Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Post-satisfaction factors affecting the long-term orientation of supply relationships

Jesús J. Cambra-Fierro Yolanda Polo-Redondo
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jesús J. Cambra-Fierro Yolanda Polo-Redondo, (2011),"Post-satisfaction factors affecting the long-term orientation of supply
relationships", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 26 Iss 6 pp. 395 - 406
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858621111156395
Downloaded on: 12 February 2016, At: 02:02 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 58 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 994 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:02 12 February 2016 (PT)

Sunil Venaik, Yunxia Zhu, Paul Brewer, (2013),"Looking into the future: Hofstede long term orientation versus GLOBE future
orientation", Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 Iss 3 pp. 361-385 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
CCM-02-2012-0014
Daniel D. Prior, (2012),"The effects of buyer-supplier relationships on buyer competitiveness", Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 27 Iss 2 pp. 100-114 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858621211196976
Yongtao Song, Qin Su, Qiang Liu, Tieshan Wang, (2012),"Impact of business relationship functions on relationship
quality and buyer's performance", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 27 Iss 4 pp. 286-298 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858621211221661

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:566188 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Post-satisfaction factors affecting the
long-term orientation of supply relationships
Jesús J. Cambra-Fierro
Departamento Dirección de Empresas, University Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain, and
Yolanda Polo-Redondo
Departamento Economı́a y Dirección de Empresas, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

Abstract
Purpose – This article seeks to analyze the concept of the long-term orientation of relationships in the supply chain (SC). This research aims to study
interactions between satisfaction and commitment with the relational perspective of firm-supplier relationships.
Design/methodology/approach – The establishment of a “post-satisfaction” framework is necessary. A model based on structural equations is used
to test the set of hypotheses.
Findings – The findings show that cooperation, communication, satisfaction, proved trust and commitment explain the long-term orientation of the
relationships in the SC.
Research limitations/implications – This research only considers the buyer’s perspective. The article considers some implications relating to different
profiles of trust.
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:02 12 February 2016 (PT)

Practical implications – The article includes several implications about how to communicate with customers and suppliers, how to cooperate with
customers and suppliers, why buyers trust suppliers, how buyers perceive satisfaction, and how buyers commit to suppliers.
Originality/value – This research, based on its “post-satisfaction” approach, aims to complete the framework proposed by Cambra and Polo. Ideas
related to the evolution of trust (“previous” vs “proved” trust) are discussed.

Keywords Supply chain management, Commitment, Customer satisfaction, Trust, Long-term orientation

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
1. Introduction
Competitive structures are undergoing changes that have
significant repercussion on the profile of firm relationships
(Morrisey and Pittaway, 2006; Rao et al., 2006). These
changes are affecting the management of firm-supplier
relationships and therefore authors such as Quayle (2003)
or Sako (1992) have proposed that a portfolio of adequate
relationships is essential for entrepreneurial success.
Consequently, the idea that the appropriate management of
firm-supplier and firm-customer relationships is the basis of
success in B2B markets is fully consolidated (e.g. Ghosh et al.,
2004). This research is focused on the specificities of firm-
supplier relationships.
A review of the literature reveals a vast array of approaches
for analyzing a relational perspective. For example, Rauyruen
and Miller (2007) consider relationship constructs as
reference. Morrisey and Pittaway (2006) base their study on
a set of social factors, whereas Rao et al. (2006) reflect on the
importance of communication between partnerships.
However, authors such as Cambra and Polo-Redondo
(2008) and Sila et al. (2006) still call for works that give
additional insights into this relational framework.
The work of Cambra and Polo-Redondo (2008) suggests a
link between SCM and RM and explains the level of
satisfaction perceived by industrial customers. For these
authors, communication, cooperation, trust, and the capacity
of the supplier to meet the customer’s expectations determine
the level of satisfaction perceived by firms. We aim to complete
that research by analyzing the factors, which define the
relational framework. As Abdul-Muhmin (2005) comments,
satisfaction and commitment may be the key factors that
determine the long-term orientation of these relationships.
However, RM literature highlights that factors like
communication, cooperation and trust also affect the long-
term orientation of industrial relationships. But because inter-
firm relationships evolve, the nature, content and influence of
factors such as communication and trust may change.
This research aims to:
.
analyze the factors that, based on the RM literature,
determine the long-term orientation of supply

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
The authors are very grateful for the comments made by the reviewers.
www.emeraldinsight.com/0885-8624.htm The authors are also very grateful for the economic support received from
the projects ECO2008-04704 and DGA138-08.

Received: November 2008

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
26/6 (2011) 395– 406
Revised: November 2009
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0885-8624] February 2010
[DOI 10.1108/08858621111156395] Accepted: March 2010

395
 Post-satisfaction factors affecting supply relationships
Jesús J. Cambra-Fierro and Yolanda Polo-Redondo
relationships and complement other previous works that
have considered this relational approach;
.
complete the framework proposed by Cambra and Polo-
Redondo (2008);
.
contribute to the specialized literature in both SCM and
relationship marketing; and
.
assess the main implications for management.
It also includes considerations related to the SME context.
2. SCM, relational life cycle, and long-term
orientation of firm-supplier relationships:
pre-satisfaction vs post-satisfaction context
Adopting the supply chain perspective in a B2B context, the
relationships that companies establish with their suppliers are
complex (Grönroos, 2000; Morgan and Hunt, 1994): several
factors define the conditions of the relationship and determine
the results obtained. These factors evolve over time (Schurr,
2007; Grönroos, 2000).
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:02 12 February 2016 (PT)
From the buyer’s perspective, demand-supply chain
management considers the identification of potential
suppliers, the evaluation of different alternatives, the selection
of suppliers, and the measurement of the real performance
obtained (Cambra and Polo-Redondo, 2007; Lo and Yeung,
2006). In this context, the supplier’s capacity to meet the
customer’s needs and its ability to manage other relational
aspects (e.g. communication and cooperation) become key
factors that determine the potential long-term orientation with
that supplier (Sila et al., 2006; Grönroos, 2000).
Adoption of the Relational Life Cycles (RLC) models
allows analysis of the evolution of demand-supply
relationships (Cambra and Polo-Redondo, 2007; Jap and
Ganesan, 2000; Wilson, 1995; Dwyer et al., 1987). These
models consider different stages. Although their modeling
differs, by comparing these articles, we can find common
ideas between them. First, available alternatives are identified
and assessed. Next, RLCs models propose an initial stage
where early firm-supplier contacts occur. After that, we can
identify an intermediate period where the results obtained are
compared with those expected and, if the comparison is
satisfactory, we consider the continuity of the relationship.
Stability and a mutual interest in maintaining the present
relationship and adopting a long-term orientation characterize
the next stage.
Therefore, satisfaction seems to be one of the fundamental
factors determining the continuity of supply relationships
(e.g. Tikkanen and Alajutsijärvi, 2002; Wilson, 1995),
affecting their long-term orientation. Abdul-Muhmin
(2005), following prior research conducted by Ganesan
(1994), offers an illustrative definition of satisfaction: “a
positive affective state resulting from an appraisal of all
aspects of a firm’s working relationships with another firm”
(p. 620). Suppliers must first meet expected performance
standards (Rossoumme, 2003; Schellhase et al., 2000;
Wilson, 1995), especially those related to quality and
delivery dates (Tellefsen, 2002), though they must also
assess other attributes not directly related to the product
(e.g. communication and cooperation). A positive global
assessment, providing there is one, will very likely orient the
relationship toward an enduring horizon.
396
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2011 · 395 –406
Consequently, we can identify two phases where the
satisfaction perceived by buyers is the key reference: the
“pre-satisfaction” and “post-satisfaction” stages. The “pre-
satisfaction” phase could be defined as the “period between
the initial customer-supplier contacts and the evaluation of
the achieved satisfaction level”. The research of Cambra and
Polo-Redondo (2008) studies this stage and concludes that
cooperation, communication, trust and adaptation to
expectations are determining factors for the firm’s
satisfaction with its suppliers. In this framework, the “post-
satisfaction” phase could be defined as the “stage of the
relationship after the evaluation of the achieved satisfaction
level, in which the agents are aware of the real capacity of their
partner”. This stage could determine the long-term
orientation of the relationship. After an additional revision
of the RM literature, we can conclude that two of the key
elements that determine the relational approach of firm-
supplier relationships are the satisfaction perceived by the
customer and its commitment to the relationship (e.g. Polo-
Redondo and Cambra, 2007; Abdul-Muhmin, 2002). Abdul-
Muhmin (2005, p. 621) recognizes explicitly that “both
practitioners and academics have become interested in
relationship satisfaction and commitment because they are
thought to lead to desirable relational outcomes like long-
term orientation”.
As explained before, one must not only consider satisfaction
when analyzing the continuity of inter-firm relationships.
Other elements, such as commitment, cooperation,
communication and trust, also have an influence, directly or
indirectly, on the long-term orientation. There have been
many studies of the influence of communication, cooperation
and trust. The literature shows that communication
influences the relational approach during the whole
development of inter-firm relationships, affecting both trust
(e.g. Kwon and Suh, 2004; Morgan and Hunt, 1994) and
satisfaction (e.g. Handfield and Bechtel, 2002). Cambra and
Polo-Redondo (2007), and Horvart (2001) consider
cooperation an antecedent of satisfaction, and Rao et al.
(2006), Beckman and Robinson (2004) and Morgan and
Hunt (1994) have studied other causal links connected to
other relational constructs. But few prior works have explicitly
differentiated, in the same research, the nature of trust at the
beginning of the relationship and after measuring the
supplier’s real performance. The works of Andaleeb (1996),
Sako (1992), Ganesan (1994), Mackenzie and Hardy (1996)
and Geyskens et al. (1999) are pioneering and fundamental
references in this field, and the studies of Batt (2003), Kwon
and Suh (2004) Rao et al. (2006) and Cambra and Polo-
Redondo (2007) have recently extended their work. Sako
(1992) recognizes different profiles and explains that trust can
arise as:
.
contractual trust – based on the fulfillment of promises and
acts as agreed;
.
competence trust – based on the belief that the other party
will be capable of doing what it promises; and
.
goodwill – as the shared belief that the other is deeply
compromised to promoting a good development of the
relationship.
The papers of Cambra and Polo-Redondo (2007), Rao et al.
(2006) and Bennett and Gabriel (2001) are focused on
considering explicit differences in the profile of the two types
 Post-satisfaction factors affecting supply relationships
Jesús J. Cambra-Fierro and Yolanda Polo-Redondo
of trust: initially, trust is based on the supplier’s image and
reputation but, when the relationship evolves, trust is based
on the verification of the supplier’s real capacity,
communication and cooperation. This is in line with
comments made by Bennett and Gabriel (2001): “trust in a
partner is likely to build up only gradually over time, normally
via incremental stages . . . experience causes trust through the
provision of a series of episode values . . . thus the longer the
period of exposure to a satisfactory partner, the higher level –
and probably different profile – of trust” (p. 425).
RM literature notes that commitment is “an integral part of
any long-term business relationship . . . as a kind of lasting
intention to build and maintain a long-term relationship”
(Walter et al., 2003, p. 160). RM considers commitment “an
exchange party’s belief that a relationship is important enough
to warrant maximum efforts at maintaining” (Morgan and
Hunt, 1994), an “enduring desire by an exchange party to
maintain a relationship to which it attaches value” (Moorman
et al., 1992), or an “exchange party’s intention to continue in
a relationship” (Young and Denize, 1995; Dwyer et al., 1987).
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:02 12 February 2016 (PT)
Therefore, for us, commitment will express an attitude and
behavior (Andaleeb, 1996) linked with the relational
approach of inter-firm relationships.
Anderson and Weitz (1992) defined long-term orientation
(LTO) as a firm’s “willingness to make short-term sacrifices
to realize long-term benefits from the relationship”. Ganesan
(1994, p. 3), considered by most researchers as a seminal
work, states that LTO is “focused on achieving future goals
and is concerned with both current and future outcomes . . .
LTO goes beyond mere probability to capture both the desire
and utility of a firm toward having a long-term relationship . . .
and it seems to be a better indicator of closeness in
relationships”. Therefore, we can assume that, although
both concepts (commitment and LTO) are very close to each
other, they are independent constructs. Ivens (2005) clearly
differentiates between commitment – “commitment is
generally interpreted as an attitude” (p. 569) – and LTO –
“an expression of how (partners) value the relationship”
(p. 570), and he includes them as independent constructs in
his conceptual model. In sum, commitment expresses the
attitude and behavior prior to LTO.
3. Hypotheses for empirical research
Taking the comments above as a reference, we can argue that
there are various factors that, directly or indirectly, affect the
long-term orientation of the supply function. From the
perspective of RM, satisfaction and commitment to the
relationship are key factors that determine the long-term
orientation of relationships (Polo-Redondo and Cambra,
2007; Abdul-Muhmin, 2002; Abdul-Muhmin, 2005). The
literature also highlights the influence of communication,
cooperation and trust on the long-term orientation of firm-
supplier relationships. As Figure 1 shows, the research
proposes a series of hypotheses that explain the relational
approach to the SC from the buyers’ perspective.
3.1 Trust as a result of perceived satisfaction,
cooperation, and communication
Ryu et al. (2007) and Ganesan (1994) consider satisfaction as
an antecedent of trust. This proposition is acceptable because
397
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2011 · 395 –406
of the natural evolution of relationships. Prior to working with
a supplier, the customer weighs several alternatives and selects
the one that he thinks is the most suitable (Cambra and Polo-
Redondo, 2007). At this moment, the customer does not
know the real capacity of the supplier and, thus, he has to take
aspects such as identity, image, and reputation as references
(Kwon and Suh, 2004). The customer will now opt for the
supplier with the highest level of trust, intuited but not
directly proven. Nevertheless, once the supplier has first
contacted the customer and has shown his real capacity, the
customer can base his opinion on his own experience,
confirming or rejecting the initial image of the supplier. In this
case, when considering further situations, the customer will
also base his decisions on trust, although trust is now based
on experience. This is in line with the work of Rao et al.
(2006), Batt (2003) and Mackenzie and Hardy (1996), who
suggest that an increase in mutual knowledge and the
revelation of the supplier’s capacity will generate a positive
outcome and a growth of trust in the supplier’s activity.
Moreover, cooperation and communication (e.g. Cambra
and Polo-Redondo, 2007; Kwon and Suh, 2004; Mohr et al.,
1996) will also influence the climate of relational trust. In this
case, rather than increasing mutual knowledge, the aim of
communication will be to inject fluency into the relationship,
to bring the agents’ desires and needs together and facilitate
the resolution of potential conflicts (Wilson, 1995; Dwyer
et al., 1987). Regarding the influence of cooperation, the
customer is very likely to be more willing to collaborate with
the supplier during the later stages, since the latter’s capacity
has been proven. One may anticipate that the outcome of this
cooperation is beneficial for a future relationship and, thus,
affects the future level of trust in the supplier. Therefore:
H1. Perceived satisfaction has a positive influence on the
industrial buyer’s level of trust in its suppliers.
H2. Firm-supplier cooperation has a positive influence on
the industrial buyer’s level of trust in its suppliers.
H3. Firm-supplier communication has a positive influence
on the industrial buyer’s level of trust in its suppliers.
3.2 Perceived relationship satisfaction and trust as a
basis of relational commitment
The literature on RM establishes that perceived satisfaction
and trust are two fundamental variables that have a bearing on
the agents’ degree of commitment to the relationship (e.g. Jap
and Ganesan, 2000; Morgan and Hunt, 1994).
The customer’s satisfaction implies that the supplier has
met his expectations, either with respect to the elements
directly related to the product’s performance or to other
elements inherent in the relationship (e.g. delivery terms,
guarantee, and price). If the real value perceived by the firm is
positive, maintaining the relationship may be useful to the
firm. Satisfied partners invest more resources into the
relationships (Ghosh et al., 2004), that is, they are more
committed (Tikkanen and Alajutsijärvi, 2002). In addition,
once the supplier’s capacity has been proved, the customer
will trust him to meet further expectations and will be highly
committed to the relationship (Rao et al., 2006; Kwon and
Suh, 2004; Ganesan, 1994). Similarly, Liu et al. (2008),
Bennett and Gabriel (2001), Jap and Ganesan (2000) and
Dwyer et al. (1987) verified that the degree of fulfillment of
 Post-satisfaction factors affecting supply relationships
Jesús J. Cambra-Fierro and Yolanda Polo-Redondo
Figure 1 Conceptual model
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:02 12 February 2016 (PT)
the promises made at the beginning of the relationship
influences commitment. The literature reveals that, once the
customer is indeed satisfied and trusts the supplier, the buyer
is willing to commit to him (Rao et al., 2006; Morgan and
Hunt, 1994). Thus:
H4. Perceived satisfaction has a positive influence on the
industrial buyer’s level of commitment to the
relationship.
H5. The industrial buyer’s trust in suppliers has a positive
influence on its level of commitment to the
relationship.
3.3 Perceived satisfaction and relational commitment
as key factors of the long-term approach to the supply
function
Satisfaction and commitment are elements that have a crucial
effect on the long-term orientation of the firm’s relationship
with its suppliers (e.g. Polo-Redondo and Cambra, 2007; Ryu
et al., 2007; Abdul-Muhmin, 2005). A satisfactory global
outcome for the customer will add incentives to extend the
relationship (Abdul-Muhmin, 2005; Tellefsen, 2002;
Tikkanen and Alajutsijärvi, 2002). The customer may
consider the risk and uncertainty caused by a change of
supplier and, thus, would opt for a relational rather than
transactional approach (Zsidisin and Ellram, 2003).
Commitment has two dimensions: the attitudinal and the
behavioral. Commitment reflects the attitude, belief, desire or
promise of continuity (attitude) in which the agent is prepared
to make an effort (behavior) to develop and validate the
relationship. Commitment represents the desire and the
actions to maintain a relationship that is regarded as valuable
for the firm (Lo and Yeung, 2006; Tellefsen, 2002; Young and
Denize, 1995; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Therefore:
H6. Perceived satisfaction has a positive influence on the
long-term orientation of the supply function.
H7. The industrial buyer’s commitment to the relationship
has a positive influence on the long-term orientation of
the supply function.
398
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2011 · 395 –406
4. Method
4.1 Data collection
We gathered data through a survey mailed to supply managers
of a random sample of Spanish SMEs in the industrial sector,
construction and services. We chose SMEs for the following
reasons:
.
To obtain responses from the people who directly contact
the suppliers and manage the purchasing agreements.
.
To analyze the context that represents more than 90
percent of the Spanish entrepreneurial environment (INE,
2007).
The questionnaires mainly contained questions related to the
firms’ demographic characteristics, the type of inputs and
whether the inputs are “principal” or “auxiliary”, the features
of the supplier and, as we clearly indicated in the
questionnaire, other aspects related to the “post-
satisfaction” stage: level of “proven” trust in the supplier,
cooperation and communication, perceived satisfaction,
commitment and LTO (see Appendix 1).
We randomly sent 1,000 questionnaires to suppliers from
the database; 241 suppliers replied. We rejected eight
questionnaires because of missing information. Thus, the
final number of valid questionnaires was 233, a response rate
of 23.30 percent that makes our sample representative of the
target population of our study. Table I shows the technical
characteristics of the study and shows considerations of both
the sectorial and territorial distribution of the firms.
4.2. Measurement scales
We proposed several multi-item scales that we adapted from
related works, found in the specialized literature, and
discussed with managers to measure the variables of the
conceptual model (see Appendix 1 (Table AI)). We selected
the items through a previous exploratory analysis. We
interviewed five managers in person; we pre-tested to
quantify the size of the questionnaire and to explain the
terms used (Table II).
 Post-satisfaction factors affecting supply relationships Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Jesús J. Cambra-Fierro and Yolanda Polo-Redondo Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2011 · 395 –406

Table I Technical specifications of the confirmatory analysis

Universe People in charge of supply functions in SMEs (owners or managers, depending on the specificity of
each firm)
Geographical framework National – Spain (, 10 employees are considered micro-SMEs; ,100 are considered small and medium firms)
Sample 233 company-supplier relationships: 138 (59.22 percent) industrial firms; 39 (16.73 percent) construction firms;
56 (24.05 percent) service firms; 177 (75.96 percent) principal product suppliers; 56 (24.04 percent) auxiliary
product suppliers; 89 (38.19 percent) firms in the north; 62 (26.60 percent) firms in the center; 82 (35.21 percent)
firms in the south; Medium length of relationships: 8.7 years
Data collection Mail þ e-mail
Data analysis Quantitative (structural equations). Software EQS

Table II Measurement scales (main characteristics)

No
Scale items Adapted from Concepts
Cooperation 2 Cannon and Perrault (1999) Cooperation and joint solutions to conflicts
Communication 3 Mohr et al. (1996); Kwon and Suh (2004) Communication quality, frequency, character, formalization,
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:02 12 February 2016 (PT)

relevance and direction

Perceived 2 Walter et al. (2003) Global perception, comparison against the ideal relationship
satisfaction
Trust 4 Batt (2003); Kwon and Suh (2004) Trust in the supplier’s capacity, belief in future capacity
Commitment 3 Anderson and Weitz (1992); Morgan and Hunt Willingness to invest in the relationship, expectations of
(1994); Jap and Ganesan (2000); Walter et al. (2003) continuity, attitude to agreements
Long-term 3 Ganesan (1994) Utility, benefits, relevance and long-term objectives
orientation

4.3 Validation of measurement scales Table III Analysis of discriminant validity; x2difference test
We measured the proposed scales following the
Pairs Difference test of x2 (gl. 5 1) p-value
methodological proposals of Churchill (1979) and Anderson
and Gerbing (1988), evaluating their psychometric F1, F2 123.66 0.00
properties: dimensionality, validity, and reliability. F1, F3 223.54 0.00
We first verified dimensionality. Then, we carried out a F1, F4 103.34 0.00
confirmatory factor analysis using structural equations F1, F5 99.93 0.00
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988), EQS (Bentler and Wu, F1, F6 276.36 0.00
1995) and the maximum likelihood method. The results F2, F3 175.87 0.00
obtained were highly satisfactory, with a good fit between the F2, F4 93.91 0.00
measurement of the model and the data: (x2 Sat: ¼ 58:347 F2, F5 77.83 0.00
(p , 0:01); RMR ¼ 0:45; RMSEA ¼ 0:032; NFI ¼ 0:957; F2, F6 117.97 0.00
NNFI ¼ 0:962; AGFI ¼ 0:940; CFI ¼ 0:961; IFI ¼ 0:958; F3, F4 83.37 0.00
Normedx2 ¼ 1:51). Finally, following the recommendations F3, F5 111.35 0.00
of Baumgartner and Homburg (1996) and of Hulland et al. F3, F6 163.22 0.00
(1996), we included the variance-covariance matrix for the F4, F5 65.18 0.00
sample under study (Appendix 2 (Table AI)). F4, F6 107.25 0.00
We evaluated the reliability of the measurement scales using F5, F6 91.74 0.00
Cronbach Alpha (. 0.8) (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994) and
Composite Reliability Index (.0.7) (Hair et al., 1999). As we
show in Appendix 1, the scales are reliable for all the proposed
5. Results
statistics since they exceed the recommended optimum
values. After validating the measurement scales, we analyzed the
The estimated coefficients of each indicator are significant, significance of the hypotheses. Table IV shows the results
which proves the convergent validity of each factor. In order obtained. For all the cases, the hypotheses are significant to a
to analyze discriminant validity, we calculated the x2 confidence level of 95 percent, with standard deviations
differences test (Hair et al., 1999), which verifies whether ranging from 0.37 to 0.63.
the proposed model is significantly different from other The data reveal that, as established in the model, as the
alternative models in which the correlation of each pair of perceived satisfaction of the relationship increases, so does the
dimensions is 1. As Table III shows, data in this test prove the trust in the supplier and, therefore, H1 is confirmed
discriminant validity of the scales. (lest ¼ 0:60, p , 0:01). The level of trust also increases

399
 Post-satisfaction factors affecting supply relationships
Jesús J. Cambra-Fierro and Yolanda Polo-Redondo
Table IV Contrast of hypotheses; structural coefficients
Hypothesis
Perceived satisfaction – trust (H1)
Cooperation – trust (H2)
Communication – trust (H3)
Perceived satisfaction – commitment (H4)
Trust – commitment (H5)
Perceived satisfaction – long-term orientation (H6)
Commitment – long-term orientation (H7)
Notes: *Significant at the 99 percent level; * * Significant at the 95 percent level
when cooperation exists (lest ¼ 0:37, p , 0:05), and the same
occurs when information is shared (lest ¼ 0:51, p , 0:01).
Therefore, H2 and H3 are confirmed.
We also confirm that perceived satisfaction is a direct
antecedent of the level of commitment the buyer is willing to
make to the supplier (H4) (lest ¼ 0:49, p , 0:01). Similarly,
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:02 12 February 2016 (PT)
as proposed in H5, our data confirm that the customer’s
commitment to the relationship grows as its level of trust
towards its suppliers (lest ¼ 0:57, p , 0:01) increases.
Finally, when the buyer is satisfied and decides to make a
commitment to the relationship established with its suppliers,
the relationship is likely to have a long-term orientation, thus
verifying H6 (lest ¼ 0:63, p , 0:01) and H7 (lest ¼ 0:59,
p , 0:01).
We analyzed the data referring to R2 and found that the
structural equations related to the long-term orientation of
the supply function indicate that almost 70 per cent of its
variance (R2 ¼ 0:67) can be explained by the effect of
cooperation, communication, satisfaction, trust and
commitment. This supports the explanatory capacity of our
model.
Finally, with respect to the fit of the model, all the
indicators are within the optimum levels of acceptance:
RMR ¼ 0:46; RMSEA ¼ 0:041; NFI ¼ 0:949;
NNFI ¼ 0:961; AGFI ¼ 0:938; CFI ¼ 0:950; IFI ¼ 0:952;
Normed x2 ¼ 1.57.
6. Discussion
As Ryu et al. (2007) point out, inter-firm long-term
orientation has been increasingly recognized as an important
factor driving firm competitiveness. Leonidou (2004)
recognizes strategic advantages for firms involved in long-
term relationships:
. sellers can obtain repeat purchases from their customers
and exploit new business opportunities; they can also
reduce the possibility of customers switching to other
supplying firms; they can get useful market information
from their customers and/or they can use customer ideas
to design innovative products; and
.
buyers can secure an uninterrupted flow of inputs; they
can use suppliers’ expertise and resources; they can reduce
costs and achieve better purchasing prices; they can
exploit technological development, reduce wastage and
improve efficiency.
Therefore, the long-term approach of supply relationships has
become a strategic and tactical factor and it is fundamental for
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2011 · 395 –406
Standardised coefficients T-value Causal relationship
0.60 * 7.57 Yes
0.37 * * 2.16 Yes
0.51 * 5.21 Yes
0.49 * 7.01 Yes
0.57 * 6.59 Yes
0.63 * 11.87 Yes
0.59 * 10.93 Yes
the success of SCM in particular and firms in general (Rao
et al., 2006). By creating, developing and maintaining positive
relationships with adequate suppliers, firms can build up
important competitive advantage and offer their customers
value in such a way that they minimize the risk and
uncertainty associated with supply management (Zsidisin
and Ellram, 2003) and they can allocate more resources to
other activities (Cambra and Polo-Redondo, 2007).
Our research is centered on LTO and seeks to contribute to
the literature by analyzing, from the RM perspective, the
factors that determine the long-term orientation of supply
relationships. The data of our study suggest that satisfaction
and commitment can be considered two key factors that
determine the lasting approach of firm-supplier relationships.
Satisfaction directly affects this temporal orientation and also
affects trust and commitment. Furthermore, we have verified
that communication and cooperation may also influence trust.
Our research offers an alternative relational model for
analyzing SC, complementing the framework proposed by
Cambra and Polo-Redondo (2008). Both academics and
practitioners may, therefore, consider two different stages, the
“pre-satisfaction” and “post-satisfaction” phases, with
perceived buyer satisfaction being the reference for the
division.
RM literature has identified several elements that determine
the success of relational approaches and discussed their
implications for both theory and management (e.g. Schurr,
2007; Hunt et al., 2006). The following discussion is based on
our results but, in some cases, complemented with the
framework developed by Cambra and Polo-Redondo (2008).
First, satisfaction seems to be one of the key elements that
determines continuity in inter-firm relationships. Satisfaction
is a construct in which one must consider both objective and
subjective elements. Firms would like to be involved in
relationships that are positive for achieving their
entrepreneurial objectives. If relationships are found to be
useful, in line with comments made by Abdul-Muhmin
(2005), the propensity to terminate relationships would
decrease. Consequently, suppliers need to satisfy their
customers by meeting their expectations in terms of quality,
delivery time, guarantee, or price (Tellefsen, 2002). But, in
addition, according to RM literature, there are some
collaboration tools (e.g. joint research or communication
projects, mutual problem solving and advice) and
communication tasks (e.g. personal and interpersonal
channels, ITs. . .) that reinforce the level of perceived
satisfaction. This is because buyers formulate summary
400
 Post-satisfaction factors affecting supply relationships
Jesús J. Cambra-Fierro and Yolanda Polo-Redondo
satisfaction judgments, objective and subjective, about the
overall experience (Rossoumme, 2003; Walter and Ritter,
2003).
Second, we have to point out that, as the relationship
evolves and mutual knowledge increases, the content of
communication has to be different. In the initial stages of the
relationship, communication has to foster knowledge and
bring needs together. But, once the customer has decided to
maintain the relationship, efforts should be aimed at making
the relationship fluent and facilitating the resolution of
potential conflicts. This idea agrees with the
recommendations of Wilson (1995) and Dwyer et al.
(1987), among other authors. After thinking about best
practices, we recommend the following:
.
Because mutual knowledge can almost be taken for
granted, the consolidation of a common language and
adequate information channels will be necessary. This will
increase fluency.
.
Effective communication is the goal: ITs (e.g. EDI, ERP,
MRP) help to facilitate contacts and to reduce time
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:02 12 February 2016 (PT)
(e.g. Tong et al., 2008; Rao et al., 2006).
But we need to keep in mind that not all firms have enough/
adequate resources. Thinking about the SME context, firms
involved in the DSC do not always have enough human,
economic or technological resources to implement
technology-intensive communication systems. We can
summarize this phenomenon by recommending that
technology and resources should set the limits but
management should get the results: we suggest a mix
between technology, creativity, comprehension and efficiency.
Third, one of the most important contributions of the
present research concerns the influence of trust. The profile of
the factors that determine the evolution of relationships will
change according to the stage we consider (Grönroos, 2000;
Wilson, 1995). However, when analyzing the concept of the
trust placed by a customer in its suppliers, a considerable
number of studies implicitly consider the evolution of the
concept, but few explicitly discuss its implications. The works
of Andaleeb (1996), Sako (1992), Ganesan (1994), Geyskens
et al. (1999), and Mackenzie and Hardy (1996) laid the
foundations for this discussion and, more recently, the works
of Batt (2003), Cambra and Polo-Redondo (2007) and Kwon
and Suh (2004) have made complementary contributions.
Taking these papers as a reference, we propose that trust is
initially based on the supplier’s image and reputation –
similar to Sako’s (1992) conceptualization of competence
trust – and it evolves based on the verification of the
supplier’s real capacity and behavior. That is, knowledge
related to the capacity and behavior of partnerships increases
as more contacts take place between partnerships. Therefore,
contacts and knowledge may allow what Sako (1992)
conceptualizes as goodwill. The ideas above are in line with
the evolutionary approach for trust proposed by Bennett and
Gabriel (2001). Once the customer has perceived the
supplier’s performance, the image of the supplier is likely to
be reinforced. Therefore, thinking about best practices related
to trust, we recommend the following:
1 Obtaining a balance between the generation of high
expectations to persuade a customer and the real capacity
to satisfy them is necessary.
401
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2011 · 395 –406
2 Making promises that firms are not certain to keep can be
extremely dangerous. Promises must be based on
capacities.
Failure to manage (1) and (2) will have negative effects on the
relational approach. The level of perceived future satisfaction,
trust and commitment could decrease and have a negative
influence on the relationship’s continuity. This negative effect
might also affect the supplier’s image, reputation and
credibility for further commercial communication actions.
Third, because results suggest positive and significant
effects between cooperation-trust and communication-trust,
we also recommend fluent, useful and timely communication,
together with collaborative actions. These actions will affect
the level of trust in the future.Fourth, we also recommend
managing cooperation. Although previous research
(e.g. Morgan and Hunt, 1994) defends links between trust
and cooperation, in our model, the opposite connection
(cooperation-trust) has been demonstrated. We agree with
prior RM research, but we also defend this new link. In early
phases, cooperation also contributes to increasing satisfaction.
But, during maturity stages, firms have experience about the
outcomes from preceding collaborations. If the experience
was positive, additional collaborative actions are more
probable, which further increases trust. Again, we are not
referring to (although they are possible) technology-intensive
collaborative projects. The comments we made about the
amount and profile of economic and human resources are still
adequate: resources set the limits but management gets the
results. Developing common research projects or helping in
problem-solving are good examples of collaborative actions.
Fifth, commitment will increase as firms perceive an
adequate level of satisfaction. RM literature, however, shows
some additional strategies to create commitment:
. Written contracts, although they can indicate a lack of
trust, force commitment.
.
Investing in specific assets, dedicating time and effort to
improving the relationships’ outcomes and/or
participating in joint projects are tools that demonstrate
the firm’s interest and may have a positive repercussion on
the level of the partners’ commitment to the relationship.
In any case, these signals have to be perceived by the
customer, which again increases the value of communication.
Sixth, the strategic management of DSC recommends
establishing, maintaining and enhancing relationships with all
the partners shaping the complete chain from the suppliers of
raw materials to the end consumer (e.g. Parente et al., 2008).
There are many types of partnerships including alliances,
joint-ventures, licenses, cooperative marketing and research
agreements. When agents perceive positive outcomes from
relationships, their interest in maintaining and developing
these relationships will increase. For extreme levels of
partnership, Hoover et al. (2001) propose the “co-
evolution” concept: the partners have common goals and
evolve jointly. However, firms possessing strong relationships
with their partners may sometimes be isolated from the
market and increase their dependence on these relationships.
Therefore, while recognizing the strategic importance of
LTO, the ability to shift business between firms (e.g. several
suppliers and customers) may be also important.
 Post-satisfaction factors affecting supply relationships
Jesús J. Cambra-Fierro and Yolanda Polo-Redondo
7. Conclusions
This study aims to contribute to the specialized literature by
offering an alternative model that analyzes the factors that
influence the long-term orientation of firm-supplier
relationships, taking the RM literature as a reference. Our
data confirm that satisfaction and commitment, along with
cooperation, communication and trust, significantly help to
determine the relational approach of these inter-firm
relationships. Therefore, important implications for
suppliers interested in offering satisfactory relationships can
be derived from the results of our study.
Despite the importance of our findings and the implications
of our study, we must consider some limitations. First, our
model analyses the long-term orientation of firm-supplier
relationships but considering specific profiles of trust,
communication and cooperation. However, literature and
practice recognize different natures for those constructs.
Because a previous work of Cambra and Polo-Redondo
(2008) already analyzes the concept of satisfaction, the
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:02 12 February 2016 (PT)
present study only intended to complete their relational
framework. Second, our data are based on the buyer’s
perspective. While one can easily adapt our hypothesis and
measurement scales to the seller’s perspective, readers should
consider that the conclusions that arise from a seller’s point of
view could be slightly different. When one considers that most
companies are customers as well as suppliers within a supply
chain (Rao et al., 2006), this research will interest all the
agents involved in a demand-supply chain.
Third, the sample of our study takes Spanish SMEs as a
reference. It represents more than 90 percent of the Spanish
entrepreneurial context, but it does not include the biggest
firms. The possible generalization of conclusions would
require a previous analysis that evaluates the similarities and
differences between contexts defined by sizes and cultures.
Fourth, given the characteristics of the firms analyzed here
(SMEs), the pre-test suggested modified our initial proposal
for measurement scales in both vocabulary and length. We
decided to include a reduced number of items in some scales
in order to find a balance between brevity and validity to allow
us to obtain an adequate response rate. A similar strategy to
study the SME context was followed by authors such as
Abdul-Muhmin (2002).
Finally, our scales measure the relationship at one point in
time. Although we clearly indicated in the questionnaire that
the interviewees had to consider “post-satisfaction”
relationships, developing longitudinal studies would
allow researchers to consider all the dynamic aspects of
relationships in the SC.
We want to indicate that the limitations are related to some
of our proposals for future research. We consider the
importance of studying the LTO of supply relationships but
taking also into account potential differences related to size or
to the importance of the inputs. These elements can create
unbalanced power-dependence relationships. As Ryu et al.
(2007), Chung et al. (2006) and Ganesan (1994) comment,
asymmetric power-dependence situations could affect the
long-term orientation of inter-firm relationships. Analyzing
representative case studies while considering both the
supplier’s and the buyer’s perspectives could be a good
alternative.
402
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2011 · 395 –406
We also propose to establish new causal relationships
between the variables of the model. In this sense, Ganesan’s
(1994) research is really interesting: for this author, trust
affects the long-term orientation of inter-firm relationships.
Given that the nature of trust could be different in maturity
stages from generic trust, one could test a new hypothesis in
future research: the direct link between trust and long-term
orientation. Chung et al. (2006) and Ivens (2005) establish
that the long-term orientation of inter-firm relationships is an
antecedent of constructs such as trust, commitment and
satisfaction. This situation shows contrary causal relations,
where antecedents are the outcomes and vice versa. For Ivens
(2005), this is because firms adopting a relational approach
cannot contemplate all possible contingencies. Bearing in
mind the dynamism and the evolution of inter-firm
relationships, LTO could be also considered an antecedent
of the flexibility that determines trust, commitment and
satisfaction. Chung et al. (2006) consider cultural factors and
they compare Western channel relationships, where trust and
satisfaction are antecedents of LTO, with the Japanese
context, where LTO is considered as a direct antecedent of
trust and an indirect antecedent of satisfaction. We still call
for works that give additional insights into this debate.
Researchers could also consider shared values (Morgan and
Hunt, 1994) as a relational construct. Therefore, it may be
interesting to consider including this element in further
models. All the above proposals will increase the explanatory
power of the model.
References
Abdul-Muhmin, A. (2002), “Effects of suppliers’ marketing
program variables on industrial buyers’ relationship
satisfaction and commitment”, Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 637-51.
Abdul-Muhmin, A. (2005), “Instrumental and interpersonal
determinants of relationships satisfaction and commitment
in industrial markets”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58
No. 5, pp. 619-28.
Andaleeb, 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, E. and Weitz, B. (1992), “The use of pledges to
build and sustain commitment in distribution channels”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 18-34.
Anderson, J. and Gerbing, D. (1988), “Structural modelling
in practice: a review and recommended two-steps
approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3,
pp. 411-23.
Batt, P. (2003), “Building trust between growers and market
agents”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 65-78.
Baumgartner, H. and Homburg, C. (1996), “Applications of
structural equation modelling in marketing and consumer
research: a review”, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 13, pp. 139-61.
Beckman, A. and Robinson, R. (2004), “Supplier partnership
and the small, high-growth firm: selecting for success”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 42 No. 1,
pp. 59-77.
 Post-satisfaction factors affecting supply relationships
Jesús J. Cambra-Fierro and Yolanda Polo-Redondo
Bennett, R. and Gabriel, H. (2001), “Reputation, trust and
commitment: the case of shipping company/seaport
relations”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 16, pp. 424-38.
Bentler, P. and Wu, E. (1995), EQS for Windows. User’s Guide,
Multivariate Software Inc, California.
Cambra, J.J. and Polo-Redondo, Y. (2007), “Assessment and
reassessment of supply relationships: a case study in the
Spanish wine industry”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 82-106.
Cambra, J.J. and Polo-Redondo, Y. (2008), “Creating
satisfaction in the demand-supply chain: the buyers’
perspective”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 211-24.
Cannon, J. and Perrault, W. (1999), “Buyer-seller
relationships in business markets”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 439-60.
Chung, J., Sternquist, B. and Chen, Z. (2006), “Retailer-
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:02 12 February 2016 (PT)
buyer-supplier relationships: the Japanese difference”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 349-55.
Churchill, A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better
measures of marketing construct”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
Dwyer, R., Schurr, P. and Oh, S. (1987), “Developing buyer-
seller relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 2,
pp. 11-27.
Ganesan, S. (1994), “Determinants of long-term orientation
in buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58
No. 2, pp. 1-18.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J. and Kumar, N. (1999),
“Generalizations about trust in marketing channels
relationships using meta-analysis”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 223-48.
Ghosh, A., Benoy-Joseph, W., Gardner, J. and Thach, S.
(2004), “Understanding industrial distributors’
expectations of benefits from relationship suppliers”,
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 7,
pp. 433-43.
Grönroos, C. (2000), “Relationship marketing: interaction,
dialogue and value”, Revista Europea de Dirección y
Economı́a de la Empresa, Vol. 9, pp. 13-24.
Hair, J., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1999), Análisis
Multivariante, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hanfield, R. and Betchel, C. (2002), “The role of trust and
relationship structure in improving supply chain
responsiveness”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31
No. 4, pp. 367-82.
Hoover, W., Eloranta, E., Holsmström, J. and Huttunen, K.
(2001), Managing the Demand-Supply Chain; Value
Innovations for Customers’ Satisfaction, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
Horvart, L. (2001), “Collaboration: the key to value creation
in supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 205-7.
Hulland, J., Chow, Y. and Lam, S. (1996), “Use of causal
models in marketing research: a review”, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 181-97.
Hunt, S., Arnett, D. and Madhavaram, S. (2006), “The
explanatory foundations of relationship marketing theory”,
403
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2011 · 395 –406
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 72-87.
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica (INE) (2007), available at:
www.ine.es
Ivens, B. (2005), “Flexibility in industrial service
relationships: the construct, antecedents, and performance
outcomes”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 34 No. 6,
pp. 566-76.
Jap, S. and Ganesan, S. (2000), “Control mechanisms and
the relationship life cycle: implications for safeguarding
specific investments and developing commitment”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 227-45.
Kwon, I. and Suh, T. (2004), “Factors affecting the level of
trust and commitment in supply chain relationships”, The
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 40 No. 2,
pp. 4-14.
Leonidou, L. (2004), “Industrial manufacturer-customer
relationships: the discriminant role of the buying
situation”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 8,
pp. 731-42.
Liu, Y., Tao, L., Li, Y. and El-Ansary, A. (2008), “The impact
of a distributor’s trust in a supplier and use of control
mechanisms on relational value creation in marketing
channels”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 12-22.
Lo, V. and Yeung, A. (2006), “Managing quality effectively in
supply chain: a preliminary study”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 208-15.
Mackenzie, H. and Hardy, K. (1996), “Manage your offering
or manage your relationship?”, Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 20-37.
Mohr, J., Fischer, R. and Nevin, J. (1996), “Collaborative
communication in interfirm relationships: moderating
effects of integration and control”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 103-15.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. and Desphandé, G. (1992),
“Relationships between providers and users of market
research: the dynamics of trust within and between
organizations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 314-28.
Morgan, R. and Hunt, S. (1994), “The commitment-trust
theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Morrisey, J. and Pittaway, L. (2006), “Buyer-supplier
relationships in small firms; the use of social factors to
manage relationships”, International Small Business Journal,
Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 272-98.
Nunnally, J. and Bernstein, I. (1994), Psychometric Theory,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Parente, D., Lee, P., Ishman, M. and Roth, A. (2008),
“Marketing and supply chain management: a collaborative
research agenda”, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 520-8.
Polo-Redondo, Y. and Cambra, J.J. (2007), “Importance of
size in long-term orientation of supply function:
an empirical research”, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 236-48.
Quayle, M. (2003), “A study of supply chain management
practice in UK industrial SMEs”, Supply Chain
 Post-satisfaction factors affecting supply relationships
Jesús J. Cambra-Fierro and Yolanda Polo-Redondo
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 79-86.
Rao, M., Phillips, Ch. and Johnson, M. (2006), “Assessing
supply chain management success factors: a case study”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 179-92.
Rauyruen, P. and Miller, K. (2007), “Relationship quality as a
predictor of B2B customer royalty”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 21-31.
Rossoumme, J. (2003), “Customer satisfaction measurement
in a business-to-business context: a conceptual framework”,
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 18 Nos 2/3,
pp. 179-95.
Ryu, S., Park, J. and Min, S. (2007), “Factors determining
long-term orientation in interfirm relationships”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 12, pp. 1225-33.
Sako, M. (1992), Prices, Quality and Trust: Interfirm Relations
in Britain and Japan, CUP, Cambridge.
Schellhase, R., Hardock, P. and Ohlwein, M. (2000),
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:02 12 February 2016 (PT)
“Customer satisfaction in business-to-business marketing:
the case of retail organizations and their suppliers”, Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 15 Nos 2/3,
pp. 106-21.
Schurr, P. (2007), “Buyer-seller relationship development
episodes: theories and methods”, Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 161-70.
Sila, I., Ebrahimpour, M. and Birkholz, C. (2006), “Quality
in supply chains: an empirical analysis”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 6,
pp. 491-502.
Tellefsen, T. (2002), “Commitment in business-to-business
relationships: the role of organizational and personal
needs”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31 No. 8,
pp. 645-52.
Tikkanen, H. and Alajutsijärvi, K. (2002), “Customer
satisfaction in industrial markets: opening up in the
concept”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 25-42.
Tong, P., Johnson, J., Umesh, U. and Lee, R. (2008),
“A typology of interfirm relationships: the role of
information technology and reciprocity”, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 178-92.
Walter, A. and Ritter, T. (2003), “The influence of
adaptations, trust and commitment on value-creating
functions of customer relationships”, Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing, Vol. 18 Nos 4/5, pp. 353-65.
Walter, A., Müller, T., Helfert, G. and Ritter, H. (2003),
“Functions of industrial supplier relationships and their
impact on relationship quality”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 159-69.
Wilson, D. (1995), “An integrated model of buyer-seller
relationships”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 335-45.
404
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2011 · 395 –406
Young, L. and Denize, L. (1995), “A concept of
commitment: alternative views of relational continuity in
business service relationships”, Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 22-37.
Zsidisin, G. and Ellram, L. (2003), “An agency theory
investigation of supply risk management”, The Journal of
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 15-27.
Appendix 1. Measurement scales (sources)
(Indicate the degree of agreement or disagreement with each
of the following statements; 7 ¼ completely agree,
1 ¼ completely disagree).
1 Cooperation (adapted from Cannon and Perrault,
1999); Cronbach a¼ 0:90; CRI ¼ 0:84.
. COOP1. This supplier and I collaborate in certain
aspects
.
COOP2. Potential problems are solved cooperatively
2 Communication (adapted from Mohr et al., 1996; Kwon
and Suh, 2004); Cronbach a¼ 0:89; CRI ¼ 0:81.
.
INF1. My supplier and I share information
.
INF2. Both parties are willing to keep each other
informed about changes that may affect us both
.
INF3. Exchange of information is frequent and
informal
3 Perceived satisfaction (adapted from Walter et al., 2003);
Cronbach a¼ 0:89; CRI ¼ 0:83.
.
S1. The relationship with this supplier is positive
.
S2. Compared with the ideal relationship, we are
satisfied with this relationship
4 Trust (adapted from Batt, 2003; Kwon and Suh, 2004);
Cronbach a¼ 0:85; CRI ¼ 0:80:
.
CNP1. The supplier always keeps his promises
.
CNP2. The supplier has always been sincere with my
firm
.
CNP3. I can trust this supplier when I share relevant
information with him
5 Commitment (adapted from Anderson and Weitz, 1992;
Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Jap and Ganesan, 2000;
Walter et al., 2003) Cronbach a¼ 0:88; CRI ¼ 0:81.
.
COMP1. I am willing to invest time and resources in
this supplier.
.
COMP2. I will probably maintain or increase the
volume of business with this supplier.
.
COMP3. I am willing to meet the terms of the
agreement with this supplier.
6 Long-term orientation (adapted from Ganesan, 1994);
Cronbach a¼ 0:93; CRI ¼ 0:89.
.
OR1. I believe the relationship will be beneficial for
my firm in the long term.
.
OR2. For my firm, it is important to maintain this
relationship in the future.
.
OR3. I focus on the long-term objectives of this
relationship.
 Post-satisfaction factors affecting supply relationships Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Jesús J. Cambra-Fierro and Yolanda Polo-Redondo Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2011 · 395 –406

Appendix 2

Table AI Variance-covariance matrix (n ¼ 233)

COOP1 COOP2 INF1 INF2 INF3 S1 S2 CNP1 CNP2 CNF3 COMP1 COMP2 COMP3 OR1 OR2 OR3
COOP1 1.32
COOP2 0.58 1.27
INF1 0.63 0.62 0.93
INF2 0.55 0.59 0.67 0.97
INF3 0.65 0.56 0.73 0.70 1.06
S1 0.36 0.51 0.47 0.62 0.51 1.38
S2 0.45 0.39 0.38 0.49 0.49 0.51 1.18
CNP1 0.52 0.41 0.36 0.39 0.46 0.48 0.45 0.91
CNP2 0.49 0.45 0.32 0.43 0.49 0.57 0.46 0.39 1.03
CNF3 0.45 0.49 0.38 0.45 0.46 0.55 0.57 0.42 0.49 0.98
COMP1 0.41 0.43 0.41 0.38 0.43 0.45 0.46 0.41 0.48 0.53 1.02
COMP2 0.29 0.37 0.37 0.44 0.47 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.37 0.43 0.59 0.92
COMP3 0.38 0.40 0.33 0.39 0.38 0.41 0.49 0.46 0.43 0.41 0.57 0.62 0.99
OR1 0.31 0.35 0.52 0.55 0.63 0.34 0.33 0.38 0.49 0.55 0.49 0.54 0.52 1.64
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:02 12 February 2016 (PT)

OR2 0.35 0.36 0.49 0.49 0.72 0.42 0.47 0.41 0.38 0.48 0.46 0.44 0.51 0.99 1.53
OR3 0.30 0.42 0.46 0.44 0.61 0.39 0.36 0.35 0.41 0.48 0.43 0.41 0.55 0.92 1.02 1.37
N 233 233 233 233 233 233 233 233 233 233 233 233 233 233 233 233

About the authors involved with trust, co-operation, satisfaction,

Jesús J. Cambra-Fierro’s main research topics are related to
supply chain management, relationship marketing, and
market orientation. His results have been published or
accepted for future publication in journals such as Industrial
Marketing Management, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Marketing
Management, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour
and Research, etc. He is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: jjcamfie@upo.es
Yolanda Polo-Redondo’s main research topics are related to
supply chain management, relationship marketing, product
innovation, and strategies in the banking sector. She has
published in journals such as Research Policy, European Journal
of Marketing, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Journal of
Marketing Management, Journal of Consumer Marketing, etc.
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the
material present.
When asked why a long-term relationships works, “it just
does” is not a satisfactory answer. At a time when
organizations see the appropriate management of firm-
supplier and firm-customer relationships as the basis of
success in B2B markets, “being in it for the long haul” is a
pretty good goal, but relationships change. Just like human
relationships, they might mature, go from strength-to-
strength, go stale, founder, or outlive their usefulness. And,
just like human relationships, the dynamics at work here are
communication, loyalty, understanding and mutual interest.
Relationships that companies establish with their suppliers are
complex. Several factors define the conditions of the
relationship and determine the outcomes – and these
factors evolve over time.
Inter-firm long-term orientation has been increasingly
recognized as an important factor driving firm
competitiveness. Strategic advantages for firms involved in
long-term relationships include:
.
sellers can obtain repeat purchases from their customers
and exploit new business opportunities; they can also
reduce the possibility of customers switching to other
supplying firms; they can get useful market information
from their customers and/or they can use customer ideas
to design innovative products;
.
buyers can secure an uninterrupted flow of inputs; they
can use suppliers’ expertise and resources; they can reduce
costs and achieve better purchasing prices; they can
exploit technological development, reduce wastage and
improve efficiency.
Therefore, the long-term approach of supply relationships has
become a strategic and tactical factor and it is fundamental for
the success of supply chain management (SCM) in particular
and firms in general. By creating, developing and maintaining
positive relationships with adequate suppliers, firms can build
up important competitive advantage and offer their customers
value in such a way that they minimize the risk and
uncertainty associated with supply management and they
can allocate more resources to other activities.
In research centered on long-term orientation (a willingness
to make short-term sacrifices to realize long-term benefits
from the relationship) Jesús J. Cambra-Fierro and Yolanda
Polo-Redondo analyze, from the relationship marketing
perspective, the factors that determine the long-term
orientation of supply relationships. In “Post-satisfaction

405
 Post-satisfaction factors affecting supply relationships
Jesús J. Cambra-Fierro and Yolanda Polo-Redondo
factors affecting the long-term orientation of supply
relationships” data suggests that satisfaction and
commitment can be considered two key factors that
determine the lasting approach of firm-supplier
relationships. Satisfaction directly affects this temporal
orientation and also affects trust and commitment.
Furthermore, they verify that communication and
cooperation may also influence trust. The research offers an
alternative relational model for analyzing SC. Both academics
and practitioners may, therefore, consider two different
stages, the “pre-satisfaction” and “post-satisfaction” phases,
with perceived buyer satisfaction being the reference for the
division. The study confirms that satisfaction and
commitment, along with cooperation, communication and
trust, significantly help to determine the relational approach
of these inter-firm relationships.
Satisfaction seems to be one of the key elements that
determine continuity in inter-firm relationships. Firms like to
be involved in relationships that are positive for achieving
their entrepreneurial objectives. If relationships are found to
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:02 12 February 2016 (PT)
be useful the propensity to terminate them would decrease.
Consequently, suppliers need to satisfy their customers by
meeting their expectations in terms of quality, delivery time,
guarantee or price. But, in addition, there are some
collaboration tools (e.g. joint research or communication
projects, mutual problem solving and advice) and
communication tasks (e.g. personal and interpersonal
channels) that reinforce the level of perceived satisfaction.
As the relationship evolves and mutual knowledge
increases, the content of communication has to be different.
In the initial stages of the relationship, communication has to
foster knowledge and bring needs together. But, once the
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
406
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2011 · 395 –406
customer has decided to maintain the relationship, efforts
should be aimed at making the relationship fluent and
facilitating the resolution of potential conflicts.
When analyzing the concept of the trust placed by a
customer in its suppliers, a considerable number of studies
implicitly consider the evolution of the concept, but few
explicitly discuss its implications. The present study proposes
that trust is initially based on the supplier’s image and
reputation and it evolves based on the verification of the
supplier’s real capacity and behavior. That is, knowledge
related to the capacity and behavior of partnerships increases
as more contacts take place between partnerships.
With regard to best practices related to trust, the following
is recommended:
(1) Obtaining a balance between the generation of high
expectations to persuade a customer and the real
capacity to satisfy them is necessary.
(2) Making promises that firms are not certain to keep can
be extremely dangerous. Promises must be based on
capacities.
Failure to manage (1) and (2) will have negative effects on the
relational approach. The level of perceived future satisfaction,
trust and commitment could decrease and have a negative
influence on the relationship’s continuity. This negative effect
might also affect the supplier’s image, reputation and
credibility for further commercial communication actions.
(A précis of the article “Post-satisfaction factors affecting the long-
term orientation of supply relationships”. Supplied by Marketing
Consultants for Emerald.)
 This article has been cited by:

1. Jesús Cambra-Fierro, Iguácel Melero-Polo, F. Javier Sese. 2015. Can complaint-handling efforts promote customer engagement?.
Service Business . [CrossRef]
2. Chih-Cheng Volvic Chen, Chih-Jou Chen, Ming-Ji James Lin. 2015. The impact of customer participation: the employee’s
perspective. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 30:5, 486-497. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. I. M. Sukresna. 2015. Marketing Channel Connectivities within the Indonesian Manufacturing Sector. Journal of Economics,
Business and Management 3. . [CrossRef]
4. M. Abu Saleh, M. Yunus Ali, Syed Saad Andaleeb. 2014. Explaining industrial importers' commitment from an emerging market
perspective: theoretical and managerial insights. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 29:1, 45-62. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
5. Jiyoung Hwang, Jae-Eun Chung, Byungho Jin. 2013. Culture matters. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 25:5,
721-744. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Joanne Meehan, Gillian H. Wright. 2013. Power priorities in buyer–seller relationships: A comparative analysis. Industrial
Marketing Management 42, 1245-1254. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:02 12 February 2016 (PT)