has been extensively
assessed through the post-recovery satisfaction scale (Kuo and
Wu, 2012; Mattila and Patterson, 2004). It is usual for firms to
evaluate their recovery strategies based on three-justice
dimensions, namely, DJ, PJ and IJ (Chang and Hsiao, 2008;
Jung and Seock, 2017; La and Choi, 2019; Liao, 2007). In sales
context, DJ refers to the fairness in the distribution of rewards
or benefits resulting from a sales transaction. This study
hypothesizes that business customers will acknowledge
salespeople’s recovery efforts if they are compensated fairly. In
B2B settings, the concept of DJ has grown to become one of the
most critical variables in assessing complaints, SFs and
recovery satisfaction (Gruber et al., 2010; Oflac et al., 2021).
In addition, PJ refers to the fairness and transparency of the
sales process itself. It involves following ethical and legal
guidelines, treating customers with respect and ensuring that
customers have a voice in the sales process. PJ has specified the
customer’s understanding of the recovery process or how
recovery rules and policies can be flexible and helpful. A
disappointed customer’s perception of PJ could be positively
impacted if salespeople admit their failure in a recovery action,
attempt to correct their mistake and adjust their recovery
strategy to meet customer needs (Chang and Hsiao, 2008). It is
also possible to improve recovery satisfaction after an SF using
reliable and defined procedures. The implementation of PJ can
assist firms in improving customer satisfaction (Kuo and Wu,
2012). Processes are integral to the delivery of both products
and services, and they should be considered when recovering
from failures (Seiders and Berry, 1998). In light of our
argument, we assume that B2B customers would be more
satisfied with recovery after failure when procedures were
reliable.
Moreover, IJ in sales refers to the fairness and respectfulness
of the communication and interpersonal interactions between
the salesperson or organization and the customer. When a
salesperson communicates with and treats failed customers
fairly, this is known as IJ. Similarly, when a salesperson
responds to failed business customers respectfully, truthfully
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
and emotionally in efforts to resolve a problem, customers
perceive IJ. The provision of relational benefits can increase
purchase motivation by increasing customer engagement, trust
and thankfulness (Chou and Chen, 2018), and a relationship-
based approach is ultimately beneficial for B2B recovery
success (Baliga et al., 2021; Oflac et al., 2021). During a service
interruption or conflict, IJ describes how a salesperson treats a
customer (Patterson et al., 2006). Recent scholars have
revealed that the perception of IJ is positively linked with overall
satisfaction and repurchase intention (Dang and Pham, 2020;
Kuo and Wu, 2012; Muralidharan et al., 2021). In view of this,
we formulate the subsequent hypotheses:
H1a. DJ is positively associated with post-recovery satisfaction.
H1b. PJ is positively associated with post-recovery satisfaction.
H1c. IJ is positively associated with post-recovery satisfaction.
2.2 Post-recovery satisfaction and customers’ distrust
Distrust, as traditionally described in literature, refers to the
absence of trust or confidence in others (Darke et al., 2010). It
encompasses the belief that the other party has ill intentions,
a hostile nature or the potential to cause harm. In B2B
relationships, customer distrust can lead to decreased loyalty,
reluctance to establish long-term partnerships and increased
monitoring of the partner’s activities. In its simplest form,
distrust is a negative feeling about someone. It reflects a belief
or perception that the service provider may not act in the
customer’s best interest or may engage in dishonest or
untrustworthy behavior. Furthermore, McKnight et al. (2017)
find that in B2B communication, hygiene factors (e.g.
customer satisfaction and service quality) strongly impact
distrusting beliefs, contributing to risk perceptions.
In light of JT, this research demonstrates the influence of
post-recovery customer satisfaction on distrust behavior.
According to Siu et al. (2013), when customers are satisfied with
the service recovery process, they perceive the service provider
as responsive, competent and trustworthy. This positive
perception can reduce customers’ initial level of distrust, and in
some cases, even create a sense of loyalty or commitment to the
service provider. In the B2B market, customer satisfaction with
service recovery generates favorable word-of-mouth and
reduces customers’ distrust behavior (Ahmad and Sun, 2018;
Kau and Loh, 2006; Schmitz et al., 2022). Prior literature argue
that post-recovery satisfaction can help to restore the customer’s
trust in the service provider by addressing the negative emotions
and perceptions that arose from the initial SF (Ahmad et al.,
2022; Zhao et al., 2014). When customers perceive that the
service provider has responded appropriately and effectively to
their concerns, they may feel more confident in the provider’s
ability to meet their needs and expectations in the future,
leading to a decrease in their level of distrust. To develop a
strong customer–company relationship, such identification is
vital (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). Having a lack of trust in a
salesperson’s honesty and morality leads to customer distrust
(Ahmad and Sun, 2018). Moreover as post-recovery
satisfaction is derived from meeting or exceeding a customer’s
expectations after failure, it strengthens the salesperson’s
credibility over time and diminishes the level of distrust between
 Post-recovery satisfaction in B2B customers
Bilal Ahmad, Jingbo Yuan, Naeem Akhtar and Muhammad Ashfaq
salesperson and customer (Mohd-Any et al., 2019). As a result,
given the argument mentioned above, we recommend that the
following hypothesis be considered:
H2. Post-recovery satisfaction is negatively associated with
customer’s distrust.
2.3 Customers’ distrust and value co-creation behavior
The process of value co-creation is introduced by Prahalad and
Ramaswamy (2004). They argue that value co-creation in a
B2B context is a collaborative process between two or more
parties (e.g. salesperson and customers) to create value that is
mutually beneficial. This article argues that the JT can be a
useful tool for understanding customer attitudes that have been
described in the value co-creation literature. When it comes to
B2B transactions, Pathak et al. (2022) assert that customer
expectations and experience play an important role, but this
rationale is frequently overlooked for B2B interaction.
Therefore, we explore the notion of value co-creation in the
literature to establish a research framework for customer value
co-creation in B2B settings.
Indeed, trusted partnerships promote mutually beneficial
collaboration and enhance the performance of value
co-creation between parties in B2B settings (Heim et al., 2018;
Marcos-Cuevas et al., 2016; Rod et al., 2014). Based on the
evidence, it has been shown that customers who lack
confidence in their salesperson experience lower levels of value
co-creation (Nam et al., 2020). In another research, Ple and
Chumpitaz Caceres (2010) believe that customer distrust has
an adverse effect on values perception, resulting in value
co-destruction. The lack of trust can lead to customers being
less engaged with the company’s offerings and initiatives. They
may be unwilling to participate actively in value co-creation
efforts, such as providing feedback, suggestions or ideas, as they
fear their contributions will not be valued. The value
co-creation process must be successful if both sides must
communicate information honestly and transparently (Kohtamäki
and Rajala, 2016). If customers feel untrustworthy, they may be
reluctant to try new features or products (Ahmad and Sun, 2018).
Moreover, the company’s goals or the effectiveness of the
innovations could be questioned, resulting in slow adoption rates
and making it challenging to engage in value co-creation initiatives.
Therefore, based on the aforementioned reasons, we believe that
customers who are distrusted refrain from participating effectively
in value co-creation activities and propose the following
hypothesis:
H3. Customer’s distrust is negatively related to value
co-creation behavior.
2.4 Customers’ distrust and trusting intention
There is less development in the area of trusting intentions,
which indicates customers’ lack of trust, reducing their
possibility of choosing the same service provider/salesperson in
the future (Akhtar et al., 2022). It is acceptable to focus on
larger SFs in B2B markets because such failures are usually
more prominent and are perceived to be more serious by
companies than smaller failures (Sands et al., 2022). These SFs
in B2B transactions build customer distrust and eventually
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
develop less trusting intentions (Kim et al., 2011). As a
cognitive expectation, trust relates to how much an individual
believes that expectations will be met; however, a lack of
confidence and trust can lead to negative behavioral intentions
(Siddiqi et al., 2020).
Furthermore, a prior study suggests that customers’
behavioral intentions and preferences are directly affected by an
inadequate level of trust (Jiang et al., 2008). In this regard, JT
states that a consistent failure in service recovery results in a
feeling of unfairness and dissatisfaction, which negatively
impacts customer confidence in the salesperson (Baliga et al.,
2021; Patterson et al., 2006). To develop trust, information
quality is essential, whereas a lack of trust adversely affects
customer decision-making behavior (Han and Lee, 2021). In
general, these studies have shown that, both empirically and
theoretically, a lower level of trust/confidence results in decline
in trusting intentions. Thus, we anticipate that the more
customers experience distrust toward their B2B salespersons
and their delivery process, the less trusting intention they will
have in them. Hence, we suggest the following hypothesis:
H4. Customer’s distrust is negatively related to trusting
intentions.
2.5 Moderating role of customer demandingness
In the past decade, organizations and their sales representatives
have encountered increased customer demands (Agnihotri
et al., 2017; Luu, 2021). Customers’ demandingness measures
the complexity and degree of their specifications and
expectations of products or services (Li and Calantone, 1998).
In modern B2B markets, customers are more knowledgeable
about products and services, and they are more demanding by
nature (Oflac et al., 2021). This means that salespeople cannot
avoid disappointing customers by not fulfilling their ever-
increasing service demands. In addition, customers are more
demanding in regard to their experiences (Oflac et al., 2021)
and perceived values (Flint et al., 2011). The level of customer
demandingness is influenced by several factors, such as the
availability of alternatives, switching costs and dependency.
A B2B customer with high demandingness may expect an
apology or expect compensation, depending on the severity of
damage due to the SF (Flint et al., 2011; Hübner et al., 2018).
Any organization’s long-term survival hinges on meeting
customers’ expectations for quality service recovery and post-
recovery satisfaction (Hübner et al., 2018; Jung and Seock,
2017). When customer demands are high after an SF, the three
perceived justice dimensions may help achieve post-recovery
satisfaction (Kuo and Wu, 2012). A failed customer can
perceive DJ, PJ and IJ in a recovery action when they receive
monetary compensation, a salesperson admits a mistake,
communicates with the customer and attempts to rectify the
mistake in line with the customer’s demands. A previous study
conducted by Karim and Islam (2020) noted that service
providers should focus on meeting customers’ needs and
demands as well as integrating services that affect recovery
satisfaction in case of SF. In addition, recovery satisfaction after
a failure plays an important part in establishing the company’s
reputation (Ghalandari, 2013). Therefore, in light of the above
discussion, we contend that high-level expectations of B2B
 Post-recovery satisfaction in B2B customers Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Bilal Ahmad, Jingbo Yuan, Naeem Akhtar and Muhammad Ashfaq

customers often serve as a driver for fostering customer Table 1, we have also provided the demographic profile of the
demandingness, which can strengthen the impact of perceived respondents in the study.
justice (e.g. DJ, PJ and IJ) on post-recovery satisfaction. In light
of this, the following hypotheses are proposed: 3.2 Measures
In our study, we analyzed various sales and marketing measures
H5a. Customer demandingness strengthens the association prevalent in the literature. We assessed the constructs using a
between DJ and post-recovery satisfaction if it is higher seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly disagree”
(vs lower). (1) to “strongly agree” (7) (Albaum, 2018). To make the
H5b. Customer demandingness strengthens the association measurement items align with B2B contexts, we somewhat
between PJ and post-recovery satisfaction if it is higher revised the contexts of the items and rearranged them.
(vs lower). 3.2.1 Justice perception
A four-item scale was used to measure DJ from Yanamandram
H5c. Customer demandingness strengthens the association
and White (2010). To measure PJ, we adapted a three-item
between IJ and post-recovery satisfaction if it is higher
scale from Kim et al. (2009) and to measure IJ we used a four-
(vs lower).
item scale taken from Maxham and Netemeyer (2002).
3.2.2 Post-recovery satisfaction
3. Methods The construct was designed from the research of Kim et al.
3.1 Sampling and data collection (2009). It was requested that customers evaluate the level of
As a first step, we tested our model on a data set consisting of recovery satisfaction after an SF with the respective salesperson.
salespeople and their customers from Pakistani B2B sales A four-item scale was used to assess the responses.
organizations. To perform our research, we chose a dyadic 3.2.3 Customer distrust
approach, including matched salesperson–customer responses Customers were asked to rate the level of distrust they have for
(Lussier and Hall, 2018). In particular, we analyzed their salesperson. The customer distrust scale comprises four
salesperson–customer dyads in the pharmaceutical, banking,
items and is based on the study of Ahmad and Sun (2018).
telecommunications and IT industries. The sales organizations
covered in this study primarily operate in industrial markets 3.2.4 Value co-creation behavior
where salespeople work to maintain meaningful connections We measured the value co-creation behavior using a well-
with customers. The respondents were selected at random from established and robust 28-item scale derived from the study of
a list of target companies. The customers were selected at Yi and Gong (2013). The customer was asked to assess their
random from a list provided by the salespeople. Our study was level of participation in ensuring successful service delivery.
conducted completely anonymously and confidentially for both
our customers and our salespeople. For the purpose of Table 1 Sample characteristics
reducing the societal favoritism bias of buyers, we made it clear
Respondents profile Frequency %
that data collected would not be used to evaluate salespersons.
The next step was to contact lead executives from various Gender
B2B sales organizations to obtain their cooperation in this Male 261 77.4
research. In total, 49 sales organizations took part in this Female 76 22.6
research. To gather dyadic data, we then used a matching
Age
technique during which salespeople rated their customers
20–25 83 24.6
based on their level of demandingness. A total of 421
26–30 105 31.2
salespeople from these sales organizations were approached,
31–35 56 16.6
out of which 381 salespeople were willing to take part in the
36–40 57 16.9
survey, each of whom was responsible for a certain portfolio of
41–45 21 6.2
customers within a particular territory. An individual customer 461 years 15 4.5
was then randomly chosen and matched with the assigned
salesperson based on the provided customer list. During a Industry representation
planned sales interaction with a customer, we distributed 381 Pharmaceuticals 111 32.9
survey questionnaires simultaneously to the customer and Banking 77 22.8
salesperson using either paper surveys or online surveys, based Telecommunication 85 25.2
on the selling conditions. The salespeople were instructed to Information technology 64 19.0
recall the last time they visited a customer. Similarly, the Sales experience
customers were also advised to recall their last encounters with Less than 1 year 14 4.2
their sales representatives. After completing the survey, the 1–5 years 133 39.5
total sample size resulted in 356 matched salesperson– 6–10 years 148 43.9
customer dyads. In spite of this, 19 customer surveys were 11–15 years 30 8.9
eliminated because of incomplete or incorrect responses, 161 years 12 3.6
resulting in a final sample size of 337 salesperson–customer
dyads (with an overall response rate of 88.4%). According to Source: Authors’ own work
 Post-recovery satisfaction in B2B customers Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Bilal Ahmad, Jingbo Yuan, Naeem Akhtar and Muhammad Ashfaq

3.2.5 Trusting intentions
The customers were asked to evaluate their trusting intentions
toward their salespersons. This scale was examined using the
three-item scale derived from the study of Dimitriadis and
Kyrezis (2010).
3.2.6 Customer demandingness
For this construct, salespeople were asked to assess the level of
customer demand for products and services. Customer
demandingness was derived from the study of Luu (2021),
consisting of four-item scale.
4. Results
4.1 Assessment of measurement model
In the first step, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) using AMOS 24.0 (Arbuckle, 2006) to classify the
endogenous and exogenous variables to test the hypotheses,
validity, internal consistency and the model’s structure. As
shown in Table 4, all values were satisfactory and met or
exceeded threshold value as follows: x2/df ¼ 2.670, goodness of
fit (GFI) ¼ 0.912, root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) ¼ 0.083, standardized root mean square residual
(SRMR) ¼ 0.074, comparative fit index (CFI) ¼ 0.911,
Tucker Lewis index (TLI) ¼ 0.902, adjusted goodness of fit
(AGFI) ¼ 0.925 and parsimony normed fit index (PNFI) ¼
0.692. An excellent fit was observed between the theoretical
framework and the data within the specified boundaries
(Ahmad et al., 2022; Hu and Bentler, 1999).
In addition, we assessed the scale’s reliability, convergent
validity and discriminant validity. The constructs’ reliability is
estimated empirically using Cronbach’s a and composite
reliability (CR). According to Table 2, all Cronbach’s a and
CR scores are above 0.7, clearly demonstrating the reliability of
the constructs (Hair et al., 2006). To estimate convergent
validity, Fornell and Larcker (1981) proposed three criteria:
1 each item has a standard factor loading greater than 0.7
and is significant (p < 0.05 or p < 0.01);
2 there is a probability that the CR of all constructs should
be greater than 0.7; and
3 the value of average variance extracted (AVE), which
estimates the variance between latent indicators, is more
likely to be greater than 0.6.
It is shown in Table 3 that the loadings of each construct item
range from 0.701 to 0.974, and the values of CR and AVE exceed
the study’s recommended cutoff points, proving the scale has
high reliability and convergent validity. To validate discriminant
validity, we asserted that each latent construct’s AVE must be
above the square correlation between the two constructs (Fornell
and Larcker, 1981). Hence, the validity and reliability of the
measurement model are confirmed by the above findings.
4.2 Common method variance
There is an emerging challenge with common method variance
(CMV) in behavioral research (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The
study’s findings may be affected by the “noise” caused by
biased instruments (Chang et al., 2010). This study determined
that Harman’s one-factor test was used more frequently than
the unmeasured latent construct method. One common factor
was loaded for each proposed variable (perceived justice, post-
recovery satisfaction, customer distrust and value co-creation,
trusting intention and customer demandingness). We therefore
applied Harman’s single-factor test and exploratory factor
analysis to examine whether there were any CMV (Podsakoff
et al., 2003). A single factor should explain less than 50% of the
variance, whereas the highest variance explained by a single
factor was 29.27% in this study. Thus, there was no discernible
impact of CMV in this study. Similarly, Bagozzi et al. (1991)
examined the correlations between latent variables to analyze
CMVs. The correlations between all the variables are less than
0.90, as shown in Table 3. These two statistical analyses show
that our study does not contain CMV.
4.3 Coefficient of determination (R2)
In Figure 1, our results show that the predictor variables
explain 27.9% (R2 ¼ 0.279) variance of value co-creation
behavior and 29.5% (R2 ¼ 0.295) variance of the trusting
intentions. In addition, DJ, PJ and IJ explain 47.6% (R2 ¼
0.476) of post-recovery satisfaction. Similarly, post-recovery
satisfaction account for 12.4% (R2 ¼ 0.124) of the customer
distrust.
4.4 Assessment of structural model
To estimate the hypothesized model fitness, structural equation
modeling (SEM) was conducted before testing the hypotheses.
Based on Hair et al.’s (2006) guidelines, a standardized model
fit was achieved, including, chi-square (x2) ¼ 745.67, df ¼ 312,

Table 2 Correlations, variance inflation factor and square root of AVE

Constructs CR AVE DJ PJ IJ PRS CD VCC TI CDM
DJ 0.934 0.780 0.883
PJ 0.958 0.851 0.653 0.922
IJ 0.939 0.793 0.597 0.550 0.890
PRS 0.951 0.829 0.596 0.620 0.548 0.911
CD 0.943 0.782 0.485 0.534 0.606 0.351 0.884
VCC 0.978 0.617 0.372 0.361 0.420 0.360 0.528 0.785
TI 0.942 0.801 0.334 0.311 0.423 0.221 0.543 0.628 0.895
CDM 0.911 0.805 0.051 0.102 0.082 0.075 0.100 0.137 0.073 0.897
Notes: N ¼ 337; DJ ¼ distributive justice; PJ ¼ procedural justice; IJ ¼ interactional justice; PRS ¼ post-recovery satisfaction; CD ¼ customers’ distrust;
VCC ¼ value co-creation; TI ¼ trusting intention; CDM ¼ customer demandingness
Source: Authors’ own work
 Post-recovery satisfaction in B2B customers Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Bilal Ahmad, Jingbo Yuan, Naeem Akhtar and Muhammad Ashfaq

Table 3 Results of factor loadings and reliability of latent constructs

Constructs SFL a
Distributive justice 0.906
In resolving our complaint(s), the salesperson gave us exactly what we needed 0.920
We got what we deserved from the complaint(s) 0.737
The salesperson addressed our complaint(s) in a timely and efficient manner 0.823
Compared to what we expected, the offer received (e.g. discount) 0.877
Procedural justice 0.941
Employees made an effort to adjust the procedure of handling my complaint according to my needs 0.966
In response to our complaint(s), the salesperson responded promptly 0.857
The company’s complaint(s) handling procedure was fair 0.880
Interactional justice 0.912
This company’s salesperson seems interested in addressing our problems 0.790
We felt treated politely during interactions with salesperson when handling complaint(s) 0.882
The salesperson was very keen to solve our problem(s) 0.827
The behavior of the salesperson during complaint(s) handling was fair 0.910
Post-recovery satisfaction 0.930
In general, I am satisfied with the quality of the service I experienced 0.764
I am satisfied with the manner in which the service failure was resolved 0.951
This salesperson’s response to the service failure was better than expected 0.860
I now have a more positive attitude toward this salesperson 0.948
Customer distrust 0.905
The salesperson exaggerates the benefits and characteristics of their services 0.844
The salesperson uses misleading tactics to convince customers to purchase their product/service 0.974
The salesperson attempts to convince you to purchase services that you do not need during sales interaction 0.908
My concern is that this salesperson might not care about my needs 0.727
Value co-creation behavior 0.976
Information seeking (ISK)
It has been my intention to ask others for information on what this service provides 0.782
I have searched for information on where this service is located 0.809
I have paid attention to how others behave to use this service well 0.844
Information sharing (ISH)
I clearly explained what I wanted the salesperson to do 0.781
I gave the salesperson proper information 0.828
I provided necessary information so that the employee could 0.878
Responsible behavior (RSB)
I performed all the tasks that are required 0.818
I adequately completed all the expected behaviors 0.701
I fulfilled responsibilities to the business 0.783
I followed the salespersons’ directives or orders 0.770
Personal interaction (PIN)
I was friendly to the salesperson 0.787
I was kind to the salesperson 0.735
I was polite to the salesperson 0.753
I was courteous to the salesperson 0.776
I didn’t act rudely to the salesperson 0.861
Feedback (FDB)
If I have a useful idea on how to improve service, I let the salesperson know 0.789
When I receive good service from the salesperson, I comment about it 0.774
When I experience a problem, I let the salesperson know about it 0.884
(continued)
 Post-recovery satisfaction in B2B customers Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Bilal Ahmad, Jingbo Yuan, Naeem Akhtar and Muhammad Ashfaq

Table 3

Constructs SFL a
Advocacy (ADV)
I said positive things about XYZ and the salesperson to others 0.737
I recommended XYZ and the salesperson to others 0.874
I encouraged friends and relatives to use XYZ 0.856
Helping (HLP)
I assist other customers if they need my help 0.784
I help other customers if they seem to have problems 0.863
I teach other customers to use the service correctly 0.786
I give advice to other customers 0.808
Tolerance (TLR)
If service is not delivered as expected, I would be willing to put up with it 0.780
If the salesperson makes a mistake during service delivery, I would be willing to be patient 0.710
If I have to wait longer than I normally expected to receive the service, I would be willing to adapt 0.745
Trusting intention 0.918
For some of my business transactions, I feel that I could trust the salesperson of this company 0.836
For some of my business transactions, I feel that I could rely on the salesperson of this company 0.881
For some of my business transactions, I would not hesitate to trust the salesperson of this company 0.834
Customer demandingness 0.943
The clients I serve are demanding in regard to product/service quality and reliability 0.903
My clients have high expectations for service and support 0.942
My clients require a perfect fit between their needs and our product/service offering 0.828
My clients expect me to deliver the highest levels of product and service quality 0.918
Notes: N ¼ 337; Items are measured on seven-point Likert scale, where 1 ¼ strongly disagree and 7 ¼ strongly agree
Source: Authors’ own work

Figure 1 Results of hypotheses

 Post-recovery satisfaction in B2B customers Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Bilal Ahmad, Jingbo Yuan, Naeem Akhtar and Muhammad Ashfaq

Table 4 Values of measurement and structural model

Fit indices x2/df GFI RMSEA SRMR CFI TLI AGFI PNFI
Recommended values <3 >0.9 <0.08 <0.08 >0.9 >0.9 >0.8 >0.5
Measurement model 2.670 0.912 0.080 0.074 0.911 0.902 0.925 0.692
Structural model 2.525 0.935 0.071 0.061 0.985 0.966 0.917 0.782
Notes: GFI ¼ goodness of fit; RMSEA ¼ root mean square error of approximation; SRMR ¼ standardized root mean square residual; CFI ¼ comparative fit
index; TLI ¼ Tucker Lewis index; AGFI ¼ adjusted goodness of fit; PNFI ¼ parsimony normed fit index
Source: Authors’ own work

TLI ¼ 0.966, SRMR ¼ 0.061, CFI ¼ 0.985, GFI ¼ 0.935,
AGFI ¼ 0.917, RMSEA ¼ 0.071 and PNFI ¼ 0.782. Hence,
all hypotheses were validated.
In Table 5, the findings of the direct effects suggest that DJ
(H1a–bDJ!PSR ¼ 0.323, SE ¼ 0.104, CR ¼ 3.496, p ¼ 0.000),
PJ (H1b–bPJ!PSR ¼ 0.278, SE ¼ 0.093, CR ¼ 3.279,
p ¼ 0.001) and IJ (H1c–bIJ!PSR ¼ 0.218, SE ¼ 0.086,
CR ¼ 2.788, p ¼ 0.005) positively affect post-recovery
satisfaction, thereby supporting H1a, H1b and H1c. In addition,
the results indicated that customer distrust is negatively affected
by post-recovery satisfaction (H2–bPRS!CD ¼ 0.385, SE ¼
0.053, CR ¼ 4.898, p ¼ 0.000). Thus, H2 validated the
research. Furthermore, customer distrust has a significant and
positive impact on value co-creation behavior (H3–bCD!VCC ¼
0.556, SE ¼ 0.081, CR ¼ 6.439, p ¼ 0.000). In contrast,
customer distrust is negatively and significantly related to trusting
intentions (H4–bCD!TI ¼ 0.589, SE ¼ 0.100, CR ¼ 6.699,
p ¼ 0.000).
Through a hierarchical regression analysis in Table 6, we
assessed the moderation effect of customer demandingness.
The first step was to perform a hierarchical regression
analysis to test the linear and interaction effects of DJ, PJ, IJ
and customer demandingness. A summary of the moderating
effects can be found in Table 6 and Figures 2–4. In
particular, customer demandingness significantly and positively
moderates the influence of DJ on post-recovery satisfaction
{H5a–bDJ  CD!PRS ¼ 0.176, SE ¼ 0.070 (confidence interval
[CI]: 0.011, 0.354), p ¼ 0.012}. So, we accepted H5a. The
findings further indicated that customer demandingness has a
significant and positive moderating effect on the nexus between
PJ and post-recovery satisfaction (H5b–bPJ  CD!PRS ¼ 0.034,
SE ¼ 0.075, [CI: 0.040, 0.394], p ¼ 0.002). Thus, H5b
supported the study. Similarly, H5c was also accepted, as the
empirical results specify that customer demandingness had a
positive impact on post-recovery satisfaction through IJ
(H5c–bIJ  CD!PRS ¼ 0.021, SE ¼ 0.073, [CI: 0.009, 0.256],
p ¼ 0.006). It indicates that when customers demonstrate their
demanding nature when interacting with services, the effect of
DJ, PJ and IJ on post-recovery satisfaction is stronger.
5. Discussion
In B2B setting, the importance of customer recovery
satisfaction after SFs has significantly increased. It is crucial for

Table 5 Results of path analysis

Unstandardized Standardized
Hypothetical paths regression weights regression weights SE CR p-value Results
H1a DJ ! PRS 0.364 0.323 0.104 3.496 0.000 Supported
H1b PJ ! PRS 0.306 0.278 0.093 3.279 0.001 Supported
H1c IJ ! PRS 0.241 0.218 0.086 2.788 0.005 Supported
H2 PRS ! CD 0.260 0.385 0.053 4.898 0.000 Supported
H3 CD ! VCC 0.520 0.556 0.081 6.439 0.000 Supported
H4 CD ! TI 0.669 0.589 0.100 6.699 0.000 Supported
Notes: N ¼ 337; SE ¼ standard error; CR ¼ critical ratio; DJ ¼ distributive justice; PJ ¼ procedural justice; IJ ¼ interactional justice; PRS ¼ post-recovery
satisfaction; CD ¼ customers’ distrust; VCC ¼ value co-creation; TI ¼ trusting intention
Source: Authors’ own work

Table 6 Results of moderating effects

Confidence interval 95%
Hypothetical paths b SE CR p-value Lower CI Upper CI Results
H5a CDMDJ ! PRS 0.176 0.070 2.504 0.012 [0.011, 0.354] Supported
H5b CDMPJ ! PRS 0.034 0.075 0.453 0.002 [0.040, 0.394] Supported
H5c CDMIJ ! PRS 0.021 0.073 0.287 0.006 [0.009, 0.256] Supported
Notes: N ¼ 337; SE ¼ standard error; CR ¼ critical ratio; DJ ¼ distributive justice; PJ ¼ procedural justice; IJ ¼ interactional justice; PRS ¼ post-recovery
satisfaction; CDM ¼ customer demandingness
Source: Authors’ own work
 Post-recovery satisfaction in B2B customers
Bilal Ahmad, Jingbo Yuan, Naeem Akhtar and Muhammad Ashfaq
Figure 2 CDM high and low effects on PRS through DJ
Figure 3 CDM high and low effects on PRS through PJ
B2B firms to modify their business strategies and make
efforts to develop a mechanism necessary to foster recovery
satisfaction and trust among business customers. As a result,
this study provides a clear explanation of these variables
influencing post-recovery satisfaction, customer distrust and
value-cocreation behavior in B2B contexts. The following four
should be assessed according to our research:
1 How much does a customer’s justice perception
contribute to post-recovery satisfaction?
2 To what extent does post-recovery satisfaction affect
distrust of business customers?
3 How does customers’ distrust affect behavioral responses
(i.e. value co-creation behavior and trusting intentions)?
4 To what extent does customer demandingness moderate
the linkage between justice perception and post-recovery
satisfaction?
First, based on JT (Blodgett et al., 1993), this research explores
the impact of DJ, PJ and IJ on recovery satisfaction after the
salesperson has failed to deliver the service in B2B environment
successfully. Our results on the positive impact of DJ, PJ and IJ
on post-recovery satisfaction are in agreement with the
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Figure 4 CDM high and low effects on PRS through IJ
outcomes of Oflac et al. (2021), who believe that industrial
customers would appreciate the efforts of wholesalers/dealers if
they provided fair tangible compensation. In the previous
literature, DJ and IJ have been proven to be crucial in
addressing psychological and emotional aspects of complaints
and SF/recovery management in B2B context (Gruber et al.,
2010; Hofer et al., 2012; Hübner et al., 2018). The results are
also compatible with the basis of JT (Migacz et al., 2018),
which suggests that customers’ levels of satisfaction with service
recovery and future business transactions are determined by
whether fair compensation was provided to them or whether
justice was delivered. With regard to JT, the customer is likely
to indulge in some comparative thinking and compare the
feeling of being treated fairly versus being uncompensated.
Second, our results further demonstrate that post-recovery
satisfaction is negatively linked with customer distrust
behavior. The rationale behind this relationship is that a
positive experience with service recovery creates favorable
word-of-mouth and reduces customers’ distrust behavior
(Ahmad and Sun, 2018; Kau and Loh, 2006). These results are
in agreement with the study of Mohd-Any et al. (2019), in
which they found that by meeting or exceeding a customer’s
expectations after failure, post-recovery satisfaction strengthens
the salesperson’s credibility over time and reduces distrust
between the salesperson and customer. Hence, the post-
recovery satisfaction is gaining prominence in the B2B context
and has been shown to decrease the level of distrust among
salespeople and customers.
Third, the current research investigated two contrasting
behavior intentions of distrusted customers. The results show
that customers’ distrust is positively linked with value
co-creation behavior. The findings from the present study
suggest that customers’ distrust does not always result in
negative behavioral responses. These outcomes are supported
by Bonamigo et al. (2020), who suggest that co-creation
outcomes can be better if there is a lack of trust in the process.
They argued that customers who distrusted their salespeople
became more active in value co-creation activities and used
their practical knowledge to challenge the salesperson’s claims
and suggestions, which led to higher quality services and
results. For example, a telecom company suffers from a data
 Post-recovery satisfaction in B2B customers
Bilal Ahmad, Jingbo Yuan, Naeem Akhtar and Muhammad Ashfaq
breach, causing a loss of customer trust. To rebuild trust, they
initiate co-creation workshops with skeptical customers to
gather input on data security, privacy policies and product
enhancements. Despite their initial distrust, the customers see
this as an opportunity to directly shape the company’s practices
and regain confidence in its offerings. In addition, the results of
our research indicate that customers’ distrust has a significantly
negative influence on their trusting intentions. These results
demonstrate that customers’ lack of trust reduces their
likelihood of choosing the same B2B salesperson in the future.
The results are in accordance with past studies (Akhtar et al.,
2022; Jiang et al., 2008), which indicated that insufficient and
lack of confidence levels result in negative behavioral intentions
that discourage trust.
Finally, the study’s finding emphasizes the crucial role of
customer demandingness as a moderating influence on post-
recovery satisfaction through justice perception. Past literature
summarized that highly demanding customers may expect an
apology or compensation, depending on the seriousness of the
damage or failure of the service. (Flint et al., 2011; Hübner
et al., 2018). Our findings support Kuo and Wu’s (2012)
notion that when customer demands are high after an SF, the
three dimensions of perceived justice (e.g. DJ, PJ and IJ) might
be helpful in achieving post-recovery satisfaction. The B2B
market of today is more information-rich, more demanding and
has a better understanding of products and services (Oflac
et al., 2021). Therefore, salespeople cannot avoid disappointing
customers by not fulfilling their ever-increasing service
demands.
5.1 Research implication
The present work significantly contributes to the scientific
literature regarding customer behavior, service and sales
management, trust and B2B markets. The first contribution we
make is to examine post-recovery satisfaction in a B2B context as
a mechanism that primarily begins with the customer’s perception
of justice. Although the impact of justice perceptions on recovery
satisfaction has been extensively studied in consumer markets
(Ghalandari, 2013; Jung and Seock, 2017; Mohd-Any et al.,
2019; Siu et al., 2013), there is insufficient research focusing on
the role of DJ, PJ and IJ in developing the post-recovery
satisfaction in B2B contexts. A previous study investigated the link
between justice perception and recovery satisfaction after SF in
Turkey (Oflac et al., 2021). This research emphasizes on the three
dimensions of justice perception and their influence on post-
recovery satisfaction in a B2B context conducted in Pakistan.
Hence, this research adds to the justice perception and service
recovery literature by looking into how the customer’s perception
of justice affects overall recovery satisfaction across different
countries and supports the generalizability of this JT finding.
Second, our findings widen the literature by opening up a “black
box” of how post-recovery satisfaction may undermine
customers’ distrust mentality. In the existing literature, trust
theories have been used in relation to B2B transactions (Casidy
and Yan, 2022; Chai et al., 2020; Henseler, 2018); however, the
distrust model has not been used in B2B context. Furthermore,
only a few studies have looked at this model in the light of service
recovery management. In light of the significance of this concept,
this study applies it to B2B literature by developing a model with
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
the antecedent post-recovery satisfaction and consequents
(i.e. value-creation behavior and trusting intentions).
Third, regarding the theoretical implications of our findings,
our study contributes to the existing literature on value
co-creation by highlighting the importance of trust and its role
in fostering positive outcomes for both salespeople and sales
firms. Specifically, our findings suggest that distrust is a crucial
factor in promoting value co-creation, as it enhances
communication and collaboration between salespeople and
customers. In some cases, customer distrust may actually serve
as a motivator for value co-creation. This is because B2B
customers are more likely to express their dissatisfaction and
demand better services, which encourages service providers to
actively participate in value co-creation activities. Moreover,
our study sheds light on the role of opportunism and distrust as
inhibitors of value co-creation, which has implications for sales
firms seeking to foster long-term customer relationships.
Second, this study answers the recent call of Akhtar et al.
(2022), who suggested that more efforts are needed to explore
the influence of customer distrust on related behavioral
intentions. Therefore, this research filled a gap in the literature
by examining the effect of customer distrust on two related
behavioral intentions (e.g. value co-creation behaviors and
trusting intentions) in a B2B context.
Finally, in the context of B2B relationships, very few scholars
have explored the influence of customer demandingness on
service-related outcomes (Luu, 2021; Yeboah Banin et al.,
2016). The current research uses the notion of customer
demandingness as a moderator between the justice perception
antecedents and post-recovery satisfaction. The present
research contributes to the prior literature by highlighting that
highly demanding customers in B2B sector have higher
expectations for service recovery outcomes, and if their
expectations are not met, they are less likely to be satisfied with
the service recovery efforts. However, building and maintaining
a trusting relationship along with justice and fair treatment can
help to mitigate the negative impact of their demandingness on
post-recovery satisfaction. Hence, we enhance the impact of
customers’ demandingness through the interaction of DJ, PJ
and IJ, which ultimately strengthens post-recovery satisfaction.
5.2 Managerial implication
This study offers several insights that can be applied to B2B sales
organizations and salespeople. To become more competitive,
constantly refine their services and satisfy customers, sales
organizations must meet the recovery expectations of their B2B
customers. Because failures cannot be avoided, sales organizations
must focus on the ramifications of failure by improving the
relationship between sales representatives and their B2B
customers. To formulate a better resolution strategy, companies
should take a comprehensive stance to the recovery process by
understanding it better. Better recovery efforts should result in a
satisfied customer, thereby avoiding the destructive two-way effect
associated with an unsatisfactory recovery.
As a result of an SF, we found that customers are more
satisfied with recovery if they perceive that distributive recovery
is fair. Accordingly, customers should be compensated fairly, or
at least compensated in a way that will cover their losses. In
addition, salespeople must strengthen the interactional ties
during the recovery process to protect the business relationship.
 Post-recovery satisfaction in B2B customers
Bilal Ahmad, Jingbo Yuan, Naeem Akhtar and Muhammad Ashfaq
In the course of the recovery stage, the business customers are
more satisfied when the interactional aspect of the recovery is
perceived as fair/just. Therefore, to obtain high recovery
satisfaction levels, prompt, polite and equal treatment – as well as
the consideration of customer opinions in the recovery process – is
necessary. Moreover, we agree that apologizing is important in
cases where it is impossible to cause the reason for failure. In our
opinion, defending the firm’s credibility can efficaciously enhance
the salespersons’ perceived trustworthiness. In B2B relationships,
trust and distrust play a crucial role because one accelerates
business and the other blocks it. Therefore, including a corrective
action plan can help mitigate distrust after a consistent failure.
To gain the benefits of customer value co-creation during
the purchasing stage, companies should enable customers to
perceive their willingness to augment inputs during co-creation.
Suppose companies provide detailed instructions to customers
who are eager to participate, but do not possess the necessary
knowledge or skills. In that case, they can help prevent poor
outcomes for first-time service users. The study found that
customer–salesperson interaction and collaborative norms could
help reduce distrusting behaviors and boost customer’s
relationships with social business platforms.
5.3 Limitations and future research
The current research has several limitations despite its notable
theoretical and managerial implications. We have studied
customers’ perceptions of justice and its impact on post-
recovery satisfaction relationships, but we have not explained
how perceived justice is measured in such circumstances. In
light of this, research in the future should focus on the
antecedents of the three dimensions of perceived justice in B2B
setting. Furthermore, this study did not capture distrust’s
emotional or cognitive aspects. However, disregarding certain
elements does not deny the possibility of the existence of a
cognitive or emotive component to distrust. In light of this,
future research should investigate other aspects of distrust (e.g.
emotional or cognitive distrust).
Furthermore, the indirect path has not been examined in this
research. Consequently, it may be possible to extend the model
to explore the indirect impacts of perceived justice dimensions
on behavioral intentions (e.g. value co-creation behavior and
trusting intention). Furthermore, the study included the
moderating variable based on customers’ traits. Nevertheless,
future scholars may consider other institutional variables (e.g.
supportive climate of fairness). In addition, a major portion of
sales representatives working in the Pakistani firms were male
(79%), but future investigations should examine gender as a
main categorical construct, and to measure whether it applies
to other geographic contexts. In addition, we conducted the
study using a survey method within a specific timeframe.
Consequently, it would be intriguing to have a longitudinal
data set that would allow scholars to assess changes over time.
References
Agnihotri, R., Gabler, C.B., Itani, O.S., Jaramillo, F. and
Krush, M.T. (2017), “Salesperson ambidexterity and
customer satisfaction: examining the role of customer
demandingness, adaptive selling, and role conflict”, Journal
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 37 No. 1,
pp. 27-41.
Ahmad, W. and Sun, J. (2018), “Modeling consumer distrust
of online hotel reviews”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 71, pp. 77-90.
Ahmad, B., Liu, D., Akhtar, N. and Siddiqi, U.I. (2022),
“Does service-sales ambidexterity matter in business-to-
business service recovery? A perspective through salesforce
control system”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 102,
pp. 351-363.
Akhtar, N., Siddiqi, U.I., Islam, T. and Paul, J. (2022),
“Consumers’ untrust and behavioral intentions in the
backdrop of hotel booking attributes”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 34 No. 5.
Albaum, G. (2018), “The Likert scale revisited”, International
Journal of Market Research, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 331-348.
Arbuckle, J.L. (2006), AmosTM 7.0 User’s Guide Amos
Development Corporation, Á SPSS.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y. and Phillips, L.W. (1991), “Assessing
construct validity in organizational research”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 421-458.
Baliga, A.J., Chawla, V., Sunder, M.V., Ganesh, L.S. and
Sivakumaran, B. (2021), “Service failure and recovery in
B2B markets – a morphological analysis”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 131, pp. 763-781.
Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer–company
identification: a framework for understanding consumers’
relationships with companies”, Journal of Marketing,
American Marketing Association, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 76-88.
Blodgett, J.G., Granbois, D.H. and Walters, R.G. (1993),
“The effects of perceived justice on complainants’ negative
word-of-mouth behavior and repatronage intentions”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 399-428.
Bonamigo, A., Dettmann, B., Frech, C.G. and Werner, S.M.
(2020), “Facilitators and inhibitors of value co-creation in
the industrial services environment”, Journal of Service
Theory and Practice, Vol. 30 No. 6.
Casidy, R. and Yan, L. (2022), “The effects of supplier B2B
sustainability positioning on buyer performance: the role of
trust”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 102, pp. 311-323.
Chai, L., Li, J., Tangpong, C. and Clauss, T. (2020), “The
interplays of coopetition, conflicts, trust, and efficiency
process innovation in vertical B2B relationships”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 85, pp. 269-280.
Chang, H.S. and Hsiao, H.L. (2008), “Examining the casual
relationship among service recovery, perceived justice,
perceived risk, and customer value in the hotel industry”, The
Service Industries Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 513-528.
Chang, S.J., Van Witteloostuijn, A. and Eden, L. (2010), “From
the editors: common method variance in international business
research”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 41
No. 2.
Choi, B. and La, S. (2013), “The impact of corporate social
responsibility (CSR) and customer trust on the restoration of
loyalty after service failure and recovery”, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 223-233.
Chou, S. and Chen, C.-W. (2018), “The influences of
relational benefits on repurchase intention in service contexts:
the roles of gratitude, trust and commitment”, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 5.
 Post-recovery satisfaction in B2B customers
Bilal Ahmad, Jingbo Yuan, Naeem Akhtar and Muhammad Ashfaq
Coviello, N.E. and Brodie, R.J. (2001), “Contemporary
marketing practices of consumer and business-to-business
firms: how different are they?”, Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 5.
Dang, T.T. and Pham, A.D. (2020), “What make banks’ front-
line staff more customer oriented? The role of interactional
justice”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 38
No. 4.
Darke, P.R., Ashworth, L. and Main, K.J. (2010), “Great
expectations and broken promises: misleading claims,
product failure, expectancy disconfirmation and consumer
distrust”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 38
No. 3, pp. 347-362.
Dimitriadis, S. and Kyrezis, N. (2010), “Linking trust to use
intention for technology-enabled bank channels: the role of
trusting intentions”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 8,
pp. 799-820.
Flint, D.J., Blocker, C.P. and Boutin, P.J. (2011), “Customer
value anticipation, customer satisfaction and loyalty: an
empirical examination”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 219-230.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, p. 39.
Ghalandari, K. (2013), “Perceived justice’s influence on post-
purchase intention s and post-recovery satisfaction in online
purchasing: the moderating role of firm reputation in Iran”,
Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology,
Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 1022-1031.
Gruber, T., Henneberg, S.C., Ashnai, B., Naude, P. and Reppel,
A. (2010), “Complaint resolution management expectations in
an asymmetric business-to-business context”, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 5.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E.
(2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice-Hall, NJ.
Han, S.-L. and Lee, J.W. (2021), “Does corporate social
responsibility matter even in the B2B market: Effect of B2B
CSR on customer trust”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 93, pp. 115-123.
Heim, I., Han, T. and Ghobadian, A. (2018), “Value co-creation
in ICT services company: a case study of a cross-border
acquisition”, Journal of East-West Business, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 319-338.
Henseler, J. (2018), “Thinking outside the box: a neuroscientific
perspective on trust in B2B relationships”, IMP Journal.
Hofer, A.R., Knemeyer, A.M. and Murphy, P.R. (2012), “The
roles of procedural and distributive justice in logistics
outsourcing relationships”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 33
No. 3, pp. 196-209.
Homans, G.C. (1958), “Social behavior as exchange”,
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 63 No. 6, pp. 597-606.
Homburg, C. and Fürst, A. (2005), “How organizational
complaint handling drives customer loyalty: an analysis of
the mechanistic and the organic approach”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 95-114.
Hossain, M.S., Sambasivan, M., Abuelhassan, A.E. and
Khalifa, G.S.A. (2023), “Factors influencing customer
citizenship behaviour in the hospitality industry”, Annals of
Leisure Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 65-88.
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria
versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Hübner, D., Wagner, S.M. and Kurpjuweit, S. (2018), “The
service recovery paradox in B2B relationships”, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 291-302.
Jiang, P., Jones, D.B. and Javie, S. (2008), “How third-party
certification programs relate to consumer trust in online
transactions: an exploratory study”, Psychology and Marketing,
Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 839-858.
Jung, N.Y. and Seock, Y.K. (2017), “Effect of service recovery
on customers’ perceived justice, satisfaction, and word-of-
mouth intentions on online shopping websites”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 37, pp. 23-30.
Karim, R.A. and Islam, M.W. (2020), “Assessing customer
demand and customer satisfaction through social and
environmental practices in the hotel sector of Bangladesh”,
GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, Vol. 30 No. 2 supplement,
pp. 843-851.
Kau, A. and Loh, E.W. (2006), “The effects of service recovery
on consumer satisfaction: a comparison between complainants
and non-complainants”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20
No. 2.
Keränen, J. and Jalkala, A. (2013), “Towards a framework of
customer value assessment in B2B markets: an exploratory
study”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42 No. 8,
pp. 1307-1317.
Kim, M.-J., Chung, N. and Lee, C.-K. (2011), “The effect of
perceived trust on electronic commerce: shopping online for
tourism products and services in South Korea”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 256-265.
Kim, T.T., Kim, W.G. and Kim, H.-B. (2009), “The effects of
perceived justice on recovery satisfaction, trust, word-of-
mouth, and revisit intention in upscale hotels”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 51-62.
Kohtamäki, M. and Rajala, R. (2016), “Theory and practice of
value co-creation in B2B systems”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 56.
Kuo, Y.-F. and Wu, C.-M. (2012), “Satisfaction and post-
purchase intentions with service recovery of online shopping
websites: perspectives on perceived justice and emotions”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 32
No. 2, pp. 127-138.
La, S. and Choi, B. (2019), “Perceived justice and CSR after
service recovery”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 206-219.
Lee, J., Lee, J.-N. and Tan, B.C.Y. (2015), “Antecedents of
cognitive trust and affective distrust and their mediating roles
in building customer loyalty”, Information Systems Frontiers,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 159-175.
Li, T. and Calantone, R.J. (1998), “The impact of market
knowledge competence on new product advantage:
conceptualization and empirical examination”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 13-29.
Liao, H. (2007), “Do it right this time: the role of employee
service recovery performance in customer-perceived justice
and customer loyalty after service failures”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 475-489.
 Post-recovery satisfaction in B2B customers
Bilal Ahmad, Jingbo Yuan, Naeem Akhtar and Muhammad Ashfaq
Lilien, G.L. (2016), “The B2B knowledge gap”, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 543-556.
Lussier, B. and Hall, Z.R. (2018), “Cooperation in B2B
relationships: factors that influence customers’ perceptions of
salesperson cooperation”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 69, pp. 209-220.
Luu, T.T. (2021), “Activating salesperson resilience during
the COVID-19 crisis: the roles of employer event
communication and customer demandingness”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 96, pp. 18-34.
McKnight, D.H., Lankton, N.K., Nicolaou, A. and Price, J.
(2017), “Distinguishing the effects of B2B information
quality, system quality, and service outcome quality on trust
and distrust”, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 118-141.
Marcos-Cuevas, J., Nätti, S., Palo, T. and Baumann, J. (2016),
“Value co-creation practices and capabilities: sustained
purposeful engagement across B2B systems”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 56, pp. 97-107.
Mattila, A.S. and Patterson, P.G. (2004), “Service recovery
and fairness perceptions in collectivist and individualist
contexts”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 336-346.
Maxham, J.G., III and Netemeyer, R.G. (2002), “A
longitudinal study of complaining customers’ evaluations of
multiple service failures and recovery efforts”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 57-71.
Michel, S., Bowen, D. and Johnston, R. (2009), “Why service
recovery fails: tensions among customer, employee, and
process perspectives”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 20
No. 3.
Migacz, S.J., Zou, S. and Petrick, J.F. (2018), “The ‘terminal’
effects of service failure on airlines: examining service
recovery with justice theory”, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 83-98.
Mohd-Any, A.A., Mutum, D.S., Ghazali, E.M. and
Mohamed-Zulkifli, L. (2019), “To fly or not to fly? An
empirical study of trust, post-recovery satisfaction and
loyalty of Malaysia airlines passengers”, Journal of Service
Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 Nos 5/6.
Moliner, C., Martinez-Tur, V., Ramos, J., Peiro, J.M. and
Cropanzano, R. (2008), “Organizational justice and
extrarole customer service: the mediating role of well-being
at work”, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 327-348.
Mora Cortez, R. and Johnston, W.J. (2017), “The future of
B2B marketing theory: a historical and prospective analysis”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 66, pp. 90-102.
Mora Cortez, R. and Johnston, W.J. (2019), “Marketing role in
B2B settings: evidence from advanced, emerging and
developing markets”, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 605-617.
Muralidharan, E., Guo, W., Fazel, H. and Wei, W. (2021),
“Organizational response to goods failure complaints: the
role of culture on perceptions of interactional justice and
customer satisfaction”, Global Business Review, Vol. 22
No. 6, pp. 1327-1344.
Nam, K., Baker, J., Ahmad, N. and Goo, J. (2020),
“Dissatisfaction, disconfirmation, and distrust: an empirical
examination of value co-destruction through negative
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM)”, Information Systems
Frontiers, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 113-130.
Oflac, B., Sullivan, U.Y. and Kaya Aslan, Z. (2021),
“Examining the impact of locus and justice perception on
B2B service recovery”, Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, doi: 10.1108/JBIM-11-2019-0467.
Padgett, D., Hopkins, C.D. and Williams, Z. (2020), “Buyer
dependence in B2B relationships: the role of supplier
investments, commitment form, and trust”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 119, pp. 13-24.
Pathak, B., Ashok, M. and Leng Tan, Y. (2022), “Value co-
creation in the B2B context: a conceptual framework and its
implications”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 42 Nos 3/4,
pp. 178-205.
Patterson, P.G., Cowley, E. and Prasongsukarn, K. (2006),
“Service failure recovery: the moderating impact of
individual-level cultural value orientation on perceptions of
justice”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 263-277.
Ple, L. and Chumpitaz Caceres, R. (2010), “Not always co-
creation: introducing interactional co-destruction of value in
service-dominant logic”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 430-437.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.
P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research:
a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), The Future of
Competition: Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers,
Harvard Business Press, Brighton, MA.
Rod, M., Lindsay, V. and Ellis, N. (2014), “Managerial
perceptions of service-infused IORs in China & India: a
discursive view of value co-creation”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 603-612.
Roschk, H. and Gelbrich, K. (2014), “Identifying appropriate
compensation types for service failures: a meta-analytic and
experimental analysis”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 195-211.
Sands, S., Campbell, C., Ferraro, C. and Plangger, K. (2022),
“Buffering B2B service failure: the role of customer
engagement”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 103,
pp. 47-60.
Schmitz, C., Lee, Y.-C., Isenberg, L. and Lilien, G.L. (2022),
“Managing ad hoc sales encounters in B2B markets”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 105, pp. 33-47.
Seiders, K. and Berry, L.L. (1998), “Service fairness: what it is
and why it matters”, Academy of Management Perspectives,
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 8-20.
Siddiqi, U.I., Sun, J. and Akhtar, N. (2020), “Ulterior motives
in peer and expert supplementary online reviews and
consumers’ perceived deception”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 33 No. 1.
Siu, N.Y.M., Zhang, T.J.F. and Yau, C.Y.J. (2013), “The roles
of justice and customer satisfaction in customer retention: a
lesson from service recovery”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 114 No. 4, pp. 675-686.
Tax, S.S., Brown, S.W. and Chandrashekaran, M. (1998),
“Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences:
implications for relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 60-76.
 Post-recovery satisfaction in B2B customers
Bilal Ahmad, Jingbo Yuan, Naeem Akhtar and Muhammad Ashfaq
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic:
continuing the evolution”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Yanamandram, V. and White, L. (2010), “An empirical
analysis of the retention of dissatisfied business services
customers using structural equation modelling”, Australasian
Marketing Journal (AMJ), Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 222-232.
Yeboah Banin, A., Boso, N., Hultman, M., Souchon, A.L.,
Hughes, P. and Nemkova, E. (2016), “Salesperson
improvisation: antecedents, performance outcomes, and
boundary conditions”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 59, pp. 120-130.
Yi, Y. and Gong, T. (2013), “Customer value co-creation
behavior: scale development and validation”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 9, pp. 1279-1284.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
View publication stats
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Zhao, H., Jiang, L. and Su, C. (2020), “To defend or not to
defend? How responses to negative customer review affect
prospective customers’ distrust and purchase intention”,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 45-64.
Zhao, X., Liu, Y., Bi, H. and Law, R. (2014), “Influence of
coupons on online travel reservation service recovery”,
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 21,
pp. 18-26.
Zhu, X. and Zolkiewski, J. (2015), “Exploring service failure in
a business-to-business context”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 367-379.
Corresponding author
Jingbo Yuan can be contacted at: jingbo.yuan@qq.com