Reviewing interfirm relationship quality from a supply chain management perspective

Qian, Chen; Seuring, Stefan; Wagner, Ralf Article — Published Version Reviewing interfirm relationship quality from a supply chain management perspective Management Review Quarterly Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Qian, Chen; Seuring, Stefan; Wagner, Ralf (2020) : Reviewing interfirm relationship quality from a supply chain management perspective, Management Review Quarterly, ISSN 2198-1639, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Vol. 71, Iss. 3, pp. 625-650, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00195-5 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/289062 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Vol.:(0123456789) Management Review Quarterly (2021) 71:625–650 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00195-5 1 3 Reviewing interfirm relationship quality fromasupply chain management perspective ChenQian1 · StefanSeuring1· RalfWagner2 Received: 20 December 2019 / Accepted: 5 September 2020 / Published online: 23 September 2020 © The Author(s) 2020 Abstract With the overlap of the interfirm relationship quality and supply chain management research in mind, this paper reviewed 100 recent, scientific, English-language papers on interfirm relationship quality based on a categorisation schema derived from a conceptual framework of supply chain management. We aim to contribute to the existing supply chain management literature by providing an insight into the connections of supply chain performance with buyer–supplier relationship quality from the relationship quality scholars’ perspective. Through content analysis, frequency and contingency analysis, we evaluated how the three relationship quality dimensions—information, operational, and relational dimensions—and the three types of supply chain performance—financial and market, operational, and relational performance have been reflected in the current interfirm relationship quality papers and how the scholars have tended to link them to each other. The results reveal that relational dimension plays a key role in SC relationship management and influences performance significantly. Information dimension will affect performance indirectly through relational dimension. However, the impact of the operational dimension on performance varies. In addition, buyers’ and suppliers’ perspectives on the relational drivers of their financial performance may differ. Based on the findings, we suggest promising avenues for future investigation of supply chain relationship and performance. Keywords Relationship quality· Supply chain management· Supply chain performance· Buyer–supplier relationship· Literature review JEL Classification M110· M310 * Chen Qian [email protected] Extended author information available on the last page of the article 626 C.Qian et al. 1 3 1 Introduction Since the beginning of the 20th century, interorganizational relationships between SC partners have become a topic of great importance in the supply chain management (SCM) research (Ricciotti 2019). In a modern approach, supply chain (SC) is defined as “a network of interdependent relationships developed and fostered through strategic collaboration” of SC partners “with the goal of deriving mutual benefits” (Chen and Paulraj 2004, p. 121). Based on this, a highly accepted definition of SCM describes this as the management of a network of relationships within and between interdependent organizations (Stock and Boyer 2009; Hochrein et al. 2015). Dyer and Singh (1998) first introduced the relational view to integrate the concept of relationship quality (RQ) into the analysis of SCs’ competitiveness. Subsequently, the quality of the relationships formed among SC parties has been considered a critical factor, as firms strive to improve performance and develop a sustainable competitive advantage (Nyaga and Whipple 2011). On the other side, the marketing scholars have considered RQ an established construct of relationship marketing, which roots in Business-to-Business (B2B) marketing (e.g., Palmatier etal. 2006). They defined RQ in the B2B settings as a composite measure of the strength of the relationships between two organizations, which include factors such as trust, commitment, long-term orientation, communication, and cooperation (e.g., Palmatier 2008). Reviewing the RQ literature shows that many contributions to contemporary knowledge are derived by challenging interorganizational RQ between business buyers and suppliers—in other words, by considering the SC context(Qian etal. 2020). The RQ scholars have strived to examine various advantages in developing and maintaining high quality business relationships for both selling and buying companies in an SC relationship. For example, they have investigated which RQ characteristics have a positive impact on the operational and/or financial performance of sellers and buyers, and which RQ characteristics would engender greater customer retention or supplier loyalty (e.g., Caceres and Paparoidamis 2007; Fynes etal. 2008; Nyaga and Whipple 2011; Sarmento etal. 2015). Upon consideration of the interorganizational relationship topics discussed in the RQ and SCM research, while their overlap is obvious, it is hardly reflected in scholarly research. Researchers from both domains widely failed to read out of their silos and to adopt the results already published in the other domain for enhancing the own research progress. Therefore, this paper attempts to combine the research perspectives of RQ and SCM on one and the same “basic unit of investigation”—interorganizational RQ in the SC contexts. More specifically, we aim to embed the RQ construct and its consequences that are well established by previous marketing research in a broader theoretical framework taken from SCM research, and thus adopt the results published in the RQ research for enhancing the SCM research progress. For this purpose, we review the published scientific literature on interfirm RQ guided by a framework derived from Leuschner et al.’s (2013) research 627 1 3 Reviewing interfirm relationship quality fromasupply chain… framework of SC integration. Leuschner etal. (2013) synthesized and categorised different factors and constructs used to measure integration between SC partners in three dimensions: information, operational and relational dimension and analysed the relationships between these dimensions and SC performance based on a review of SCM literature. These three dimensions also cover the major factors and constructs used to measure interfirm RQ in the SC context. Consequently, we use Leuschner etal.’s framework to build a categorisation scheme that includes three RQ dimensions—information, operational, and relational dimension—and three types of SC performance outcomes—financial and market, operational, and relational performance—from perspectives of both buyers and suppliers involved in the SC relationships. This categorisation scheme enables a systematic assessment of the RQ papers. Through the literature review, the scope of the three RQ dimensions and the three types of SC performance outcomes reflected in the interfirm RQ papers will be mapped and the ways how scholars linked RQ dimensions to SC performance outcomes will be evaluated and discussed. Based on the literature review, avenues for future researchers to investigate SC relationships will be suggested. Three research questions will be answered: (1) How the information, operational, and relational dimension of RQ have been reflected in the current literature on interfirm RQ in the SC settings? (2) Which SC performances—financial and market, operational, and relational performances have been addressed as the consequence of RQ in the current literature on interfirm RQ in the SC settings? (3) How are the RQ dimensions and the SC performances linked to each other from the RQ scholars’ perspective? So far, there has yet to be a review integrating the RQ and SCM research streams. SCM researchers reviewed papers published in journals within the area of logistics, operations and SCM and ignored the research results published in marketing-related journals (e.g., Terpend etal. 2008; van der Vaart and van Donk 2008; Flynn etal. 2010; Leuschner etal. 2013; Chang etal. 2016). This paper seeks to contribute to the SCM literature by providing insight into (1) the connections of SC performance with buyer–supplier relationships from the RQ scholars’ perspective, (2) the role of different RQ dimensions in affecting firm performance, (3) the similarities and differences of the buyers’ and suppliers’ perspectives on RQ and performance. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: In the next section, the conceptualization of interfirm RQ and its linkages to SCM is elaborated. Then, the categories for a systematic analysis of the RQ papers are deductively derived from a developed conceptual framework based on the SCM theory. Subsequently, the research methodology is explained. Thereafter, the results of the data analysis are presented and discussed. Based on this, the results are discussed and the suggestions for future research are provided. In addition, the limitations of the paper are elaborated. Finally, the paper concludes with the contributions and the main findings of this study. 628 C.Qian et al. 1 3 2 Interfirm relationship quality fromasupply chain management perspective Applying the concept of RQ to interfirm relationships in the SC context, scholars introduced the concept of SCRQ and defined this as an overall measure of the strength of the relationship between two firms involved in an SC (e.g., Fynes etal. 2008; Su etal. 2008). By focusing on different types of interfirm relationships in SCs (e.g., supplier-manufacturer relationships, manufacturer-distributor relationships, service buyer-service provider relationships, and exporter-importer relationships) and different relationship members’ perspectives (i.e., buyers/suppliers’ perspectives), scholars and practitioners have defined and measured RQ in various ways. Despite the variety of conceptualization and operationalization of RQ, scholars are consistent in arguing that interfirm RQ is a second-order and holistic construct composed of several first-order dimensions capturing the different but related facets of a relationship (e.g., Palmatier etal. 2006; Naudé etal. 2007; Nyaga and Whipple 2011; Jiang etal. 2016). The first-order dimensions include trust, commitment, communication, cooperation, collaboration, long-term orientation, coordination, integration (e.g., Su etal. 2008; Čater and Čater 2010; Obadia and Vida 2011; Nyaga etal. 2013; Jiang etal. 2016). These dimensions refer to some major SCM factors discussed in the SC literature. Some SCM scholars have applied trust, commitment and long-term orientation to characterize “the adoption of a strategic connection between firms in the supply chain” (Leuschner etal. 2013, p. 49). They describe the attitude of a firm towards its relationship partner. Trust is generally described “as existing when one party has confidence in an exchange partner’s reliability and integrity” (e.g., Morgan and Hunt 1994, p. 23). It can be defined as “the extent to which relationship partners perceive each other as credible and benevolent” (Nyaga and Whipple 2011, p. 347). Studies have confirmed that interfirm trust is central to SC relationships (e.g., Delbufalo 2012). Commitment is conceptualized as “an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship” (Moorman etal. 1992, p. 316). Scholars characterized a committed relationship by the relationship partner’s intention to maintain long-term relationships, which implies the partner’s willingness to make short-term sacrifices and looking forward to achieving long-term benefits (e.g., Chu and Wang 2012). Associated with commitment, long-term orientation refers to the “expectation of relationship continuity” (Jiang etal. 2016, p. 301) and the “focus on long-term goals in the relationship” (p. 306). Jiang etal. (2016) emphasized the relevance of long-term orientation for achieving mutual benefits and a competitive advantage in SC relationships and noted that “whereas the emphasis on short-term business performance reflects transactional qualities, the building of good RQ is oriented toward the long run” (p. 303). This is in concordance with the SCM theory shaped by Chen and Paulraj (2004), who identified that longterm orientation is a central factor for managing buyer–supplier relationships in SCs. In addition to trust, commitment and long-term orientation, communication has been considered an important dimension for constituting interfirm RQ (e.g., 629 1 3 Reviewing interfirm relationship quality fromasupply chain… Fynes etal. 2008; Su etal. 2008). Scholars have generally defined communication as “the formal as well as informal sharing of meaningful and timely information between firms” (Anderson and Narus 1990, p. 44, see also Nyaga etal. 2013, Sjoerdsma and van Weele 2015, Su etal. 2008). They emphasized that effective exchange of information should take place bi-directionally, frequently, informally, and in a timely manner between SC partners (e.g., Cambra-Fierro and Polo-Redondo 2008; Fynes etal. 2008; Su etal. 2008). Chen and Paulraj (2004) pointed out that communication is one of the key aspects of managing buyer–supplier relationship in SCs. Moreover, Leuschner et al. (2013) have considered information sharing and collaborative communication as the first stage of integration with SC partners. Further, some constructs that describe “the collaborative joint activity development, work processes and coordination decision making among firms in the supply chain” (Leuschner etal. 2013, p. 49) have also been considered the important RQ characteristics. For example, RQ scholars have frequently considered cooperation as one of the important dimensions of RQ (e.g., Čater and Čater 2010; Fynes etal. 2008; Obadia and Vida 2011; Sjoerdsma and van Weele 2015; Su etal. 2008). They described cooperation as “an orientation that reflects a spirit of willingness by one organization to work with another organization” (Payan etal. 2010, p. 549) and “all activities undertaken jointly or in collaboration with others, which is directed towards common interests or achieving rewards” (Su etal. 2008, p. 266). Fynes etal. (2008) considered cooperation in “product design”, “process design”, “forecasting and production planning”, and “quality practices” (p. 66) the important activities for SC partners to work jointly. Some RQ scholars also used the construct collaboration for similar activities. Nyaga etal. (2013) cited a range of firm’s collaborative activities including “joint planning, cost control, quality improvement, developing cross-functional processes, goal setting, performance measurement” (p. 46). Besides, coordination and integration have also been regarded as one of the RQ dimensions (e.g., Kühne etal. 2013; Mysen and Svensson 2010; Sjoerdsma and van Weele 2015). Coordination emphasises the synchronisation of activities and flows (e.g., Barnes etal. 2011). Integration focusses on the degree to which a firm can collaboratively manage tasks and activities across the SC (e.g., Lai etal. 2013). Noticeably, in the SCM literature, collaboration and integration have usually been considered the concepts that are broader than operational level. For example, Kache and Seuring (2014) linked the strategic collaboration and integration to risk and performance in SCs. Van der Vaart and van Donk (2008) considered integration a concept that comprises not only collaborative communication and activities but also firms’ attitude towards SC partners. In contrast, the RQ scholars normally focused on firms’ behaviors when addressing collaboration and integration (e.g., Nyaga etal. 2013). They considered them alongside trust, commitment, communication the firstorder constructs of interfirm RQ (Kühne etal. 2013; Mysen and Svensson 2010). This paper uses the definitions and operationalizations cited in the RQ papers and refers to the joint activities performed by the SC partners when addressing collaboration and integration. Thus, we clustered the constructs cooperation, collaboration, coordination, and integration under an overarching dimension labelled “operational dimension of RQ”. 630 C.Qian et al. 1 3 To sum up, interfirm RQ in an SC refers to a composite measure of the strength of the interfirm relationships between SC partners. The RQ dimensions, i.e., trust, commitment, long-term orientation, communication, cooperation, collaboration, coordination and integration represent the major SCM factors that affect the performance of the collaborating partners and thus their competitive advantage. 3 Analytic category building fromSCM theory For deriving analytic categories to be applied in the analysis of the RQ papers, we introduce the research framework proposed by Leuschner et al. (2013). Derived from this, we developed the conceptual framework (see Fig.1) adopted to guide our systematic assessment. The framework of Leuschner etal. (2013) was selected, because it sheds light on the overlap between RQ constructs and SCM, which was elaborated in Sect.2. Leuschner etal. (2013) synthesized and categorised different factors and constructs used to measure integration between SC partners in three dimensions: information, operational and relational dimensions. Relational dimension refers to “the adoption of a strategic connection between firms in the supply chain characterized by trust, commitment and long-term orientation” (Leuschner et al. 2013, p. 49). Operational dimension refers to “the collaborative joint activity development, work processes and coordination decision making among firms in the supply chain” (p. 49). Information dimension refers to “the coordination of information transfer, collaborative communication and supporting technology among firms in the supply chain” (p. 49). These three dimensions are mutually dependent and affect performance resulting from the individual relationship between the collaborating SC partners. As discussed in Sect.2, the major first-order dimensions of RQ relate to these three dimensions of SCM factors. Fig. 1 Conceptual framework based on Leuschner etal. (2013) for deriving analytic categories 631 1 3 Reviewing interfirm relationship quality fromasupply chain… In addition, Leuschner et al. (2013) categorized different types of performances into three groups of performance outcomes. Financial and market performance is usually measured by, for example, profitability, return on investment, sales, market share or growth in sales and market share. Operational performance comprises a firm’s improvements in key competitive capabilities, including cost, quality, delivery, flexibility and innovation. Relational performance consists of measures related to improvements in partner satisfaction and loyalty or closely related constructs such as relationship retention or enhancement (Leuschner etal. 2013). To distinguish buyers’ and suppliers’ perceptions of relationships and performance, buyers’ and suppliers’ perspectives are separately considered. Based on the developed conceptual framework presented in Fig.1, we list the six main analytic categories and their descriptions for our analysis in Table1. Within each main category, two subcategories that correspond to the supplier’s and the buyer’s perspectives were considered. In other words, we distinguish between buyers’ perceptions of RQ with suppliers and suppliers’ perceptions of RQ with buyers in regard to the information, operational and relational dimension. In respect to SC performance, the buyer and the supplier performance are analysed. According to these categories, we analysed the content of the selected papers on inter-firm RQ. By this means, we mapped the scope of the SCM factors and performance reflected in interfirm RQ studies, and explored their association patterns from the RQ scholars’ perspective. Table 1 Analytic categories and their description Own table based on Leuschner etal. (2013) Main categories and subcategories Description of categories Information dimension IDS: Information dimension of RQ with suppliers IDB: Information dimension of RQ with buyers Refers to the coordination of information transfer, collaborative communication and supporting technology among firms in the SC Operational dimension ODS: Operational dimension of RQ with suppliers ODB: Operational dimension of RQ with buyers Refers to cooperation in joint activities, work processes and coordination decision-making among firms in the SC Relational dimension RDS: Relational dimension of RQ with suppliers RDB: Relational dimension of RQ with buyers Focusses on attitudes and refers to the adoption of a strategic connection between firms in the SC and is characterized by trust, commitment and longterm orientation Financial and market performance FPB: Financial and market performance of buyers FPS: Financial and market performance of suppliers The exhibition of monetary and market performances of a firm in terms of profitability, return on investment, sales, market share, growth in sales and market share, etc. Operational performance OPB: Operational performance of buyers OPS: Operational performance of suppliers Comprises performance in key competitive capabilities, including cost, quality, delivery, flexibility and innovation Relational performance RPB: Relational performance of buyers RPS: Relational performance of suppliers Consists of measures related to an improvement in the buying or selling company’s satisfaction and loyalty or closely related constructs, such as relationship retention or enhancement 632 C.Qian et al. 1 3 4 Research method To analyze the interfirm RQ papers according to the analytic categories predefined (see Table1), a structured literature review (Tranfield etal. 2003) using a content analysis approach is employed. Content analysis “encompasses the analysis of a set of systematically identified literature by means of content analysis and allows a rulegoverned combination of quantitative and qualitative arguments and reproducibility” (Sauer and Seuring 2017, p. 237). Its relevance to supply chain and operations management research has been noted (Seuring and Gold 2012). Following the process model for content analysis (Mayring 2010) as explained by Seuring and Gold (2012), four steps were undertaken in our study: (1) material collection, (2) descriptive analysis, (3) category selection, and (4) material evaluation, which are specified in the following sections. 4.1 Material collection The material collection was based on a systematic search, which was started with the identification of the appropriate search terms. As the aim of this paper is to review the papers on interfirm RQ in the SC context, we applied two classes of search terms: (1) “relationship quality,” (2) “supply chain,” “suppl*,” “inter-firm,” “interfirm,” “inter-organizational,” “interorganizational,” “B2B,” and “business-to-business.” The former class uses the term “relationship quality”, since this is an established construct in the relationship marketing research and represents the major theme of this study. Though this study defined RQ as a second-order construct composed of a wide variety of first-order constructs such as “trust”, “commitment”, “long-term orientation”, “cooperation”, “collaboration”, “coordination”, “integration”, and “communication”, we did not use these constructs as the search terms, in order to have a clear focus on the main theme of the research—RQ. Using all of the first-order constructs as search terms would result in an ambiguous research scope. The latter class encompasses several phrases, to take into account both the inter-firm setting and the SC context for covering all of the related articles on interfirm RQ in the SC context. The search was conducted by using the “title, abstract, keywords” search for all combinations between these two classes of search terms. The databases selected for the systematic search were Web of Science (WOS) (www.webof knowl edge.com), Elsevier (www.scien cedir ect.com), and Emerald (www.emera ldins ight.com). WOS was selected, as it is regarded as having “probably widest range of high-quality scientific journals of all databases” (Sauer and Seuring 2017, p. 238). Its advantage has been stated in comparison with Scopus and Google Scholar, as it “performed the best with total coverage of the journal sample population and also retrieved the most unique items” (Adriaanse and Rensleigh 2013, p. 727). Elsevier and Emerald were 639 1 3 Reviewing interfirm relationship quality fromasupply chain… information exchange. Some studies have also empirically confirmed the positive relationship between information and relational dimension of RQ. For example, Chu and Wang (2012) and Sarmento etal. (2015) considered information exchange and sharing to be an antecedent of trust and commitment. Regarding the association between RQ dimensions and performance, buyers’ perception of relational dimension of RQ with suppliers (RDS) frequently occurs alongside buyers’ relational performance (RPB) (φ = 0.554). Reviewing the related papers, we can confirm that the RQ scholars often linked relational performance of a buying firm (for example, its loyalty or satisfaction) with the degree of trust, commitment or long-term orientation that this firm perceived from its supplier (e.g., Čater and Čater 2010; Hutchinson etal. 2011; Leonidou etal. 2013; Rauyruen and Miller 2007; Sarmento etal. 2015; Ulaga and Eggert 2006; Wu etal. 2015). No other significant frequent co-occurrence of RQ dimension and performance was found in the sample of the papers from the buyers’ view. This reveals that the other associations between RQ dimensions and performance have been discussed relatively less frequently; however, we can still find the papers that discuss these issues. Some studies have analysed and confirmed the positive impact of buyers’ perception of relational dimension of RQ with suppliers on buyers’ operational performance measured by quality and delivery performance (e.g., Nyaga and Whipple 2011), innovation performance (e.g., Chang etal. 2012b; Fang etal. 2011), and cost (e.g., Han and Sung 2008). Furthermore, some scholars have analysed and confirmed that buyers’ financial and market performance is positively correlated to their perception of RQ with suppliers, which is composed of relational and/or operational dimension (e.g., Barnes etal. 2015; Chu and Wang 2012; Han and Sung 2008; Lai etal. 2013; Song etal. 2012). However, some scholars have also pointed to counterexamples. Alejandro etal. (2011) found that neither RQ with supplying firms nor RQ with account managers in the supplying firms affect buyers’ financial performance significantly. Barnes etal.’s study (2011) demonstrates that a cooperative relationship with suppliers does not directly affect but indirectly affects buyers’ financial performance through buyers’ satisfaction with suppliers. In addition, Chang etal. (2012b) found that trust, commitment and information exchange does not affect buyers’ financial performance directly. Few scholars discussed the direct impact of information or operational dimension of RQ on buyers’ performance. For example, Chang etal. (2012b) found that higher degree of information exchange leads to higher innovation. Remarkably, some scholars linked information exchange or sharing to performance mediated by relational dimension of RQ measured by trust and commitment (e.g., Chu and Wang 2012; Sarmento etal. 2015). In addition, a great deal of the papers analysed RQ and performance using a second-order model. This means that these papers examined the aggregate effect of interfirm RQ as composed of several RQ dimensions. For example, Fynes etal. (2008) confirmed the positive relationship between RQ (measured by trust, communication, cooperation and adaptation) and buyers’ operational performance. Leonidou etal. (2013), Su et al. (2008), and Mysen and Svensson (2010) found that RQ (measured by relational, operational and information dimensions) has a positive impact on buyers’ relational performance. Barnes etal. (2015) 640 C.Qian et al. 1 3 observed that RQ (measured by commitment and cooperation) positively affects buyers’ financial performance. In such cases, the effect of an individual RQ dimension on performance is vague. Finally, a significant frequent co-occurrence exists between a buyer’s financial and market performance (FPB) and its operational performance (OPB) as a result of buyers’ perceptions of RQ with suppliers (φ = 0.462). We found that the RQ scholars often combined these two types performance when measuring performance outcomes of RQ (e.g., Fang etal. 2011; Richey Jr etal. 2010). 6 Discussion 6.1 Discussion oftheresults This paper analyses the interfirm RQ studies published in a wide range of and particularly in marketing-related journals, based on a categorisation scheme derived from a theoretical framework taken from SCM research, and therefore it embeds the RQ constructs and its consequences in a broader SCM framework. It contributes to the SCM research by (1) revealing the role of various dimensions of buyer–supplier RQ in affecting SC performance from the RQ scholars’ perspective, (2) discussing the differences between the studies using the buyers’ and suppliers’ perspective. The RQ scholars paid great attention to relational dimension, which focuses on firms’ attitude towards relationship partners and characterizes the strategic connection between firms in SCs. This seems to be in accordance with the finding by van der Vaart and van Donk (2008), who found that attitudes dominated in the items used to measure the integration between SC partners. While relationships formed between SC partners are critical factors for firms to improve performance and develop a sustainable competitive advantage, the establishment of trustful, committed and long-term oriented relationships with the relationship partners play the central role for firms in managing their SC relationships. The RQ studies have generally confirmed that a SC party’s perception of relational dimension of RQ with its SC partner positively affects its relational performance, such as intentions of relationship continuity. This finding supports the study by Leuschner etal. (2013), who found that the relational dimension has most frequently been considered the driver of customer-oriented performance, such as customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. Our study adds to this by reinforcing the importance of relational dimension of RQ for facilitating both buyers’ and suppliers’ loyalty and intentions to maintain the relationships. In addition, the RQ studies have provided evidence that a SC party’ operational performance such as quality, delivery, cost, and innovation is connected to its perception of relational dimension of RQ with its SC partners. This result strengthens the significance of relational dimension, namely the strategic connection between SC partners for firms’ operational performance improvement. Furthermore, our study shows that the RQ scholars tended to emphasize the indirect impact of information dimension of RQ on performance, through relational dimension in particular. For instance, information exchange and sharing has been 641 1 3 Reviewing interfirm relationship quality fromasupply chain… connected to firms’ relational or financial performance mediated by trust and commitment (e.g., Chu and Wang 2012; Sarmento etal. 2015; Wu etal. 2012). This may support the notion of Leuschner etal. (2013), who considered information integration the first stage of integration between SC partners. The RQ studies provides strong supporting evidence that high-quality communication is the antecedent of the adoption of a strategic connection between firms. Besides, the results of the RQ studies on the impact of operational dimension of RQ on performance are inconsistent. Especially, the significant and positive effect of operational dimension on firms’ financial performance is controversial. This can be attributed to the behavioural nature of operational dimension. For example, cooperation in joint activities such as product and process development, planning and quality management are normally based on firms’ investment in personal, equipment, and supporting systems. If the benefits from the cooperative activities cannot compensate for the cost of investment, cooperation can even negatively affect the financial performance (e.g., Barnes etal. 2011). The fact that the operational dimension can have varying results is in line with the finding of Leuschner etal. (2013). Finally, our research also reveals the difference between the RQ studies using the buyers view and the suppliers view. We found that the RQ scholars have generally confirmed the positive impact of suppliers’ perception of relational dimension of RQ with buyers on the level of all three types of suppliers’ performance (relational, operational, and financial performance); however, the relationship between relational dimension of RQ and financial performance is controversial from the buyers’ perspective. This seems to be in line with Van der Vaart and van Donk’s (2008) notion. They believed that there is more face validity for a relationship between improved performance and integration with buyers than integration with suppliers. They argued that “it seems rather optimistic to try to establish relationship between the attitude of a firm towards its suppliers and its financial performance” (p. 50). A reason for this difference might be that financial and market performance is taken as an indicator for potential revenue and profit generation (Lahiri and Kedia 2011). Thus, a good financial and market performance is more likely to be the direct outcome of making business with trustworthy customers via suppliers’ efforts to develop a high-committed and long-term oriented customer relationship. Based on this finding, we argued that buyers’ and suppliers’ perspective on the relational drivers of their financial performance may be different. 6.2 Suggestions forfuture research Based on the results of the study and the discussion above, some suggestions for future researchers are provided. As far as the present state of RQ studies is concerned, research that untangles the relationships between different dimensions of RQ is lacking. The majority of the studies used a second-order model to measure interfirm RQ (e.g., Fynes etal. 2008; Nyaga and Whipple 2011). In these studies, the relationships between the individual RQ dimensions remain unclear. Moreover, as a second-order model investigates the aggregate effect of RQ, the relationships between the individual dimensions and performance seem vague. Consequently, 642 C.Qian et al. 1 3 more research is needed to clarify the relationships between the individual underlying relationship dimensions and their specific effect on SC performance. Providing an insight into these issues would help managers improve their understandings of how SC relationships work and how to enhance performance and thus achieve a competitive advantage by effectively using these relationships. As Palmatier etal. (2006) pointed out, promoting understanding of the key relational drivers of firms’ performance can enhance returns on firms’ relationship investment dramatically. Furthermore, we noticed that the buyers’ and suppliers’ perspectives on the relational drivers of their performance may be different. Consequently, an area of interest for future study would be collecting and comparing data from buyers and suppliers, aiming at providing multiple-channel perspectives of SC relationships and clarifying their similarities and differences. This is particularly important for examining whether the buyer and supplier involved in a relationship could achieve mutual benefit through developing and maintaining a good relationship. In addition, to examine the buyer–supplier relationship embedded in the SC, combining the dyadic view and SC perspective is suggested. While interfirm RQ studies primarily focus on dyadic buyer–supplier relationships and adopt perspectives of suppliers and/or buyers to investigate dyadic relationships, SCM studies have strived to take more entities into account to extend beyond the dyad. By combining the dyadic and SC approaches, an SC-focussed investigation of dyadic relationships embedded in the chain would be useful. It would be particularly interesting to illustrate how buyer–supplier relationships embedded in the chain and the buyer–supplier relationship management decisions affect the SC as a whole and in turn affected by it (Foerstl etal. 2017). A good example was provided by Kühne etal. (2013). They examined the influence of the chain RQ on the SC innovation capacity by collecting data from direct vertical chains composed of a triplet of firms, including a manufacturer, a supplier and a customer, and by analysing two dyadic buyer–supplier relationships (supplier-manufacturer relationships and manufacturercustomer relationships) embedded in the chain. 6.3 Limitations The following aspects should be considered limitations of this paper. First, this paper adopted a contingency analysis aimed at examining how researchers tended to link the constructs instead of ‘[confirming] relationships between predetermined constructs or [quantifying] effect sizes between these constructs’ (Terpend et al. 2008, p. 29). It is less sensitive at detecting a positivism bias than a meta-analysis (Sobh and Perry 2006). Nevertheless, a meta-analysis, which can quantify effect sizes between constructs, would be of interest for future researchers. Second, we reviewed a sample of papers on interfirm RQ guided by a categorisation scheme derived from Leuschner etal.’s (2013) research framework, as the three dimensions considered in their framework cover the major RQ constructs such as trust, commitment, long-term orientation, communication, and cooperative activities. However, Leuschner etal. (2013) focuses on SC integration and performance, which is one of the relevant SCM topics. Connections of RQ to other SCM issues, 643 1 3 Reviewing interfirm relationship quality fromasupply chain… for instance, supplier development, risk management, in which buyer–supplier-relationships play considerable roles, can be explored. Third, the most challenging issue in content analysis is reliably coding during the material evaluation step, which would ideally be ensured by joint coding by several researchers (Seuring and Gold 2012). This was done for a subset of the sample (42 papers), which was separately coded by two coders. To minimise potential bias, after joint coding in the first phase, all cases for which different judgments were made were discussed and resolved. Based on this, a sound coding routine was established and used to analyse the remaining papers in the sample by the single researcher; nevertheless, this is regarded as a limitation of this study. 7 Conclusion In summary, with the overlaps of the interfirm RQ and SCM research in mind, this paper analysed interfirm RQ papers based on analytic categories derived from an SCM framework. It contributes to the existing SCM literature by providing novel insights into the connections of SC performance with the quality of buyer–supplier relationships from the RQ scholars’ perspective. Our study shows that firms’ perceptions of a strategic connection with SC partners characterised by trust, commitment and long-term orientation generally has a positive impact on firm’s relationship retention and loyalty as well as operational performance such as quality, delivery, and innovation. Information transfer and communication can facilitate the strategic connection between firms in SCs, which further lead to firm performance. However, the impact of operational dimension of RQ on firms’ performance varies. In addition, the buyers’ and suppliers’ perspectives on the relational drivers of their financial performance may be different. This suggests future researchers to analyse SC relationships and performance matching the buyers’ and suppliers’ perspectives. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creat iveco mmons .org/licen ses/by/4.0/. 644 C.Qian et al. 1 3 Appendix Referenced papers for each categories (n = 100) Categories and subcategories Reference number of assigned paper No. of papers analysed in contingency analysis (n = 65) Information dimension IDS IDB See individual subcategories 2, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 29, 35*, 36*, 37, 38, 48, 49, 59, 60*, 61, 68, 73, 74, 79, 82, 89, 90, 96 2, 11*, 12*, 24, 28*, 46*, 60*, 61, 73, 96 23 5 Operational dimension ODS ODB See individual subcategories 3*, 4, 5, 11*, 13, 41, 48, 49, 57, 60*, 61, 69*, 76, 79, 81, 82, 83*, 84, 90, 100* 3*, 12*, 20, 24, 39, 41, 46*, 60*, 61, 63*, 64, 100* 14 6 Relational dimension RDS RDB See individual subcategories 1, 2, 3*, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18*, 21, 22, 25, 29, 30*, 32, 33, 34, 35*, 36*, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 48, 49, 51*, 57, 58*, 59, 60*, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67*, 69*, 72, 73, 74, 75*, 76, 77*, 78*, 79, 80*, 82, 83*, 84, 85*, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92*, 93, 95, 96, 97*, 98 2, 3*, 7, 8, 11*, 12*, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27*, 28*, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46*, 47, 51*, 52, 54, 60*, 61, 62, 63*, 64, 71*, 73, 87, 95, 96, 97*, 99, 100* 48 23 Financial and market performance FPB FPS See individual subcategories 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 15, 16, 25, 29, 33, 44, 59, 62, 66, 76, 81, 84, 86 2, 20, 23, 26, 39, 47, 55*, 62, 64, 87, 99 18 10 Operational performance OPB OPS See individual subcategories 2, 9, 15, 22, 25, 29, 41, 49, 59, 61, 62, 76, 79, 84, 98 2, 22, 23, 24, 26, 39, 41, 47, 61, 62 16 10 Relational performance RPB RPS See individual subcategories 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19*, 21, 22, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44, 48, 49, 57, 59, 65, 66, 68, 72, 73, 74, 79, 82, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 98 2, 7, 8, 22, 23, 26, 43, 45, 52, 54, 96 40 11 *The papers that were not considered in the contingency analysis, because they do not meet the requirement that the paper addresses at least one of the three dimensions of RQ (information, operational, and relational dimension) along with at least one of the three types of performance outcomes (operational, relational, and financial and market performance) 645 1 3 Reviewing interfirm relationship quality fromasupply chain… References The 100 papers contained in the review sample are numbered in squared brackets Adriaanse L, Rensleigh C (2013) Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar: a content comprehensiveness comparison. Electron Libr 31(6):727–744 [1] Alejandro TB, Souza DV, Boles JS, Ribeiro ÁHP, Monteiro PRR (2011) The outcome of company and account manager relationship quality on loyalty, relationship value and performance. Ind Mark Manage 40(1):36–43 [2] Aminoff A, Tanskanen K (2013) Exploration of congruence in perceptions of buyer–supplier attraction. A dyadic multiple case study. J Purch Supply Manage 19(3):165–184 Anderson JC, Narus JA (1990) A model of distribution firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. J Market 54(1):42–58 [3] Ashnai B, Yu Q, Barnes BR, Naudé P (2009) Assessing relationship quality in four business-to-business markets. Mark Intell Plan 27(1):86–102 Athanasopoulou P (2009) Relationship quality. A critical literature review and research agenda. Eur J Mark 43(5/6):583–610 [4] Barnes BR, Leonidou LC, Siu NYM, Leonidou CN (2015) Interpersonal factors as drivers of quality and performance in Western-Hong Kong interorganizational business relationships. J Int Mark 23(1):23–49 [5] Barnes BR, Yen D, Zhou L (2011) Investigating guanxi dimensions and relationship outcomes: insights from Sino-Anglo business relationships. Ind Mark Manage 40(4):510–521 [6] Barry JM, Dion P, Johnson W (2008) A cross-cultural examination of relationship strength in B2B services. J Serv Mark 22(2):114–135 [7] Baxter R (2012) How can business buyers attract sellers’ resources? Empirical evidence for preferred customer treatment from suppliers. Ind Mark Manage 41(8):1249–1558 [8] Baxter R, Kleinaltenkamp M (2015) How relationship conditions affect suppliers’ resource inputs. Aust Mark J 23(2):117–123 [9] Beitelspacher LS, Tokman M, Adams FG, Richey RG Jr (2012) Retail service-based operant resources and market performance. Int J Logist Manage 23(3):408–434 [10] Caceres RC, Paparoidamis NG (2007) Service quality, relationship satisfaction, trust, commitment and business-to-business loyalty. Eur J Mark 41(7/8):836–867 [11] Cambra-Fierro JJ, Polo-Redondo Y (2011) Post-satisfaction factors affecting the long-term orientation of supply relationships. J Bus Ind Mark 26(6):395–406 [12] Cambra-Fierro JJ, Polo-Redondo Y (2008) Creating satisfactioin in the demand–supply chain: the buyers’ perspective. Supply Chain Manage Int J 13(3):211–224 [13] Čater T, Čater B (2010) Product and relationship quality influence on customer commitment and loyalty in B2B manufacturing relationships. Ind Mark Manage 39(8):1321–1333 Chang W, Ellinger AE, Kim K, Franke GR (2016) Supply chain integration and firm financial performance: a meta-analysis of positional advantage mediation and moderating factors. Eur Manag J 34(3):282–295 [14] Chang HH, Lee C-H, Lai C-Y (2012a) E-Service quality and relationship quality on dealer satisfaction. Channel power as a moderator. Total Qual Manage Bus Excell 23(7/8):855–873 [15] Chang M-L, Cheng C-F, Wu W-Y (2012b) How buyer-seller relationship quality influences adaptation and innovation by foreign MNC’s subsidiaries. Ind Mark Manage 41(7):1047–1057 Chen IJ, Paulraj A (2004) Towards a theory of supply chain management. The constructs and measurements. J Oper Manage 22(2):119–150 Chen Y-S, Su H-C, Ro YK (2016) Can I read your mind? Perception gaps in supply chain relationships. J Purch Supply Manage 22(4):311–324 [16] Chu Z, Wang Q (2012) Drivers of relationship quality in logistics outsourcing in China. J Supply Chain Manage 48(3):78–96 [17] Chung J-E (2014) Does small retailer market orientation matter for long-term oriented relationships with suppliers? J Small Bus Manage 52(4):790–807 646 C.Qian et al. 1 3 Davies IA, Crane A (2003) Ethical decision making in fair trade companies. J Bus Ethics 45(1/2):79–92 Delbufalo E (2012) Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships: a systematic literature review and a meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Supply Chain Manage Int J 17(4):377–402 [18] Dong MC, Tse DK, Cavusgil ST (2008) Efficiency of governance mechanisms in China’s distribution channels. Int Bus Rev 17(5):509–519 [19] Dorai S, Varshney S (2012) A multistage behavioural and temporal analysis of CPV in RM. J Bus Ind Mark 27(5):403–411 [20] Duffy RS (2008) Towards a better understanding of partnership attributes: an exploratory analysis of relationship type classification. Ind Mark Manage 37(2):228–244 Dyer JH, Singh H (1998) The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad Manage Rev 23(4):660–679 [21] Eggert A, Ulaga W (2010) Managing customer share in key supplier relationships. Ind Mark Manage 39(8):1346–1355 [22] Fang S-R, Chang Y-S, Peng Y-C (2011) Dark side of relationships. A tensions-based view. Ind Mark Manage 40(4/5):774–784 Flynn BB, Huo B, Zhao X (2010) The impact of supply chain integration on performance: a contingency and configuration approach. J Oper Manage 28(1):58–71 Foerstl K, Schleper MC, Henke M (2017) Purchasing and supply management: from efficiency to effectiveness in an integrated supply chain. J Purch Supply Manage 23(4):223–228 [23] Fu S, Lin J, Sun L (2013) An empirical examination of the stability of the alliance of a company + farmers. From the perspective of farmers. Chin Manage Stud 7(3):382–402 [24] Fynes B, De Búrca S, Mangan J (2008) The effect of relationship characteristics on relationship quality and performance. Int J Prod Econ 111(1):56–69 Gold S, Seuring S, Beske P (2010) The constructs of sustainable supply chain management—a content analysis based on published case studies. Prog Ind Ecol Int J 7(2):114–137 [25] Richey RG Jr, Tokman M, Dalela V (2010) Examining collaboration supply chain service technologies: a study of intensity, relationships, and resources. J Acad Mark Sci 38(1):71–89 [26] Gounaris S, Tzempelikos N (2014) Relational key account management: building key account management effectiveness through structural reformations and relationship management skills. Ind Mark Manage 43(7):1110–1123 [27] Gyau A, Spiller A (2009) Comparison of relationship perception in the international fresh produce business. J Enterp Inf Manage 22(4):441–455 [28] Gyau A, Spiller A, Wocken C (2011) Price or relational behaviours? Br Food J 113(7):838–852 Hair JF Jr, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2013) Multivariate data analysis. Pearson, Upper Saddle River Håkansson H, Ford D (2002) How should companies interact in business networks? J Bus Res 55(2):133–139 [29] Han S-L, Sung H-S (2008) Industrial brand value and relationship performance in business markets—a general structural equation model. Ind Mark Manage 37(7):807–818 [30] Han S-L, Sung H-S, Shim H-S (2014) Antecedents and performance outcomes of flexibility in industrial customer–supplier relationships. J Bus Res 67(10):2115–2122 Hochrein S, Glock CH, Bogaschewsky R, Heider M (2015) Literature reviews in supply chain management: a tertiary study. Manage Rev Q 65:239–280 [31] Holmlund M (2008) A definition, model, and empirical analysis of business-to-business relationship quality. Int J Serv Ind Manage 19(1):32–62 [32] Hsu L-C, Wang K-Y, Chih W-H (2013) Effects of web site characteristics on customer loyalty in B2B e-commerce. Evidence from Taiwan. Serv Ind J 33(11):1026–1050 [33] Huntley JK (2006) Conceptualization and measurement of relationship quality: linking relationship quality to actual sales and recommendation intention. Ind Mark Manage 35(6):703–714 [34] Hutchinson D, Wellington WJ, Saad M, Cox P (2011) Refining value-based differentiation in business relationships: a study of the higher order relationship building blocks that influence behavioural intentions. Ind Mark Manage 40(3):465–478 [35] Ivens BS, Pardo C (2007) Are key account relationships different? Empirical results on supplier strategies and customer reactions. Ind Mark Manage 36(4):470–482 [36] Jiang Z, Henneberg SC, Naudé P (2011) Supplier relationship management in the construction industry. The effects of trust and dependence. J Bus Ind Mark 27(1):3–15 647 1 3 Reviewing interfirm relationship quality fromasupply chain… Jiang Z, Shiu E, Henneberg S, Naudé P (2016) Relationship quality in business to business relationships—reviewing the current literatures and proposing a new measurement model. Psychol Mark 33(4):297–313 [37] Johnston WJ, Khalil S, Jain M, Cheng JM-S (2012) Determinants of joint action in international channels of distribution: the moderating role of psychic distance. J Int Mark 20(3):34–49 [38] Jung Choo H, Jung J-W, Hee Chung I (2009) Buyer–supplier relationships in Dongdaemun fashion market: relationship quality model. J Fash Mark Manage Int J 13(4):481–500 Kache F, Seuring S (2014) Linking collaboration and integration to risk and performance in supply chains via a review of literature reviews. Supply Chain Manage Int J 19(5/6):664–682 [39] Kim D, Basu C, Naidu GM, Cavusgil E (2011) The innovativeness of Born-Globals and customer orientation: learning from Indian Born-Globals. J Bus Res 64(8):879–886 [40] Kim H (2014) The role of WOM and dynamic capability in B2B transactions. J Res Interact Mark 8(2):84–101 [41] Kühne B, Gellynck X, Weaver RD (2013) The influence of relationship quality on the innovation capacity in traditional food chains. Supply Chain Manage Int J 18(1):52–65 [42] Lahiri S, Kedia BL (2011) Determining quality of business-to-business relationships: a study of Indian IT-enabled service providers. Eur Manag J 29(1):11–24 [43] Lai C-S, Pai D-C, Yang C-F, Lin H-J (2009) The effects of market orientation on relationship learning and relationship performance in industrial marketing: the dyadic perspectives. Ind Mark Manage 38(2):166–172 [44] Lai F, Chu Z, Wang Q, Fan C (2013) Managing dependence in logistics outsourcing relationships. Evidence from China. Int J Prod Res 51(10):3037–3054 [45] Lai K, Bao Y, Li X (2008) Channel relationship and business uncertainty: evidence from the Hong Kong market. Ind Mark Manage 37(6):713–724 [46] Leat P, Revoredo-Giha C (2008) Building collaborative agri-food supply chains. The challenge of relationship development in the Scottish red meat chain. Br Food J 110(4/5):395–411 [47] Lee E, Han S, Nam HU, Rho JJ (2013) Building capabilities via suppliers’ effective management of relationships. Ind Mark Manage 42(5):805–813 [48] Leonidou CN, Leonidou LC, Coudounaris DN, Hultman M (2013) Value differences as determinants of importers’ perceptions of exporters’ unethical behavior. The impact on relationship quality and performance. Int Bus Rev 22(1):156–173 [49] Leonidou LC, Palihawadana D, Chari S, Leonidou CN (2011) Drivers and outcomes of importer adaptation in international buyer–seller relationships. J World Bus 46(4):527–543 Leuschner R, Rogers DS, Charvet FF (2013) A meta-analysis of supply chain integration and firm performance. J Supply Chain Manage 49(2):34–57 [50] Ling FY, Ning Y, Ke Y, Kumaraswamy MM (2013) Modeling relational transaction and relationship quality among team members in public projects in Hong Kong. Autom Constr 36:16–24 [51] Liu Y, Li Y, Zhang L (2010a) Control mechanisms across a buyer–supplier relationship quality matrix. J Bus Res 63(1):3–12 [52] Liu Y, Su C, Li Y, Liu T (2010b) Managing opportunism in a developing interfirm relationship. The interrelationship of calculative and loyalty commitment. Ind Mark Manage 39(5):844–852 [53] Lo SM (2015) Impact of greening attitude and buyer power on supplier environmental management strategy. Int J Environ Sci Technol 12(10):3145–3160 [54] Lu H, Trienekens JH, Omta S, Feng S (2008) The value of guanxi for small vegetable farmers in China. Br Food J 110(4/5):412–429 Mayring P (2010) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Eleventh ed. Grundlagen und Techniken Weinheim Beltz Mentzer JT, DeWitt W, Keebler JS, Min S, Nix NW, Smith CD, Zacharia ZG (2001) Defining supply chain management. J Bus Logist 22(2):1–25 [55] Mitręga M (2012) Network partner knowledge and internal relationships influencing customer relationship quality and company performance. J Bus Ind Mark 27(6):486–496 Moorman C, Zaltman G, Deshpande R (1992) Relationships between providers and users of market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations. J Mark Res 29(3):314–328 Morgan RM, Hunt SD (1994) The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. J Mark 58(3):20–38 [56] Myhal GC, Kang J, Murphy JA (2008) Retaining customers through relationship quality. A services business marketing case. J Serv Mark 22(6):445–453 [57] Mysen T, Svensson G (2010) RELQUAL’s impact on satisfaction in Norwegian business relationships. J Bus Ind Mark 25(2):119–131 648 C.Qian et al. 1 3 [58] Mysen T, Svensson G, Payan JM (2011) The key role of opportunism in business relationships. Mark Intell Plan 29(4):436–449 [59] Nadi MA, Ghahremani N (2011) Brand value and relationship performance in business markets: a cross cultural glance of business services. Afr J Bus Manage 5(22):9322–9333 [60] Naudė P, Ashnai B, Chaharsooghi K, Perzon H (2007) An analysis of B2B relationship quality among Iranian managers: a comparison between Iranian and English managers. Total Qual Manag 18(8):861–874 [61] Nyaga GN, Lynch DF, Marshall D, Ambrose E (2013) Power asymmetry, adaptation and collaboration in dyadic relationships involving a powerful partner. J Supply Chain Manage 49(3):42–65 [62] Nyaga GN, Whipple JM (2011) Relationship quality and performance outcomes. Achieving a sustainable competitive advantage. J Bus Logist 32(4):345–360 [63] Obadia C, Bello DC, Gilliland DI (2015) Effect of exporter’s incentives on foreign distributor’s role performance. J Int Bus Stud 46(8):960–983 [64] Obadia C, Vida I (2011) Cross-border relationships and performance: revisiting a complex linkage. J Bus Res 64(5):467–475 [65] Palaima T, Auruškevičienė V (2007) Modeling relationship quality in the parcel delivery services market. Baltic J Manage 2(1):37–54 [66] Palmatier RW (2008) Interfirm relational drivers of customer value. J Mark 72(4):76–89 [67] Park J-G, Lee S, Lee J (2014) Communication effectiveness on IT service relationship quality. Ind Manag Data Syst 114(2):321–336 [68] Williams P, Ashill NJ, Naumann E, Jackson E (2015) Relationship quality and satisfaction. Customer-perceived success factors for on-time projects. Int J Project Manage 33(8):1836–1850 Palmatier RW, Dant RP, Grewal D, Evans KR (2006) Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing. A meta-analysis. J Mark 70(4):136–153 [69] Payan JM, Svensson G, Awuah G, Andersson S, Hair J (2010) A “cross-cultural RELQUAL-scale” in supplier-distributor relationships of Sweden and the USA. Int Mark Rev 27(5):541–561 [70] Pfajfar G, Mitrega M (2014) Leveraging business partnerships with internal relationships—moderating effects of special investments in social ties under pressure of recession. Tansformations in Bus Econ 13(3 (33)):79–95 Qian C, Seuring S, Wagner R (2020) A review of interfirm relationship quality in supply chains. J Bus Ind Mark. https ://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-05-2019-0199 [71] Rajagopal R, Rajagopal A (2009) Buyer–supplier relationship and operational dynamics. J Oper Res Soc 60(3):313–320 [72] Rauyruen P, Miller KE (2007) Relationship quality as a predictor of B2B customer loyalty. J Bus Res 60(1):21–31 Ricciotti F (2019) From value chain to value network: a systematic literature review. Manage Rev Q 70:191–210 [73] Richard JE, Thirkell PC, Huff SL (2007) An examination of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) technology adoption and its impact on business-to-business customer relationships. Total Qual Manage Bus Excell 18(8):927–945 [74] Sarmento M, Simões C, Farhangmehr M (2015) Applying a relationship marketing perspective to B2B trade fairs. The role of socialization episodes. Ind Mark Manage 44:131–141 Sauer PC, Seuring S (2017) Sustainable supply chain management for minerals. J Clean Prod 151:235–249 [75] Segarra-Moliner J-R, Moliner-Tena M-A, Sánchez-Garcia J (2013) Relationship quality in business to business: a cross-cultural perspective from universities. Mark Intell Plan 31(3):196–215 Seuring S, Gold S (2012) Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in supply chain management. Supply Chain Manage Int J 17(5):544–555 Shapiro G, Markoff G (1997) Methods for drawing statistical inferences form text and transcript. In: Roberts CW (ed) Text Analysis for the social sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 9–31 [76] Sheu J-B (2015) Power shifts and relationship quality improvement of producer-retailer green channel dyads under government intervention. Ind Mark Manage 50:97–116 [77] Sheu J-B (2014) Green supply chain collaboration for fashionable consumer electronics products under third-party power intervention—a resource dependence perspective. Sustainability 6(5):2832–2875 [78] Shi X, Liao Z (2013) Managing supply chain relationships in the hospitality services. An empirical study of hotels and restaurants. Int J Hosp Manage 35:112–121