Buyer-supplier relationships: How do they evolve in the course of a supply chain disruption?

(1)

1 Faculty of Economics and Business

MSc Thesis Supply Chain Management

Buyer-supplier relationships: How do they evolve in

the course of a supply chain disruption?

By Julian Krops Student number: S3856208 Email: j.krops@student.rug.nl Supervisor/ University Dr. Kirstin Scholten

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Busines Co-assessor/ University

Dr. Kristian Peters

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business Word count: 11957

January 2021

Acknowledgements:

(2)

2

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to address the evolution of BSRs in the course of a supply

chain disruption. In particular, the aim was to identify mechanisms that cause evolution and to identify evolution patterns that show the evolution of BSRs over time.

Method/Design: A multiple case study was carried out in the food and manufacturing industry.

Data is collected through 11 semi-structured interviews in a total of 6 companies.

Findings: The data shows that evolution in BSRs is triggered by; action, recognition, and

confirmation. By combining these evolution triggers several evolution patterns were found that occurred in the course of a supply chain disruption: relationship development, temporary changes, and relationship deterioration.

Originality/value: This is one of the first studies to explore the evolution of BSRs in a supply

chain disruption context. This paper answers remaining questions about ‘why’ and ‘how’ BSRs follow certain evolution patterns in a critical period of time.

(3)

3

1. Introduction

Due to an increase in outsourcing activities, more and more critical activities take place outside of the boundaries of the organisation and thus companies become increasingly dependent on one another (Saeed et al., 2005; Tangpong et al., 2015). This development emphasizes the importance of effectively managing buyer-supplier relationships (BSRs). Companies use supplier relationship management to manage risks such as supply chain disruptions and strategize their BSRs accordingly (Kim & Choi, 2015; Smith, 1998). However, BSRs are not static in nature, but evolve from a certain state A to state B over time (Dwyer et al., 1987; Ford, 1980; Van der Ven & Walker, 1984). In particular, supply chain disruptions may even necessitate the evolution of a BSR to ensure that the impact of a disruption can be mitigated. The most recent example is the COVID-19 pandemic, due to which the 1000 world’s largest companies had over 12000 facilities in quarantined regions in March 2020 (Linton & Vakil, 2020 IN Van Hoek, 2020). This led to major supply stops and ignored contracts. As a response, companies could make use of the dynamic nature of a BSR as relationships have the capacity to supersedes the written contract. Yet, insights are lacking into how BSRs evolve in the course of a supply chain disruption.

To explain the nature of a BSR, prior literature focused on several behavioural-related aspects such as trust and commitment (Heide & John, 1992; Laing & Lian, 2005), or more economic-related aspects such as the power-dependence theory (Besnaou, 1999; Cox, 2001). Kim & Choi (2015) combined these perspectives and define a BSR according to the underlying dimensions:

relational posture and relational intensity. ‘Relational posture’ covers the attitude and

(5)

5 context, the domains of a relationship are relating to the interpersonal relationships within the BSR. Besides, interaction frequency determines the level of opportunistic behaviour (Hobbs, 1996). Meaning that based on the level of interaction frequency, and thus the level of opportunistic behaviour, a BSR could more towards a more closely tied or arm’s length relationship. Asset specificity seems to play an important role as well as an increase in relation-specific assets can lead to enhancement of relation ties which, in turn, may result in interdependency between both parties (Caniëls & Gelderman, 2007). Contrarily, when parties fail to invest in the relationship, it may result in ties becoming looser (Grayson & Ambler, 1999). As such, there is understanding in literature on the underlying mechanisms of BSRs and the evolution of relationships over time.

However, what remains unexplored, is how BSRs evolve in a supply chain disruption context. This could be particularly interesting to study as a supply chain disruption can be seen as a ‘critical period of time’ that starts with a pre-disruption phase, followed by the

during-disruption phase, and ends with the post-during-disruption phase (Ali et al., 2017). During these phases

increased sensitivity in a business relationship occurs that may change the actor’s attitude and/or behaviour in the relationship (Edvardsson & Strandvik, 2009, p.327). Although it is known that BSRs can follow certain evolution paths in ‘critical’ periods of time, it remains unknown ‘why’ and ‘how’ BSRs in some circumstances improve and in other circumstances lead to relationship deterioration. Therefore, we aim to study how BSRs evolve in the course of a disruption. Consequently, the following research question was addressed:

How do buyer-supplier relationships evolve in the course of a supply chain disruption?

(6)

6

2. Theoretical background

2.1 Buyer-supplier relationships

BSRs are built, maintained, and developed to achieve business goals that are difficult to accomplish by the organization itself (Cheng, 2011; Dyer & Singh, 1998). Academics developed multiple models to explain the nature of a BSR and defined different types of BSRs based on the underlying dimensions of the relationship (Besnaou, 1999; Cousins, 2002; Kim & Choi, 2015; Tangpong et al., 2008). For this research, particularly the dimensions are relevant as they relate to the nature of a BSR and therefore can capture the evolution of BSRs over time. While some authors make a distinction between the behavioural and the economic school of thought when studying BSRs (Cousins, 2002), others make a distinction between the relational-based approach and the dependency-relational-based approach (Tangpong et al., 2008). However, in general, they relate to the same concepts. The behavioural or relational-based perspective can be seen as a perspective that shows that trust, mutual understanding, and relational norms function as a governance mechanism in the relationship (Bello et al., 2003). This limits opportunism, reduces transaction costs and thus increases relationship performance (Heide & John, 1992). Macneil (1981) was one of the first authors who developed a behavioural-based typology. He argues that relational norms can be used to make a distinction between discrete transaction and relational exchange relationship at which relational exchanges have established high relational norms. On the contrary, the economic or dependency-based perspective can be seen as a perspective that defines BSRs based on economic power exchanges brought by power asymmetry and dependency between the buyer and supplier (Frazier & Rody, 1991). Besnaou (1999) uses this perspective as he argues that one can determine a BSR based on the relation-specific investments that are made. Cox (2001) focussed more on the concept of ‘power’ and argues that a BSRs can be defined based on buyer and supplier power.

(7)

7 Relational intensity distinguishes arm’s length and closely tied relationship and covers the economic/dependency-based perspective. Hence, the dimensions of Kim & Choi (2015) are used in this paper. The dimensions are summarized in Table 2.1

2.1.1 Relational posture

‘Relational posture’ captures the behavioural aspects of the BSR and therefore represents the mutual attitude and behavioural motivation in the relationship. Hence, BSRs move on the spectrum of adversarial and cooperative relationship. Meaning that when relational posture increases, the BSR move towards a more cooperative relationship and vice versa (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Johnston et al., 2004 IN Kim & Choi, 2015). Kim & Choi (2015) operationalized ‘relational posture’ by using the following constructs: commitment, trust, information sharing, relational norms, and conflict resolution.

One of the key elements of relational posture is commitment and is defined as “an exchange partner believing that an ongoing relationship with another is so important as to warrant maximum efforts at maintaining it; that is, the committed party believes the relationship endures indefinitely” (Morgan & Hunt, 1994b, p.23). The above definition shows that commitment is central to all the relational exchanges between the buyer and supplier as firms with commitment are willing to invest relationship-based resources (Morgan & Hunt, 1994a). Furthermore,

commitment results in relational stability as it brings mutual respect and promotes supportive

behaviours in the relationships (Yang et al., 2008). Wu et al. (2014) strengthen this argument as they state that a firm with a commitment to the relationship seems to be more willing to share more information, which is also part of the ‘relational posture’ concept. Furthermore, it is argued that trust is the underlying mechanism for achieving commitment in the relationship as

trust is about the belief that the other party will not act opportunistically (Anderson & Narus,

1990; Moorman et al., 1993; Kwon & Suh, 2005). Another perspective on trust is given by Cousins (2002) as he argues that ‘trust’ and ‘risk’ can be seen as the same thing because they both relate to the level of ‘certainty’. Meaning that the level of trust equals the level of certainty in the relationship. Both concepts: trust and commitment are interrelated and together determine mutual attitude and behavioural motivation in the BSR.

Information sharing is also part of ‘relation posture’ as earlier literature widely recognized that information sharing plays an important role in determining the attitude and behaviour in the

(8)

8 p.6618). Hence, information sharing promotes knowledge sharing and synergies between the buyer and supplier which creates cooperative behaviour in the BSR (Dyer & Singh, 1998). In the long-term, it is argued that relation-specific norms play an important role as well (Lui et al., 2009a). Relational norms can be defined as “expectations about the behaviour that is at least partially shared by a group of makers” (Heide & John, 1992) Here, the decision-makers are the buyer and supplier. Cao & Lumineau (2015) argue that relational norms act as a governance mechanism as it curtails unilateral behaviours and therefore also stimulates cooperative behaviour. The last construct of ‘relational posture’ is conflict resolution. In BSRs, the level of conflict resolution determines the attitude and behaviour of the buyer and supplier when facing conflicts. In cooperative relationships, the buyer and supplier are more likely to solve problems because both parties are willing to make concessions to prevent relationship stagnation (Morgan & Hunt, 1994a). These concepts together determine the attitude and behaviour in the BSR and thus explains how the buyer and supplier posture towards each other.

2.1.2 Relational intensity

Whereas ‘relational posture’ captures the behavioural aspects, ‘relational intensity’ focuses on the operational aspects of a BSR. It represents the intensity of relational exchanges and determines the economic interdependence between the buyer and the supplier (Kim & Choi, 2015). Hence, BSRs move on the spectrum of arm's length relationships and closely tied relationships. Meaning that when relational intensity increases, the BSR moves towards a more closely tied relationship and vice versa. Kim & Choi (2015) operationalized ‘relational intensity’ by using the following constructs: interaction frequency, asset specificity, operational interdependence, and multiplexity.

Interaction frequency can be defined as the number of interactions between the buyer and

supplier in the various domains of the relationship (Kim & Choi, 2015). Interaction in various domains relates to the interpersonal relationships between the buyer and supplier and is seen as one of the key indicators that determine the intensity of relational exchanges (Lavie, 2006). Hansen (1999) strengthens the statement of Lavie (2006) by arguing that interaction frequency is positively related to the closeness of a BSR. The level of asset specificity can be seen as an indicator that determines the economic interdependence between the buyer and supplier. Asset

specificity relates to transaction-specific investments that are made in the relationships by both

(9)

9 in training suppliers with specific know-how. Operational interdependence is also part of ‘relational intensity’ and originates from the resource-dependency theory. This shows that the external resources determine the level of dependence between the buyer and supplier which, in turn, determine the intensity in the relationship (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Another perspective on operational interdependence shows that balanced power between the buyer and supplier creates interdependence and therefore results in a decreased likelihood from both parties to exploit their power (Cox, 2001). Hence, both parties are likely to work closer together.

Multiplexity refers to the number of different interaction domains within the interfirm

relationship (Marsden & Campbell, 1984). This can be seen as another indicator of relational intensity as different interaction domains mean that there are multiple bonds between individuals and organizations and therefore it enhances stability in the relationship (Beckman & Haunschild, 2002). These concepts together determine the intensity of relational exchanges and the economic interdependence and thus explain the relational intensity between the buyer and supplier.

(10)

10

2.2 Evolution in buyer-supplier relationships

The dimensions of Kim & Choi (2015) discussed in the previous section evolve over time as BSRs are not static, but dynamic in nature (Edvardsson & Strandvik, 2000; Holmlund, 2004; Madhavan et al., 1998). According to the literature, BSRs evolve due to incremental change that can be seen as ‘endogenous change’ which relates to change caused by subjective factors and thus by attitude and decisions made by both parties. Two parties usually seem to interact and adapt to one another and change their behaviour based on the behaviour of the other party. This can be seen as a continuous process that occurs due to mutual interactions within the BSR (Halinen et al., 1999).

Concept Component Definition

Relational posture

Commitment

“The willingness of a party to invest financial, physical or relationship-based resources in a relationship” (Zhao et al., 2008, p.370).

Trust

“The willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has confidence." (Moorman et al., 1993, p.82)

Information sharing

How firms share a variety of relevant, accurate, complete, and confidential information with the other party in a timely manner (Cao et al., 2010)

Relational norms

“The shared expectations about the behaviours of each party in IORs” (Cao & Lumineau, 2015, p.17)

Conflict resolution

How interfirm conflicts are managed amicably and developmentally (Kim & Choi, 2015)

Relational intensity

Interaction frequency

Frequency in various domains of buyer-supplier interactions (Kim & Choi, 2015)

Asset specificity

The transaction-specific investments made in the relationship by both buyer and supplier (Li et al., 2007)

Operational interdependence

“The buyer and the supplier possess resources that require the two parties to the exchange to work closely together, since neither party to the exchange can force the other to do what it does not wish to do” (Cox, 2001, p.13)

Multiplexity

They way in which two firms engage in joint activities above and beyond their regular exchange (Kim & Choi, 2015)

(11)

11 In term of relational posture, Huang & Wilkinson (2013) give an understanding of the evolution of trust in business relationships as they argue that trust evolves over time according to psychological, social, and economic mechanisms. When these mechanisms get triggered depends on the experience and outcomes of actions and/or interactions that take place over time. Anderson & Narus (1990) make the distinction between a static and dynamic point of view on trust and cooperation. With a static point of view, cooperation can be seen as an antecedent of trust. With a dynamic point of view, cooperation and trust seem to intertwine as cooperation leads to trust, which, in turn, leads to the willingness to cooperate. Meaning that both concepts are interrelated and thus both positively and negatively influence the mutual attitude and behavioural motivation in the relationship. Trust also influences the way parties approach conflicts in the BSR as the evolution of trust leads to partners resolving disputes amicably and thus perceiving future conflicts as ‘functional conflicts. This enhances productivity in the BSR (Morgan & Hunt, 1994a). On the other hand, a lack of trust and commitment may lead to disengagement instead of a constructive discussion (Hibbard et al., 2001).

In terms of relational intensity, it is argued that a BSR can move from an arm’s length relationship towards a closely tied relationship when relationship length increases (Kotabe et al., 2003). Firms develop relational capabilities due to increasing interaction frequency at different domains of the BSR (Marsden & Campbell, 1984; Van de Vijver et al., 2011). Hobbs (1996) strengthens this argument as he argues that frequency of interaction determines the level of opportunistic behaviour. Hence, higher interaction frequency results in lower opportunistic behaviour and therefore parties work together more closely. Lui et al. (2009) argue that when parties invest in relational-specific assets, it enhances the relational ties as it signals the desire to invest in the BSR. This, in turn, influences the interdependency between both parties as both parties got more invested in the BSR. Hence, the costs of switching to alternative opportunities increase heavily (Caniëls & Gelderman, 2007). Contrarily, when a party fails to invest relational-specific assets in mature relationships, it may result in ties becoming looser (Grayson & Ambler, 1999).

(12)

12

2.3 Supply Chain Disruptions

A supply chain disruption can be seen as a critical event that may trigger evolution in a BSR. The risk of a supply chain disruption arises from the fragility of the interconnected flow of operations, information, and funds in supply chain networks (Bode & Macdonald, 2017). Almost every firm is to some extent dependent on external sources and interfirm relationships within the supply chain and is therefore also exposed to supply chain disruption risks (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Supply chain disruptions can be defined as “unplanned and unanticipated events that disrupt the normal flow of goods and materials within a supply chain” (Craighead et al., 2007, p. 132). A more extensive definition is given by Bode & Macdonald (2017, p. 838), as they define a supply chain disruption as “the combination of an unintended and unexpected triggering event that occurs somewhere in the upstream supply chain, the inbound logistics network, or the purchasing (sourcing) environment, and a consequential situation, which presents a serious threat to the normal course of business operations of the focal firm”. This implies that a disruption could trigger evolution in a BSR as a mismatch in certain expectations may lead to a change in the actors' attitude and/or behaviour (Edvardson & Strandvik, 2009). More specifically, this could lead to an evolution in relational posture and relational intensity as the behaviour and intensity of relational exchanges in the BSR may change due to these unexpected events.

A vast majority of literature defines the course of a supply chain disruption by the following disruption phases: pre-disruption phase, during-disruption phase, and post-disruption phase (Hohenstein et al., 2015; Ali et al., 2017). Other authors provide a more extensive definition of disruption phases (Sheffi & Rice, 2005), however, in essence, they relate to the same thing. The disruption phases can be characterized by certain keywords that set the boundaries of each phase. The pre-disruption phase can be described by the keywords; prepare, resist, avoid and alert, the during-disruption phase by the keywords; respond, cope, and adapt and the

post-disruption phase by the keywords; recover, survive, restore and return (Ali et al., 2017). These

(13)

13

2.4 Theoretical framework

Figure 2 shows the conceptual model of this paper. BSRs are defined according to the dimensions of Kim & Choi (2015), relation posture and relational intensity. It is known that these dimensions evolve over time as BSRs are dynamic in nature. However, it is unknown how they evolve in a supply chain disruption context. To answer this question, this paper will study the evolution of BSRs in the course of a supply chain disruption. More specifically, during the

pre-disruption phase, during-disruption phase, and post-disruption phase (Ali et al., 2017).

(14)

14

3. Methodology

3.1 Research design

It remains unknown how a BSR evolves during the different supply chain disruption phases. To answer this question, an exploratory case study is most appropriate as a case study offers the opportunity to gain a real understanding of ‘how’ and ‘why’ relationships evolve in the context of a supply chain disruption (Yin, 2009). Furthermore, a case study research is particularly valuable for observing the evolution of a phenomenon (buyer-supplier relationship) when using a longitudinal approach (Pettigrew, 1990). However, due to time constraints, a quasi-longitudinal study is more appropriate as data on the BSR can be collected at one point in time and then can be classified according to the different supply chain disruption phases (Anderson, 1995). This offers an opportunity to study the evolution of a BSR over time. In addition, a multiple case study is executed as it allows comparison between different cases (Yin, 2009). In this paper, the unit of analysis is a ‘buyer-supplier relationship’. Hence, a multiple case study allows a comparison of several relationships with different relationship characteristics in terms of relational posture and relational intensity.

3.2 Research setting

(15)

15

3.3 Case selection

In total 8 cases within 6 companies are selected to create valuable insights into the evolution of BSRs. The different cases are selected based on the dimensions of Kim & Choi (2015):

relational posture and relational intensity. The criteria used to determine the level of ‘relational

posture’ and ‘relational intensity’ are based on the study of Kim & Choi (2015), which can be found in appendix A. Initially, the researchers opted to study cases with both ‘high’ and ‘low’ relational posture and relational intensity. However, while conducting the interviews, it was found that cases with ‘low’ relational posture are less fruitful to study as these cases were seen as non-strategic BSRs. Hence, all cases are characterized as BSRs with ‘high’ relational posture. Furthermore, 4 cases with low relational intensity and 4 cases with high relational intensity are studied. Nonetheless, different outcomes are expected and therefore creates theoretical replication logic (Yin, 1989). An overview of the cases is given in Table 3.1

Case Industry Organization Relational

posture Relational intensity 1 Food industry A High Low 2 A High Low 3 B High High 4 B High High 5 Manufacturing industry C High Low 6 D High High 7 E High High 8 F High Low

Table 3.1: Case selection

3.4 Data collection

(16)

16 that the interviewee had experience with a supply chain disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Meaning that the interviewee had to be able to evaluate the impact of the disruption on the firm. The second criterion was that the interviewee had to be actively involved in managing the specific BSR. Meaning that the interviewee had to be able to evaluate on the implication for the BSR. The third criterion was that the interviewee had to have a strategic position within the company to ensure that the person could evaluate the BSR at a strategic level.

Data is collected by two researchers whereby one researcher led the interview and the other person observed and made notes. This increased internal validity (Yin, 1989). Prior to the interview, a form of consent (appendix B) and an interview guide (appendix C) were sent to the interviewee to ensure proper handling of data and to give the interviewee an idea of the content of the interview. This contained the goal of the interview and the subjects that were going to be discussed. Interviewees were asked to recall a BSR that had to deal with disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This allowed the interviewees to actively think about the content prior to the interview. All interviews were held online due to the circumstances regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The actual interview started with several closed questions which made it possible to quantitatively assess the situation of a specific BSR before and after a disruption. Afterwards, in-depth questions were asked about the nature of this BSR and the evolution that occurred during a disruption. The interview protocol can be found in appendix D. All the interviews were recorded, transcribed, and sent to the interviewees to give them the opportunity to check for the correctness of the data and to clarify content if needed.

Case Organisation Nr Position interviewee Length in min.

1

A

#1 Supply Chain Manager 59:10

2 #2 Supply Chain Planner 62:53

3

B

#3 Souring Manager 38:41

4 #4 Strategic Sourcing Expert 52:00

5

C

#5 Strategic Purchasing Manager 49:48

5 #6 Strategic Purchaser 74:39

6

D

#7 Operations Manager 29:35

6 #8 Senior Buyer 67:00

6 #9 Project Procurement Manager 59:00

7 E #10 Category Manager 58:00

8 F #11 Procurement Category Manager 46:49

(17)

17

3.5 Data analysis

After transcribing the data of the interviews, data analysis was structured as follows: 1) organizing data, 2) interpretive coding, 3) identification of mechanisms 4) identification of triggers 5) identification of patterns. Data organization started with reducing data by inserting the relevant quotes (first order) in an excel sheet, structured per case. Quotes were deemed to be relevant when they could be used in answering the research question. Based on the first-order codes, interpretive codes (second first-order) were deductively derived (e.g., helping the supplier). First, by allocation them to the right disruption phase which is either the

pre-disruption, during-pre-disruption, or post-disruption phase (Ali et al., 2017). Secondly, by

allocating them to the variables that cover relational posture and relational intensity (Table 3.3). It was of importance to organize the data in this way so that BSRs could be studied in the first transition phase (pre-disruption to the during-disruption phase) and the second transition phase (during-disruption to the post-disruption phase). At this point, a within-case analysis was done by analysing the during-disruption data relative to the pre-disruption data and by analysing the

post-disruption data relative to the during-disruption data for all variables of relational posture

and relational intensity. It is important to mention that the codes for the second transition phase also include expectations about the future changes in the BSR. Thereafter, by comparing the interpretive codes (second-order codes) with the quantitative data from the closed questions (appendix 1), there was a clear picture of the direction and specific reasons for evolution in each specific case. The direction of evolution (increase, no change, decrease) was determined by counting the number of sub-variables that were triggered and additionally the relative impact of each interpretive code on the BSR was taken into consideration.

(18)

18 of BSRs in the course of a supply chain disruption. These patterns are derived by a combination of the evolution direction and the triggers active in each specific case. This will be further discussed in the coming section.

Table 3.3: Excerpt coding tree

Variable Quotes (first-order codes) Interprative codes

(second-order codes)

Mechanisms (third-order codes)

Triggers I even told the suppliers that I am looking for more capacity even in these hard times

so the suppliers know that we are a serious customer." (C1) Initiate partnership "Together with the supplier, we looked for alternative sources for seasonal workers.

This was even done at the company X stores" (C3) Helping the supplier "Yes definitely, I think good behaviour leads to a situation where we can order more

than other organizations." (C8) Need for delivery reliability "However, in times of crisis, when availability is low, we expect them to deliver us with

priority. Most suppliers want us as a customer to ensure risk diversification." (C4) Need for certainty "The commitment is more, because we have now more mutual understanding of our

businesses and problems and this is caused by more information sharing and more personnel contact" (C2)

Mutual understanding "We have more interaction with each other. I got better acquainted with the supplier"

(C6) Mutual understanding

"You may say “Look for another supplier’, but the whole market was under pressure. Then you need to make the decision if you want to switch from supplier, with all the risks it brings with it." (C1)

"I am more likely to source it from him because he has the capacity. We are willing to pay additional cost when the knowledge is that the supplier has the capacity to deliver our product on time." (C6)

"We can do a check for instance to see how good our suppliers are and to see what

there added value is. Instead of focussing on as much suppliers a possible " (C7) Supplier capabilities "What has become clear is that risk diversification is very important. You want to

spread your risks. Especially for strategic items" (C1) Focus on back-up suppliers Recognition value

risk diversification

"Yes, everything you say is true and we are strongly convinced that this will help us in the future. That is something that we were already doing for ten years and this pandemic is confirming that this is from great value" (C3)

Outcomes of long-term relationship "Yes it is a confirmation of certain aspects. How important it is to have a strong

relationship so that the supplier is strategic and sees your organization as an important customer. This will bring a lot of advantages. They will ensure that your product is delivered instead of delivery to other parties" (C6)

Confirmation of preferred customer status "This of course had an impact on the relationship because they made decisions that

were bad for us" (C5)

Performance related issues

Continuity risk relationship Confirmation

(19)

19

4. Findings

In order to explore the evolution of BSRs in the course of a supply chain disruption, several mechanisms were found. These are summarized in Table 4.1. Additionally, three broader evolution triggers were identified that cover these mechanisms and answer the question ‘why’ BSRs evolve; evolution triggered by action, evolution triggered by recognition, evolution

triggered by confirmation. Evolution triggered by action consists of certain actions taken by the

buyer or supplier. Evolution triggered by recognition relates to the buying firm which recognizes certain opportunities and/or risk. Evolution triggered by confirmation relates to the buying firm which confirms the current status of the relationship, which could be relationship strength for instance.

More importantly, these triggers were used to answer the question ‘how’ BSRs evolve in the course of a disruption. From the data can be derived that, in broad terms, BSRs develop by the following patterns: relationship improvement, temporary changes and relationship

deterioration. Relationship improvement occurred in BSRs that moved towards a cooperative

and more closely tied relationship in the course of a disruption due to structural increases in relational posture and relational intensity. For this pattern, it was found that certain actions taken (e.g., creating preferred customer status) in an early phase cause an increase in relational posture and relational intensity which, in turn, leads to confirmation of the strength of the

relationship in a later phase. Hence, the BSR moves further towards a cooperative relationship

as relation posture increased.

Temporary changes occurred in BSRs that moved towards a more cooperative and closely tied relationship during the first transition phase but returned to its initial state in the second transition phase. For this pattern, it was found that certain actions (e.g., being supportive) taken and recognition (e.g., level of dependence) that occurred were solely focused on the disruption itself and therefore BSRs experienced an increase in relational posture and relational intensity in an early phase but returned to its initial state in a later phase. Relationship deterioration occurred in BSRs that moved towards a more adversarial and more arm’s length relationship due to a structural decrease in relational posture and relational intensity. For this pattern, it was found that certain actions (e.g., continuity risk personal ties) taken in an early phase had a negative effect on relational posture. This development resulted in confirmation of the

continuity risk for the relationship in its entirety. Hence, the BSR moved further towards a more

(20)

(21)

21

Evolution of buyer-supplier relationships (BSRs) Evolution triggered by action (§4.1) Transition

phase:

Commitment Trust Information sharing Relational norms Conflict resolution Interaction

frequency

Asset specificity Operational Interdependence Multiplexity Pre-disruption During-disruption 1. Preferred customer status (C4,8) 2.Being supportive (C1,3) 3.Getting better acquainted (C2,6) 3. Getting better acquainted (C2) 1. Preferred customer status (C1,8) 4. Effectiveness communication (C2,3,4,6,8) 5. Continuity risk personal ties (C5) 3.Geting better acquainted (C3,6,7) 5.Continuity risk personal ties (C5) 6. Being supportive (C2,5,6,7,8) 4. Effectiviness communication (C3) 3.Getting better acquainted (C6,7) 1.Preferred customer status (C1) 4.Effectiviness communication (C3,4,6,7) 5. Continuity risk personal ties (C5) 2.Being supportive (C3) 1.Creating preferred customer status (C4) N/A During- disruption Post-disruption N/A N/A 4..Effectiviness communication (C3,4,7) N/A N/A 4.Effectiveness communication

(C1,5,6) N/A N/A N/A

Evolution triggered by recognition (§4.2) Transition

phase:

frequency

Asset specificity Operational Interdependence Multiplexity Pre-disruption During-disruption 1. Recognition value relationship (C1,4,6,8) N/A 1. Recognition value relationship (C1,6,8) N/A N/A 1. Recognition value relationship (C1,5,6) N/A 3. Recognition level of dependence (C1,3,6) 1. Recognition value relationship (C2,5) During- disruption Post-disruption 1. Recognition value relationship (C7,8) 4. Recognition value risk diversifcation (C1) N/A 1. Recognition value relationship (C2,7) 4. Recognition value risk diversifcation (C1) 5. Paradigm shift in objectives (C4,6,8) N/A 1. Recognition value relationship (C8) N/A 1. Recognition value relationship (C8) 4. Recognition value risk diversification (C1) 5, Paradigm shift in objectives (C7) 1. Recognition value relationship (C8 5. Paradigm shift in objectives (C8)

Evolution triggered by confirmation (§4.3) Transition

phase:

frequency

Asset specificity Operational Interdependence Multiplexity Pre-disruption During-disruption N/A 1. Confirmation of relationship strength (C4,7) N/A 1. Confirmation of relationship strength (C3,6,8)

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

During- disruption Post-disruption 1. Confirmation of relationship strength (C2,3,4,6) 4. Continuity risk relationship (C5) 1. Confirmation of relationship strength (C2,3,6) 4. Continuity risk relationship (C5)

N/A N/A N/A

3. Confirmation importance of visibility (C2,8) N/A N/A 1. Confirmation of relationship strength (C6)

(22)

22

4.1 Evolution triggered by action

What can be derived from the data, is that in the transition from the pre-disruption to the

during disruption phase, case 1,3,4,6,7 became more cooperative and closely tied due to an

increase in relational posture and relational intensity. Case 2 and 8 only became more closely tied as they increased in relational intensity. As displayed in Table 4.2, these developments are caused by actions related to: creating a preferred customer status (C1,4,8), being supportive

(C1,2,3,6,7,8), getting better acquainted (C2,3,6,7) and effectiveness communication (C2,3,4,6,7,8). Concurrently, case 3 and 6 partly decreased in relational posture and case 5

decreased in both relational posture and relational intensity, due actions related to: effectiveness

communication (C3,6) and continuity risk personal ties (C5). In the transition from the during-disruption to the post-during-disruption phase, case 3,4,7 became more cooperative as relational

posture increased due to actions related to effectiveness communication (C3,4,7). Case 1,5 and 6 became more arm’s length as relational intensity decreased due to actions related to

effectiveness communication (C1,5,6). These mechanisms will be further discussed in the

coming section.

Transition phase Relationship changes

Variable Case Evolution triggered by:

First transition phase

Increase

(Case 1,2,3,4,6,7,8)

Commitment (posture) 4,8

1.Creating preferred customer status

Information sharing (posture) 1,8 Interaction frequency (intensity) 1 Interdependence (intensity) 4 Commitment (posture) 1,3

2. Being supportive Conflict resolution (posture) 2,6,7,8

Asset specificity (intensity) 3 Trust (posture) 2

3. Getting better acquainted Commitment (posture 2,6

Relational norms (posture) 3,6,7 Conflict resolution (posture) 6,7 Information sharing (posture) 2,4,8

4. Effectiveness communication Interaction frequency (intensity) 3,4,6,7

Decrease

(Case 3,5,6)

Conflict resolution (posture) 3 4. Effectiveness communication Information sharing (posture) 3,6

Information sharing (posture) 5 5.Continuity risk personal ties Interaction frequency (intensity) 5

Relational norms (posture) 5

Second transition phase

Increase

(Case 3,4,7)

Information sharing (posture) 3,4,7 4. Effectiveness communication

Decrease

(Case 1,5,6)

Interaction frequency (intensity) 1,5,6 4. Effectiveness communication

Table 4.2: Evolution triggered by action

(23)

23

Creating preferred customer status (firs transition phase)

The BSRs in case 1,4 and 8 experienced a disruption caused by a significant demand increase. This resulted in pressure on the relationship as in most cases, the supplier already operated with a high utilisation rate. What was found in these cases (C1,4,8) is that the buyer directly tried to create a preferred customer status to ensure delivery reliability; “Then you are in a state that

you are fighting to get enough packaging materials” (C8). To create this ‘status’, the interaction

between both parties (case 1) became more intense; You need to show yourself and keep the

pressure high. In that case, you receive your orders earlier.” (C1). In case 4, it also had a

positive effect on relational intensity but via operational interdependence, as the buyer tried to create this ‘status’ by deliberately opting for mutual dependency; “Yes, for our main products

we are the biggest party in the customer base and we also doing this with purpose”(C4). In

terms of relational posture, information sharing was increased in case 1 and 8 as in; “this way

the supplier can buy the raw materials as early as possible and the demand for our company is known.” (C1). Next to that, in case 4 and 8 it also had an impact on commitment as the buyer

tried to show good behaviour to achieve this ‘status’; “Yes definitely, I think good behaviour

leads to a situation where we can order more than other organizations” (C8). Being supportive (first transition phase)

Another mechanism that is found in the first transition phase is buying companies showing ‘supportive behaviour’ in times of crisis. In case 3, this had a positive effect on relational intensity in terms of asset specificity as the buyer invested time and money in the relationship to help the supplier; “Together with the supplier, we looked for alternative sources for seasonal

workers. This was even done at the company X stores” (C3). In other cases (2,6,7 and 8),

supportive behaviour increased relational posture in terms conflict resolution as BSRs tried to develop a collaborative problem-solving attitude; “I think we are looking for a solution in a

more collaborative way. I just say to the supplier that they need to inform me in an early stage so that I am able to communicate the current situation to our customers” (C6). In case 1 and 3,

this also had a positive effect on relational posture in terms of trust and/or commitment in the BSR as the buyer showed the intention for a long-term partnership during the disruption; “I

(24)

24

Becoming better acquainted (first transition phase)

In times of crisis, it seems that the buyer and supplier in the BSR become better acquainted. In case 3,6 and 7, both parties in the BSR get a better understanding of each other and therefore relational posture increases as relation norms are created in times of crisis; “The status of the

relationship is at some points even better. A better understanding of each other’s situation.

(C6). This also positively affects relational posture in terms of conflict resolution as in case 6 and 7 both parties have a better understanding of each other’s issues; “I think that the pandemic

created a sort of leniency between the buyer and supplier” (C7). In case 2, it seemed that

relational posture increased in terms of trust as the buyer was able to build a personal relationship with the supplier; “This is the first time that we could meet the persons behind the

emails.” (C2). For case 2 and 6, this mechanism ultimately results in enhancement of

commitment; “There is more commitment because we now have a better mutual understanding

of our businesses and problems” (C2). Hence, the BSR in these cases moved further towards a

cooperative relationship as relational posture was increased.

Effectiveness communication (both transition phases)

Effectiveness of communication is a mechanism that is found in both transition phases. In the first transition phase, in case 3,4,6 and 7 communication became more effective due to the need for visibility in the supply chain and new ways of communication. This resulted in an increase in relational intensity in terms of interaction frequency; “Because we do have more group

conversations with the supplier, retailer x and our company simultaneously.” (C4). In case 2,4

and 8 it was not relational intensity, but evolution in relational posture as information sharing increased; “Point two is that we are structurally sharing status updated about the orders” (C2). This is in line with the evolution in case 3,4 and 7, but information sharing increased in the second transition phase. Contrarily, the effectiveness of communication also covers negative developments in BSRs. While relational intensity increased in case 3 and 6, relational posture decreased as the BSR experienced problems in information sharing due to these new ways of communication; “In real-life, the real problems come up and that is missing in a less personal

conference call” (C3). This also affected conflict resolution as it is harder to solve problems; “I used to fly every month to different suppliers to resolve problems with our suppliers and that is what I am missing the most” (C3). In the second transition phase, in case 1,5 and 6 relational

(25)

25

Continuity risk personal ties (first transition phase)

The last found action that triggers evolution in BSRs was related to continuity risk in personal ties. During the first transition phase, in case 5 relational posture decreased in terms of information sharing as employees at the supplier were fired and thus certain knowledge was lost; “They fired some experienced managers what resulted in missing knowledge that we had

with the previous management.” (C5). Furthermore, this lay-off of employees also affected

interaction frequency and relational norms as certain relationships were broken; “the person

where you had a relationship for years might be replaced and that can change a relationship,”

(C5). Hence, the BSR further decreased in relational posture and relational intensity.

4.2 Evolution triggered by recognition

What can be derived from the data, is that, in the transition from the pre-disruption to the

during-disruption phase, case 1 & 6 moved towards a more cooperative and more closely tied

relations ship due to an increase in relational posture and intensity. Case 2,3 & 5 became more closely tied due to an increase in relational intensity and case 4 & 8 became more cooperative due to an increase in relational posture. As displayed in Table 4.3, these developments are caused by recognition related to: value of the relationship (C1,2,3,4,5,6,8) and level of

dependence (C1,3,6). In the transition from the during-disruption to the post-disruption phase, case 7 & 8 became more cooperative and closely tied due to an increase in both relational

posture and intensity. Case 2,4, & 6 became more cooperative due to an increase in relational posture and case 1 moved towards a more adversarial relationship due to a decrease in relational posture. In this transition phase, evolution is triggered by recognition of: value of the

(26)

26

Recognition value relationship (both transition phases)

The mechanism of recognition of the value of a relationship is found in both transition phases. In both phases, the data showed that there was a need for delivery reliability and visibility either directly after the impact of the disruption or in a later phase when future disruptions were discussed. These factors led buyers to recognize the value of their relationship and tried to exploit it. In terms of relational intensity, in case 5 and 6 this led to the buyer increasing the interaction frequency in the BSR; “The interaction frequency increased. This has a simple

reason, there is a lot of scarcity on the market right now, so we need more interaction about orders and delivery times” (C5). Hence, the BSR moved towards a more closely tied

relationship. In case 2 and 5, this had a positive effect on relational intensity in terms of multiplexity as relational ties were created to exploit the value of the relationship; “Earlier,

contact was set up via mail and via the commercial agent. At this point, we also have direct contact with the sales executive of the supplier, and we have various contact persons within this organization.” (C2). The same thing occurred in case 8, but then in the second transition phase.

Case 8 increased in asset specificity as the buyer invested in the relationship to create engagement between both parties: “It is a non-financial investment but engaging our

management to talk to their senior management” (C8).

Transition phase Relationship changes Variable Case Evolution triggered by:

Increase

(Case 1,2,3,4,5,6 & 8)

Commitment (posture) 1,4,6,8

1.Recognition value relationship Information sharing (posture) 1,6,8

Interaction frequency (intensity)

5,6 Multiplexity (intensity) 2,5

Interdependence (intensity) 1,3,6 2. Recognition level of dependence

Decrease

(No cases)

N/A N/A

Increase

(Case 2,4,6,7,8)

Commitment (posture) 7,8

1. Recognition value relationship Information sharing (posture) 2,7

Asset specificity (intensity) 8 Multiplexity (intensity) 8 Conflict resolution (posture) 8

Information sharing (posture) 4,6,8 3. Paradigm shift in objectives Interdependence (intensity) 7 Multiplexity (intensity) 8 Decrease (Case 1 ) Commitment (posture) 1

4. Recognition value risk diversification Information sharing (posture) 1

Interdependence (intensity) 1

Table 4.3: Evolution triggered by recognition

(27)

27 In terms of relational posture, recognition of the value of a relationship seems to have a positive effect on conflict resolution as well as the buyer in case 8 was aiming for a more collaborative way of problem-solving; “You will catch up with each other to put the issues on the table before

the actual problems arise” (C8). The same goes for information sharing as buyers in case

1,2,6,8 and 7 initiated more information to exploit their relationship; “At this point, we wanted

to communicate more often, sharing more information so that they can see what we need on the short and middle-term” (C1). Hence, the BSR moved towards a more cooperative relationship.

Ultimately, due to the recognition of the value of the relationship buyers tried to show commitment to the supplier; “However, to get the supplier approved for the right products is

very time-consuming. So, we decide it is more important to spend that energy on our main supplier and secure the quality and on-time delivery” (C8)

Recognition level of dependence (first transition phase)

Recognition of the level of dependence in the relationship only occurred in the first transition phase. It is noteworthy to mention that this not implies that in every case the actual dependence between both parties has changed as it is also about the awareness of dependence that triggers evolution. In case 1,3, and 6, the supply chain disruption caused supply stops and consequently led to an increase in perceived operational interdependence at the buyer’s side; “We need to

help them as much as they need to help us to overcome this pandemic” (C3). Hence, the BSR

moved towards a more closely tied relationship as relational intensity increased.

Paradigm shift in objectives (second transition phase)

In several cases (C4,6,7,8) a paradigm shift in objectives was found after the occurrence of a supply chain disruption. In case 4 and 6 objectives shifted towards risk management, in case 7 towards flexibility and in case 8 from operational towards more strategic objectives. In case 8 this increased relational intensity in terms of multiplexity as the buyer planned more strategic talks with the supplier; “More regular contacts and even senior management from both

companies to meet up to have a more strategic talk” (C8). In case 7, the shift in objectives led

to a higher perceived level of interdependence; “Meaning that the delivery and the supply chain

in its whole needs to faster. This has a lot of influence on your supply chain.” (C7). Hence, the

relationship moved further towards a more closely tied relationship as relational intensity increased. In most cases (C4,6,8) it also led to an increased level of information sharing as more information from the supplier is required; “I will extend my audit questionnaire with risk

(28)

28

Recognition value risk diversification (second transition phase)

The last found trigger caused negative developments in the BSR and is about the recognition of the value of risk diversification. In this context, risk diversification relates to risk diversification in the supply base. In case 1, the buyer realizes that its independent on the long-term and therefore recognizes the importance of risk diversification; “Here you can make a

planned switch from the supplier” (C1). Hence, this implies that the relationship will move

towards an arm’s length relationship as the perceived interdependence in the BSR decreases; “For some packaging materials we have chosen to source the same item from different

suppliers” (C1). Furthermore, the data shows that this focus on other suppliers also affects the

level of information sharing after the disruption; “the interaction will decrease when the

pressure from the pandemic is gone” (C1). Ultimately, it can be argued that this also affects

(29)

29

4.3 Evolution triggered by confirmation

What can be derived from the data, is that, in the transition from the pre-disruption to the

during-disruption phase, case 3,4,6,7,8 move towards a more cooperative relationship due to

an increase in relational posture. As displayed in Table 4.4, this evolution is triggered by confirmation of relationship strength (C3,4,6,7,8). In the transition from the during-disruption to the post-disruption phase, case 2 and 6 moved towards a more cooperative and closely tied relationship due to an increase in relational posture and relational intensity. Case 3 and 4 became more cooperative due to an increase in relational posture and case 8 became more closely tied as relational intensity was increased. Contrarily, case 5 moved towards a more adversarial relationship as relational posture was decreased. Evolution in this transition phase is caused by confirmation of: relationship strength (C2,3,4,6), importance of visibility (C2,8)

and continuity risk relationship (C5). These mechanisms will be further discussed in the coming

section.

Confirmation of relationship strength (both transition phases)

In several cases (C2,3,4,6,7 and 8), confirmation of relationship strength seems to be a trigger for evolution in the BSR. This mainly had to do with the supplier showing that it is trustworthy in terms of delivery reliability and confirmation of their preferred customer status. In case 3,6 and 8, this increased relational posture in terms of relational norms as the supplier showed the

Transition phase Relationship changes Variable Case Evolution triggered by:

Increase

(Case 3,4,6,7,8)

Relational norms (posture) 3,6,8 1. Confirmation of relationship strength

Trust (posture) 4,7

Decrease

(No cases)

N/A

Increase

(Case 2,3,4,6,8)

Commitment (posture) 2,3,4,6 1. Confirmation relationship strength Trust (posture) 2,3,6 Multiplexity (intensity) 6 Interaction frequency (intensity) 2,8 3. Confirmation importance visibility Decrease (Case 5) Commitment (posture) 5 4. Continuity risk relationship Trust (posture) 5

Table 4.4: Evolution triggered by confirmation

(30)

30 buyer that it could count on them; “This supplier is known for its trust and their reliability on

completing the order within the contract” (C6). In case 2,3,4,6 and 7, this also strengthened

trust in the relationship; “Yes, the relationship that we already build has caused that we do not

experience much damage from the pandemic. This is based on trust and that is noticed during the crisis” (C3). Consequently, in case 2,3,4,6 it was also found that this increased commitment

as the buyer in these cases opts to continue working with the supplier; “I want to increase the

length of our contract with this party” (C6). Hence, due to an increase in trust and commitment,

the BSR moved further towards a cooperative relationship. Besides, in case 6 it was also found that the confirmation of relationship strength influenced relational intensity in terms of multiplexity as this crisis gives an incentive to further build relational ties; “When you invest in

the relationship, your relationship becomes better and that is really important during a crisis. Thus, personal relationships but also relationships on a board-level” (C6).

Confirmation importance visibility (second transition phase)

Confirmation of the importance of visibility is also seen as a trigger that causes evolution in the BSR. Meaning that the buying organization confirms the importance of visibility in the upstream supply chain during a crisis. In case 2 and 8, this mechanism triggers the expectation that interaction frequency will increase in the future to create this visibility; “We have more

contact so we are now setting up goals for when this crisis is over, this will take some time, but the plans are there.” (C2).

Continuity risk relationship (second transition phase)

Confirmation of the continuity risk of a relationship is seen as a mechanism that negatively influences the relational posture in a BSR. It is about the buyer confirming certain performance-related risks regarding the supplier. In case 5 this has led to a decrease in trust as the limits in capabilities of the supplier were exposed during the disruption; “However, this situation showed

us the limits of our suppliers. So, if something similar happens, we know what their limits are, and we can make decisions based on that” (C5). Consequently, this is also had a negative effect

on commitment; “This of course had an impact on the relationship because they made decisions

(31)

31

4.4 Holistic view on the evolution of BSRs

The triggers previously discussed give the opportunity to holistically approach the evolution of BSRs in the course of a disruption. With this approach, three main patterns were found: relationship improvement, temporary changes, and relationship deterioration. From the data can be derived that, in general, most cases (C2,3,4,6,7,8) experienced relationship improvement as BSRs became more cooperative and more closely tied due to structural increases in relational posture and intensity. Case 1 experienced more temporary changes as it moved towards a more cooperative and closely tied relationship during the first transition phase but returned to its initial state in the second transition phase. Case 5 experienced deterioration in the relationship as it moved towards a more adversarial and arms-length relationship due to a structural decrease in relational posture and relational intensity. Figure 4.4 show an overview of the relative changes in relational posture and relational intensity that occurred in the course of a supply chain disruption. The patterns will be further discussed in the coming section.

Relational intensity Relational posture

Case First transition phase Second transition phase First transition phase Second transition phase 2 Relationship improvement 1. Triggerd by action 2. Triggered by recognition 3. Triggered by confirmation N/A 2. Triggered by recognition 3. Triggered by confirmation 3 1. Triggered by action 2. Triggered by recognition

3. Triggered by confirmation 1. Triggered by action 3. Triggered by confirmation 1. Triggered by action 3. Triggered by confirmation 4 1. Triggered by action N/A 1. Triggered by action 2. Triggered by recognition 3. Triggered by confirmation 1. Triggered by action 2. Triggered by recognition 3. Triggered by confirmation 6 1. Triggered by action 2. Triggered by recognition

3. Triggered by confirmation 1. Triggered by action 2. Triggered by recognition 3. Triggered by confirmation

2. Triggered by recognition 3. Triggered by confirmation

7

1. Triggered by action 2. Triggered by recognition 1. Triggered by action 3. Triggered by confirmation 1. Triggered by action 2. Triggered by recognition 8 N/A 2. Triggered by recognition 3. Triggered by confirmation 1. Triggered by action 2. Triggered by recognition 3. Triggered by confirmation 1. Triggered by recognition Temporary changes 1* 1. Triggered by action 2. Triggered by recognition

1. Triggered by action 1. Triggered by action 2. Triggered by recognition 2. Triggered by recognition Relationship deterioration 5* 1. Triggered by action 2. Triggered by recogntion

1. Triggered by action 1. Triggered by action 3. Triggerd by confirmation

(32)

32

Relationship improvement

The pattern that was found for case 2,3,4,6,7 and 8 is that relationship improvement occurred in the course of a supply chain disruption. Meaning that BSRs became both more cooperative and closely tied due to a structural increase in relational posture and intensity. Several mechanisms were found that cause relationship improvement based on the triggers displayed in table 4.4 In all the cases (C2,3,4,6,7,8), certain actions (e.g., creating a preferred customer status, being supportive) were taken that resulted in the relationship becoming more cooperative and more closely tied in the first transition phase as relational posture and relational intensity was increased. Interestingly, due to the increased level of cooperation and the relationship becoming closer, the buyers in these were able to confirm the strength of the relationship in a later phase; “Due to the increased level of information sharing these doubts are away and it is

seen as a partnership” (C2). As a result, the BSR in these cases moved further towards a more

cooperative relationship as relational posture increased in terms of trust, relational norms, and commitment. In summary, certain actions that improve the relationship in an early phase can be seen as an antecedent for confirmation of relationship strength in a later phase which moves the BSR further towards a cooperative relationship.

Information sharing seems to play an important role in relationship improvement as well as it can be seen as an antecedent for further development in relational posture. In case 2, 4 and 6 an increase in information sharing occurred in an early phase and resulted in an increase in relational posture in terms of trust as the trustworthiness of the supplier was confirmed; “they

were constantly informing us about the situation so you know they try everything they can”(C4).

In case 2,6 and 7, the increase in information sharing in an early phase resulted in the buyer and supplier being more supportive and collaborative problem-solving occurred; “We are now

informed when something goes wrong or is delayed and asked to come with a joint solution.”

(C2). Hence, the relationship became more cooperative as relational posture increased in terms of conflict resolution. In case 2,4,6, the increase in information sharing in an early phase resulted in the buyer and supplier becoming better acquainted and consequently resulted in the BSR moving towards a more collaborative relationship as commitment was increased; “We

have now more mutual understanding of our businesses and problems and this is caused by more information sharing and more personnel contact” (C2)

Buyer-supplier relationships: How do they evolve in the course of a supply chain disruption?