当前位置:首页 >> 电子/电路 >>

1-19Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships


Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships: a systematic literature review and a meta-analysis of the empirical evidence
Emanuela Delbufalo
` Faculty of Economics, European University of Rome (Universita Europea di Roma), Rome, Italy
Abstract Purpose – This study’s purpose is to improve the understanding of inter-organizational trust outcomes in supply chain relationships. It focuses on synthesizing the empirical research published from 1990 to May 2010 in order to establish both what we know and do not know about this topic, thereby identifying areas for future research. Design/methodology/approach – The research methodology used is the systematic literature review. It differs from traditional narrative reviews by being more systematic and explicit in the selection of the studies and employing rigorous and reproducible evaluation methods. In total 56 were selected from three databases: Business Source Premier; ABI/Informs; Ingenta. A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the correlated outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships. A total of 33 outcome variables and 96 independent samples with an overall sample size of 69,452 were included in the meta-analytic process, providing insights for dissemination and discussion. Findings – Three major themes emerge from the analysis: direct, indirect and relational outcomes. The review identi?es a number of theoretical opportunities for future investigation as well as methodological challenges. Research limitations/implications – Inherent limitations could appear with regard to the methodological approaches used. The main research challenges refer to the: conceptualization of inter-organizational trust; de?nition of supply chain relationship typologies; and availability of primary data for the meta-analytic synthesis. Originality/value – This is the ?rst study employing a combination of systematic literature review and meta-analytic methodologies to explore the supply chain literature on inter-organizational trust outcomes. The ?ndings are of value to academics and practitioners alike. Keywords Inter-organizational trust, Supply chain, Supply chain management, Trust, Empirical literature, Outcomes, Meta-analysis, Review, Channel relationships Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
The goal of this study is to provide a comprehensive and critical review on outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships by means of a systematic literature review methodology in combination with a meta-analytic approach. The review considers empirical works published in academic journals from 1990 to (May) 2010. Issues associated with trust at various level of analysis have generated a great deal of broad scholarly interest in the ?eld, as evidenced by the dozens of articles, reviews (e.g. Seppanen ¨ et al., 2007) and special issues (e.g. Mollering et al., 2004) of ¨ the leading journals that have been devoted to this theme. Trust is a valuable contributor to many forms of exchange (Doney et al., 1998), and supply chain relationships are no exception (Kannan and Tan, 2006).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-8546.htm

At the organizational level, trust refers to the extent to which organizational members have a collectively held trust orientation towards the partner ?rm (Zaheer et al., 1998). This construct is regarded as more important than the other forms of trust (e.g. interpersonal trust) as a salient factor for the success of supply chain relationships (e.g. Fawcett et al., 2004). In inter-?rm exchanges, trust creates an environment where ?rms strive to exceed the minimum requirements of a relationship to increase the likelihood of mutual bene?ts (Panayides and Lun, 2009). In surveying the empirical work on inter-organizational trust, individual ?ndings tend to fall into one of the following areas of enquiry: . the nature of inter-organizational trust; . the development of inter-organizational trust; . the role of inter-organizational trust; and . the outcomes of inter-organizational trust (Zaheer and Harris, 2006).
Received: 1 October 2010 Revised: 15 March 2011 25 June 2011 4 November 2011 Accepted: 6 November 2011

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17/4 (2012) 377– 402 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1359-8546] [DOI 10.1108/13598541211246549]

377

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships Emanuela Delbufalo

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

These areas explore four questions with respect to interorganizational trust in supply chain relationships: 1 What is it? 2 How is it created? 3 How does it work? 4 What does it lead to? This study focuses on the fourth research question (i.e. What does inter-organizational trust lead to?) and aims to add further remarks to the literature synthesizing the empirical research in an effort to establish both what we know and what we do not know about inter-organizational trust outcomes in supply chain relationships, thereby identifying areas for future research. The need for this review comes from the growing research interest regarding whether inter-organizational trust leads to desirable outcomes, and if so, what those are. Although some evidences of the relationship between inter-organizational trust and direct/indirect outcomes has proven inconclusive (e.g. Aulakh et al., 1996), a variety of studies focuses on this connection with interesting results. Speci?cally, inter-?rm trust has been shown to lower transaction costs and cycle time within the supply chain (Carson et al., 2003), and to improve supply chain responsiveness (Hand?eld and Bechtel, 2002). Equally, the implementation of lean and agile supply chains requires increased levels of trust between organizations and this is also illustrated in a number of different industries (e.g. Svensson, 2001). This systematic literature review of trust outcomes differs from the others developed before in the management literature (e.g. Geyskens et al., 1998) in three different ways: ?rst, it provides a more updated and comprehensive view of all the speci?c outcome variables that have been correlated to inter-?rm trust; second, it speci?cally focuses on inter-organizational settings (i.e. supply chain relationships), avoiding confounding and inaccurate results due to multiple levels of analysis and to different conceptualizations of the trust construct; thirdly, it employs a methodology for the research synthesis resulting from the combination of the systematic literature review and meta-analytic approaches. The paper proceeds as follows. The next section describes the research methodology. Section 3 provides descriptive statistics of the selected articles. Section 4 describes the metaanalytic approach and summarizes the relevant ?ndings considering three different domains: 1 direct economic outcomes; 2 indirect outcomes; and 3 relational outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships. The ?nal sections contain conclusions as well as theoretical and methodological directions for further research.

repetition of effort, to assist in linking future research to the questions and concerns that have been posed by past research and ?nally to improve the methods used to collect and synthesize previous empirical evidence” (Thorpe et al., 2005, p. 258). The systematic review follows the three-phase approach outlined by Tran?eld et al. (2003): 1 planning the review: de?ning objectives; preparing the proposal and developing the protocol; 2 conducting the review: identifying, selecting, evaluating and synthesizing the relevant articles; and 3 reporting and dissemination of the results: descriptive reporting of citations and thematic reporting of journal articles. For the synthesis of the selected papers, the study employs a meta-analytic approach. Meta-analysis is a powerful technique for quantitatively integrating research ?ndings across a number of individual studies (Hunter and Schmidt, 1990). Through meta-analysis, the study aims to: . re?ect on the de?nition of inter-organizational trust; . map the constructs that have been examined empirically as outcomes of inter-organizational trust; . reveal which of these constructs exhibit a strong relationship with inter-organizational trust; and . demonstrate which methodological choices matter and which do not. The combination of the systematic literature review with the meta-analytic approach can overcome important limitations that are inherent in traditional narrative summaries of research. Systematic methods impose discipline on the review process. Meta-analysis provides an ef?cient way to summarize the results of a large number of studies and can uncover associations not previously identi?ed. Following Tran?eld et al.’s (2003) approach, the next subsection provides details of the research protocol (phase a) as the de?ning of the objectives has already been presented in the introduction. Sub-section 2.2 describes the database searching process of the relevant articles (phase b). Finally, the reporting and dissemination (phase c) will be discussed in sections 3 and 4. 2.1 The research protocol The review protocol was developed around the following research question: “What does inter-organizational trust lead to in supply chain relationships?” The domains for the research synthesis are the empirical (both qualitative and quantitative) papers on the outcomes of inter-organizational trust in the supply chain literature. The research protocol provides details on the: 1 conceptualization of the inter-organizational trust construct; 2 de?nition of the different typologies of supply chain relationships; and 3 typology of studies to be included in the review and the eligibility criteria. With regard to point (1), this study considers exclusively the conceptualization of trust that involves organizations both as trustor and trustee. Thus, the review excludes the research exploring the effects of interpersonal trust in an inter-?rm context (Janowicz and Noorderhaven, 2006). It is conceptually consistent to view inter-organizational trust as 378

2. Methodology
This study adopts the systematic literature review as research methodology (Tran?eld et al., 2003). It differs from the traditional narrative reviews by being more systematic and explicit in the selection of the studies, and by employing rigorous and reproducible methods of evaluation (Denyer and Tran?eld, 2009). A systematic literature review is designed “to help engender a sense of collective endeavour, relevance and openness among the researches so as to prevent expensive and fruitless

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships Emanuela Delbufalo

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

being placed in (or towards) another group of individuals such as the partner organization (contrary to what scholars say about the “origin” of the two concepts) (e.g. Adobor, 2005). In this view, inter-organizational trust has its base in individuals, although individuals in one organization may share an orientation towards another. Thus, interorganizational trust describes the extent to which organizational members have a collectively-held orientation toward the partner ?rm (Zaheer et al., 1998). Point (2) concerns the de?nition of supply chain relationships. This review considers horizontal and vertical inter-?rm relationships involving suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers (Spekman et al., 1998). The study also includes strategic alliances such as those that fall into the “non-traditional contracts” classi?cation, in which transactions take place between buyers and suppliers of industrial goods and services. This type of alliance is de?ned as a “precompetitive alliance” and consists of an interindustry, vertical supply chain relationship between manufacturer-service provider and their suppliersdistributors (Monczka et al., 1998, p. 554). Considering the above, several choices with regard to the typology of studies to be included and the eligibility criteria (i.e. the inclusion and exclusion criteria) have been made (point 3). They are outlined below: 1 The review was conducted by searching the Business Source Premier (EBSCO), ABI/Informs and Ingenta (including Science Direct) databases. They were found to have the greatest coverage coupled to functionality and full article access in the ?elds of Marketing, Supply Chain and Operation Management, which are relevant for the study. 2 Only published peer-reviewed journal articles were considered, both practitioner and academic. Equally, books, chapters in books, conference proceedings, working papers and other unpublished works were excluded. Following David and Han (2004), this was aimed at enhancing quality control. 3 The review considers two restrictions in order to enhance quality control. Rejections were made on the basis of date of publication: only articles published from January 1990 to May 2010 were considered[1]. In addition, the review included only articles published in the English language. 4 Papers’ substantive relevance was ensured by requiring that selected articles contained “trust *” as primary keyword in their title or abstract[2]. 5 In order to address the multidimensionality of trust de?nition, papers’ substantive relevance was ensured by requiring that selected articles not containing “trust *” as primary keyword contained at least one of the following eight additional keywords: benevolence, con?den *, credibilit * , depend * , fair * , goodwill, honest * , predictabilit *, reliabilit *. Seppanen et al.’s (2007) review ¨ oriented the selection of these nine additional keywords. 6 Papers’ substantive relevance was also ensured by requiring that articles selected contained at least one of the following 11 additional keywords in their abstracts: cooperative or cooperation, inter-?rm * or inter?rm *, interorganization * or inter-organization *, relationship * or relation *, supply chain *, buyer *, supplier *. Stemming from literature on cooperative relations, these keywords appear particularly relevant in order to tap into the interorganizational trust construct in supply chain contexts; 379

7

8

9

Following Newbert’s (2007) approach, empirical content was ensured by requiring that selected articles also contain at least one of the following ten “methodological” keywords in their abstract: data, empirical, test *, statistical, ?nding * , result * , case stud * , survey *, longitudinal, evidence *. Substantive and empirical relevance of the review was enhanced by reading all the abstracts for substantive context (i.e. discussion of effects, outcomes and/or consequences of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships) and empirical content (i.e. mention of quantitative or qualitative analysis)[3]. Substantive and empirical relevance was ?nally ensured by reading all remaining articles in their entirety for substantive context and adequate empirical content. This enforced the alignment between the selected articles and the review objectives.

The above criteria listed in nine points were all employed in order to conduct an effective and reproducible database searching process as described in the next sub-section. 2.2 Database searching process and results The database searching process was developed in four stages. This section reports on the stages and activities of the process and presents the results both descriptively and synthetically (Table I). In the ?rst stage, the keywords were built into search strings and entered into the electronic databases. The search string was amended using operators AND/OR and the exclusion criteria listed in the aforementioned points 2 and 3. This process yielded over 5,600 citations, of which 1,124 were left as relevant after ?ltering according to the exclusion criteria. In the second stage, a more thorough title and abstract analysis was then conducted on the retrieved studies against the criteria listed in points 5 and 6. In addition, the following articles were eliminated: duplicate studies (291), anonymous authors (13), and other publications (18) (i.e. book reviews). At the end of this process, 229 articles remained as relevant. In the third stage, the selected citations were further scanned searching for empirical studies via criteria detailed in point 7. Then, the remaining articles were grouped into A, B and C lists (Thorpe et al., 2005). “A” was de?ned as studies that were de?nitely relevant. “B” was de?ned as studies where the relevance was not clear a priori. “C” was de?ned as studies that were less relevant or unclear. There were 37 relevant articles, 21 partially relevant articles and 19 less relevant articles. The relevance assessment was relative, to the extent that the author’s judgments were focused on aspects contained within the review scope. Pittaway et al.’s (2004) quality criteria matrix was here adopted as a useful tool. In the fourth stage, starting within the A list and following with the B and C lists, the full-text version of 77 studies were read in detail in order to verify substantive and empirical relevance as detailed in the above points 8 and 9. From this process, 21 articles were further excluded from the analysis as they were outside the scope of this review. Then, further quality assessment, along with data extraction from the 56 selected articles, were performed. This latter analysis was conducted descriptively and thematically using a standard template. The descriptive analysis produced tables designed to contain the author(s), year, journal, country, industry, relationship type, theoretical approach, methodology, sample

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships Emanuela Delbufalo

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

Table I Summary of the results
Stage and activities Results Databases (3) Keywords used (31) Number of searches (42) Citations found (5,631) Duplicates (291) Anon authors (13) Other publications (18) Exclusion criteria (573) Relevant (37) Partially relevant (21) Less relevant (19) Relevant (36) Partially relevant (20) Less relevant (0) Citations selected (1,124)

Stage 1: Citation searches in the databases

Stage 2: Exclusion analysis through keywords and search strings

(229)

Stage 3: Quality and relevance criteria used to separate into three lists Stage 4: Full-articles analysis
Source: computed based on the data set

(77)

(56)

and analysis method of each study in the relevant lists (see Table II). The thematic analysis developed tables that were designed to summarize the following elements: de?nition of inter-organizational trust adopted, dimensions of trust, typology of outcome, and relevant ?ndings of each study in the relevant lists (see Appendix 1 (Table AI)). Since the timeframe is an important inclusion/exclusion criterion, both the synoptic views are organized by year of publication.

3. Descriptive statistics of the selected articles
This section shows the results of the analysis without discussing them as this will be done in section 4. The descriptive statistics proceed as follows: . analysis by date of publication; . analysis by journal; . analysis by industry and countries; . analysis by method; and . analysis by theoretical approach and analysis method. The analysis by date con?rms that the selected articles were published quite regularly from 1990 to 2010. In the bar-chart presented in Figure 1 there appears a scarce number of publications in the early 1990s, with exceptions for 1997 and 1998. Figure 1 also highlights an upward trend in the number of publications in 2008 and 2009 when it peaks respectively at seven and eight articles per year. The four articles published in the ?rst ?ve months of 2010 show clear signals of the growing interest in the topic. The analysis by journal aims to recover the journals most involved in the conversation about inter-organizational trust outcomes in supply chain relationships. A total of 30 journals contained the selected publications. Table III shows those with more than two publications. A long list of journals with only one article was omitted for practical reasons. Table III also shows that the majority of selected articles are published in journals with a high rating (i.e. 4 *). The analysis by industry indicates that a wide range of sectors has been considered in the selected articles, including primary industries, manufacturing, electronics, retailing and service industry. The majority of publications reports on 380

multi-industry studies which indicate an attempt to compare outcomes and ?ndings across industries (Table IV). The analysis by country illustrates a wide range of experiences. Table II reports on the countries chosen by each of the selected articles for the empirical research. The majority of publications concern the USA (21 articles) and China (six articles). A signi?cant number of articles report on cross-country settings (ten articles), which indicates an effort to compare ?ndings across different contexts and cultures (Figure 2). The analysis by method shows that the majority of publications (82 percent) use a mail or web survey as the methodological approach. The remaining articles adopt different methods such as secondary sources of data (7 percent), longitudinal survey (4 percent), single-case study (4 percent), multiple-case study (2 percent), and laboratory experiment (1 percent) (see Table II for details). In addition, Table V shows the theoretical approaches adopted and the analysis methods employed in the selected articles. For practical reasons, Table V reports on descriptive statistics concerning only theoretical perspectives and analysis methods adopted by more than two publications. The full list appears in Table II. With reference to the theoretical approach, the review ?ndings show that the majority of the selected articles use social exchange theory (37 percent), transaction cost economics (35 percent), trust-commitment perspective (8 percent), and resource-based view (5 percent). The ?ndings also show that the majority of selected articles employ quantitative methodology for the analysis (76 percent). Only 19 percent of the sample employs a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods while very few articles adopt a qualitative approach for the data analysis (5 percent).

4. The meta-analysis
Hunter and Schmidt’s (1990) meta-analytic method was employed to estimate the “true” correlations (i.e. corrected effect sizes) between inter-organizational trust and its outcomes. Study correlations are open to statistical artifacts, such as sampling error and measurement unreliability. Once

Table II Synoptic view of the descriptive analysis *
Industry Manufacturing ?rms in various sectors Manufacturing ?rms in various sectors Retail (regional department-store chains) Personal computer industry Mail survey Mail survey Survey Automobile tire industry (retail) P&C insurance industry Two mail surveys Mail survey Interviews; mail survey1,365 Structural equation model questionnaires 235 Structural equation model questionnaires Exploratory and con?rmatory factor analysis Multiple regression analysis Competing structural models Hierarchical regression model
Emanuela Delbufalo

No.aAuthor(s) (year) Country Relationship type Theoretical approach Methodology Sample Analysis method

1A Anderson and Narus (1990)

USA

2A Heide and John (1992) 176 questionnaires 140 questionnaires 129 questionnaires 329 questionnaires

USA

3A Ganesan (1994)

USA

ManufacturerSocial exchange theory distributor relationships SupplierTransaction cost economics; manufacturer relational norm perspective relationships Buyer-vendor Social exchange theory relationships Manufacturer-dealer Social exchange theory relationships Inter-organizational Trust-commitment theory; relationships social exchange theory Inter-organizational Transaction cost economics relationships Social exchange theory Social exchange theory; transaction cost economics Marketing channel Not speci?ed Not speci?ed Resource dependence and relational contracts Social exchange theory Mail survey Mail survey Mail survey Mail survey Survey

4A Mohr and SpekmanUSA (1994) 5A Morgan and Hunt USA (1994) 6A Zaheer and USA Venkatraman (1995) 7B Andaleeb (1996) USA Various sectors

Laboratory experiment 192 individuals Con?rmatory factor analysis Exploratory factor analysis Structural equation model Structural equation model Con?rmatory factor analysis Con?rmatory factor analysis

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships

8A Aulakh et al. (1996)Cross-countries

Not mentioned (Fortune 500 US industrial ?rms) USA; The Netherlands Automobile retail industry Electronic circuit-board industry Industrial manufacturing Electrical/electronic components

381
Computer industry Biopharmaceuticals, new materials Strategic alliances Transaction cost economics Manufacturing ?rms in various sectors Food industry Strategic alliances Social exchange theory; transaction cost economics ManufacturerSocial exchange theory supplier relationships Various sectors Buyer-supplier Trust-commitment theory; relationships transaction cost economics Electrical equipment manufacturers SupplierSocial exchange theory; and their component suppliers manufacturer transaction cost economics relationships

9A Geyskens et al. (1996) 10B Chow and Holden USA (1997) 11A Doney and Cannon USA (1997) 12A Nooteboom et al. The Netherlands (1997)

1952 questionnaires 703 questionnaires 297 questionnaires 678 questionnaires 97 questionnaires Mail survey

Canada

Buyer-seller relationships Inter-organizational relationships Buyer-vendor relationships Buyer-seller relationships Buyer-seller relationships Manufacturersupplier relationships Selling partnerships

Partial least squares

Cross-country

Cross-country

Multinomial logistic regression model Multiple regression analysis Con?rmatory factor analysis

13A Smith and Barclay (1997) 14B Gulati and Singh (1998) 15A Monczka et al. (1998) 16A Selnes (1998)

Norway

103 questionnaires Secondary sources of 1570 data questionnaires Mail survey 77 questionnaires Survey 177 questionnaires Mail survey

Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Cross-country 17B Spekman et al. (1998) 18A Zaheer et al. (1998)USA

161 Ordinary least squares (OLS) questionnaires regression model Questionnaires; survey 1050 Exploratory factor analysis questionnaires

(continued)

Table II No.aAuthor(s) (year) Country Industry Strategic alliances Social exchange theory; transaction cost economics Resource dependence Social exchange theory Archival data Archival sources; survey Mail survey Mail survey Mail survey Interviews; survey Longitudinal survey Mail survey Mail survey Survey Survey Structural equation model Relationship type Theoretical approach Methodology Sample Analysis method

Telecommunications 19A Young-Ybarra and At least one of the Wiersema (1999) partners was US-based Various sectors Manufacturing ?rms in various sectors Various sectors Telecommunications, microelectronics Knowledge-intensive sectors Agriculture (potted plants and ?owers industry) Not available Automobile industry Retail distribution industry Various sectors Relational governance; transaction cost economics Resource-based view

Con?rmatory factor analysis Structural equation model Standardized regressions Factor analysis Exploratory factor analysis Ordinary least squares regression model Con?rmatory factor analysis Linear regression analysis Con?rmatory factor analysis Partial least squares model

20B Gassenheimer and USA Manolis (2001) 21A Hand?eld and North America Bechtel (2002) 22A Luo (2002) China Buyer-seller relationships Buyer-supplier relationships Inter-organizational relationships Strategic alliance

Emanuela Delbufalo

23B Norman (2002)

USA

24A Carson et al. (2003)USA

25A Claro et al. (2003) The Netherlands

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships

26B Coote et al. (2003) China

27A Dyer and Chu USA; Japan; Korea (2003) 28A Lusch et al. (2003) n.a.

382
Manufacturing ?rms in various sectors Not mentioned (Fortune 500 US industrial ?rms) Manufacturing ?rms in various sectors Various sectors Various sectors Various sectors Inter-organizational Social exchange theory relationships Various sectors Inter-organizational Transaction cost economics relationships Food industry ManufacturerTrust-commitment theory; retailer relationships social exchange theory Various sectors Inter-organizational Knowledge-based view relationships High-tech industries: biotechnology, Strategic alliances Social exchange theory; new material development transaction cost economics

29B Johnston et al. (2004)

Canada

132 questionnaires (241 ?rms) 138 questionnaires 97 questionnaires 293 questionnaires 61 questionnaires 129 questionnaires 174 questionnaires 152 questionnaires 344 questionnaires 201 questionnaires 164 questionnaires Mail survey Ordinary least squares regression model Structural equation model; multi-group comparison Structural equation model

Inter-organizational Information processing relationships Supplier-distributor Marketing channel; business relationships networks Industrial marketing Industrial marketing theory relationships Supplier-automaker Social exchange theory; relationships transaction cost economics Supplier-retailer Social exchange theory relationships SupplierSocial exchange theory; manufacturer transaction cost economics relationships Inter-organizational Social exchange theory; relationships transaction cost economics Buyer-supplier Social exchange theory relationships Inter-organizational Trust-commitment theory; relationships social exchange theory Inter-organizational Transaction cost economics relationships Strategic alliance Social exchange theory

Multiple regression analysis Con?rmatory factor analysis Structural equation model Con?rmatory factor analysis; OLS regression analysis Hierarchical regression analysis Structural equation model Structural equation model

Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

30B Kwon and Suh USA (2004) 31B Corsten and Felde Switzerland (2005) 32A Kwon and Suh USA (2005) 33A Myhr and Spekman Finland; Norway; (2005) Sweden 34A Narasimhan and USA Nair (2005) 35B Chu and Fang China (2006) 36A Krishnan et al. India (2006) 37B Vlachos and Greece Bourlakis (2006) 38B Cheng et al. (2008)Taiwan

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

39A De Jong and Klein The Netherlands Woolthuis (2008)

171 questionnaires Mail survey 135 questionnaires Mail survey 171 questionnaires Web-based survey 157 questionnaires Secondary data; survey411 questionnaires Mail survey 288 questionnaires Mail survey 126 questionnaires Mail survey 97 questionnaires Mail survey (two 288 rounds) questionnaires Mail survey 391 questionnaires

(continued)

Table II No.aAuthor(s) (year) Country Industry Retail distribution industry Automobile industry Supplier-retailer Social exchange theory relationships Supplier-automaker Social exchange theory; relationships transaction cost economics Single case study Relationship type Theoretical approach Methodology Sample Analysis method

USA 40B Ghosh and Fedorowicz (2008) 41A Gulati and USA Nickerson (2008) Paper industry

42B Laaksonen et al. Finland (2008) 43A Lado et al. (2008) USA Not mentioned (Fortune 500 US industrial ?rms) Household appliances sector Industrial automation; home commodities industry Pharmaceutical industry (retail) Paper industry Manufacturing ?rms in various sectors Electronic; textile; steel

Emanuela Delbufalo

44A Liu et al. (2008)

China

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships

45B Ibrahim and RibbersCross-country (2009) 46B Jambulingam et al. USA (2009) 47A Laaksonen et al. Finland (2009) 48B Panayides and Lun UK (2009)

49B Ryu et al. (2009)

Cross-country

383
Various sectors Manufacturing ?rms in various sectors Manufacturing ?rms in various sectors Various sectors Healthcare sector Automotive industry Manufacturing ?rms in various sectors

Cross-country 50B Sharfman et al. (2009) 51A Squire et al. (2009) UK

52A Yeung et al. (2009) China

Austria; Slovenia; Czech Republic USA

Austria; Germany

Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

53A Fink and Kessler (2010) 54A Hausman and Johnston (2010) 55A Hoffmann et al. (2010) 56A Liao (2010)

China

Not applicable Analysis of interviews records Survey; interviews (37)222 Three-stage switching questionnaires regression model (two ?rms) Buyer-supplier Transaction cost economics Single case study Not applicable Analysis of interviews relationships records and questionnaires Inter-organizational Relational exchange theory; Longitudinal survey 409 Con?rmatory factor analysis relationships transaction cost economics questionnaires Buyer-supplier Social exchange theory; Mail survey 225 Structural equation model relationships transaction cost economics questionnaires Inter-organizational Resource-based view; Multiple case study (3)Not applicable Analysis of interviews relationships transaction cost economics records and questionnaires Inter-organizational Marketing channel Mail survey 156 Structural equation model relationships questionnaires Buyer-supplier Game theory; transaction cost Multiple case study Not applicable Activity based costing model relationships economics ManufacturerNot speci?ed Mail survey 193 Structural equation model supplier questionnaires relationships ManufacturerTransaction cost economics Mail survey 172 Structural equation model supplier questionnaires relationships Inter-organizational Social exchange theory; Theoretical sample 27 Multiple regression analysis relationships transaction cost economics survey; interviews (14) questionnaires Strategic buyerResource-based view Mail survey 104 Ordinary least squares (OLS) supplier questionnaires regression model relationships SupplierSocial exchange theory Mail survey 617 Exploratory factor analysis manufacturer questionnaires relationships Inter-organizational Resource-based view; Mail survey 303 Linear regression analysis relationships cooperation theory questionnaires Buyer-supplier Commitment-trust theory Mail survey 324 Structural equation model relationships questionnaires Inter-organizational Social exchange theory; Mail survey 151 Logistic regression models relationships transaction cost economics questionnaires Inter-organizational Social network theory Mail survey 102 Hierarchical regression relationships questionnaires analysis

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Notes: The journal of each articles was omitted for practical reasons; aA, B or C letters attest the quality evaluation scoring (see Pittaway et al., 2004) Source: computed based on the data set

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships Emanuela Delbufalo

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

Figure 1 Analysis by date of publication

these artefacts are controlled for, then a chi-square test should be conducted in order to determine if suf?cient variance remains in the results and justi?es a search for moderator variables. Without suf?cient variance, one can conclude that inconsistent ?ndings are in fact completely explained by statistical artifacts. The effect size metric selected for the analysis is the zeroorder Pearson product-moment correlation coef?cient between inter-organizational trust and the constructs in question (i.e. the outcomes). For studies that did not report correlations, Student’s t and F-ratios with one df in the numerator were converted to correlation coef?cients by means of formulae given by Hunter and Schmidt (1990, p. 272). Additionally, four papers have been excluded from the original set of selected articles (56 articles) as they employed single/multiple case study methodology[4]. Only the papers that actually measured inter-organizational trust were included in the meta-analytic process. Thus, the analysis considered 52 studies and reported 33 outcome variables correlated to inter-organizational trust from 96 independent samples and a total of 69,452 subjects involved. Table III Number of articles by journal
Journals

Following the procedure, as set forth by Hunter and Schmidt (1990), we ?rst corrected each correlation for attenuation using the reliabilities reported for each measure, where reliability information is available[5]. For samples not reporting the reliability of a multi-item measure of a certain variable, the sample size-weighted mean reliability of the multi-item measure of that variable across the samples was used as the substitute (see Judge and Ilies, 2002). For studies using a single-item measure for a certain variable, when the corresponding reliability was missing, we followed the procedure proposed by Williams et al. (2006) estimating the sample size-weighted mean reliability of single-item measures of each variable and using this estimate as the substitute. After the correlations are corrected for attenuation, the estimated true correlation (rt) between each dependent variable and the inter-organizational trust construct is calculated. In order to calculate the mean rt, each corrected correlation for a given study is weighted by the sample size and averaged across respondents and studies[6]. The next step is to calculate the estimated population standard deviation (S2) and ?nally, a chi-square statistic that allows p

Journal rating 4 4a 3a 2a 3a n.a. 4a 4a 4a 3a
a

No of articles 2 2 7 2 4 2 6 5 5 2

Percentage of sample 4 4 12 4 7 4 11 9 9 4

Academy of Management Journal British Journal of Management Industrial Marketing Management International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management International Journal of Production Economics Journal of Managerial Issues Journal of Marketing Organization Science Strategic Management Journal Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Notes: The Academic Journal Quality Guide (version 4; March 2010) by the Association of Business Schools (ABS) provides journal ratings Source: computed based on the data set

384

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships Emanuela Delbufalo

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

Table IV Analysis by industry
Industry Primary industries (agriculture) Manufacturing (automotive, textile, paper, household appliances) Electronics (and related) High-technology industries Pharmaceutical industries Retail distribution Service industry Healthcare industry Multi-industry Other Source: Computed based on the data set No of articles 1 21 7 2 2 5 4 1 8 5 Percentage of sample 2 38 13 3 3 9 7 2 14 9

for the assessment of the heterogeneity across the studies after correcting for statistical artifacts (Hunter and Schmidt, 1990). A signi?cant chi-square indicates the presence of moderator variables. It is also necessary to compute the 95 percent con?dence interval around the corrected mean correlations. Moreover, a fail-safe N is calculated for each variable studies in order to assess the possibility of publication bias or the “?le-drawer” problem in the analysis. This information, given in the last column in Table VI, indicates the number of other studies that would have to be included in the analyses in order to change the correlation to r , 0.01, yielding con?dence in the results of the meta-analysis.

correlations ranging from 0.10 to 0.30 are “medium” (M), and correlations greater than 0.30 are “large” (L). To systematically review such a large number of constructs, meta-analysis studies typically adopt some categorization typology (e.g. Geyskens et al., 1998). This study proposes to categorize the selected variables in three different domains, which have occupied the primary interest of empirical research on the topic. They are: 1 direct economic outcomes; 2 indirect outcomes; and 3 relational outcomes. All the correlations involving inter-organizational trust and its outcomes were classi?ed into one of three categories. The ?ndings of meta-analysis are descriptively presented along with the above themes in the following three sub-sections. 4.1.1 Direct economic outcomes Inter-organizational trust has been shown to in?uence a number of recognizable economic outcomes. Various metrics are in place for measuring the direct economic effect of interorganizational trust in supply chain relationships. The performance variables that have been investigated consider

4.1 Results from the overall meta-analysis A summary of the meta-analysis is presented in Table VI. The analysis examined 33 constructs as outcomes of interorganizational trust. Table VI also provides a description of the effect size of the relationships between inter-organizational trust and the outcomes constructs in accordance with the guidelines set forth by Cohen and Cohen (1983), where correlations less than 0.10 are considered to be “small” (S), Figure 2 Analysis by country

385

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships Emanuela Delbufalo

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

Table V Analysis by theoretical approach and analysis method
No. of articles Percentage of sample 4 3 3 5 37 2 35 8 4 6 22 9 6 6 7 9 4 31

Theoretical approach Marketing channel Relational governance Resource dependence Resource-based view Social exchange theory Social network theory Transaction cost economics Trust-commitment theory Not speci?ed Analysis method Analysis of interviews records Con?rmatory factor analysis Exploratory factor analysis Hierarchical regression model Linear regression analysis Multiple regression analysis Ordinary least squares regression model Partial least squares model Structural equation model
Source: Computed based on the data set

3 2 2 4 29 2 27 6 3 3 12 5 3 3 4 5 2 16

the subjective evaluation perspective, the ?nancial perspective, the cost perspective, and the business process perspective. Such analysis of direct economic outcomes can serve as a good indicator of integration issues in the supply chain (Spekman et al., 1998). The subjective perspective considers studies in which the performance measure is a subjective evaluation – provided by one partner towards another – re?ecting the degree to which the partner organization ful?ls the goal of competitive price, timeliness of delivery and high quality supply in the relationship (e.g. Zaheer et al., 1998). The impact of interorganizational trust on this direct outcome is con?rmed. The meta-analysis provides a strong support for the link between inter-organizational trust and performance measured by ef?ciency and productivity metrics (Gulati and Nickerson, 2008). Equally, the ?ndings con?rm the strong rationale in the literature for the link between trust and ?nancial performance, measured by sales growth, cash ?ow and/or increased Return on Investment (ROI). With regard to the cost perspective, the meta-analysis demonstrates a modest purchasing cost reduction as a consequence of increased levels of inter-?rm trust between partners (Corsten and Felde, 2005) while providing strong support for the effect of trust on lowered transaction costs. From a business process perspective, the ?ndings show that inter-organizational trust has a positive impact on task performance measured by timeline and quality (Carson et al., 2003). Similarly, the analysis gives empirical evidence that working to build trust within the relationship can improve supplier responsiveness measured by cycle time reduction and strategic ?exibility (Panayides and Lun, 2009). 4.1.2 Indirect outcomes Research into inter-organizational trust suggests that it also leads to a variety of outcomes that are less directly economic 386

but nevertheless desirable outcomes for the relationship. The majority of the selected variables fall within this domain (14 variables) and consider a wide variety of different indirect outcomes. In general, inter-organizational trust has a strong positive impact on partners’ actions such as investment in relationspeci?c assets, supplier integration, joint action and joint problem-solving (e.g. Monczka et al., 1998). Several studies agree that inter-?rm trust makes information sharing much easier by increasing the openness in the relationship (Squire et al., 2009) and reducing the need for information protection mechanisms (Cheng et al. 2008; Norman, 2002). The meta-analysis con?rms the positive link of inter-?rm trust with cooperation, de?ned as “the degree to which partners are able to work together in a joint fashion toward their respective goals” (Myhr and Spekman, 2005, p. 180). Within this domain, a signi?cant number of articles assert that, for supply chain relationships to become truly collaborative in nature, trust is not only a desired characteristic but a necessary one (e.g. Anderson and Narus, 1990; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). A growing area of interest in the review topic is the one that introduces trust to explain governance mechanisms in an uncertain environment. In this view, trust appears as a condition for in?uencing a partner’s propensity towards a speci?c governance structure (i.e. arms-length or relational mechanisms) (Heide and John, 1992). Despite the theoretical orientation on the topic (e.g. Gulati and Singh, 1998), surprisingly the overall results indicate that the relationship between inter-?rm trust and vertical control is neither negative nor signi?cant. Finally, Table VI shows the small effect size for the relationship between trust and contract ?exibility as well as for the relationship of trust on the duration of collaboration. In

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships Emanuela Delbufalo

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

Table VI Overview of pairwise relationships involving inter-organizational trust
a
Direct economic outcomes Exchange performance (subjective performance) Performance: ef?ciency and productivity Financial performance Purchasing cost reduction Cycle time reduction Strategic ?exibility Task performance Transaction costs Indirect outcomes Contract ?exibility Cooperation Duration of collaboration Functionality of con?ict Information sharing Innovativeness Interdependence Investment in relation-speci?c assets Joint action Joint problem-solving Knowledge transfer Supplier integration Vertical control Relational outcomes Affective commitment Behavioral uncertainty Calculative commitment Expectation of continuity Future purchase intentions Joint responsibility Loyalty Perceived risk Relationalism (solidarity; ?exibiliy; mutuality) Satisfaction Support for change Willingness to invest
0.86 0.84 0.78 0.82 0.81 0.84 0.85 0.79 0.91 0.88 0.69 0.78 0.82 0.83 0.71 0.81 0.83 0.89 0.87 0.94 0.75 0.80 0.71 0.86 0.89 0.70 0.79 0.71 0.90 0.81 0.79 0.91 0.73 k 8 7 8 5 2 1 4 6 2 5 1 3 6 5 2 7 3 3 2 5 3 9 2 3 6 1 1 2 2 1 8 1 5

n
5,910 1,204 10,515 801 870 132 1,734 4,635 1,371 438 97 7,632 4,323 984 1,122 1,686 2,481 153 495 2,838 5,931 5,580 765 312 2,565 138 64 453 966 409 948 201 999

r 0.31 0.33 0.30 0.09 0.39 0.07 0.15 -0.26 0.08 0.23 0.17 20.17 0.34 0.40 0.24 0.41 0.37 0.47 20.09 0.11 0.02 0.27 20.01 20.15 0.43 0.23 0.23 0.19 20.09 0.54 0.28 0.09 0.21

rt 0.29 0.31 0.26 0.08 0.35 0.06 0.14 -0.23 0.08 0.22 0.14 2 0.15 0.31 0.36 0.20 0.37 0.34 0.44 2 0.08 0.11 0.02 0.24 2 0.01 2 0.14 0.41 0.19 0.20 0.15 2 0.09 0.49 0.25 0.09 0.18

sdt 0.01 0.09 0.07 0.00 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.09 0.13 0.04 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.16 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.03

95% CI 0.2490 0.1907 0.2390 20.0404 0.2447 20.1021 0.0693 20.2767 20.0118 0.0597 20.1994 20.2075 0.2626 0.2619 0.1006 0.2964 0.2783 0.3344 20.230 0.0466 20.0241 0.1967 20.0808 20.2472 0.3526 0.0236 0.0482 0.0587 20.1974 0.4126 0.1436 20.0490 0.0740 0.3299 0.4020 0.3004 0.1981 0.4472 0.2380 0.2288 20.1822 0.1705 0.3693 0.1994 20.132 0.3559 0.4507 0.2954 0.4393 0.3989 0.5347 0.0737 0.1725 0.064 0.2823 0.0609 20.0294 0.4643 0.3461 0.3427 0.2388 0.0195 0.5603 0.3507 0.2256 0.2820

ES M L M S L S M M S M S M L L M L L L S M S M S M L M M M S L M S M

x2 30.09 * 97.31 * 65.86 * 97.31 * 44.64 * 47.82 * 128.18 * 19.09 * 48.51 * 32.11 * 0.37 34.7 * 12.84 * 48.06 * 106.18 * 96.84 * 23.38 * 4.82 23.3 * 97.31 * 120.46 * 65.86 * 62.6 * 20.71 * 128.18 * 16.62 * 2.57 34.65 * 43.92 * 22.58 * 37.72 * 40.02 * 55.02 *

Nfs 180.54 389.24 526.88 184.22 699.33 147.23 640.9 57.27 748.48 160.55 347.72 104.1 77.04 440.62 699.33 271.19 70.14 54.68 2.27 470.9 361.38 592.74 748.48 968 256.36 421.07 55.22 177.3 263.52 203.22 150.88 440.22 220.08

Notes: a ? average reliability measure of the variables; k ? the number of samples in each analysis; n ? the total number of respondents in the k samples; r ? the mean uncorrected correlation; rt ? the mean weighted corrected correlation; sdt ? the estimated population standard deviation; ES ? effect size; x2 ? a chi-square test for variance unaccounted for across the samples; Nfs ? fail-save N; *p , 0.01

addition, results suggest that a high degree of interorganizational trust impacts negatively on the functionality of con?ict but has a positive and strong effect on innovativeness and interdependence (Corsten and Felde, 2005). 4.1.3 Relational outcomes A number of different relational outcomes have been related to inter-organizational trust. As Table VI indicates, the impact of inter-organizational trust on partner orientation and behavior has been pervasive and continuing. For example, the level of inter-?rm trust has been shown to increase the partners’ loyalty and support for change (Chow and Holden, 1997; Jambulingam et al., 2009). Con?rming prior research on the topic (Geyskens et al., 1996; 1998), the link between inter-organizational trust and 387

commitment has been well-documented along the selected studies (e.g. Chu and Fang, 2006). Starting from Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) work, many studies address the point that exchange participants seek only trustworthy partners because commitment entails vulnerability. This line of argument is supported by the meta-analysis, which shows that greater levels of inter-?rm trust increase affective commitment and decrease calculative commitment. In line with Anderson and Narus’ (1990) work, the ?ndings con?rm the positive effect of inter-?rm trust on satisfaction. Even the relationship between trust and relationalism (i.e. the set of behavioural norms that support relational contracting) is con?rmed (Lado et al., 2008). Satisfaction and relationalism are global evaluations of ful?llment of the

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships Emanuela Delbufalo

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

relationship, to which trust may strongly contribute (as shown by the corresponding effect sizes). The most surprising result of this analysis is the one concerning behavioral uncertainty. In fact, contrary to what is posited in the literature (Krishnan et al. 2006), inter-?rm trust seems to have a small effect size on the level of behavioral uncertainty even if the relationship is negative. Further, a pair of articles provides modest empirical con?rmation for the negative effect of inter-?rm trust on perceived risk in buyersupplier relationships (e.g. Liu et al., 2008). The remaining correlations illustrate that interorganizational trust positively impacts on a number of other relational outcomes such as expectation of continuity (Ganesan, 1994), future purchase intention (Gassenheimer and Manolis, 2001), joint responsibility (Johnston et al., 2004), and willingness to invest (Myhr and Spekman, 2005). In sum, greater inter-?rm trust increases the perceived “extendedness” of a relationship and encourages the partner(s) to share resources and responsibilities in a longterm perspective. 4.2 Integrative review of qualitative studies Wolf (1986) suggests that qualitative studies be included in a review even if such work cannot be incorporated in the quantitative analysis. In addition to the studies covered above, inter-organizational trust outcomes have been examined in four qualitative/ethnographic papers that complement the quantitative enquiries. This integrative review examined the qualitative papers in terms of the outcomes of trust identi?ed in the meta-analysis and found that all four studies con?rmed the quantitative ?ndings. Speci?cally, Ghosh and Fedorowicz (2008) con?rm that inter-?rm trust supports the information sharing between supply chain partners and positively affects supply chain performance. In addition, Laaksonen et al.(2009) propose an ethnographic study providing con?rmation for the direct effect of trust on lowered multi-supplier transaction costs. They also examine the potential bene?ts of inter-?rm trust on the partners’ ?nancial performance. Ibrahim and Ribbers (2009) underline that inter-?rm trust strongly in?uences the exploitation of a speci?c kind of relationalism while Laaksonen et al. (2008) address how inter-?rm trust impacts on the partners’ interdependence over time. The qualitative studies provide a form of multi-method con?rmation of the meta-analysis results as a set of studies using quite different methods but yielding similar ?ndings. 4.3 Moderator analysis As indicated above, the effect size provided by the metaanalysis varies by the type of construct involved, with the largest effect sizes being expected for indirect outcomes such as innovativeness and joint problem-solving as well as for relational outcomes such as relationalism. As a follow-up to the overall meta-analysis, several tests were conducted to check for the presence of moderators in the data set. The ?rst indicator of moderators is to examine whether or not statistical artifacts explain the variance in observed correlations (Hunter and Schmidt, 1990). The chisquare test (shown in Table VI) indicates that between study variance was in fact due to statistical artifacts in three of the 33 correlations examined. Two of the three mentioned studies are based on a single sample. However, the remaining 30 analyses indicate that there are potential moderators of the 388

relationship between inter-organizational trust and the outcome constructs. To examine the impact of moderators on the trust-outcome relationships, a generalized least squares regression (GLS) approach was taken. GLS can overcome the assumption of independence that is necessary in other multivariate analysis techniques. The correlations in this analysis cannot be treated as independent because the majority of the samples in the meta-analysis provided more than one inter-organizational trust pairwise correlation. Therefore it is necessary to model within-sample dependencies and in turn safeguard against samples that yielded more information, thus biasing the results. In order to model these dependencies, it was necessary to calculate the block diagonal variancecovariance matrices for each sample and analyze them together in a single analysis (Raudenbush et al., 1988). Appendix 2 provides details of how the variances and covariances were calculated for each sample (Becker, 1992). Appendix 2 explicates the model estimated in order to examine the impact of moderators. As is typical in meta-analysis, the coded study characteristics can be categorized as variables related to the operationalization of constructs or to other study design features (Palmatier et al., 2006). This study considers three broad categories of moderators that are often mentioned in the supply chain literature as being potentially detrimental to the generalizability of study results. The moderators are as follows: 1 the operationalization of inter-organizational trust; 2 the temporal nature of the data (cross-sectional versus longitudinal); and 3 the number of industries[7]. The rationale behind the impact of these moderators is provided in Table VII. The results from the generalized least squares regression are summarized in Table VIII[8]. Overall the results provide support for all the moderator hypotheses. A discussion of speci?c results follows. With regard to the operationalization of inter-organizational trust, no standard dimensions of the construct have been used. With many different ways of operationalizing interorganizational trust, it is dif?cult to synthesize and interpret the ?ndings of prior research. However, it is hypothesized that the dimensions of inter-organizational trust employed will signi?cantly impact on the correlations observed between trust and the other constructs. Speci?cally, H1 predicts that an operationalization of inter-organizational trust based on either reliability/integrity or credibility/benevolence will exhibit higher effect sizes than samples using other dimensions. The parameter estimate for “Other dimensions” is negative (2 0.422, p , 0.001) thus supporting H1. Because these results have such a strong implication for future research, it is worthwhile examining them further. A univariate analysis was conducted in order to determinate the impact of the use of speci?c dimensions in the operationalization of trust. In general, employing credibility/ benevolence components yields the highest correlations between inter-?rm trust and relational outcomes such as affective commitment and satisfaction. Equally, employing reliability/integrity components in the operationalization of inter-?rm trust exhibits a larger effect on direct economic effects (i.e. exchange performance) and on a number of

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships Emanuela Delbufalo

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

Table VII Theoretical rationale for proposed moderators
Operationalization of inter-organizational trust Many researchers have included alternatively two couples of components (or dimensions) in their operationalization of inter-organizational trust: reliability and integrity; and credibility and benevolence. Others have included different dimensions or have measured the construct globally with no reference to any of its facets. Theoretical argument indicates that the operationalization of trust based on one of the two couples of dimensions are more reliable. Given that the content validity of a trust scale that comprises either reliability/integrity or credibility/benevolence is expected to be higher than scales using no dimensions or different components, it is hypothesized that the former types of operationalization yield stronger relations with other constructs (Hypothesis 1) In meta-analytic investigations, scholars often code for the temporal nature of studies investigating causal relationships (e.g. Hom et al., 1992). It is probable that studies investigating inter-organizational trust at one point in time versus over a period of time are likely to yield different correlations between trust and its outcomes. Therefore, it is hypothesized that the temporal design of the samples will bias the effects sizes observed with regard to inter-?rm trust (Hypothesis 2) Most empirical studies draw their sample from one particular industry, mainly the automobile industry (e.g. Morgan and Hunt, 1994). However, some researchers have drawn samples from multiple industries (e.g. Anderson and Narus, 1990; Ganesan, 1994). Multiple industries yield more variation in the data than a single industry. This should increase the range of the constructs of interest and consequently have a positive effect on the magnitude of the correlation coef?cient. Hence, it is hypothesized that empirical relations of trust with other constructs are stronger in studies involving multiple industries (Hypothesis 3)

Research design

Number of industries

Table VIII GLS moderators results
Moderator Beta Variance 0.0001 0.0004 0.0002 z-value 141.29 * 29.90 * 2 34.27 * 53.25 * 3.41 * 119.60 *

Dimensions of inter-organizational trust Reliability/integrity 1.131 Credibility/benevolence 0.659 Other dimensions 2 0.422 Research design Cross-sectional vs longitudinal Number of industries Single industry Multiple industries Direct economic outcomes Exchange (subjective) performance Performance: ef?ciency and productivity Financial performance Purchasing cost reduction Transaction costs Indirect outcomes Cooperation Information sharing Innovativeness Investment in relation-speci?c assets Supplier integration Relational outcomes Affective commitment Expectation of continuity Satisfaction Willingness to invest
Note: p , 0.001

0.358

0.0004

0.032 1.182

0.0001 0.0001

2 0.101 2 0.108 2 0.922 2 0.747 2 0.173 2 1.062 0.388 0.500 0.308 0.501 -0.661 -0.586 0.522 -0.120

0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001

2 11.76 * 27.94 2 70.12 * 2 69.47 * 2 14.71 * 2101.58 * 26.85 * 70.72 * 19.63 * 45.31 * 2 46.11 * 2 59.32 * 41.44 * 2 16.65 *

indirect effects such as cooperation, information sharing and supplier integration. H2 predicts that examining innovation either with a crosssectional research design or longitudinally will bias the effect sizes observed. The results provide support for H2 (0.358, p , 0.001) and suggest that studying the impact of interorganizational trust at one point in time will in?ate the true effect size of these trust relationships as compared to examining the impact of inter-organizational trust over time. This ?nding indicates a need for researchers to be cognizant of the differences in studying inter-organizational trust at one point in time versus longitudinally. Again, the univariate t-test comparisons suggest that studies that are cross-sectional tend to ?nd a much stronger relation between trust and ?nancial performance. Equally, longitudinal studies ?nd a stronger relationship between inter?rm trust and the majority of indirect and relational outcomes. These ?ndings suggest that, in general, indirect and relational outcomes take longer to come than economic outcomes. Finally, the outcomes of inter-organizational trust have been examined in several different contexts. H3 predicts the impact of studying trust-outcome relationships in both single and multiple industries. The moderator analysis found support for this hypothesis (1.182, p , 0.001). The results suggest studying inter-organizational outcomes in multiple industries in?ates the effect size of trust-outcome relationships as compared to studying inter-organizational trust in a single industry. Univariate analysis revealed that cross-industry studies strongly yield the relationship between trust and multiple outcomes, such as for example transaction costs, innovativeness, investment in speci?c assets, supplier integration and satisfaction.

5. Direction for future research
Building upon the rich foundation of the empirical ?ndings described, this section presents the issues that merit further discussion and hold the most promise for future research. Some of these areas of potential research arise directly from the research streams previously discussed, although others are 389

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships Emanuela Delbufalo

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

notable primarily due to the lack of research attention paid to them. After considering the theoretical direction for future research, the review agrees with Zaheer and Harris’ (2006) suggestions and considers some methodological issues. This is because it is dif?cult to discuss theory development without also considering the corresponding methodological implications and challenges. 5.1 Theoretical directions According to the review ?ndings, future theoretical directions could try to explore the following themes: . impact of inter-?rm trust on the choice of governance mode; . network perspective of inter-organizational trust; . inter-?rm trust as a reciprocal concept; . cultural in?uences on inter-organizational trust outcomes; and . dark-side of inter-organizational trust. 5.1.1 Inter-organizational trust and governance choices Considering the basic question of whether trust serves as a substitute for or to complement contracts, scholars widely examine the impact of inter-?rm trust on the relational governance choice (Bradach and Eccles, 1989; Ryu et al., 2009). The articles exploring this topic tend to split interorganizational trust into different forms, such as goodwillbased and competence-based trust. Each of these forms plays a different role in in?uencing the choice between vertical control or cooperation (Gulati and Singh, 1998). As the investigation of the correlation between inter-?rm trust and vertical control provided inconclusive results, future research could extend the topic by expanding the enquiry into a more complex mediating or moderating relationship between trust and relational governance mode, including factors such as organizational context, prior history of the relationships, dependence and reputation. 5.1.2 Network perspective of inter-organizational trust The ?ndings of this review show a lack of studies exploring effects and outcomes of inter-organizational trust beyond the dyad. Actually, the implication of inter-?rm trust on network dynamics have been little explored in the selected articles with the only exception being that of Liu et al.’s (2008) work. A basic question that arises is how the outcomes of inter-?rm trust change when trust is no longer simply dyadic but is network-based (Zaheer and Harris, 2006). Future research could explore how network trust might affect the dyadic interorganizational relationship. This research effort could provide interesting insights considering that, besides trust, other mechanisms operate in networks, for example sanctioning and reputation effects. The distinction between these network relational mechanisms and trust outcomes could be an interesting challenge for the researcher. 5.1.3 Inter-organizational trust as a reciprocal concept Organizational trust seems to have some speci?c properties that make studying it hard. For example, the relationships between trust and cooperation, trust and commitment, and trust and performance have all been suggested to be reciprocal. Causality appears as one of the major reasons for the ambiguity and confusion in de?ning the outcomes of inter-organizational trust. This view suggests that “trust is a reciprocal concept, being potentially both a cause and partly an effect” (Seppanen et al., 2007, p. 256). ¨ 390

This review provides con?rmation for Laurent’s (2000, p. 178) comment that “almost always [authors] manage to propose models with ‘simple’ causality” (i.e. without circular or reciprocal causation). This methodological choice frequently provides feedback loops in research on trust, as simple causal models are logically wrong and empirical estimation is not able to con?rm it. Future research could try to overcome this weakness. 5.1.4 Cultural in?uences The ?ndings point out that there are differences in the effects of inter-organizational trust across national and cultural contexts (e.g. Ibrahim and Ribbers, 2009; Monczka et al., 1998). The selected articles providing cross-country empirical analyses show a growing interest in this topic and speci?cally in the impact of context-speci?c norms and customs on trust outcomes (Young-Ybarra and Wiersema, 1999). However, future research not only needs a more systematic examination of the differences across such contexts, but also needs to explain the theoretical underpinnings of such differences and subsequently to extend the empirical efforts. In addition, greater attention could be paid to contextual factors arising not only from national or cultural in?uences but also from formal institutions or industry norms and tacit practices of inter-?rm interaction that may be idiosyncratic to particular geographies or economic segments (Zaheer and Harris, 2006). 5.1.5 Dark-side of inter-organizational trust The review ?ndings clearly show a lack of theoretical interest and empirical effort in the research on the downside of interorganizational trust. The examination of the “dark-side of trust” (Gargiulo and Ertug, 2006) should address two primary research patterns. The ?rst refers to the study of the negative outcomes of inter-?rm trust, including the lockin from unproductive high-trust relationships (Gargiulo and Benassi, 2000). The second research pattern refers to the study of the situations of high trust inherently containing the conditions for abuse or betrayal of trust. Only this last perspective is partially accountable within this review. Speci?cally, Corsten and Felde explicitly consider the detrimental effects of too much trust on ?nancial supply chain performance. They argue that in collaborative relationships high trust can lead to being “too close for comfort” and to vulnerability towards a supplier (Corsten and Felde, 2005, p. 456). Future research could expand this topic, empirically testing, for example, the consequences of misplaced trust and the risk of collusion in inter-?rm relationships with high trust. 5.2 Methodological issues From the review ?ndings, several methodological issues emerge. As such, this study identi?es three methodological challenges that face scholars: conceptualization and operationalization of inter-organizational trust; methodological issues concerning the research design. 5.2.1 Conceptualization of inter-organizational trust The methodological quality of the studies on trust outcomes is strongly in?uenced by the conceptualization of trust construct. The dif?culty of this conceptualization is related to two main issues: 1 the de?nition of the “subject” of trust (i.e. trustor); and 2 the de?nition of the “object” of trust (i.e. trustee).

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships Emanuela Delbufalo

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

Inter-organizational trust appears when both the trustor and the trustee are organizations (Janowicz and Noorderhaven, 2006). With regard to the ?rst issue, the literature considers both the studies, which attribute trust to the organization as such and the studies arguing that an organization itself cannot trust. The latter group points out that organizations are made up of and managed by individuals (Aulakh et al., 1996) and it is through them that inter-?rm trust comes into effect (Inkpen and Curral, 1997; Nooteboom et al., 1997). The use of the organization as the “object” of inter-?rm trust is problematic, both theoretically and empirically. Many authors who adopt organization as the unit of analysis simply apply individual-level terminology and logic to the organizational level. However, theories of inter-?rm exchange that take trust to be a property of organizations without specifying the link between the micro and macro level are inaccurate, as they “anthropomorphize the organization” (Zaheer et al., 1998, p. 142; Chow and Holden, 1997). In addition, obtaining reliable data on inter-organizational trust is more challenging if conceptualizations of such trust involve the organization as the trustor (Janowicz and Noorderhaven, 2006). The further research on inter-organizational trust outcomes should clearly consider the above insights in order to avoid inconsistent ?ndings and wrong interpretations. 5.2.2 Operationalization of inter-organizational trust The ?ndings of the moderator analysis show that, in the operationalization of inter-organizational trust, the use of speci?c components can signi?cantly alter the conclusion garnered from a particular study. Overall, in interorganizational contexts of analysis, the operationalization of trust through either reliability/integrity or credibility/ benevolence components, positively biases the observed correlations. Future research should seek to utilize alternatively these two couples of components as they are best suited for the particular situation in which the trustor and the trustee are both independent organizations. 5.2.3 Methodological issues concerning the research design The meta-analysis gives outstanding indications about some methodological issues concerning the research design. The ?ndings suggest that examining inter-organizational trust at one point in time in?ates the true effect size of trust-outcome relationships as compared to longitudinal research design. Results also suggest that the use of samples drawn from multiple industries tends to produce larger effects than the use of ?eld studies and samples drawn from a single industry. Further, the consideration of ?ndings from qualitative works suggests an additional methodological issue. Speci?cally, the complexity of the topic suggests the use of different and complementary methodological approaches. A consistent number of the selected articles employ two or more methods such as mail survey and interviews, or survey and archival data analysis. From these ?ndings, it emerges that the use of triangulation in the study of inter-organizational trust outcomes can improve the completeness of the enquiry more than a single research method (Jack and Raturi, 2006). The combined use of a qualitative and quantitative approach appears the most effective as the two methods complement each other (e.g. Gulati and Nickerson, 2008). In addition, the use of multiple methodology may positively impact on the con?rmation of the research: triangulation 391

should improve “the ability of researchers to draw conclusions from their studies and might result in a more robust and generalizable set of ?ndings” (Jack and Raturi, 2006, p. 316). The overall remarks above give an important contribution for the purposes of the ef?cient design of future research studies. It seems important to combine several of these suggestions when planning the next study on interorganizational trust outcomes. Doing so will maximize the contribution of this new study to the improvement of knowledge.

6. Conclusion
The objective of this systematic literature review was to recover, synthesize, and integrate the wide stream of empirical work on inter-organizational trust outcomes. For this purpose a meta-analytic approach was employed. The study found that inter-organizational trust exhibits a robust and rather strong relationship with a number of different outcome variables under different conditions. This provides quantitative evidence across a wide range of studies for the contention that inter-?rm trust is central to supply chain relationships (e.g. Kannan and Tan, 2006). Three major themes emerge from this survey: 1 direct outcomes; 2 indirect outcomes; and 3 relational outcomes of inter-organizational trust. For each theme, the study explores the relevant empirical evidences, leading to the identi?cation of a promising research agenda for scholars of the topic. This agenda includes ?ve central theoretical avenues as well as three methodological challenges that hold high potential for scholarly enquiry into this interesting phenomenon.

Notes
1 With few exceptions, the majority of contributions to inter-organizational trust literature appear in journals after 1990. 2 As David and Han (2004) explain, the asterisk at the end of a search word allows for different suf?xes. 3 It is important to note that, in 19 cases, insuf?ciently comprehensive or elliptical abstracts made it dif?cult to understand the subject, approach, ?ndings and conclusion of the studies. This necessitated looking at the introduction to these studies. 4 The results of the meta-analysis will be integrated with the ?ndings from the qualitative papers in para. 4.2. 5 Corrected rx ? uncorrected rxy/(reliability x reliability y). 6 Some articles contain more than one correlation between trust and a speci?c construct. For instance, Ganesan (1994) reports correlations for two measures of dependence. In resolving this issue, we followed the basic recommendations of Hunter and Schmidt (1990) by averaging the correlations and reporting the data as a single study. 7 The reference frame was excluded from the set of moderators as only one study was conducted under laboratory conditions. 8 The GSL regression only examined the impact of variables with a sample size of ?ve or greater.

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships Emanuela Delbufalo

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

References
Adobor, H. (2005), “Trust as sensemaking: the microdynamics of trust in inter?rm alliances”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, pp. 330-7. Andaleeb, S.S. (1996), “An experimental investigation of satisfaction and commitment in marketing channels: the role of trust and dependence”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 77-93. Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1990), “A model of distributor ?rm and manufacturer ?rm”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, January, pp. 42-58. Aulakh, P.S., Kotabe, M. and Sahay, A. (1996), “Trust and performance in cross-border marketing partnerships: a behavioral approach”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 1005-32. Becker, B.J. (1992), “Models of science achievement: forces affecting male and female performance in school science”, in Cook, T.D. (Ed.), Meta-analysis for Explanation: A Casebook, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY. Bradach, J. and Eccles, R.G. (1989), “Price, authority, and trust: from ideal types to plural forms”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 15, pp. 97-118. Carson, S.J., Madhok, A., Varman, R. and John, G. (2003), “Information processing moderators of the effectiveness of trust-based governance in inter?rm R&D collaboration”, Organization Science, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 45-56. Cheng, J.H., Yeh, C.H. and Tu, C.W. (2008), “Trust and knowledge sharing in green supply chains”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 283-95. Chow, S. and Holden, R. (1997), “Toward an understanding of loyalty: the moderating role of trust”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 275-98. Chu, S.Y. and Fang, W.C. (2006), “Exploring the relationships of trust and commitment in supply chain management”, The Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 224-8. Claro, D.P., Hagelaar, G. and Omta, O. (2003), “The determinants of relational governance and performance: how to manage business relationships?”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 703-16. Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983), Applied Multiple Regression/ Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. Coote, L.V., Forrest, E.J. and Tam, T.W. (2003), “An investigation into commitment in non-Western industrial marketing relationships”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 595-604. Corsten, D. and Felde, D. (2005), “Exploring the performance effects of key-supplier collaboration”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 445-61. David, R.J. and Han, S.K. (2004), “A systematic assessment of the empirical support for transaction cost economics”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 39-58. De Jong, G. and Klein Woolthuis, R.J.A. (2008), “The institutional arrangements of innovation: antecedents and performance effects of trust in high-tech alliances”, Industry and Innovation, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 45-67. Denyer, D. and Tran?eld, D. (2009), “Producing a systematic review”, in Buchanan, D. and Bryman, A. (Eds), The Sage 392

Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, Sage Publications, London, pp. 671-89. Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), “An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, pp. 35-51. Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P. and Mullen, M.R. (1998), “Understanding the in?uence of national culture on the development of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 601-20. Dyer, J.H. and Chu, W. (2003), “The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance: empirical evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea”, Organization Science, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 57-68. Fawcett, S.E., Magnan, G.M. and Williams, A.J. (2004), “Supply chain trust is within your grasp”, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 20-6. Fink, M. and Kessler, A. (2010), “Cooperation, trust and performance – empirical results from three countries”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 469-83. Ganesan, S. (1994), “Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, April, pp. 1-19. Gargiulo, M. and Benassi, M. (2000), “Trapped in your own net: network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital”, Organization Science, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 183-96. Gargiulo, M. and Ertug, G. (2006), “The dark side of trust”, in Bachmann, R. and Zaheer, A. (Eds), Handbook of Trust Research, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, pp. 165-86. Gassenheimer, J.B. and Manolis, C. (2001), “The in?uence of product customization and supplier selection on future intention: the mediating effects of salesperson and organizational trust”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 418-35. Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.E.M. and Kumar, N. (1998), “Generalizations about trust in marketing channel relationships using meta-analysis”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 223-48. Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.E.M., Scheer, L.K. and Kumar, N. (1996), “The effects of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment: a trans-Atlantic study”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 303-17. Ghosh, A. and Fedorowicz, J. (2008), “The role of trust in supply chain governance”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 453-70. Gulati, R. and Nickerson, J.A. (2008), “Interorganizational trust, governance choice, and exchange performance”, Organization Science, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 688-708. Gulati, R. and Singh, H. (1998), “The architecture of cooperation: managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 781-814. Hand?eld, R.B. and Bechtel, C. (2002), “The role of trust and relationship structure in improving supply chain responsiveness”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 367-82. Hausman, A. and Johnston, W.J. (2010), “The impact of coercive and non-coercive forms of in?uence on trust, commitment, and compliance in supply chains”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 519-26.

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships Emanuela Delbufalo

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

Heide, J.B. and John, G. (1992), “Do norms matter in marketing relationships?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, April, pp. 32-44. Hoffmann, W.H., Neumann, K. and Speckbacher, G. (2010), “The effect of interorganizational trust on make-orcooperate decisions: disentangling opportunism-dependent and opportunism-independent effects of trust”, European Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 101-15. Hom, P.W., Caranikas-Walker, F., Prussia, G.E. and Griffeth, R.W. (1992), “A meta-analytical structural equations analysis of a model of employee turnover”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 6, pp. 890-909. Hunter, E. and Schmidt, F.L. (1990), Methods of Metaanalysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Ibrahim, M. and Ribbers, P.M. (2009), “The impacts of competence-trust and openness-trust on interorganizational systems”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 223-34. Inkpen, A.C. and Currall, S.C. (1997), “International joint venture trust: an empirical examination”, in Beamish, P.W. and Killing, J.P. (Eds), Cooperative Strategies: North American Perspectives, New Lexington Press, San Francisco, CA. Jack, E.P. and Raturi, A.S. (2006), “Lessons learned from methodological triangulation in management research”, Management Research News, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 345-57. Jambulingam, T., Kathuria, R. and Nevin, J.R. (2009), “How fairness garners loyalty in the pharmaceutical supply chain: role of trust in the wholesaler-pharmacy relationship”, International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 305-22. Janowicz, M. and Noorderhaven, N. (2006), “Levels of interorganizational trust: conceptualization and measurement”, in Shenkar, O. and Reuer, J.J. (Eds), Handbook of Strategic Alliances, Sage Publications, London, pp. 264-79. Johnston, D.A., McCutcheon, D.M., Stuart, F.I. and Kerwood, H. (2004), “Effects of supplier trust on performance of cooperative supplier relationships”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 23-38. Judge, T.A. and Ilies, R. (2002), “Relationship of personality to performance motivation: a meta-analytic review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 797-807. Kannan, V.R. and Tan, K.C. (2006), “Buyer-supplier relationships: the impact of supplier selection and buyersupplier engagement on relationship and ?rm performance”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 755-75. Krishnan, R., Martin, X. and Noorderhaven, N.G. (2006), “When does trust matter to alliance performance?”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 894-917. Kwon, I.W.J. and Suh, T. (2004), “Factors affecting the level of trust and commitment in supply chain relationships”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 4-14. Kwon, I.W.J. and Suh, T. (2005), “Trust, commitment and relationships in supply chain management: a path analysis”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 26-33. Laaksonen, T., Jarimo, T. and Kulmala, H.I. (2009), “Cooperative strategies in customer-supplier relationships: the role of inter?rm trust”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 120 No. 1, pp. 79-87. 393

Laaksonen, T., Pajunen, K. and Kulmala, H.I. (2008), “Co-evolution of trust and dependence in customersupplier relationships”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 37, pp. 910-20. Lado, A.A., Dant, R.R. and Tekleab, A.G. (2008), “Trustopportunism paradox, relationalism, and performance in inter?rm relationships: evidence from the retail industry”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 401-23. Laurent, G. (2000), “Improving the external validity of marketing models: a plea for more qualitative input”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 17 Nos 23, pp. 177-82. Liao, T.J. (2010), “Cluster and performance in foreign ?rms: the role of resources, knowledge, and trust”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 161-9. Liu, Y., Li, Y., Tao, L. and Wang, Y. (2008), “Relationship stability, trust and relational risk in marketing channels: evidence from China”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 432-46. Luo, Y. (2002), “Contract, cooperation, and performance in international joint ventures”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 10, pp. 903-19. Lusch, R.F., O’Brien, M. and Sindhav, B. (2003), “The critical role of trust in obtaining retailer support for a supplier’s strategic organizational change”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 249-58. Mohr, J. and Spekman, R. (1994), “Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behavior, and con?ict resolution techniques”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 135-52. Mollering, G., Bachmann, R. and Lee, S.H. (2004), ¨ “Understanding organizational trust: foundations, constellations, and issues of operationalisation”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 556-70. Monczka, R.M., Petersen, K.J., Hand?eld, R.B. and Ragatz, G.L. (1998), “Success factors in strategic supplier alliances: the buying company perspective”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 553-77. Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitmenttrust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38. Myhr, N. and Spekman, R.E. (2005), “Collaborative supplychain partnerships built upon trust and electronically mediated exchange”, The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 20 Nos 4/5, pp. 179-86. Narasimhan, R. and Nair, A. (2005), “The antecedent role of quality, information sharing and supply chain proximity on strategic alliance formation and performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 301-13. Newbert, S.L. (2007), “Empirical research on the resourcebased view of the ?rm: an assessment and suggestions for future research”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 121-46. Nooteboom, B., Berger, H. and Noorderhaven, N.G. (1997), “Effects of trust and governance on relational risk”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 308-38. Norman, P.M. (2002), “Protecting knowledge in strategic alliances: resource and relational characteristics”, Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 177-202. Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D. and Evans, K.R. (2006), “Factors in?uencing the effectiveness of

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships Emanuela Delbufalo

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

relationship marketing: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 136-53. Panayides, P.M. and Lun, Y.H.V. (2009), “The impact of trust on innovativeness and supply chain performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 122, pp. 35-46. Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D. and Neely, A. (2004), “Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 5/6 Nos 3/4, pp. 137-68. Raudenbush, S.W., Becker, B.J. and Kalaian, H. (1988), “Modeling multivariate effect sizes”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 111-20. Ryu, S., Lim, Y. and Hong, H. (2009), “Volatile environments and inter?rm governance: does trust matter?”, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 325-42. Selnes, F. (1998), “Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer-seller relationship”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 305-22. Seppanen, R., Blomqvist, K. and Sundqvist, S. (2007), ¨ “Measuring inter-organizational trust: a critical review of the empirical research in 1990-2003”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 249-65. Sharfman, M.P., Shaft, T.M. and Anex, R.P. Jr (2009), “The road to cooperative supply-chain environmental management: trust and uncertainty among pro-active ?rms”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-13. Smith, J.B. and Barclay, D.W. (1997), “The effects of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling partner relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 3-21. Spekman, R.E., Kamauff, J.W. Jr. and Myhr, N. (1998), “An empirical investigation into supply chain management: a perspective on partnerships”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 630-50. Squire, B., Cousins, P.D. and Brown, S. (2009), “Cooperation and knowledge transfer within buyersupplier relationships: the moderating properties of trust, relationship duration and supplier performance”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 461-77.

Svensson, G. (2001), “Perceived trust towards suppliers and customers in supply chains of the Swedish automotive industry”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 31 Nos 9/10, pp. 635-50. Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A. and Pittaway, L. (2005), “Using knowledge within small and medium-sized ?rms: a systematic review of the evidence”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 257-81. Tran?eld, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-22. Vlachos, I.P. and Bourlakis, M. (2006), “Supply chain collaboration between retailers and manufacturers: do they trust each other?”, Supply Chain Forum An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 70-80. Williams, M.L., McDaniel, M.A. and Nguyen, N.T. (2006), “A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of pay level satisfaction”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 392-413. Wolf, F.M. (1986), Meta-analysis: Quantitative Methods for Research Synthesis, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Yeung, J.H.Y., Selen, W., Zhang, M. and Huo, B. (2009), “The effects of trust and coercive power on supplier integration”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 120 No. 1, pp. 66-78. Young-Ybarra, C. and Wiersema, M. (1999), “Strategic ?exibility in information technology alliances: the in?uence of transaction cost economics and social exchange theory”, Organization Science, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 439-59. Zaheer, A. and Harris, J.D. (2006), “Interorganizational trust”, in Shenkar, O. and Reuer, J.J. (Eds), Handbook of Strategic Alliances, Sage Publications, London, pp. 169-97. Zaheer, A. and Venkatraman, N. (1995), “Relational governance as an interorganizational strategy: an empirical test of the role of trust in economic exchange”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 373-92. Zaheer, A., McEvily, B. and Perrone, V. (1998), “Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance”, Organization Science, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 141-59.

(See Appendices overleaf.)

394

Table AI Synoptic view of the thematic analysis
Dimensions of trust Typology of outcome Relevant ?ndings

Study (year)

De?nition of inter-organizational trust

Appendix 1

1 Anderson and Narus (1990)

The ?rm’s belief that another company will perform Reliability and integrity Cooperation functionality of con?ict; actions that will result in positive outcomes for the satisfaction ?rm, as well as not take unexpected actions that would result in negative outcomes for the ?rm (p. 45) Vertical control

2 Heide and John (1992)

Trust leads to satisfaction with the relationship, which presumably would increase propensity to cooperate, making the causal chain circular. The study provides con?rmation for the link between trust and functionality of con?ict The ?ndings show that relational norms (leading to trust) play a signi?cant role in structuring economically ef?cient relationships Trust and dependence play key roles in determining the long-term orientation of both retail buyers and their suppliers The primary characteristics of partnership success are: partnership attributes of commitment, coordination, and trust The results indicate that trust in?uences relationship commitment and the way in which disagreements and arguments are perceived by exchange partners The study demonstrates that the combined model including trust explains relational governance better than a model without it The ?ndings indicate the main effects of trust and dependence on satisfaction. For commitment, an interaction effect was found No support for the link between trust and performance (measured by increased sales and market share of the partnership)

Emanuela Delbufalo

3 Ganesan (1994)

Trust as a supportive relational exchange norm: Not available expectations of mutuality of interest that prescribe stewardship behavior designed to enhance the wellbeing of the relationship as a whole (p. 37) Credibility-based trust: willingness to rely on an Credibility and exchange partner in whom one has con?dence. It benevolence includes expectations of credibility and benevolence Willingness to invest Financial performance; satisfaction

4 Mohr and Trust is the belief that a party’s word is reliable, and Reliability Spekman (1994) that a party will ful?l its obligations in an exchange (p. 138) Reliability and integrity Cooperation; functionality of con?ict; commitment; behavioral uncertainty Predictability and fairness Joint action; supplier integration

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships

5 Morgan and Hunt (1994)

Trust exists when one party has con?dence in an exchange partner’s reliability and integrity (p. 23)

395
Commitment; satisfaction Reliability and integrity Financial performance Honesty and benevolence Commitment

6 Zaheer and Venkatraman (1995)

Trust re?ects the extent to which negotiations are fair and commitments are upheld and one party’s belief that its requirements will be ful?lled by the other party (p. 87)

7 Andaleeb (1996) Trust is a one’s beliefs about the motives or intent of Honesty and another party (p. 79) benevolence

8 Aulakh et al. (1996)

The degree of con?dence the individual partners have on the reliability and integrity of each other (p. 1008).

9 Geyskens et al. (1996)

Trust is the belief that one’s partner stands by its word, ful?ls promised role obligations, and is sincere. Trust also re?ects the belief that one’s partner is interested in the ?rm’s welfare and will not take unexpected actions which will negatively impact on the partner (p. 307)

The results show that total interdependence enhances both affective and calculative commitment. Trust has a strong effect on affective commitment and less on calculative commitment

Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

10 Chow and Holden (1997)

Trust is an expectance held by an individual/ Reliability and honesty Interdependence; loyalty intentions organization that the words, promise, verbal or written statement of another individual/organization can be relied on (p. 277)

The paper ?nds that trust held by a buyer for a seller is an important antecedent of loyalty for at least some buying situations in an inter-?rm context

(continued)

Table AI Study (year) Dimensions of trust Expectation of continuity Supplier’s trust in?uences a buyer’s anticipated future interaction with the supplier. However, this relationship is negatively in?uenced by previous experience and supplier performance The study con?rms that relational risk has two dimensions: size of loss and probability of loss. The ?ndings show that trust, induced by institutionalization and habitualization, has a negative effect on risk in the form of the perceived probability of loss Trusting behaviors were found to have a greater effect on perceived task performance than on mutual satisfaction, whereas dimensions of trustworthiness had both direct and indirect effects on satisfaction Typology of outcome Relevant ?ndings

De?nition of inter-organizational trust

11 Doney and Cannon (1997)

The development of trust relies on the formation of a Credibility and trustor’s expectations about the motives and benevolence behaviors of a trustee (p. 37)

12 Nooteboom et al. Trust concerns a partner’s ability to perform Institutionalization and Perceived risk (1997) according to the intentions and expectations of a habitualization relationship (competence trust) or his/her intentions not to defect (intentional trust) (p. 312)

Emanuela Delbufalo

13 Smith and Barclay (1997) Task performance; satisfaction

Honesty and integrity; Two perspectives adopted: trust as a cognitive expectation or affective sentiment and trust as risk- reliability and taking behavior or a willingness to engage in such dependability behavior (p. 9) Vertical control

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships

14 Gulati and Singh Trust is the con?dence in the predictability of each Predictability (1998) other’s actions (p. 789)

396
Expectation of continuity

The study ?nds that both the extent of coordination costs and appropriation concerns in inter-?rm relationships can predict the use of a speci?c governance structure. The study points out that inter-?rm trust diminishes the use of hierarchical controls The ?ndings indicate that trust, coordination and interdependence are important factors in strategic supplier alliances because of the multiple dimensions implicit in such relationships The ?ndings show that trust has a signi?cant impact on the intention of future enhancement and enhancement drives continuity. Also the effect of trust on continuity was not signi?cant

15 Monczka et al. (1998)

Trust occurs in two forms. One of these has its roots Reliability and integrity Information sharing; interdependence; in reliable role performance, cultural similarity and joint problem-solving; commitment; professional credential, whereas the other has its satisfaction roots in “citizenship” behavior and interaction frequency (p. 558)

16 Selnes (1998)

Trust is a generalized expectancy of how the other Not available party will behave in the future. Such a generalized expectancy is derived both from a type of cultural context of how business partners are expected to behave and from experiences or episodes within the relationship (p. 309)

Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

17 Spekman et al. (1998)

Trust is one’s belief that one’s supply chain partner Faith; reliability and will act in a consistent manner and do what he/she integrity says he/she will do (p. 634)

Exchange performance; purchasing cost These ?ndings imply that both trust and reduction commitment contribute to satisfaction as the elements of collaboration. This outcome implies a willingness to share information, without the concern for it being used against either trading partner, and a longer-term focus on the trading relationship

(continued)

Table AI Study (year) Dimensions of trust Reliability; predictability; fairness Exchange performance; transaction costs; functionality of con?ict Typology of outcome Relevant ?ndings

De?nition of inter-organizational trust

18 Zaheer et al. (1998)

19 Young-Ybarra and Wiersema (1999)

Trust as the expectation that an actor (1) can be relied on to ful?l obligations, (2) will behave in a predictable manner, and (3) will act and negotiate fairly when the possibility for opportunism is present (p. 143). Trust is a state of mind, an expectation held by one trading partner about another, that the other will behave in a predictable and mutually acceptable manner (p. 231) Dependability; predictability; faith Strategic ?exibility; task performance

Emanuela Delbufalo

Trust is the willingness to endure dependence in order to achieve long-term goals (p. 423) Cycle time reduction; task performance

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships

20 Gassenheimer and Manolis (2001) 21 Hand?eld and Bechtel (2002)

Dependability

Future purchase intentions

The results indicate that interpersonal trust and inter-organizational trust are related but distinct constructs and play different roles in affecting exchange performance (direct link between interorganizational trust and performance). Trust was found to be positively related to ?exibility while dependence was found to be negatively related to the strategic ?exibility of the alliance. Additionally economic constraints were positively related to trust between the alliance partners while dependence was negatively related to trust The results con?rm that trust in a salesperson mediates the effect of resource dependence on future intentions The results suggest that even in cases when buyers do not have a great deal of control over their suppliers, working to build trust within the relationship can improve supplier responsiveness

397
Financial performance; contract ?exibility Goodwill

22 Luo (2002)

Trust occurs in cognitive and effect-based forms. The Not available former has its roots in reliable role performance, cultural-ethnic similarity, and professional credentials, while the latter is a function of “citizenship” behaviour and interaction frequency (p. 372) Calculative trust as an exchange process that acts as Not available a safeguard mechanism (p. 909)

23 Norman (2002)

Trust is the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to Predictability and the actions of another party based on the fairness expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control the other party (p. 183)

24 Carson et al. (2003)

Trust is the con?dence held by one party in its expectations of the behavior and goodwill of another party regarding business actions (p. 46)

Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

25 Claro et al. (2003)

Trust re?ects the extent to which negotiations are Not available (expected to be) fair and commitments are sustained and a party’s belief that its requirements will be ful?lled through future actions undertaken by the other party (p. 706).

The ?ndings indicate that contract completeness and cooperation drive exchange performance both independently and interactively. When contracts are more complete, cooperation contributes more to performance Knowledge transfer The ?ndings show that a ?rm tends to be more protective when the capabilities it contributes to the alliance are highly tacit and core, when its partner has a higher learning intent, and when the ?rm and its partner have very similar resources. Higher trust in a partner tends to reduce knowledge protection Task performance Trust-based governance has a positive impact on task performance (measured by innovativeness, timeline and quality). This relationship is also magni?ed by partner’s skill level and task overlap Exchange performance; ?nancial The study ?nds that joint planning is positively performance; joint action; joint problem- in?uenced by inter-organizational trust, information solving obtained from network, physical transaction-speci?c investments and by ?xed lines as the exchange mode. Joint problem solving is solely in?uenced by the two dimensions of trust

(continued)

Table AI Study (year) Dimensions of trust Typology of outcome Relevant ?ndings

De?nition of inter-organizational trust

26 Coote et al. (2003)

Trust exists when a party has faith or con?dence in Reliability and integrity Commitment the integrity and reliability of their partner (p. 597)

27 Dyer and Chu (2003)

Inter-organizational trust is one party’s con?dence Reliability; goodwill that the other party in the exchange relationship will and benevolence not exploit its vulnerabilities (p. 58) Not available Support for change

Transaction costs; information sharing

Emanuela Delbufalo

28 Lusch et al. (2003)

The study posits that commitment is related to trust, communication quality, con?ict, and similarity. It is further argued that trust mediates the effects of communication, con?ict, and similarity on commitment The ?ndings indicate that perceived trustworthiness reduces transaction costs and is correlated to greater information sharing in supplier-buyer relationships The paper empirically shows the existing trust in the supplier was a major determinant of the support for organizational and strategic change

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships

29 Johnston et al. (2004) Benevolence; credibility; reliability

Contract ?exibility; information sharing; Higher levels of inter-organizational cooperative joint responsibility behaviors such as shared planning and ?exibility in coordinating activities were found to be strongly linked to the supplier’s trust in the buyer ?rm Commitment; investment in speci?c assets; behavioral uncertainty

30 Kwon and Suh (2004)

Trust is a ?rm’s belief that another company will perform actions that will result in positive outcomes for the ?rm as well as not take unexpected actions that result in negative outcomes (p. 251) Trust de?nition re?ects the idea of a belief in the other party being dependable or reliable. It is also the belief that the other party would act in the best interests of the partner even if there was no way of checking on or policing behaviour (p. 28). Trust is ?rms’ expectation that their partners will act to bene?t their interests regardless of their ability to monitor such behavior (p. 5) Honesty and benevolence

398

31 Corsten and Felde (2005)

Psychological state comprising the intention to Not available accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another (p. 449)

Financial performance; purchasing cost reduction; innovativeness

Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

32 Kwon and Suh (2005)

Trust is ?rms’ expectation that their partners will act Honesty; benevolence to bene?t their interests regardless of their ability to monitor such behavior (p. 27)

Commitment; investment in speci?c assets

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

33 Myhr and Trust is the degree to which partners perceive each Credibility and Spekman (2005) other as credible and benevolent (p. 180) benevolence

Information sharing; willingness to invest

The results indicate that a ?rm’s trust in its supply chain partner is highly associated with both sides’ speci?c asset investments and behavioral uncertainty. It is also found that information sharing reduces the level of behavioral uncertainty, which in turn improves the level of trust. Finally, the level of commitment is strongly related to the level of trust The results demonstrate that supplier collaboration has a positive effect on buyer performance both in terms of innovative capability and ?nancial results. Trust enhances the buyer’s innovation level and reduces the purchasing cost. The study also highlights the detrimental effect of too much trust on collaboration A ?rm’s trust in their supply chain partner is highly associated with both parties’ speci?c asset investments. The level of commitment is strongly related to the level of trust Results indicate that electronically mediated exchange more readily enhances collaboration in exchange relationships involving standardized products, while trust plays a larger role when customized products are being exchanged

(continued)

Table AI Study (year) Dimensions of trust Not available Typology of outcome Relevant ?ndings

De?nition of inter-organizational trust

34 Narasimhan and Not de?ned Nair (2005)

35 Chu and Fang (2006)

Trust is a ?rm’s belief that another company will Not available perform actions that will result in positive outcomes for the ?rm as well as not take unexpected actions that result in negative outcomes (p. 224) Reliability and fairness

Emanuela Delbufalo

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships

36 Krishnan et al. (2006)

Trust is the expectation held by one ?rm that another will not exploit its vulnerabilities when faced with the opportunity to do so (p. 895)

37 Vlachos and Trust is the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to Not available Bourlakis (2006) the actions of another party based on the expectations that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control the other party (p. 71) Con?dence; reliability and integrity

399

38 Cheng et al. (2008)

Trust is a ?rm’s belief to have con?dence in its partner’s reliability and integrity that leads to positive outcomes (p. 287)

39 De Jong and Klein Woolthuis (2008)

40 Ghosh and Fedorowicz (2008)

Not available Trust is the perception by a ?rm that a partner organization will not engage in opportunistic behavior, even in the face of opportunities and incentives to do so (p. 49). Trust re?ects the con?dence of one party in a two- Integrity and way relationship that the other party will not exploit predictability its vulnerabilities (p. 457)

Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

41 Gulati and Trust is linked to the predictability of a partner ?rm’s Predictability Nickerson (2008) behavior toward a vulnerable focal ?rm (p. 689)

Performance: ef?ciency and productivity; The results of the study highlight the impact of trust ?nancial performance; information on quality expectations from suppliers and sharing information sharing. Additionally, the relationships between trust and several supply chain performance metrics are shown Commitment The study’s ?ndings indicate that the level of commitment is strongly related to the level of trust. In addition, trust is positively related to perceived satisfaction, partner’s reputation and communication Exchange performance; behavioral The ?ndings show the positive relationship between uncertainty trust and performance is stronger under high behavioral uncertainty and weaker under high environmental uncertainty Exchange performance; ?nancial The ?ndings show that the effectiveness of performance; duration of collaboration; collaboration is highly dependent on retailers’ commitment initiative to build and foster trust with their partners. It also depends on manufacturers’ ability to ful?l a complex set of retailers’ requirements including commitment to the partnership Information sharing The paper ?nds that trust is the pivot of the factors in?uencing inter-organizational knowledge sharing. The more a factor contributes to trust, the more the factor contributes to knowledge sharing correspondingly Exchange performance The results provide evidence to support the direct value of inter-organizational trust in durable business relationships that strive for the development of new technological knowledge Information sharing; performance: The ?ndings show that the three constructs of the ef?ciency and productivity governance framework (trust, bargaining power, contract) are intertwined. Trust as a governance mechanism plays a crucial role in sharing information among business partners Performance: ef?ciency and productivity High levels of pre-existing inter-organizational trust increased the probability that a less formal, and thus less costly, mode of governance was chosen over a more formal one. The study also found a positive effect of trust on performance

(continued)

Table AI Study (year) Dimensions of trust Competence and goodwill Interdependence The analysis con?rms the strong impact of inter-?rm trust on partners’ interdependence Typology of outcome Relevant ?ndings

De?nition of inter-organizational trust

42 Laaksonen et al. Trust is a belief by one party that the other party will (2008) not act against his or her interests, where this belief is held without undue doubt or suspicion and in the absence of detailed information about the actions of the other party (p. 916) 43 Lado et al. Trust is one party’s con?dence in the goodwill of an (2008) exchange partner (p. 403) Benevolence and credibility Performance: ef?ciency and productivity; The results show that an increase in trust or a relationalism decline in opportunism is followed by an increase in relationalism as well as performance Perceived risk The results indicate that relationship length and dyadic solidarity can reduce the relational risk perceived by buyers through goodwill trust in their suppliers, but can increase the perceived relational risk through trust in their competence

Emanuela Delbufalo

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships

44 Liu et al. (2008) Goodwill trust is de?ned as the expectation that Not available some others in our social relationship have moral obligations and responsibility to demonstrate a special concern for others’ interests above their own. Competence trust is based on the extent to which one party believes that its exchange partner has the required professional expertise to perform the job effectively so as to achieve relationship bene?ts 45 Ibrahim and Competence-trust is based on perceived trustee’s Competence and Ribbers (2009) abilities, skills and expertise that facilitate honesty performance within a speci?c domain (p. 224) Relationalism Credibility and benevolence

400
Competence and goodwill Con?dence and reliability

46 Jambulingam et al. (2009)

Trust is the willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has con?dence

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

47 Laaksonen et al. Three types of trust, namely, contractual (trust in oral (2009) and written agreements), competence (trust in partner’s ability to perform according to agreements), and goodwill (trust in partner’s intentions to operate in accordance with agreements) (p. 83) 48 Panayides and Trust has been de?ned as a willingness to rely on an Lun (2009) exchange partner in whom one has con?dence (p. 36)

Competence-trust is found to positively in?uence the use of human knowledge resources, resources related to inter-linkage of business processes and organizational domain knowledge resources Loyalty A ?rm’s trust in its supply chain partner’s ability and expertise, along with perceived procedural fairness, serves as the foundation for increased commitment and reduced behavioral uncertainty Financial performance; transaction costs The study demonstrates the bene?ts of mutual inter?rm trust in ?nancially measurable terms. Indeed, inter-?rm trust can decrease the transaction costs of the relationship, thus providing competitive advantage for the partners

Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

Reliability 49 Ryu et al. (2009) Trust involves a ?rm’s belief that its exchange partner will perform actions that will result in positive outcomes and will avoid taking actions that will result in negative outcomes for the focal ?rm (p. 330)

Cycle time reduction; task performance; The ?ndings add credence to the positive effects of innovativeness trust and identify trust and innovativeness as antecedents to higher performance in the supply chain Cooperation; vertical control The results show that when a manufacturer does not trust its supplier under conditions of environmental volatility, the manufacturer should consider adopting unilateral governance. If a manufacturer trusts its supplier, it should consider bilateral governance

(continued)

Table AI Study (year) Dimensions of trust Cooperation Typology of outcome Relevant ?ndings

De?nition of inter-organizational trust

50 Sharfman et al. (2009)

Not de?ned. The study refers to Morgan and Hunt’s Not available (1994) perspective

51 Squire et al. (2009)

Trust is de?ned as the con?dence in an exchange partner’s reliability and integrity (p. 431)

Emanuela Delbufalo

52 Yeung et al. (2009)

Trust is the extent to which a ?rm believes that its exchange partner is honest and/or benevolent (p. 68)

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships

53 Fink and Kessler Maxim-based trust is the level of self-commitment (2010) of a partner to the cooperation relationship

401

54 Hausman and Trust is con?dence in the integrity and reliability of Johnston (2010) another party, rather than con?dence in the partner’s ability to perform a speci?c action

55 Hoffmann et al. (2010)

Trust is a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

56 Liao (2010)

Trust is de?ned as the extent to which a foreign manufacturer expects that its partners will act in its best interests, regardless of the manufacturer’s ability to monitor the behavior of the partners (p. 164)

The results suggest that inter-?rm trust, uncertainty and pro-active environmental management most directly affect the extent to which ?rms engage in cooperative supply chain environmental management Reliability and integrity Cooperation; knowledge transfer The results indicate that knowledge transfer is positively in?uenced by the extent of cooperation, but that this relationship is moderated by the level of trust and the performance of the supplier ?rm Honesty and Supplier integration The results reveal that both trust and coercive power benevolence improve internal and supplier integration, but when trust is low, coercive power reduces internal integration Not available Financial performance The results show that although cooperation experience contributes positively to business performance, maxim-based trust makes a signi?cantly larger contribution to performance in cooperation arrangements Integrity; reliability Joint action Results suggest that coercive strategies are counterproductive in encouraging cooperation and compliance either directly or through relational intermediaries, while non-coercive in?uence produces positive outcomes and effects on intermediaries Not available Transaction costs; cooperation; The results con?rm both an opportunism-mitigating investment in relation-speci?c assets effect of trust that lowers the transaction costs of a collaborative exchange and an opportunismindependent effect that increases the transaction value of a collaborative exchange and also encompasses non-economic motives for collaboration Not available Performance: ef?ciency and productivity The study ?nds that inter-organizational trust, resources, and the mechanisms of system dependence all have a positive impact on performance. In contrast, the interaction effect of clustering and inter-organizational trust appears to be negatively related to performance

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships Emanuela Delbufalo

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2012 · 377 –402

Appendix 2. Variances and covariances calculation
For each sample the variances and covariances were calculated as: 2 ? ?  Var r trust;x ? 1 2 p2 =n; trust;x ?* 1? Cov r trust;x ; r trust;y ? 2px;y 2 ptrust;x ptrust;y 2  ! 2 2 2 1 2 ptrust;x 2 ptrust;y 2 px;y =n; ? ? where r trust;x is the sample correlation between interorganizational trust and variable x, rtrust;x is the corresponding population correlation, and n is the sample size. From these calculations, a matrix consisting of variance and covariance values for each sample was constructed (Si), with the full covariance matrix for the meta-analysis denoted as S. In order to examine the impact of moderators, the following model was estimated d ? Xb ? e

where d is the effect size of the trust-outcome variable relationship, and the parameter b is estimated through GLS estimation. In order to estimate b, the following equation was used  X21 21 X21 * b ? X0 X X0 d; with the variance-covariance matrix of b being:  X21 21 X V b ? X0
*

About the author
Emanuela Delbufalo is an Assistant Professor of Business Management at European University of Rome, Faculty of Economics. She received her PhD in Management and Organizational Behaviour from the University of Rome “Tor Vergata”. Her research interests mainly lie in the ?elds of supply chain collaboration and supply chain innovation. Emanuela Delbufalo can be contacted at: emanuela.delbufalo@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

402


相关文章:
更多相关标签: