See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305330602

Managing the Risks of Participating in a

Supplier Development Program: Practical
Recommendations from Academic Research
Conference Paper July 2016
CITATIONS

READS

25

2 authors:
Benoit Bourguignon

Harold Boeck

Universit du Qubec Montral

Universit du Qubec Montral

3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

26 PUBLICATIONS 313 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Building the scale for our model of consumer reaction to RFID technology use in retail. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Benoit Bourguignon on 15 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

Managing the Risks of Participating in a Supplier

Development Program: Practical Recommendations
from Academic Research
Benoit Bourguignon and Harold Boeck**
Supplier development programs are gaining traction as a supply
chain management tool. Consequently, suppliers are increasingly
invited to participate in these programs. It is, however, advised that
suppliers evaluate the risks of participation prior to engaging in such
a program. This paper presents a 4 step process for the
identification, assessment, mitigation and monitoring of those risks.
Key elements are also presented for each step, to guide the
suppliers upper-management in their decision process.

JEL Codes: L14, L16, L22 and M31

1. Introduction
Suppliers of large organizations are increasingly invited by their clients to
participate in supplier development programs. The program aims at
continuously improving the clients supply chain by enhancing the suppliers
performance (Krause et al. 1998). Supplier development is defined as a
customers action to expand the supplier's ability to meet their procurement
requirements (Handfield et al. 2000). Because of supplier base consolidation,
suppliers are confronted with three options: becoming a preferred supplier by
accepting to participate in such programs, accepting a smaller share of
customers spending (Ulaga & Eggert 2006), or not being a supplier at all.
This participation can take many forms: enhancing technical capabilities,
quality, delivery or cost performance (Hahn et al. 1990). From the buyers
perspective, these activities can consist of evaluating the performance of the
supplier, training their employees or even investing capital in the suppliers
assets (Krause & Ellram 1997).
Supplier development is important because it is reserved for the best
suppliers, who in turn will receive a larger share of customer spending
(Dorsch et al. 1998).When the supplier does not receive a larger share of
customer spending, it is sometimes asked to improve the clients supply chain
with unspecified benefits (Boeck et al. 2009). Nagati & Rebolledo (2013) have
found that supplier development programs (SDP) generate benefits for the
supplier, such as lower costs and higher quality, but that the risk in

Mr. Benoit Bourguignon, Marketing department, UQAM's School of Management (ESG

UQAM), Canada, e-mail: bourguignon.benoit@uqam.ca
**

Dr. Harold Boeck, Marketing department, UQAM's School of Management (ESG UQAM),
Canada, e-mail : boeck.harold@uqam.ca

participating in SDP is substantial. This paper aims specifically at addressing

this substantial risk.
The objective of this conceptual paper is to present a SDP risk management
process, based on Hallikas et al. (2004)s model. The first step of this process
is to identify the risks incurred by the supplier who considers participating in a
SDP. The second step is risk assessment. At this point, the supplier will be
interested in risk mitigation prior to making a decision. If the supplier decides
to participate, a final step of participation cost/benefit monitoring should be
implemented. The following sections detail each step.

2. Step 1: Identifying suppliers risk

Because the research on the suppliers risks of participating in SDP is scarce,
and because both the buyer and the supplier participating in SDP have similar
goals, but from a different perspective (Nagati & Rebolledo 2013; Olsen &
Ellram 1997), the extant literature on supply chain risk management from the
buyers point of view is used to help in identifying the risks from the suppliers
perspective. The 5 risks taken into consideration are : dependence
intensification, idiosyncratic investment lock-in, financial, strategic and the
ultimate risk of losing the customer.
2.1. The risk of dependence intensification
Supplier development is or should be reserved for key suppliers (Krause et al.
2007); the ones that have more volume (Ulaga & Eggert 2006). Since the
SDP would increase the integration between the supplier and the buyer, there
is a risk that the supplier becomes more dependent (Hansen 2009).
Dependence is necessary for a firm to adapt (Hallen et al. 1991), and supplier
development activities are a form of adaptation. If that dependence becomes
asymmetrical, it may encourage the customer to take advantage of the
supplier (Anderson & Weitz 1989), hence increasing the suppliers risk.
Moreover, supplier development programs have a greater chance of success
when the buyer is in a position of dominance or when there is an
interdependence of power in the relationship (Cox 2001).
2.2. The risk of idiosyncratic investments lock-in
Supplier development activities can be specific to a customer and might not
be transferrable to the suppliers other customers. Idiosyncratic investments
are tangible and intangible assets devoted to a specific relationship that could
be lost if the relationship is terminated (Heide & John 1988; Williamson 1987).
The risk increases when there is a large gap between the investments of one
party versus the investments of the other party because the one with the least
investment could threatened to leave the relationship (Weitz & Jap 1995).
Therefore, suppliers are unwilling to make idiosyncratic investments because
of the risk of losing them upon the extinction of the relationship (Hausman &
Stock 2003; Sheth & Sharma 1997). There is a delicate balance between the
necessity of making idiosyncratic investments to build a relationship (Weitz &
Bradford, 1999) and the risk of becoming too dependent on the other partner
because of those investments (Spekman & Carraway 2006). The question of

whether the benefits of the investments will favour the customer or the
supplier is also a risk factor (Weitz & Jap, 1995).
2.3. Financial risks
A supplier participating in a SDP will incur costs in many different ways. First,
the program can be disguised as a price negotiation tactic (Spekman &
Carraway 2006). Then, if the supplier does not possess the necessary
financial skills to comprehend the costs of the program, the customer could
exploit them (Anderson & Narus 2003) and the costs would be significant
(Reinartz & Kumar 2003). Participating in a SDP is not optional and the
pressure to participate can sometimes be substantial (Ulaga & Eggert 2006;
Boeck et al. 2006). All these additional costs represent another form of risk.
This is why De Toni & Nassimbeni (2000) emphasize the importance of
incentives to support the investments needed by the supplier participating in
such programs.
2.4. Strategic risk
Because SDPs involve sharing sensitive and strategic information (Handfield
et al. 2000), which increases the supplier vulnerability (Nagati & Rebolledo
2013), the supplier might lose a competitive advantage, should a disloyal
customer display any kind of active or passive opportunism (Enkel et al. 2005;
Wathne & Heide 2000). Information sharing, is essential because the more
strategic information the supplier shares, the more trust the buyer will give
them (Doney & Cannon 1997). Reducing the knowledge transfer can reduce
the potential benefit of that transfer (MacDuffie & Helper 1997) and the
absence of information can even increase uncertainty (Ritchie & Brindley
2007). However, if a customer displays opportunism by sharing some of the
suppliers strategic knowledge for its own benefit, it can spread through the
customers network, which includes some of the suppliers competitors (Dyer
& Hatch 2006). The disclosure of information, such as internal cost data
(Ulaga & Eggert 2006), can be major sources of conflict (Pfeffer & Salancik,
2003), which in themselves can be very risky for the supplier.
2.5. The ultimate risk: losing the customer
The ultimate risk is to lose a customer, unless that specific customer has no
value to the supplier. There are three factors which could trigger a relationship
dissolution: the supplier could decide not to participate in the development
program, which would limit its role to being a back-up supplier (Ulaga &
Eggert 2006) or even make it lose the customers entire sales volume (Boeck
et al. 2009); the supplier could participate, but their resources may prove to be
inadequate to meet the customers expectations; or, since higher involvement
creates higher potential for conflict emergence (Gadde & Snehota 2000), the
development program could become a source of conflict.

3. Step 2: Assessing suppliers risk

The risk equation is calculated by the probability of loss multiplied by its
significance (Mitchell 1995). Four factors are presented, extracted from the
3

literature review on buyer-seller relationships, which can increase or reduce

either the probability or the significance of the risks presented in the previous
section. Looking into these factors helps to assess risks.
3.1. Relationship atmosphere
The term relationship atmosphere refers to a higher level of construct
defined as the emotional setting in which business is conducted (Halln &
Sandstrm 1988, p.252). Power, trust and commitment, amongst a number of
dimensions, have been used to assess the atmosphere of the relationship and
the relationship quality (Walter et al. 2003). Relationship atmosphere is also a
matter of each partys perception of the relationship (Sutton-Brady & Cameron
2002). Because SDP implies some activity coordination, the relationship
atmosphere can be modified (Gadde 2004). A relationship marked by a high
level of trust and interdependence could lower the occurrence of conflict in
SDP.
3.2. Customer opportunism
Close relationships, such as the ones necessary for the implementation of a
supplier development program, are highly vulnerable to opportunism
(Spekman & Carraway 2006; Cannon et al. 2000). That level of opportunism
is said to vary depending on the status of the supplier. Customers will display
a lower level of opportunism with their best suppliers; the ones that have been
selected for supplier development (Dorsch et al. 1998). On the other hand, if
the supplier is locked in the SDP, it creates facilitating conditions for
opportunistic behavior to appear (Wathne & Heide 2000).
3.3. Customers level of alternatives to supplier
The relationship between the customer and the supplier is influenced by the
level of alternatives for each party (Cannon & Perreault 1999). Loyalty to the
supplier is obtained through the procurement of benefits to the customer and
through the uniqueness of its offering (Scheer et al. 2010), i.e. a lower level of
alternatives for the customer. The more unique the suppliers product or the
service, the more the supplier will be protected against the risks of
participating in a SDP, because the customer will be more willing to help the
supplier.
3.4. Efforts and resources required
In a SDP, resources are needed from both sides of the relationship (Krause et
al. 1998). SDP is a form of adaptation. The adaptation requests that get
implemented the most easily are the ones which require the least resources
(Payan & Nevin 2006). The scope of the suppliers resources deployed to
support the program will either increase or reduce the risk of participating.

4. Step 3: Mitigating suppliers risk

Ritchie & Brindley (2007) offered many examples of how a firm can manage
risks. Built on these examples, five different strategies for managing the
suppliers risks regarding a SDP will be presented in this section.
4.1. Contract
The first strategy to manage risks for the supplier considering their
participation in a SDP, is to make an account of performance expectations
and duties of each party, in a contract. In transaction cost economics,
contracts can help build trust in a relationship because they safeguard against
opportunistic behaviour (Woolthuis et al. 2005; Dyer 2002). For example, a
solid confidentiality agreement should use severe sanctions to protect a
suppliers proprietary knowledge from being disclosed. A contract can also be
helpful in forcing the customer to increase their commitment in exchange for
the suppliers participation in the program. Subramani & Venkatraman (2003)
have suggested quasi integration and joint decision making to safeguard
against opportunistic behaviour from a powerful buying organization. This
contractual approach, as a form of bilateral governance, can only be
successfully executed under conditions of symmetric dependence (Heide,
1994).
4.2. Relational or supportive norms
Heide & John (1992) have found that relational or supportive norms can shield
against the risks of investing in specific assets such as the ones necessary to
support some SDPs. If the customer has a reputation of fairness toward its
suppliers, then the participation would be considered less risky because
companies prefer to work with firms with a good reputation (Spekman & Davis
2004). Legal bonds, such as contracts and norms, can act independently to
safeguard against risk, but they can also act together as a plural form of
governance (Cannon et al. 2000; Poppo & Zenger 2002).
4.3. Customer portfolio
Buyers and suppliers alike need to focus on a small number of firms at each
level of the supply chain with which they can cooperate, as if segmenting the
participants in a supply chain (Barratt, 2004). Customer portfolio analysis
provides a good basis to mitigate the risk of participating in a supplier
development program because only a few selected customers are worth the
scarce resources dedicated to this effort (Campbell & Cunningham 1983;
Zolkiewski & Turnbull 2002). The same way that a customer chooses which
supplier will participate in SDP initiatives (Kraljic 1983), suppliers should
choose in which customer initiative they wish to participate (Nollet et al. 2012).

4.4. Negotiation
According to Handfield et al. (2000), the supplier who lacks the resources to
participate in a SDP can negotiate with their customer and select only a few
high-impact projects necessitating fewer resources, to start with. They could
also negotiate with their customer to share some of their resources, personnel
or training capabilities. The SDP could also be executed in small increments,
as is done for complex projects (Cucchiella & Gastaldi 2006).
4.5. Sales representative and executive involvement
The question of risk management is also one of who is responsible for
managing risk (Homburg et al. 2000). Upper management needs to
understand how the benefits of participation will outweigh the risks. Suppliers
top management involvement has been identified as an important, if not the
most critical, factor of success of a supplier development program (Hartley &
Choi 1996).
Supplier evaluation is an important means of communicating expectations and
is significant to a successful SDP (Watts & Hahn 1993). The supplier reduces
their risks by always knowing where they stand in regards to performance,
giving them the possibility to make adjustments (Prahinski & Benton 2004).
Because the sales representatives nurture communications between all
parties (Haas et al. 2012), they should play an active role in discussions
surrounding the participation in SDP.
The supplier is then better equipped to make the decision to participate or not
in a SDP. If they are satisfied with the risk analysis done upstream, they can
move forward and participate in the SDP. If not, they can opt out because the
risk of participating is greater than the risk of losing the customer altogether.

5. Step 4: Evaluating cost/benefits of the participation

Once the decision to participate has been made, the supplier should be
monitoring the programs progress in terms of costs and benefits. Changes in
market conditions may transform a beneficial relationship into a
disadvantageous one (Li & Ng 2002; Gadde & Snehota 2000). Incremental
costs can creep in during the program and, without careful examination, a
supplier can be unaware of this situation. Benefits should also be monitored to
insure that the programs promises are being met.
Figure 1 presents the SDP risk assessment process. All the steps presented
above have been schematized.

Figure 1: Supplier development program risk assessment process

6. Conclusion
As was detailed in the above sections, risk is inherent to participation in a
SDP, but the identified risks can be assessed and mitigated by the supplier
wanting to take advantage of the benefits associated with its participation.
This paper offers a four step process to manage the risks associated with the
participation in a SDP. In the identification step, 5 different categories of risks
are presented. Four factors that contribute to the increase or reduction of the
probability or the significance of those risks are then presented as well as 5
means proposed to reduce those risks. Once the supplier decides whether
they will participate or not, a fourth step is recommended, which consists of
ongoing monitoring of the environment and the status of the relationships, in
order to detect any changes in the nature of the risks.
Participating in a SDP generates important benefits for the supplier if it
manages the risks inherent to this participation. The question is not
necessarily on risk reduction per se, but rather on expanding the gap between
the risks and the benefits. Organizations will accept a greater risk if the
reward potential is greater. Ultimately, the decision will be made by the

supplier and buyer by weighing the ex-ante perceived risks and benefits
(Ritchie & Brindley 2007; Jap 1999).
The next step in the development of this model would be to conduct empirical
research on this topic. Because it would be the first empirical research on the
risks incurred by the supplier participating in a development program, it would
be logical to start with exploratory research, such as a case study research
(Yin 2014) ,with a priori specification of constructs (Eisenhardt, 1989, p.534).

Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the Fonds de recherche du Qubec - Socit
et culture.

References
Aldrich, H. & Herker, D., 1977. Boundary Spanning Roles Organization. The
Academy of Management Review, 2(2), pp.217230.
Anderson, E. & Weitz, B., 1989. Determinants of Continuity in Conventional
Industrial Channel Dyads. Marketing Science, 8(4), pp.310323.
Anderson, J.C. & Narus, J. a, 2003. Selectively Pursuing More of Your
Customers Business. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), pp.4249.
Barratt, M., 2004. Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply
chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(1), pp.30
42.
Boeck, H. et al., 2006. The influence of the buyer-seller relationship on ecommerce pressures: the case of the primary metal industry. Human
Factors, 1, pp.420426.
Boeck, H., Bendavid, Y. & Lefebvre, E., 2009. Evolving B2B e-commerce
adaptation for SME suppliers. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
24(8), pp.561574.
Campbell, N.C.G. & Cunningham, M.T., 1983. Customer analysis for strategy
development in industrial markets. Strategic Management Journal,
4(February), pp.369380.
Cannon, J.P., Achrol, R.S. & Gundlach, G.T., 2000. Contracts, Norms, and
Plural Form Governance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
28(2), pp.180194.
Cannon, J.P. & Perreault, W.D., 1999. Buyer-Seller Relationships in Markets
Business. Journal of marketing research, 36(4), pp.439460.
Cox, A., 2001. Managing with Power: Strategies for Improving Value
Appropriation from Supply Relationships. The Journal of Supply Chain
Management, 37(2), pp.4247.
Cucchiella, F. & Gastaldi, M., 2006. Risk management in supply chain: a real
option approach. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
17(6), pp.700720.
Doney, P.M. & Cannon, J.P., 1997. An Examination of the Nature of Trust in
Buyer-Seller Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(April), pp.3551.
Dorsch, M.J., Swanson, S.R. & Kelley, S.W., 1998. The Role of Relationship
Quality in the Stratification of Vendors as Perceived by Customers.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(2), pp.128142.
Dyer, J.H., 2002. Effective interfirm collaboration: how firms minimize
transaction costs and maximize transaction value. Strategic management
journal, 18(7), pp.535556.
Dyer, J.H. & Hatch, N.W., 2006. Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to
knowledge transfers: creating advantage through network relationships.
Strategic Management Journal, 27(8), pp.701719.
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research.
Academy of Management Review, 14, pp.532550.
Enkel, E., Kausch, C. & Gassmann, O., 2005. Managing the risk of customer
9

integration. European Management Journal, 23(2), pp.203213.

Gadde, L.-E., 2004. Activity Coordination and Resource Combining in
Distribution Networks - Implications for Relationship Involvement and the
Relationship Atmosphere. Journal of Marketing Management, 20(1-2),
pp.157184.
Gadde, L.-E. & Snehota, I., 2000. Making the Most of Supplier Relationships.
Industrial Marketing Management, 29(4), pp.305316.
Haas, A., Snehota, I. & Corsaro, D., 2012. Creating value in business
relationships: The role of sales. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(1),
pp.94105. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.11.004.
Hahn, C.K., Watts, C. a. & Kim, K.Y., 1990. The supplier development
program: a conceptual model. Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Management, 26(2), pp.27.
Hallen, L., Johanson, J. & Seyed-Mohamed, N., 1991. Interfirm adaptation in
business relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 55(2), pp.2937.
Halln, L. & Sandstrm, M., 1988. Relationship Atmosphere In International
Business. In P. W. Turnbull & S. J. Paliwoda, eds. MP Conference (4th):
Research Developments In International Marketing. pp. 248261.
Hallikas, J. et al., 2004. Risk management processes in supplier networks.
International Journal of Production Economics, 90, pp.4758.
Handfield, R.B. et al., 2000. Avoid the Pitfalls in Supplier Development. Sloan
management review, 41(2), p.37.
Hansen, J.M., 2009. The evolution of buyer-supplier relationships: an
historical industry approach. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
24(3), pp.227236.
Hartley, J.L. & Choi, T.Y., 1996. Supplier development: Customers as a
catalyst of process change. Business Horizons, 39(4), pp.3744.
Hausman, A. & Stock, J.R., 2003. Adoption and implementation of
technological innovations within long-term relationships. Journal of
Business Research, 56(8), pp.681686.
Heide, J.B., 1994. Interorganizational Governance in Marketing Channels.
Journal of Marketing, 58(1), pp.7185.
Heide, J.B. & John, G., 1992. Do Norms Matter in Marketing Relationships?
Journal of Marketing, 56(2), pp.3244.
Heide, J.B. & John, G., 1988. The role of dependence balancing in
safeguarding transaction-specific assets in conventional channels. The
Journal of Marketing, 52(January), pp.2035.
Homburg, C., Workman, J.P. & Jensen, O., 2000. Fundamental Changes in
Marketing Organization: The Movement toward a Customer-Focused
Organizational Structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
28(4), pp.459478.
Jap, S.D., 1999. Pie-expansion Efforts: Processes in Collaboration BuyerSupplier Relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(4), pp.461
10

475.
Kraljic, P., 1983. Purchasing must become supply management. Harvard
business review, (83509).
Krause, D.R. & Ellram, L.M., 1997. Critical elements of supplier development
The buying-firm perspective. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management, 3(1), pp.2131.
Krause, D.R., Handfield, R.B. & Scannell, T. V., 1998. An empirical
investigation of supplier development: reactive and strategic processes.
Journal of Operations Management, 17(1), pp.3958.
Krause, D.R., Handfield, R.B. & Tyler, B.B., 2007. The relationships between
supplier development, commitment, social capital accumulation and
performance improvement. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2),
pp.528545.
Li, L. & Ng, P., 2002. Dynamics of export channel relationships in highvelocity environments. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), pp.505
514.
MacDuffie, J.P. & Helper, S., 1997. Creating Lean Suppliers: Diffusing Lean
Production through the Supply Chain. California Management Review,
39(4), pp.118151.
Mitchell, V.-W., 1995. Organizational Risk Perception and Reduction: A
Literature Review. British Journal of Management, 6(2), p.115.
Nagati, H. & Rebolledo, C., 2013. Supplier development efforts: The suppliers
point of view. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(2), pp.180188.
Nollet, J., Rebolledo, C. & Popel, V., 2012. Becoming a preferred customer
one step at a time. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(8), pp.1186
1193.
Olsen, R.F. & Ellram, L.M., 1997. Buyer-supplier relationships: alternative
research approaches. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management, 3(4), pp.221231.
Payan, J.M. & Nevin, J.R., 2006. Influence strategy efficacy in supplier
distributor relationships. Journal of Business Research, 59(4), pp.457
465. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0148296305001499 [Accessed
July 18, 2014].
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G., 2003. The external control of organizations: a
resource-dependance perspective, Stanford: Stanford business books.
Poppo, L. & Zenger, T., 2002. Do formal contracts and relational governance
function as substitutes or complements? Strategic Management Journal,
23(8), pp.707725.
Prahinski, C. & Benton, W.., 2004. Supplier evaluations: communication
strategies to improve supplier performance. Journal of Operations
Management, 22(1), pp.3962.
Reinartz, W. & Kumar, V., 2003. The Impact of Customer Relationship
Characteristics on Profitable Lifetime Duration. Journal of Marketing,
67(1), pp.7799.
11

Ritchie, B. & Brindley, C., 2007. Supply chain risk management and
performance. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 27(3), pp.303322.
Scheer, L.K., Miao, C.F. & Garrett, J., 2010. The effects of supplier
capabilities on industrial customers loyalty: The role of dependence.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(1), pp.90104.
Sheth, J.N. & Sharma, A., 1997. Supplier relationships: emerging issues and
challenges. Industrial Marketing Management, 100, pp.91100.
Spekman, R.E. & Carraway, R., 2006. Making the transition to collaborative
buyerseller relationships: An emerging framework. Industrial Marketing
Management, 35(1), pp.1019.
Spekman, R.E. & Davis, E.W., 2004. Risky business: expanding the
discussion on risk and the extended enterprise. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 34(5), pp.414433.
Subramani, M.R. & Venkatraman, N., 2003. Safeguarding investments in
asymmetric interorganizational relationships: Theory and evidence.
Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), pp.4662.
Sutton-Brady, C. & Cameron, R., 2002. We all live in a yellow submarine. In
18th IMP Conference. Available at:
http://www.escdijon.com/fr/imp/papers.asp?track=1.
De Toni, A. & Nassimbeni, G., 2000. Just-in-time purchasing: an empirical
study of operational practices, supplier development and performance.
Omega, 28(6), pp.631651.
Ulaga, W. & Eggert, A., 2006. Value-Based Differentiation in Business
Relationships: Gaining and Sustaining Key Supplier Status. Journal of
Marketing, 70(1), pp.119136.
Walter, A. et al., 2003. Functions of industrial supplier relationships and their
impact on relationship quality. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(2),
pp.159169.
Wathne, K.H. & Heide, J.B., 2000. Opportunism in Interfirm relationships:
Forms, Outcomes and Solutions. Journal of Marketing, 64(October),
pp.3651.
Watts, C.A.. & Hahn, C.K., 1993. Supplier Development Programs: An
Empircial Analysis. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Management, 29(2), pp.1017.
Weitz, B.A. & Bradford, K.D., 1999. Personal Selling and Sales Management:
A Relationship Marketing Perspective. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 27(2), pp.241254.
Weitz, B.A. & Jap, S.D., 1995. Relationship Marketing and Distribution
Channels. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), pp.305
320.
Williamson, O.E., 1987. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms,
Markets, Relational Contracting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4),
p.602.
Woolthuis, R.K., Hillebrand, B. & Nooteboom, B., 2005. Trust, Contract and
12

Relationship Development. Organization Studies, 26(6), pp.813840.

Yin, R.K., 2014. Case study research: design and methods, Los Angeles:
Sage.
Zolkiewski, J. & Turnbull, P., 2002. Do relationship portfolios and networks
provide the key to successful relationship management? Journal of
Business & Industrial , 17(7), pp.575597.

13