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

net/publication/257541723

The Impact of Service Supplier’s Unethical Behavior to Buyer’s Satisfaction:

An Empirical Study

Article in Journal of Business Ethics · August 2012

DOI: 10.1007/s10551-011-1121-5

CITATIONS READS

26 10,591

2 authors, including:

Ramazan Kaynak

23 PUBLICATIONS 629 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ramazan Kaynak on 20 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J Bus Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-1121-5
The Impact of Service Supplier’s Unethical Behavior to Buyer’s
Satisfaction: An Empirical Study
Ramazan Kaynak • Tuba Sert
Received: 10 November 2011 / Accepted: 13 November 2011
 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract In today’s marketing conditions, it becomes
really vital for companies to establish an appropriate
relationship with suppliers and salesperson based on ethical
values in order to survive. Besides, ensuring an effective
relationship between the parties would contribute to
increase buyer satisfaction along with economic and social
satisfaction. In this study, the direct effects of suppliers’
and salespersons’ unethical behaviors on buyer satisfac-
tion, and the moderator effect of communication between
buyer–supplier relationships are examined. The results of
the study have revealed that unethical behaviors of sup-
pliers and salesperson affect buyer satisfaction negatively
and the communication variable has moderately affected.
The results are providing important advantages for buyers
who want to improve the relationships between the sup-
pliers and their salesperson for pharmaceutical enterprises.
Keywords Buyer–supplier relationship
Unethical
behaviors
Communication
Buyer satisfaction
Introduction
Under today’s circumstances, the existence of establish-
ments and their ability to compete at the global scale is
R. Kaynak
Faculty of Business Administration, Gebze Institute
of Technology, Cayirova Kampusu No: 101 P.K:141,
41400 Gebze, Kocaeli, Turkey
e-mail: kaynak@gyte.edu.tr
T. Sert (&)
Ornek Mah. Musa Sureyya Bey Sk. No: 43 K: 5 D: 12,
Atasehir, Istanbul, Turkey
e-mail: tubakisaoglu@hotmail.com
attached long-term relations with their suppliers, while
building of such relations depends on organizational cul-
ture in general and on ethical behavior in particular.
Organizational culture consists of the values, beliefs,
and perceptions shared by the members of the organization.
Such culture is formed of the behaviors that occur as a
result of the mutual interaction between the members, the
symbols the organization possesses stories, the concrete
values and principles (Trice and Beyer 1984). The behav-
iors of those working in the same institution are one of the
most significant indicators regarding whether the organi-
zation’s culture supports or disapproves unethical behavior
(Duerden 1995; Laczniak et al. 1995). Various studies
indicate that organization should, in the light of codes of
ethics, define the ethically acceptable and unacceptable
behaviors (Carter 2000a, b). Studies indicate that differ-
ences in business and related values change in accordance
with the national culture (Becker and Fritzsche 1987).
Thus, individuals from different countries display their
unique cultural aspects and values and this in turn makes it
difficult to establish universal ethical principles (Schle-
gelmilch and Robertson 1995).
Ethics is defined as the basic principles regarding right
behavior in personal or professional conduct (Badenhorst
1994). Several ethical standards have been formed in
accordance with this perspective and they have been
applied to individuals, industries, companies, and cultures.
The data obtained shows that ethics has mainly an indi-
vidual character and is related with individual behavior.
However, the behaviors of the individual are also affected
by the contextual norms and the social groups the indi-
vidual belongs to Badenhorst (1994).
Certain behaviors in the buyer–supplier relationship
are defined as unethical by procurement managers. The
literature suggests that unethical behaviors in the buyer–
123

supplier relationship are closely related with two factors.
These are classified as external factors (1) which include
‘‘leadership, employee behavior, sanctions, training, ethics
policies, and pressure for achieving success’’ and internal
factors (2) which include ‘‘the structure of the state, the
length of the relation, balances of power’’ (Carter 2000a,
b). Studies suggest that individuals overlook their indi-
vidual values to achieve the goals of the organization
(Bowman 1976; Carroll 1975). However, unethical
behavior of the establishment causes adverse publicity and
eventually leads to a decrease in sales and in profit
(McGuire et al. 1988).
The goal of this study is to determine the relationship
between the unethical behaviors of the supplier and the
salesperson and, the impact of communication between the
two parties on buyer satisfaction. Unethical behavior has been
classified as deceitful and subtle, whereas the buyer’s satis-
faction has been examined with regard three different aspects
consisting of economical, social, and service satisfaction.
Ethical and Unethical Behavior
The Concept of Ethics
In the context of an organization, ethics determine what
values and principles should apply in issues and decisions
related with the organization. Ethical issues may contain a
certain degree of ambiguity and may require decision-
making within the context of values and alternatives.
Ethical decision-making can be influenced by the following
factors (Manning et al. 2006):
• laws;
• national ethical standards;
• organizational culture; and
• the interaction of different organizational cultures in the
supplier chain.
Many management researches suggest that guides to
ethical behavior for implementation of official programs
and policies in corporations (Weaver et al. 1999). These
official programs are intended to make appropriate ethical
standards in the behavior of individuals within the orga-
nization. Because supportive of in-company ethical
behavior programs have been identified for increased to the
firm performance (Donaldson and Preston 1995; Quinn and
Jones 1995).
Simon (1983) has asserted that the rationality of the
person is restricted under certain circumstances and advo-
cated the concept of ‘‘bounded ethicality’’ as a behavioral
model whereas Messick, a distinguished business ethics
author, has focused on psychological models which help to
predict the natural decision-making models that lead
123
R. Kaynak, T. Sert
people to display unethical behavior (Messick 1996;
Messick and Bazerman 1996). Chugh et al. (2005) have
extended the study in question and defined the concept of
‘‘limited ethics’’. Limited ethics suggest that situations
where individuals make their decisions are subject to
change depending on the personal beliefs and preferences.
Gino et al. (2008) have developed a subcategory of limited
ethics called ‘‘motivated blindness’’. Motivated blindness
explains the process through which individuals choose to
display unethical behavior (Hill et al. 2009).
Unethical Behaviors
Unethical behaviors in supplier–buyer relationship are
identified and reported through the literature review and
group interviews from Carter (2000b) in the following
manners:
• using obscure contract terms to gain advantage over
other the party;
• writing specifications that favor a particular supplier;
• exaggerating the seriousness of a problem to gain
concessions;
• allowing a supplier to rebid after the closing date;
• allowing only certain suppliers to bid;
• giving preference to suppliers preferred by top
management;
• allowing the personalities of the supplier to impact
decisions;
• concocting/making up a second source of supply to
gain an advantage over suppliers;
• asking the other party for information about your
competitors;
• purposefully misleading the other party;
• using bribery;
• overestimating demand to gain volume discounts;
• soliciting quotations from suppliers who have little
chance of success;
• using ‘‘backdoor’’ selling techniques such as approach-
ing personnel in engineering, manufacturing, or other
departments outside of purchasing;
• canceling purchase orders in progress and trying to
avoid cancellation charges;
• allowing a supplier to become dependent on the
purchasing organization for most of its business;
• using small payments to facilitate international
transactions;
• using less competitive prices or terms for buyers who
purchase exclusively from the supplier;
• increasing prices when there is a shortage of supply of
the purchased material or product;
• offering gifts in excess of nominal value; and
• overcommitting resources or production schedules.
Impact of Service Supplier’s Unethical Behavior
Unethical behavior stems from the lack of certain moral
values. Studies show that factors such as the behaviors of
the administrators, the ethical climate of the establishment,
and lack of company policies on various issues all con-
tribute to unethical behavior. Two types of unethical
behavior are observed in business world. One of them aims
to favor the establishment, whereas the other type involves
favoring the personal interests of the individual. The for-
mer is considered more acceptable or ‘‘less unethical’’
(Badenhorst 1994). Unethical behaviors in the supplier–
buyer relationship and the unethical behavior of the
salespersons have been examined below.
Unethical Behaviors in the Buyer–Supplier
Relationship
Ethical studies on buyer–supplier relationship are usually
examined from the perspective of management of pro-
curement. Since the existence of unethical behavior in
procurement may contribute to personal enrichment, such
behavior generally draws more attention (Badenhorst
1994). While administrators are expected to lead by
example on ethical behavior, it is known that they
implicitly approve unethical behaviors in order to achieve
the sales goals (Mulki et al. 2009).
Studies in marketing have examined the status of the
buyers and their ethical perspectives with regard to buyer–
supplier relationship (Rosenbaum and Kuntze 2003). As
the level of irregularity of the buyers increased, the pos-
sibility of the suppliers to protect buyers from deceitful or
harmful practices were observed to decrease whereas pre-
cautions taken by the government to protect the buyers was
increased in response (Rosenbaum and Kuntze 2003).
In a study by Carter (2000a), unethical behaviors of the
buyer and the supplier were examined and similar unethical
behaviors were reported regardless of the countries of the
parties. The study’s findings examine unethical company
policies under two groups, consisting of deceitful and
subtle conduct. Subtlety involves an indirect breach of the
contract. Subtle behavior that concerns the supplier is
displayed by the buyer firm. On the other hand, deceitful
behavior is usually defined as the breaking of the promise
made by either of the parties. Accordingly, deceitful con-
duct of the buyer has a negative impact on the satisfaction
level of the supplier (Hill et al. 2009).
Unethical Behaviors of the Salesperson
In today’s marketing environment, salespersons are
expected to display correct and acceptable behavior while
interacting with customers. On the other hand, the ever
increasing demands of customers under the competitive
conditions of the market are making it difficult to obtain
goals. The pressure to reach predetermined targets and
quotas lead people to behave unethically (Schweitzer et al.
2004). Ethical behavior has a significant role in maintain-
ing the relations. Research results suggest that unethical
behavior not only has a negative effect on the relations, but
also it may have tragic consequences (Lagace et al. 1991).
Certain sector reports suggest that half of the salesper-
sons lie during sale activities whereas one-third of them
make untrue promises and one out of five sell products
customers do not need (Marchetti 1997). Regardless of the
reason unethical behavior leads to dissatisfaction of cus-
tomers and decreases the sales and the profit (Levy and
Dubinsky 1983). For this reason, a negative relationship
between unethical behavior of salespersons and buyer’s
satisfaction can be considered to exist. In accordance with
Carter’s classification, (2000a) unethical behavior of the
salespersons have been classified into two groups consist-
ing of subtle and deceitful types of conduct.
The Relationship Between Unethical Behavior
and Communication
Study results show that widespread use of ethical codes
within an organization have positive effects (Murphy
1989). Ethical codes determine the essentials of establish-
ing an efficient communication with the customers and just
behavior and the sanctions to be imposed in case of
unethical conduct. In addition to these, conducting post-
sale inspection can also prevent the repetition of unethical
practices (Carter 2000a). The amount of information par-
ties possess is one of the main sources of power in an
interaction. The ability to control the knowledge in pos-
session is a significant factor for increasing the amount of
control a party can exert (Lewicki and Robinson 1998). It
therefore follows that for efficient communication to take
place, open access to information is a prerequisite (Man-
ning et al. 2006). The literature on the subject emphasizes
the importance of communication in building a successful
relationship between the buyer and the supplier and it has
been noted that communication will provide a strategic
advantage to the cooperating companies. Recent studies
suggest that effective communication will increase satis-
faction and thus prevent unethical practices and allow the
establishment of long-term business relations (Hill et al.
2009). For this reason, communication can be considered
as a factor that exerts a moderating effect on the unethical
behaviors of the supplier and the salesperson.
Buyer Satisfaction
Satisfaction can be defined as the positive emotional ful-
fillment arising from the mutual interaction between parties
123

(Gaski and Nevin 1985). In a recent metanalysis study,
Geyskens et al. (1999) determined that satisfaction can be
divided into certain components. When satisfaction is a
result of economical consequences, then it is called eco-
nomic satisfaction, whereas when social interactions create
satisfaction, it is called social satisfaction (Ramaseshan
et al. 2006). On the other hand, another component of
satisfaction noted in the literature is service satisfaction
that occurs as a consequence of the supplier’s service
(Patterson et al. 2001).
Economic satisfaction is obtained as a result of the
evaluation of economical consequences by the parties
(Geyskens et al. 1999). A party benefiting from an eco-
nomically satisfying interaction evaluates the relationship
in terms of the success, efficiency and financial outputs
obtained within a scheme of mutual respect (Geyskens
et al. 1999). This party will consider that his partner cares
for him, respects him, is willing to exchange ideas and is
pleased to work with him (Geyskens et al. 1999).
Satisfaction concerns the shared aspects developing in
an interaction between the parties. The economically sat-
isfied party is the one that has obtained an economical gain
exceeding his expectations or exceeding the gain that could
be gained from the next best alternative. Thus, the party is
motivated to continue the relationship. On the other hand,
the socially satisfied party is prone to establish communi-
cation in a more constructive manner in order to solve the
problems in the relationship (Geyskens and Steenkamp
2000). Displaying a positive approach in the resolution of
complicated situations will improve the social sharing and
mutual understanding between the parties.
Provision of high quality service in line with ethical
standards will prevent the loss of buyers/customers and this
will also increase the level of profit (Sabharwal et al. 2010).
There are numerous studies which show that there is a clear
relationship between the quality of service and customer
satisfaction (Kim et al. 2009). The shortcomings experi-
enced during the provision of service influence not only
customer satisfaction, but also the willingness to purchase
in the future. If establishments can be more successful in
preventing problems in the provision of their services, they
Fig. 1 The research model
SUPPLIER FIRM’S
UNETHICAL
BEHAVIOR
• FDECEITFUL
• FSUBTLE
SALESPERSON’S
UNETHICAL
BEHAVIOR
• SDECEITFUL
• SSUBTLE
123
R. Kaynak, T. Sert
will also succeed in increasing the service satisfaction of
the buyer (Sabharwal et al. 2010).
In the light of this information, the unethical behaviors
of the salesperson and the provider and the effect of
communication between the parties on buyer satisfaction is
been shown in Fig. 1.
Research Method
Data Collection and Sample
Pharmacies located on the Anatolian side of Istanbul were
the main focus of this study. The pharmacies evaluated
their primary suppliers, which happen to be pharmaceutical
warehouses. Data on pharmacies were collected from the
District Health Directorate it was seen that a total of 1,832
pharmacies in 14 counties were operating on the Anatolian
side.
The data were collected using questionnaires, between
the dates April–July 2010. Pharmacies were easy to access
and face to face interviewing was possible; furthermore,
collecting the forms by hand is known to have a high return
rate (Yu and Cooper 1983). The questionnaires were
delivered to minimum 10% and maximum 20% of ran-
domly selected pharmacies located on the Istanbul side of
Asia. 366 pharmacies were accessed and 260 of them took
part in the study. A total of 19 forms were excluded from
the analysis. Seven of these questionnaires were rejected
because they were not carefully filled out, while 12 ques-
tionnaires were excluded due to incomplete data. As a
result, the number of questionnaire forms available for
analysis was 241. The return rate of forms was calculated
as 66%. Therefore, questionnaires were filled during face
to face interviews. Care was taken to ensure that the scales
used in the questionnaires consisted of widely accepted
questions from the international literature whose validity
and reliability had been tested. For this reason, articles
published in international journals were utilized. The
unethical behaviors of the salesperson were examined in
two groups in the questionnaire, consisting of deceitful and
COMMUNICATION
(COMM) ECONOMIC SATISFACTION
(ECONSAT)
SOCIAL SATISFACTION
(SOCSAT)
SERVICE SATISFACTION
(SERVSAT)
Impact of Service Supplier’s Unethical Behavior

subtle practices. For this purpose, 13 questions prepared by
utilizing scales developed by Lagace et al. (1991) were
used.
Measures and Measurement
The unethical behaviors of the supplier also had two
aspects classified as deceitful and subtle and they were
measured with nine questions based on the scale developed
by Carter (2000a). The buyer’s satisfactions had three
dimensions consisting of economical, social, and service
components and were measured with the scale developed
by Ramaseshan et al. (2006) using seven questions. The
communication scale was developed by the authors and
was developed by the authors. The questionnaire utilized a
5-point Likert scale where 1 = ‘‘absolutely disagree’’ and
5 = ‘‘absolutely agree’’.
In order to develop the questions used in the question-
naire, the questions were first translated from English to
Turkish and afterward, it was translated back to Turkish by
a person fluent in English and Turkish. The results were
compared and the questions were found to be conceptually
equal. The questionnaires were delivered to pharmacies for
a pilot study. When the pilot study results were found to be
positive, the study was initiated.
Data Analysis and Results
We used multivariate techniques for the analysis of data by
combining the techniques of factor analysis, Cronbach’s
alpha reliability test, correlations, and multiple regressions
including the mean and standard deviation values of the
variables. The sample characteristics and results for the
analysis were as follows.
Male respondents made up 62.7% of the participants.
99.6% had undergraduate level education, whereas 0.4%
had graduate level or higher education. With respect to the
provider source 24.1% were observed to utilize a single
provider, whereas %75.9 used multiple providers. In
addition, the nearest health care institutions to the phar-
macies were observed to consist of mostly (62.2%) sec-
ondary level health care centers, followed by tertiary
(25.7%) and primary (12.0%) health care centers.
In order to test the compatibility of data for normal
distribution, the skewness and kurtosis values were calcu-
lated and the data was found to be appropriate for analysis.
A two-staged analysis process was conducted for
dependent and independent variables in the factor analysis.
The values obtained are displayed in Table 1. According to
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett test results, our
data set was adequate for factor analysis. In order to
determine the number of factors and factor loadings,
principal components analysis was performed and the
varimax rotation was chosen as the rotation method. Factor
distribution, number of questions, factor loadings, and total
variance explained and validity analysis results are given in
Table 1. Factor loadings were observed to be greater than
0.5. The factors obtained in the first factor analysis inclu-
ded the deceitful and subtle behaviors of the salesperson,
the deceitful and subtle behaviors of the supplier and
communication. In the second factor analysis, statements
of satisfaction were distinguished as three variables con-
sisting of economic, social and service satisfaction. In the
Cronbach’s alpha reliability test, coefficients were greater
than 0.70. These values are above the threshold value
indicated by Nunnally (1978). Therefore, the scales used in
the study can be assumed to meet the criteria for reliability
and validity.
Correlation analysis revealed a number of statistically
significant relationships (Table 2). Positive correlations
were detected among the subtle behaviors of the salesper-
son, the deceitful behaviors of the salesperson, the subtle
behaviors of the supplier, the deceitful behaviors of the
supplier. In addition, negative correlations between com-
munication, economical satisfaction, social satisfaction,
service satisfaction, and the subtle and deceitful behaviors

Table 1 Summary of factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha reliability test results
Scales Number of Factor loading Eigen Explained variance KMO and Barlett test Cronbach’s alpha
questions range value (cumulative) coefficient

SSUBTLE 4 0.571–0.837 8.776 35.464 KMO = 0.908 0.889

SDECEITFUL 4 0.518–0.882 1.993 47.903 Barlett = 2909.234** 0.827
FSUBTLE 5 0.616–0.827 1.254 57.295 0.865
FDECEITFUL 4 0.486–0.803 0.947 64.062 0.820
COMM 2 0.832–0.854 0.855 69.650 0.717
ECONSAT 2 0.837–0.849 4.463 63.751 KMO = 0.813 0.855
SOCSAT 3 0.765–0.837 0.867 76.135 Barlett = 1515.927** 0.833
SERVSAT 2 0.901–0.902 0.667 85.659 0.989
** p \ 0.01

123
 R. Kaynak, T. Sert

Table 2 Correlation coefficients, mean, and standard deviation values

Mean SD SSUBTLE SPDECEIT FDECEIT FSUBTLE ECONSAT SOCSAT SERVSAT

SPDECEIT 1.707 0.643 1

SSUBTLE 1.292 0.418 0.621** 1
FDECEIT 1.532 0.577 0.747** 0.620** 1
FSUBTLE 2.217 0.746 0.642** 0.415** 0.671** 1
ECONSAT 3.909 0.886 -0.515** -0.310** -0.485** -0.528** 1
SOCSAT 4.595 0.475 -0.470** -0.347** -0.557** -0.511** 0.612** 1
SERVSAT 4.326 0.700 -0.441** -0.294** -0.487** -0.397** 0.637** 0.599** 1
COMM 4.681 0.474 -0.374** -0.290** -0.417** -0.386** 0.397** 0.391** 0.274**
** Correlations statistically significant at 0.01 levels. (1-tailed)

of the salesperson and the supplier. Accordingly a decrease
in the negative impact of unethical behavior on satisfaction
will be observed when communication increases, whereas
the negative impact of unethical behavior on satisfaction
will increase as communication decreases.
In order to detect the theoretical model of the research,
six regression models were constructed. The models are
significant at the level of 0.01. The F values of the model,
adjusted R2, adjusted beta coefficient and t test results are
displayed in Table 3. The F values and the adjusted R2
values of the models are remarkably good.
Test results were checked for autocorrelation, multi-
collinearity, and heteroscedasticity in order to ensure the
reliability of regression analysis tests. Durbin-Watson test
was used for autocorrelation. Test results were in the
1.5–2.5 range; minimum value was 1,790 and maximum
value was found as 2,048. Therefore, the model can be said
to have no autocorrelation problem. Variance inflation
factor (VIF) was used in order to investigate the multi-
collinearity problem among the independent variables.
Since the VIF is in the range of 1,595–2,920 and does not
exceed 5.0, it can be assumed that multicollinearity will not
produce a significant effect on the results (Hair et al. 2006,
p. 230). Furthermore; the maximum value for the condition
index for the applied regression models has been observed
as 13,151 and the fact that this value is lower than 30.0 also
indicates the absence of multicollinearity problem. In
addition, residual analysis revealed normal distribution and
the linearity assumption was verified. Therefore, hetero-
scedasticity was ruled out (Hair et al. 2006, pp. 83–95).
According to the first regression model, the deceitful
behavior of the salesperson (b = -0.248**) and the subtle
behaviors of the supplier (b = -0.300**) have a negative
impact on the economical satisfaction of the buyer.
In the second regression model where social satisfaction
was the dependent variable, a negative association between
the deceitful behaviors of the supplier (b = -0.366**) and
the subtle behaviors of the supplier (b = -0.236**) was
observed.
In the third regression model where service satisfaction
was the dependent variable, the deceitful behaviors of the
salesperson (b = -0.168*) and the deceitful behaviors of
the supplier (b = -0.341**) were observed to have a
negative impact service satisfaction.
In the regression analysis carried out to test the mod-
erating effect of communication variable, the effect of the
result of the multiplications between independent variables
and moderating variable on dependent variables was
examined. In the fourth regression model constructed for
this purpose, the communication variable was found to
exert a moderating effect on the impact of the subtle
behaviors of the salesperson (b = -0.257**) and the
subtle behaviors of the supplier (b = -0.228**) on eco-
nomic satisfaction.
According to the fifth model, the communication vari-
able exert a moderating effect on the relation between the
subtle (b = -0.382**) and deceitful (b = -0.157*)
behaviors of the supplier and economic satisfaction.
In the sixth model, the communication variable was
found to exert a moderating effect on the relation between
the subtle (b = -0.173*) and deceitful (b = -0.347**)
behaviors of the supplier and service satisfaction.
Discussion and Conclusion
In the light of data collected from 260 pharmacies in
Istanbul, this study aimed to investigate the effect of
unethical behaviors in the buyer–supplier relationship on
the moderator role of communication and buyer’s satis-
faction. Unethical behaviors were grouped under two
headings as subtle and deceitful behavior, whereas buyer’s
satisfaction was examined with regard to three different
dimensions consisting of economical, social and service
satisfaction.
The data have allowed us to reach interesting and sig-
nificant conclusions. First of all, it has been experimentally
proven that communication has a moderating effect on the

123
Impact of Service Supplier’s Unethical Behavior

Table 3 Results of the regression analysis

Indep. variable Standardized beta coeff. t p value (sig.) Dependent variable

SDECEITFUL -0.268** -3.059 0.001 1st model: ECONSAT

SSUBTLE 0.053 0.749 0.228
FDECEITFUL -0.117 -1.287 0.100
FSUBTLE -0.300** -3.994 0.000
Adj. R2 325; F 29.893**
SDECEITFUL -0.052 -0.593 0.277 2nd model: SOCSAT
SSUBTLE 0.010 0.145 0.443
FDECEITFUL -0.366** -4.069 0.000
FSUBTLE -0.236** -3.164 0.001
2
Adj. R 0.334; F 31.079**
SDECEITFUL -0.168* -1.811 0.018 3rd model: SERVSAT
SSUBTLE 0.057 0.760 0.224
FDECEITFUL -0.341** -3.553 0.000
FSUBTLE -0.084 -1.063 0.145
2
Adj. R 0.244; F 20.402**
SDECEITFUL 9 COMM 0.115 1.607 0.055 4th model: ECONSAT
SSUBTLE 9 COMM -0.257** -2.978 0.002
FDECEITFUL 9 COMM -0.139 -1.564 0.060
FSUBTLE 9 COMM -0.228** -3.041 0.002
2
Adj. R 0.225; F 18.432**
SDECEITFUL 9 COMM 0.089 1.244 0.108 5th model: SOCSAT
SSUBTLE 9 COMM -0.069 -0.804 0.211
FDECEITFUL 9 COMM -0.382** -4.340 0.000
FSUBTLE 9 COMM -0.157* -2.122 0.018
Adj. R2 0.238; F 19.761**
SDECEITFUL 9 COMM 0.100 1.364 0.087 6th model: SERVSAT
SSUBTLE 9 COMM -0.173* -1.976 0.025
FDECEITFUL 9 COMM -0.347** -3.845 0.000
FSUBTLE 9 COMM -0.044 -0.575 0.283
Adj. R2 0.199; F 15.882**
* p \ 0.05, ** p \ 0.01

relationship between unethical behavior and buyer satis-
faction. The results obtained have important and practical
administrative implications. A positive association was
detected between the subtle and deceitful behaviors of the
salesperson and the supplier’s subtle and deceitful prac-
tices. In addition, the results suggested that subtle behav-
iors of the salesperson and the supplier will decrease and
economic satisfaction would increase when effective
communication between the buyer and supplier took place.
Badenhorst (1994) suggests that unethical behaviors
against the buyers can not be defined at the level of indi-
vidual moral standards and norms and the situation should
be evaluated as (a part of) an approach to administration.
Carter (2000a) has shown that the deceitful behavior of the
supplier has a significant negative impact on buyer’s sat-
isfaction. Furthermore, Carter (2000a) asserted in another
study that resorting to unethical behavior will eventually
harm the business relations of the supplier himself.
Accordingly, the process will first start with the loss of
prestige of the firm and in time, unethical practices will
eventually turn into lose–lose type relationships rather than
win–win or win–lose.
This study has shown that effective communication
decreases the deceitful and subtle behaviors of the supplier
and increases social satisfaction. In addition, effective
communication was found to increase service satisfaction
by decreasing the deceitful and subtle behaviors of the
salesperson. The results have significant implications for
all suppliers and salespersons willing to improve their
relations with their buyers.
Further research may focus on factors such as trust,
dependency, and supplier power since these may influence
the unethical behaviors in the buyer–supplier relationship.
Furthermore, investigating the impact of unethical behavior

123

on distributive and procedural justice can provide a dif-
ferent perspective with regard to the relationship between
these two sides. This study examined the effect of unethical
behaviors on buyer satisfaction; a similar research focusing
on the supplier’s perspective will be beneficial for ensuring
long-term relations between the two parties.
References
Badenhorst, J. A. (1994). Unethical behavior in procurement: A
perspective on causes and solutions. Journal of Business Ethics,
13(9), 739–745.
Becker, H., & Fritzsche, D. J. (1987). Business ethics: A cross-
cultural comparison of managers’ attitudes. Journal of Business
Ethics, 6(4), 289–295.
Bowman, J. S. (1976). Managerial ethics in business and government.
Business Horizons, 19(5), 48–54.
Carroll, A. B. (1975). Managerial ethics: A post-watergate review.
Business Horizons, 18(2), 75–80.
Carter, C. R. (2000a). Precursors of unethical behavior in global
supplier management. The Journal of Supply Chain Manage-
ment, 36(Winter), 45–56.
Carter, C. R. (2000b). Ethical issues in international buyer–supplier
relationships: A dyadic examination. Journal of Operations
Management, 18, 191–208.
Chugh, D., Bazerman, M. H., & Banalji, M. R. (2005). Bounded
ethicality as a psychological barrier to recognizing conflicts of
interest. Harvard Business School, 1–34.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the
corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of
Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
Duerden, J. (1995). Walking the walk’ on global ethics. Directors and
Boards, 19(3), 42–45.
Gaski, J. F., & Nevin, J. R. (1985). The differential effects of
exercised and unexercised power sources in a marketing channel.
Journal of Marketing Research, 22(2), 130–142.
Geyskens, I., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (2000). Economic and social
satisfaction: Measurement and relevance to marketing channel
relationships. Journal of Retailing, 76(1), 11–32.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Kumar, N. (1999). A meta-
analysis of satisfaction in marketing channel relationships.
Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 223–238.
Gino, F., Moore, D. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (2008). See no evil:
When we overlook other people’s unethical behavior. Tepper
Business School, Harvard Business School, Working Paper,
pp. 1–29.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham,
R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hill, J. A., Eckerd, S., Wilson, D., & Greer, B. (2009). The effect of
unethical behavior on trust in a buyer–supplier relationship: The
mediating role of psychological contract violation. Journal of
Operations Management, 27, 281–293.
Kim, J., Kim, M., & Kveampully, J. (2009). Buying environment
characteristics in the context of E-service. European Journal of
Marketing, 43(9), 1188–1204.
Laczniak, G. R., Berkowitz, M. W., Brooker, R. G., & Hale, J. P.
(1995). The ethics of business: Improving or deteriorating?
Business Horizons, 38(1), 39–47.
Lagace, R. R., Dahlstrom, R., & Gassenheimer, J. B. (1991). The
relevance of ethical salesperson behavior on relationship quality:
123
View publication stats
R. Kaynak, T. Sert
The pharmaceutical industry. The Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, 11(4), 39–47.
Levy, M., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1983). Identifying and addressing retail
salespeople’s ethical problems: A method and application.
Journal of Retailing, 59(1), 46–66.
Lewicki, R. J., & Robinson, R. J. (1998). Ethical and unethical
bargaining tactics: An empirical study. Journal of Business
Ethics, 17(6), 665–682.
Manning, L., Baines, R. N., & Chadd, S. A. (2006). Ethical modelling
of the food supply chain. British Food Journal, 108(5), 358–370.
Marchetti, M. (1997). Whatever it takes. Sales and Marketing
Management, 149(13), 28–36.
McGuire, J. B., Sungren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate
social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 31(4), 854–872.
Messick, D. M. (1996). Why ethics is not the only thing that matters.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(2), 223–226.
Messick, D. M., & Bazerman, M. H. (1996). Ethical leadership and
the psychology of decision making. Sloan Management Review,
37(2), 9–22.
Mulki, J. P., Jaramillo, J. F., & Locveer, W. B. (2009). Critical role of
leadership on ethical climate and salesperson behaviors. Journal
of Business Ethics, 86, 125–141.
Murphy, P. E. (1989). Creating ethical corporate structures. Sloan
Management Review, 30(2), 81–87.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Patterson, P. G., Mandhachitara, A. R., & Smith, T. (2001). Switching
costs as a moderator of service satisfaction processes in
Thailand. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 14(1),
1–21.
Quinn, D. P., & Jones, T. M. (1995). An agent morality view of
business policy. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 22–42.
Ramaseshan, B., Yip, S. C. L., & Pae, J. H. (2006). Power,
satisfaction, and relationship commitment in Chinese store–
tenant relationship and their impact on performance. Journal of
Retailing, 82(1), 63–70.
Rosenbaum, M. S., & Kuntze, R. (2003). The relationship between
anomie and unethical retail disposition. Psychology & Market-
ing, 20(12), 1067–1093.
Sabharwal, N., Soch, H., & Kaur, H. (2010). Are we satisfied with
incompetent services? A scale development approach for service
recovery. Journal of Services Research, 10(1), 125–142.
Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Robertson, D. C. (1995). The influence of
country and industry on ethical perceptions of senior executives
in the United States and Europe. Journal of International
Business Studies, 26(4), 859–881.
Schweitzer, M. E., Ordonez, L., & Douma, B. (2004). Goal setting as
a motivator of unethical behavior. Academy of Management
Journal, 47(3), 422–432.
Simon, H. A. (1983). Reason in human affairs. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1984). Studying organizational cultures
through rites and ceremonials. Academy of Management Review,
9(4), 652–659.
Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Corporate
ethics programs as control systems: Influences of executive
commitment and environmental factors. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 42(1), 41–57.
Yu, J., & Cooper, H. (1983). A quantitative review of research design
effects on response rates to questionnaires. Journal of Marketing
Research, 10, 36–44.