Abstract
Purpose: This study tests a research model that reflects the nomological relationship between satisfaction as a two-dimensional construct and continuity, coordination, and cooperation in business-to-business (B2B) sales relationships.
Design/methodology/approach: The study sample comprised small- and medium-sized companies across industries in Spain. In total, 237 satisfactorily completed questionnaires were obtained for data analysis. Structural equation modelling was applied to secure the development of the study’s results.
Findings/results: The results revealed that sales managers should reach agreements with their partners to put in place appropriate coordination mechanisms that contribute to improving efficiency and achieving expected long-term goals.
Practical implications: The study guides B2B sales managers on how to establish good interpersonal relationships with partners, foster an atmosphere in which favourable impressions are generated between the parties, treat each other with respect and promote open sharing of information that avoids distrust and fear of the appearance of opportunistic behaviour.
Originality/value: This study provides an extended foundation of the structural properties with intermediary constructs between economic satisfaction and non-economic satisfaction based on a seller’s perspective. This is significant, seeing that most extant studies have explored the constructs proposed from a buyer’s perspective.
Keywords: economic satisfaction; non-economic satisfaction; continuity; coordination; cooperation; seller; B2B.
Introduction
The building of long-term relationships between sales consultants and business customers is important for securing the future growth and survival of business-to-business (B2B) sellers (Rusthollkarhu et al., 2021). A key element in securing future business growth in the B2B environment is satisfaction. Satisfaction has also been extensively validated as a managing principle of business success required to secure future business survival (Ruiz-Martínez et al., 2019). As a result, satisfied business customers are more inclined to purchase from the same B2B seller again, illustrate greater loyalty intentions, and are more successfully retained as customers in the long term. An extensive review of literature on B2B relationships illustrates that without the presence of customer satisfaction, the ability to establish and maintain long-term relationships with business customers becomes difficult (Ruiz-Martínez et al., 2019).
In relationship marketing literature, Geyskens and Steenkamp (2000) validated the two-dimensional nature of satisfaction in B2B relationships as being economic or non-economic. These authors argued that satisfaction cannot be seen as a unidimensional construct in channel relationships. Geyskens and Steenkamp (2000) and Sales-Vivó et al. (2021a) argue that each type of satisfaction is unique, as they have different relationships with multiple constructs, and an understanding of their differences is important to successfully manage business customer relationships in the long term. Geyskens and Steenkamp (2000) referred to economic satisfaction as a business partner’s review of the economic benefits accrued from a relationship with another business. Benefits include the total number of sales made, the overall profitability secured and the discounts obtained through the relationship satisfaction. Therefore, economic satisfaction is based on business partners’ behaviour and goal achievement (Mpinganjira et al., 2017). Contrastingly, non-economic satisfaction is founded on the non-economic principles of business relationships, such as joy and happiness, experienced by partners in a B2B relationship. Such experiences are founded on business partners’ engagement perceptions. Consequently, non-economic satisfaction encompasses a positive reaction to psychosomatic elements of relationship building (Geyskens & Steenkamp, 2000; Varela et al., 2019).
As a result of the competitive nature of B2B relationships, an understanding of B2B sellers’ relationship expectations becomes increasingly important. Business-to-business sellers are critical to the B2B partnership process and their satisfaction is crucial to secure the continuation of a B2B partnership in the future (Rodríguez et al., 2022). Considering that the satisfaction of both the sellers and the buyers becomes progressively important to secure a future relational intent, it is understandable why satisfaction measures are used by business partners to determine the future viability of relationships. Enhanced levels of trust are established when continuous economic satisfaction is secured, thus driving the willingness to continue with a relationship in the future (Ferro-Soto et al., 2023). Varela et al. (2019) validated the relationship between economic and non-economic satisfaction in a B2B context, confirming that B2B partners’ economic satisfaction will stimulate their dedication to the relationship. Accordingly, an understanding of the perspectives of the buyer and the seller in the future continuation of the seller–business customer relationship becomes imperative in the competitive B2B market. However, ensuring satisfaction in the B2B relationship alone is insufficient to secure the continuation of a relationship between a seller and a business customer.
Business-to-business partners have to secure a relationship that is increasingly based on cooperation (Kumar & Ganguly, 2021). As a result, it becomes important for buyers to better understand sellers’ cooperative needs and expectations, thereby developing knowledge on the requirements to establish value-driven relationships with sellers. Through such an approach, grounds can be developed to build future long-term relationships between partners, such as sellers and buyers (Gimeno-Arias et al., 2023). The interactive nature between satisfaction, cooperation, coordination and continuity becomes apparent when an understanding is developed of the need for a relationship between sellers and business customers. Such a relationship can, for example, lower costs for business partners, enhance business operations and deliver positively on the total performance of a business in terms of sales growth and profits (Wu et al., 2015). Koponen and Julkunen (2022) supported this view stating that cooperation between a seller and a business customer is required to ensure both parties obtain benefits from their relationship through shared objectives. Through this approach, partners will perceive each other as compatible to the relationship, pursuing objectives that are aligned to secure satisfaction as an outcome for all parties to the relationship. Consequently, both the seller and the business customer want to guarantee that the overall performance of their relationship results in relationship exchanges and collaborative efforts that can lead to higher levels of satisfaction. Such satisfaction should be distinctive of economic and non-economic satisfaction characteristics that will positively influence future relational intentions (Sales-Vivó et al., 2021b). Therefore, the continuity of the relationship is critical to ensuring future sustainability.
Against the background aforementioned, this study tests a research model that reflects the nomological relationship between satisfaction as a two-dimensional construct and continuity, coordination, and cooperation in B2B sales relationships. Hence, this study aims to provide an extended foundation of the structural properties with intermediary constructs between economic satisfaction and non-economic satisfaction based on a seller’s perspective. This is significant, seeing that previous studies explored the constructs proposed from a buyer’s perspective.
Literature review
Relevance of the research
Numerous studies have explored the constructs proposed in this study, but the relationships between the constructs have not been explored before from a seller’s perspective in a B2B context. For example, Varela et al. (2019) focused on economic and non-economic satisfaction through trust and commitment as mediators in a B2B context. Moreover, Vatavwala et al. (2022) explored satisfaction as a unidimensional construct and its linkage to future relational continuation in a B2B context, while Kamali et al. (2017) explored trust, commitment and satisfaction as precursors to cooperation, coordination and continuity. Furthermore, Padin et al. (2017) measured satisfaction from the perspective of a unidimensional and not a two-dimensional construct, positioning satisfaction as an antecedent to continuity, coordination and cooperation. Similarly, Mysen and Svensson (2010) positioned satisfaction as a unidimensional construct in exploring relationship quality in a B2B context. Finally, Payan et al. (2019) did not include continuity in their measurement of B2B relationships, proposing satisfaction as an antecedent to coordination. Therefore, a gap exists in literature in terms of the relationship satisfaction, as a two-dimensional construct, with continuity, coordination and cooperation in a B2B context from a seller’s perspective.
It is imperative to understand that the afore-mentioned studies were conducted from a business customer’s perspective, and not from a seller’s perspective, in the context of B2B relationship building. According to Vlachos and Polichronidou (2024), the development of long-term business relationships cannot be found in only a single-partner perspective. This implies that it becomes challenging to apply the findings of studies on business customer (buyer) perspectives to long-term relationship building, where the seller is also an important partner to the relationship. Consequently, this study addresses this research gap by testing a research model that reflects the nomological relationship between satisfaction as a two-dimensional construct and continuity, coordination and cooperation in B2B sales relationships.
Considering the aforesaid discussion, this study makes multiple contributions to the B2B research field. Academically, the study adds value to literature on industrial marketing, relationship marketing, B2B marketing and sales marketing. It provides relevant knowledge on B2B relationships throughout the industrial value chain that is based on the seller’s perspective. This is an important contribution, as majority of existing B2B studies explore industrial relationships from a buyer’s perspective (Jiang et al., 2016; Lancastre & Lages, 2006; Zhou et al., 2022). Moreover, the research provides detailed knowledge of the structural relationships between economic satisfaction, continuity, coordination, cooperation and non-economic satisfaction as critical factors in the building of long-term relationships between business partners. Despite numerous research studies having explored the constructs proposed in this study, their interactive relationships from a seller’s perspective in a B2B context have not been explored before. Finally, the study adds value to theory through a rounded assessment of the different constructs explored, considering the measurement of B2B seller satisfaction from a multidimensional construct perspective (i.e. economic and non-economic satisfaction) in a single proposed model. This is vital, considering that in previous studies (Sigindi, 2017; Uvet, 2020), satisfaction has been predominantly explored as a unidimensional construct from a buyer’s perspective only, while this study investigates satisfaction as a multidimensional construct from a B2B seller’s perspective. Concerning the study’s industry contribution, the research provides B2B customers with increased knowledge on how B2B sellers view the constructs explored (i.e. economic satisfaction, continuity, coordination, cooperation and non-economic satisfaction) in terms of building long-term relationships with business buyers.
A perspective on satisfaction as a two-dimensional construct consisting of economic and non-economic satisfaction in business-to-business relationships
An extensive literature review has revealed that satisfaction encompasses an overall emotional assessment of the difference between an expected outcome and a performed outcome. Therefore, satisfaction is based on a normative standard – an expectation – that results in the customers’ satisfaction or dissatisfaction, when considering the expectation-disconfirmation paradigm (Vieira et al., 2024). In the context of B2B relationship building, satisfaction encompasses the overall assessment of the relationship through an enhanced understanding of partners’ opinions of the economic and social benefits of the relationship (Arthur et al., 2023). As a result, Glavee-Geo (2019) argued that satisfaction should be explored from a two-dimensional perspective in B2B relationship building, namely economic and non-economic satisfaction. Geyskens and Steenkamp (2000) agreed, stating that the future success of B2B relationships depends on an improved understanding of business partner satisfaction requirements. Such an understanding can strengthen an awareness of economic and non-economic satisfaction as two critical elements in securing future relational success. This is especially important when considering that, more than a decade ago, Del Bosque Rodríguez et al. (2006) stipulated the need to explore satisfaction more critically from the perspective of its two-dimensional nature. To address this call, scholars such as Rodríguez et al. (2022) have explored satisfaction as a two-dimensional construct in B2B markets and this study also investigates satisfaction from its dual perspective as being economic or non-economic in a B2B context. In this study, economic satisfaction implies the assessment by one partner (e.g. a seller) of the economic benefits obtained from remaining in a relationship with another partner (e.g. a business customer or buyer) (Sales-Vivó et al., 2021a). As such, the decision by the parties to a relationship to continue with the relationship in the future is influenced by the economic gains secured in the past from remaining in the B2B relationship. Contrarily, non-economic satisfaction encompasses psychological elements that relate to the management of B2B relationships, such as professional engagement, which are built on open communication between partners (Rodríguez et al., 2022; Zietsman et al., 2023).
Exploring continuation, cooperation and coordination as important elements in the business-to-business relationship-building process
In B2B literature, continuation, cooperation and coordination have been widely validated as critical to building long-term relationships between business partners (Crick & Crick, 2020; Lussier & Hall, 2018). Continuity has been broadly described by multiple authors in a B2B context (He & Sun, 2020; Sun et al., 2014) but, in this study, it refers to the duration of a business relationship between two or more business partners (Høgevold et al., 2022). Payan et al. (2019) confirmed that in a B2B relationship-building context, partners’ future intent to continue with a relationship is guided by their level of economic and non-economic satisfaction secured from the relationship.
Furthermore, for the purpose of this study, cooperation refers to sellers’ synchronised and supportive actions towards B2B customers to obtain mutually beneficial outcomes (Lussier & Hall, 2018). Cooperation is foundational to building of long-term relationships between business partners, as it strengthens B2B sellers’ and customers’ ability to secure economic gains from the relationships (Dasanayaka et al., 2020). Guan et al. (2022) confirmed that in a B2B context, the building of long-term relationships between B2B partners is increasingly dependent on non-economic satisfaction elements, such as relational contentment, professionalism in engagement and overall joy, in securing business partners’ future relational intent. Conclusively, scholars (e.g. Wuyts & Van den Bulte, 2022) have confirmed the importance of cooperation in driving future relational intent in a B2B context. Considering this study, coordination encompasses the enactment of activities by business partners who are involved in a B2B relationship (Høgevold et al., 2022). Therefore, the stronger the level of coordination between B2B partners, the greater the potential for economic gains for both parties to a relationship (Wuyts & Van den Bulte, 2022). Furthermore, when the parties to a business relationship have an engaging and supportive partnership that enhances the coordination of activities, there is a greater willingness to remain in the relationship in the future (Hughes et al., 2018).
Conceptual framework
The study positions economic satisfaction as a precursor to non-economic satisfaction, economic satisfaction as an antecedent to continuity and coordination, and continuity and coordination as precursors to cooperation. Finally, it proposes that cooperation influences non-economic satisfaction. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed conceptual framework applied to the study to validate the relationships between economic satisfaction, continuity, cooperation and non-economic satisfaction. The key variables in the study have been widely validated as critical elements in the building of sustainable B2B relationships (Ferro-Soto et al., 2022; Glavee-Geo, 2019; Svensson et al., 2023). These variables are important in the development of successful B2B partnerships that will secure future commitment. As such, a focus on these variables by both the seller and the business customer can ensure that both parties illustrate a willingness to remain in a relationship for long term (Varela et al., 2019). The model applied to the study purports that economic satisfaction influences continuity and coordination and that these variables influence cooperation. The model further proposes that cooperation influences non-economic satisfaction, and that economic satisfaction directly influences non-economic satisfaction.
 |
FIGURE 1: Proposed conceptual model and research hypotheses. |
|
Theories grounding the study
The study draws on relationship marketing theory and social exchange theory (SET). Relationship marketing is founded on the development of long-term relationships between parties to a B2B relationship. These long-term relationships are built on value-adding experiences, ultimately strengthening the future cooperation of B2B partners and their continuation of a relationship (Sharma, 2022). Guan et al. (2023) argue that relationship building should be guided by the professional coordination of activities between B2B partners, thereby strengthening a future willingness to continue with the relationship in the long term. Therefore, through an engaged relational approach that is guided by relationship marketing principles, business partners are better enabled to understand the needs and expectations of the other party (Van Tonder & Nel, 2018). This will strengthen parties’ relational intent to continue with a relationship as the potential for relational failure is lowered (Ruiz-Martínez et al., 2019). Consequently, relationship marketing focuses on strengthening business partners’ intent to continue with a relationship in the long term (Kofi Amoako et al., 2020). Chang et al. (2021) concurred, asserting that relationship marketing centres on the management of business partner relationships that will stimulate the continuation of parties to the relationship in the future. In addition, scholars such as Jyh-Liang et al. (2022) confirm that B2B relationships founded on non-economic principles, such as joy, contentment and happiness, stimulate B2B willingness to remain in a relationship with a partner, thereby strengthening future relational intent. Moreover, Høgevold et al. (2020) stated that working relationships between B2B partners characterised by non-economic satisfaction factors strengthen future relational intent. Through such an approach, B2B partners’ needs are more successfully addressed, resulting in an increased willingness to cooperate in the future (Zietsman et al., 2023).
Lambe et al. (2001) argued that SET is built on the principle of value exchange between business partners. It encompasses the mutual exchange of value that drives future relational intention. Hein et al. (2019) and Sales-Vivó et al. (2021b) agreed, stating that economic value creation must benefit all parties concerned, thus strengthening a willingness to remain in the relationship in the future. Social exchange theory proposes that business partners’ intent to remain in a relationship is guided by a benefit-cost analysis and an assessment of available options. This implies that the future relational intent of parties is guided by the value still to be accumulated from the relationship (Høgevold et al., 2022). This value can encompass the economic value to be derived from the relationship in the future (Chai et al., 2020; Sierra & McQuitty, 2005). As a result, business partner satisfaction is influenced by the economic benefits received from a relationship versus the cost of remaining in the relationship, ultimately guiding business partners’ economic decision-making to continue with the relationship in future (Padgett et al., 2020). Against this background, it becomes evident that economic satisfaction is an important element to consider in the B2B relationship-building process, as promulgated by SET (Cassia et al., 2021; Jyh-Liang et al., 2022).
Validation of hypotheses for the originally proposed model
Economic satisfaction and continuity
Over the last 20 years, multiple scholars have validated the importance of economic satisfaction as a significant precursor to relationship continuation between business partners (Guan et al., 2022; Sales-Vivó et al., 2020). Consequently, the choice to persist with a business relationship is dependent on the seller and the business customer securing economic benefits from the B2B relationship based on past engagements (Han & Lee, 2021). As such, economic satisfaction is validated as a key precursor to relationship continuation, where economic benefits impact the decision of a B2B seller or customer to remain in a relationship for future intent (Glavee-Geo, 2019; Han & Lee, 2021; Høgevold et al., 2020). Considering this, it is hypothesised that:
H1: Economic satisfaction is positively related to the expectancy to continue in B2B sales relationships.
Economic satisfaction and coordination
Several scholars have validated the relationship between economic satisfaction and coordination in multiple B2B contexts (Guan et al., 2022; Kampani et al., 2023). As such, an interdependence exists between sellers and business customers that requires them to coordinate activities between them in a professional manner to enhance future relational intent (Servajean-Hilst et al., 2021). Almost three decades ago, Crowston (1997) argued that coordination embraces an understanding of the inter-firm nature of processes and resources, which is more successfully enabled once business partners have partnered to achieve economic success. This secures economic satisfaction, enabling an enhanced coordination of activities between B2B partners (Guenther & Guenther, 2022). Therefore, the overall economic benefits from a coordinated relational approach deliver much greater results for all parties, with future relational intent being stimulated and resulting in increased intent to continue with the relationship in the future (Ruiz-Martínez et al., 2019). Furthermore, multiple B2B studies (e.g. Høgevold et al., 2020; Kampani et al., 2023) have validated that a positive relationship exists between economic satisfaction and coordination in B2B relationships. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: Economic satisfaction is positively related to coordination in B2B sales relationships.
Continuity and coordination
In a competitive B2B environment, business relationships’ future sustainability is largely defined by business partners’ ability to secure the successful coordination of business activities (Zhu et al., 2022). Coordination is grounded in the interdependence between parties to ensure the achievement of mutual goals and outcomes (McNeill & Nienaber, 2019). This requires business partners to embrace a collaborative approach towards engagement that is built on purposeful behaviour characterised by reciprocal actions (Kauffman & Pointer, 2022). As such, the continuity of a B2B relationship requires all parties to experience professionalism, positive engagement and contentment when engaging with each other through coordinated actions. Consequently, partners need to guarantee a customer-centric orientation towards the integrated coordination of activities, which could positively impact the future intention to continue with the relationship (Brennan et al., 2020; Seebacher, 2021). Furthermore, scholars have widely argued that the future continuation of the relationship between a seller and a business customer is guided by positive exchanges that are well coordinated (Høgevold et al., 2020; Lussier & Hall, 2018). Therefore, it is hypothesised that:
H3: The expectancy to continue is positively related to coordination in B2B sales relationships.
Continuity and cooperation
Multiple scholars in the B2B domain have validated the importance of continuity and cooperation in the business relationship-building process (Lussier & Hall, 2018; Mukherjee et al., 2023). Samudro et al. (2018) stated that cooperation reflects the desire of all parties to the relationship to work together, with the intention to create mutual benefits and value. Geyskens et al. (1999) confirmed that, in a B2B context, relationship continuation is guided by psychosocial issues that positively stimulate gratification among business partners. Through such enhanced gratification, business partners illustrate a greater intent to cooperate in the future to secure mutually beneficial gains. Kumar and Ganguly (2021) concurred, stating that if business partners are clear on expectations to coordinate relationships, there is a greater willingness to continue with these relationships. Considering this, cooperation is driven by social bonding between business partners, resulting in the commitment of parties to the relationship and their intention to secure future continuation with the relationship (Holm et al., 1996). Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H4: The expectancy to continue is positively related to cooperation in B2B sales relationships.
Coordination and cooperation
Høgevold et al. (2020) and McNeill and Nienaber (2020) have validated the importance of coordination in driving future cooperation between parties. Coordination refers to the process of mutual engagement between parties that focuses on the structure or processes of the relationship (Grönroos & Helle, 2012; Zhu et al., 2022). Contrastingly, cooperation reflects an interest by all parties to collaborate with the intention to secure mutual value (Kumar & Ganguly, 2021). Consequently, coordination and cooperation cannot be perceived as similar concepts, as they are different in their conceptualisation and application (Naudé & Buttle, 2000). Nevertheless, they share a close relationship, as cooperative behaviour encompasses coordinated functions that parties undertake together or individually. Through coordination, improved cooperation is secured if the B2B relationship is grounded in professionalism as well as open and engaging in interaction that stimulates contentment between parties. Hence, psychological factors, such as joy and contentment, also play a vital role in securing the future success of a B2B partnership through coordinated actions that drive future cooperation (Chatterjee et al., 2023; Padin et al., 2017). This argument is supported by Payan et al. (2019), who validated the relationship between coordination and cooperation. As a result, it is hypothesised that:
H5: Coordination is positively related to cooperation in B2B sales relationships.
Cooperation and non-economic satisfaction
Cooperation enables business partners to enhance their performance and become more successful in achieving their goals (Lussier & Hall, 2018). It is perceived as an important factor that positively influences non-economic satisfaction, thereby strengthening all parties’ future relational intent (Han & Lee, 2021). Through the satisfaction of reciprocal expectations in the relationship between business partners, parties can increase the need for cooperation (Ferro-Soto et al., 2022). As such, business partners’ ability to cooperate for mutual gains is increasingly guided by their willingness to do so without focusing on economic benefits alone. Partners are more often guided by psychological factors that impact their decision to remain in a relationship in the future (Prior, 2023). Aspects including relational contentment, joy experienced through engagement, and aligned ethical practices and beliefs are becoming crucial stimulants of economic satisfaction that guide future relational intent (Guan et al., 2022; Jyh-Liang et al., 2022). Han and Lee (2021) agreed, validating the relationship between cooperation and non-economic satisfaction. Considering the aforesaid, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H6: Cooperation is positively related to non-economic satisfaction in B2B sales relationships.
Economic and non-economic satisfaction
Satisfaction consists of multiple constructs, namely economic and non-economic satisfaction (Ferro-Soto et al., 2023; Geyskens & Steenkamp, 2000). On the one hand, economic satisfaction is an encouraging and intense reaction by a business partner to the economic rewards that accrue from a relationship and that contribute to shared value between partners (Kotze & Hofmeyr, 2022; Sales-Vivó et al., 2021a). These rewards can include discounts, sales numbers, profit ratios and market growth opportunities (Guan et al., 2022). On the other hand, non-economic satisfaction is built on an assessment of the interrelationship between parties who are guided by psychological factors, such as honesty and integrity (Jaiyeoba et al., 2020). These factors influence the overall contentment of parties to the relationship and can guide B2B partners’ decision to continue with the relationship in the future (Varela et al., 2019). The initial phase of a business relationship centres on economic benefits. However, once positive economic satisfaction is secured, parties to the relationship will desire non-economic satisfaction, such as positive relationship quality, the establishment of trust between partners, and open and engaging two-way communication (Glavee-Geo, 2019; Mpinganjira et al., 2017). Zietsman et al. (2020a) affirmed the positive relationship between economic and non-economic satisfaction. Therefore, it is hypothesised that:
H7: Economic satisfaction is positively related to non-economic satisfaction in B2B sales relationships.
Validation of hypotheses for the rival model
Economic satisfaction and cooperation
Guan et al. (2022) established that through enhanced cooperation efforts in a B2B partnership, parties to a relationship are better enabled to secure future economic benefits flowing therefrom. This implies that through improved cooperation, business parties can improve response times, securing timeous supply of products or services required, which drives customer satisfaction (Aichner & Gruber, 2017). According to Lee et al. (2003), enhanced cooperation principles better enable B2B partners to strengthen their interdependence, which could lead to increased economic benefits for all parties to the relationship. Since the dawn of the new millennium, scholars (e.g. Jyh-Liang et al., 2022; Samiee, 2008) have argued that when B2B partners reflect positive economic satisfaction, they also illustrate a greater intent to enhance the cooperation of activities for future relational intent. Previous research (Høgevold et al., 2020; Padín et al., 2017) has validated the relationship between economic satisfaction and coordination and confirmed the importance of this relationship to strengthen future relational intent among business partners (Payan et al., 2019). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H8: Economic satisfaction is positively related to cooperation in B2B sales relationships.
Coordination and non-economic satisfaction
Non-economic satisfaction is founded on psychological factors that impact the relationship-building process, such as integrity, appreciation, recognition, the management of conflict in a positive manner, and gratification (Chen et al., 2011; Geyskens & Steenkamp, 2000). Previous research has confirmed the importance of coordination in driving B2B partners’ future satisfaction. Although these studies emphasised the overall measurement of satisfaction, the alignment was stronger with non-economic satisfaction, compared with economic satisfaction (Chatterjee et al., 2023; Guan et al., 2022). Consequently, the greater the coordination intent of business partners in a relationship, the larger the possibility of increased satisfaction as an outcome of a relationship (Høgevold et al. 2022). As such, increased cooperation stimulates business partners’ intent to continue with a relationship because of the future possibility of mutual aims that are guided by the principles of mutual respect, contentment, integrity and gratification (Vieira et al., 2023). Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H9: Coordination is positively related to non-economic satisfaction in B2B sales relationships.
Continuity and non-economic satisfaction
Through continuity, business partners indicate a willingness to continue with a relationship in the future (Zou et al., 2021). This continuation is guided by non-economic factors that stimulate future intention through psychological intent (Ferro-Soto et al., 2022). This implies that B2B partners’ intent to continue with a relationship is guided by factors that centre on relational inclusiveness, such as mutual respect, contentment, positive engagement and gratification (Svensson et al., 2019). Therefore, B2B partners’ willingness to continue with a relationship is guided by non-economic satisfaction factors, stimulating future relational intent through positive engagement (Sun & Xing, 2022). Considering this, the future continuation of exchanges between partners is governed by mutually beneficial relationships founded on non-economic satisfaction principles (Mujianto et al., 2023). Consequently, it is hypothesised that:
H10: Continuity is positively related to non-economic satisfaction in B2B sales relationships.
Research methodology
Research context and sample
The study was quantitative and exploratory in nature. The study sample comprised small- and medium-sized companies across industries in Spain, obtained from LinkedIn with specific search characteristics to target appropriate key informants. With the aim of analysing business relationships from a sales management perspective, the study’s key informants met the criteria of being sales or marketing managers or directors in a Spanish small- and medium-sized company. The study identified 2576 potential informants, who were asked to participate in the study, yielding 1240 (48.1%) positive responses. Upon obtaining their approval to participate in this study, key informants were sent an email with a Qualtrics link to complete the questionnaire online. The targeted sample yielded 312 questionnaire responses (25.16%), although 70 were excluded because of non-response bias, resulting in 242 satisfactorily completed questionnaires.
Data collection
The Qualtrics link to the questionnaire sent to key informants included a brief letter of instruction and a statement of strict confidentiality with respect to data treatment. The instructions requested each key informant to think of one current B2B customer with whom the company had interacted over the last 12 months and to keep this customer in mind when answering the questionnaire. Furthermore, to avoid potential common method bias during the data collection process, informants were asked to provide honest responses and the anonymity of their answers was ensured. For this reason, key informants were not requested to reveal any details about the customer, so as to ensure strict confidentiality. The informants were also asked to respond diligently to each item in the questionnaire to ensure high-quality data.
The questionnaire included two control questions to ensure participants had the appropriate knowledge and were sufficiently experienced to answer the survey. Respondents were asked to rank their replies to two statements on a five-point Likert scale, where (5) was ‘strongly agree’ and (1) was ‘strongly disagree’ – namely ‘I have a lot of knowledge about this customer’; and ‘I have a lot of experience with this customer’. Most respondents expressed having substantial knowledge of the customer (97.1%) and plenty of associated experience (96.2%). As certain respondents revealed that they did not have much knowledge or experience with the reference customer, five responses had to be removed to avoid potential response bias. The final number of useable questionnaires for the data analysis was 237 responses.
Table 1 summarises the sales managers who partook in the study, considering their type of business, full-time employee equivalent and annual firm turnover. Considering this information, it is clear that the study comprised a wide spectrum of companies across industries with diverse annual turnovers.
| TABLE 1: Industry, full-time employee equivalent and annual turnover (N = 237). |
Constructs and items
The construct items were based on different sources: economic satisfaction (Sanzo et al., 2003), non-economic satisfaction (Geyskens et al., 1999), coordination (Guiltinan et al., 1980; Heide & John, 1988), continuity (Lusch & Brown, 1996) and cooperation (Skinner et al., 1992) (refer to Table 2). However, the construct items used in the questionnaire to test the sales manager research model in a B2B business setting originated from Høgevold et al. (2020).
| TABLE 2: Constructs of sales manager research model – Definitions and sources. |
Each item used in the questionnaire is displayed in Table 3. All items were measured with five-point Likert scales, where (5) represented ‘strongly agree’ and (1) represented ‘strongly disagree’.
Data analysis
The collected data from respondents were formatted to fit into IBM SPSS 27. The multivariate analysis of measurement and structural models was based on IBM SPSS Amos 27. Before the analysis of the structural model, assumptions underlying covariance-based structural equation modelling (applying Amos 27.0) related to linearity and multicollinearity were addressed (Gaskin, 2013). This study’s statistical approach was applied to measure the formulated research hypotheses.
Empirical findings
Univariate statistics
Table 4 presents the mean, standard deviation, variance explained and factor loading of each item per construct, indicating almost a zero non-response bias. In addition, Table 4 shows the explained variance per item (0.32–0.90). Furthermore, it shows that the factor loadings (0.56–0.95) indicate items meeting the guidelines (0.5 for variance explained; 0.7 or larger for factor loadings) (Hair et al., 2006), except for four (i.e. economic satisfaction: item ‘b’; continuity: item ‘a’; coordination: item ‘a’; and cooperation: item ‘c’). Nevertheless, Table 4 shows that the guidelines of 0.5 and 0.7 were exceeded for the average variance explained and the average factor loadings, respectively.
| TABLE 4: Univariate statistics – Construct and items. |
Measurement model assessment
The multivariate analyses applied SPSS/Amos 26.0. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) assessed the measurement characteristics of the research model and related constructs. This was followed by structural equation modelling (SEM) to examine the structural characteristics between the constructs in the research model. The research model consists of five constructs and 15 items that are interrelated based on seven hypothesised relationships, as displayed in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
 |
FIGURE 2: Research model in structural equation modelling. |
|
The CFA demonstrated that the goodness-of-fit estimates of the measurement model complied with recommended guidelines (Hair et al., 2006): χ2 (statistically significant at p = 0.00) was 198.612 at 80 degrees of freedom (df). Moreover, the measurement fit statistics of the research model complied with recommended guidelines: normed χ2 (X2/df) = 2.433; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.915; incremental fit index (IFI) = 0.948; Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.920; comparative fix index (CFI) = 0.947 and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.078 (confidence interval 90%: 0.064–0.092). Consequently, the goodness-of-fit measurement statistics based on CFA were all satisfactory, complying with the recommended indices. As such, the measurement of the final structural model could be explored, as shown in Figure 2.
Structural model assessment
The assessment based on the structural model showed that the goodness-of-fit structural statistics complied with the recommended indices (Hair et al., 2006): χ2 = 203.261 (df = 83). The structural fit statistics also complied with recommended indices: χ2 statistically significant (p = 0.00); X2/df = 2.449; NFI = 0.911; IFI = 0.945; TLI = 0.919; CFI = 0.944; RMSEA = 0.078 (confidence interval 90%: 0.065–0.092).
In conclusion, the goodness-of-fit measurement and structural statistics complied with the recommended indices. In addition, the outcomes of the hypothesised relationships (displayed in Figure 1 and Figure 2) were all significant at p = 0.000–006, with standardised regression weights of 0.205–0.583, as shown in Table 5. As such, all hypotheses proposed in the original model were accepted (refer to Table 5).
| TABLE 5: Statistics of hypothesised relationships. |
Reliability and validity statistics
Different statistics were applied to assess the construct validity and reliability in the research model, as presented in Table 6.
| TABLE 6: Squared inter-construct correlations and summary statistics. |
As per Table 6, the variance extracted per construct is above 50%, ranging from 53.7% to 77.7%, complying with the requirements of convergent validity (Hair et al., 2006). Moreover, Table 6 shows that the variance extracted per construct is larger than the corresponding squared inter-construct correlations across constructs, complying with discriminant validity. Nomological validity (i.e. hypothesised relationships) was confirmed by the empirical findings and supported the findings of previous research. Table 6 illustrates that the reliability statistics are satisfactory (ranging from 0.83 to 0.92) by being larger than 0.7 per construct (Hair et al., 2006). Thus, the reported indices were valid and reliable under this study population.
Rival model
A rival model was assessed in relation to the research model to verify the relationships between economic satisfaction and cooperation, coordination and non-economic satisfaction, and continuity and non-economic satisfaction. Consequently, the rival model was assessed to verify the nomological validity of structural properties between constructs in the developed and tested research model. The rival model provided additional nomological support and relevance of the hypothesised relationships (i.e. cause and effect) between the constructs tested in the research model. Table 7 compares the goodness-of-fit statistics between the research model of this study (see Figure 1) and a rival model.
| TABLE 7: Rival model – A comparison of goodness-of-fit measures. |
The rival model consists of three additional hypothesised relationships as theoretically Validation of hypothesis for the rival mode: (1) a relationship between economic satisfaction and cooperation, which is non-significant (p = 0.181; regression coefficient: 0.098); (2) a relationship between coordination and non-economic satisfaction that is non-significant (p = 0.097; regression coefficient: 0.114) and (3) a relationship between continuity and non-economic satisfaction, which is weakly significant (p = 0.030; low regression coefficient: 0.136). In conclusion, two of the three aggregated hypotheses in the rival model were not supported, and the third was only weakly supported. As per Table 7, the statistics of parsimony-adjusted fit uncover that the research model’s fit is higher than the rival model.
Research implications
Rodríguez et al. (2022) and Rosenzweig and Roth (2007) have confirmed the growing importance of developing a deeper understanding of B2B sellers’ needs in the development of long-term relationships with buyers. Such an enhanced understanding will allow the relationship-building process between sellers and buyers to be grounded in both parties’ wants and needs (Marvasti et al., 2021). For example, more than two decades ago, a new school of thought emerged stating that gaining satisfaction is not enough to manage B2B relationships, as sellers’ cooperative aims and cooperation with buyers are crucial to establish satisfactory B2B relationships and relationship endurance (Holm et al., 1996; Huntley, 2006). Guan et al. (2022) and Ruiz-Martínez et al. (2019) concurred, arguing for the necessity of a deeper understanding of the factors that influence the willingness of both sellers and buyers in a B2B partnership to continue with the relationship in the future.
For instance, scholars (e.g. Lasrado et al., 2023; Payan et al., 2019; Svensson et al., 2010) have largely concentrated on how satisfaction makes sense in a nomological network with continuity, coordination and cooperation, focusing mainly on a B2B buyer perspective, with one exception (Høgevold et al. 2020). As such, previous research has not explored the relationships in the proposed model for this study from a B2B sales perspective. This is a research gap that this study addressed by developing a deeper understanding of how the proposed relationships are validated from a B2B seller’s perspective. This research assessed the structural characteristics between economic satisfaction and non-economic satisfaction in seller B2B relationships. The tested research model indicated satisfactory validity and reliability in a Spanish B2B seller setting, confirming the findings by Høgevold et al. (2020) in a Norwegian B2B seller setting, establishing a framework of cause and effect between this study’s constructs – namely economic satisfaction, non-economic, continuity, cooperation and coordination.
The results of the original model proposed for the study (refer to Figure 1) show that all the proposed relationships in the study are significant. This implies that economic satisfaction is positively related to continuity and coordination, that the latter is positively related to cooperation, and that cooperation is positively related to non-economic satisfaction. Moreover, economic satisfaction is positively related to non-economic satisfaction in the proposed model for this study. The outcome of these results aligns with previous B2B research, confirming similar outcomes to the proposed relationships measured in this study (Bagdoniene & Zilione, 2009; Ferro-Soto, 2022; Guan et al., 2022; Marcos-Cuevas et al., 2016; Mbango, 2017). Nevertheless, in terms of the rival model, the results reveal that the relationships between economic satisfaction and cooperation as well as between coordination and non-economic satisfaction are non-significant, while the relationship between continuity and non-economic satisfaction is weakly significant. Considering published B2B literature, these results are not aligned with the findings of Glavee-Geo (2019) and Latinovic and Chatterjee (2022), who reported that coordination relates to non-economic satisfaction because of its alignment of actions, while continuity relates to non-economic satisfaction because of its alignment of interest (Glavee-Geo, 2019; Latinovic & Chatterjee, 2022; Miao et al., 2019).
Existing B2B constructs in literature still require additional attention to verify their inter-relational characteristics to economic or non-economic satisfaction or both. To a large extent, the existing research on B2B relationships defines and measures satisfaction as a non-economic construct (Payan et al., 2019), while economic satisfaction regularly is neglected. This is because of a shortage in the existing theory. It means that there is limited understanding in relation to the economic motives to act and interact in one way or another in B2B relationships. Therefore, the structural characteristics of economic satisfaction still require further attention in relation to other B2B relationship constructs.
Managerial implications
Economic satisfaction is a key starting point for building and reinforcing enduring exchange relationships. In fact, the principal goal of companies is to gain financial benefits. In this regard, economic satisfaction in B2B exchange relationships is related to the expectation of economic rewards and financial performance, such as the enlargement of sales profits or margins (Geyskens & Steenkamp, 2000), the growth of market share (Del Bosque Rodríguez et al., 2006) and a decrease in costs (Walz, 2009). Consequently, seller practitioners should generate realistic expectations for business partners to contribute significantly to achieving their sales goals derived from the relationship (Brown et al., 1991; Geyskens et al., 1999).
Therefore, sales managers should reach agreements with their partners to implement appropriate coordination mechanisms that contribute to improving efficiency and achieving expected long-term goals. Sales managers must consider that the implementation of joint coordination actions not only generates positive outcomes but also produces transaction costs (e.g. partner search costs, information systems costs, joint decision-making costs and cultural integration costs). As such, coordination requires an in-depth understanding of the business processes applied by the respective business partners and the cost of coordinating such business practices for mutual benefit. This will ensure B2B sellers work with their customer base on issues affecting both parties. Nurhayati et al. (2023) and Wuyts and Van den Bulte (2022) concurred, asserting that through process coordination between B2B partners, increased economic benefits founded on positive relational engagement can be secured. Hence, it is imperative to ensure that the positive benefits derived from collaboration outweigh the costs necessary to implement the coordination actions.
Accordingly, sales managers should direct their efforts towards maintaining the belief in the long-term continuity of the relationship and achieving the success of the vertical coordination mechanisms implemented. Through the positive stimulation of relational continuity, B2B sellers reflect an enduring belief in the value potential of the relationship. Sellers reflect a strong belief in the psychological and economic benefits of sustaining relationships with B2B customers. Hence, relational elements such as reliability, integrity and contentment drive sellers’ future relational intent to remain in relationships with B2B customers through the existing alliance. Kauffman and Pointer (2022) and Kuo et al. (2020) agreed that relationship continuation is secured through the implementation and management of sound business principles offering psychological and economic value to B2B partners. Therefore, such an approach will contribute to improving cooperation, understood as parties’ willingness to participate in joint actions and undertake efforts to achieve the expected objectives of the collaboration. In this regard, cooperation arises as a crucial factor in B2B channel relationships. Thus, practitioners should maximise their capacity to work jointly with partners, promote reciprocal understanding, and reach a consensus on shared interests and values. Accordingly, sales managers should not confuse coordination with cooperation. Practitioners must understand coordination as the realisation of joint activities, whereas cooperation is the willingness to work together. That is, coordination is linked to operational issues and cooperation is related to aspects of a social nature between partners in a relationship. Guan et al. (2022) concur and state that both a willingness to cooperate and an alignment of business processes to secure mutual benefit from future relational continuation are important to strengthen a cooperative attitude between B2B sellers and their customer base.
Finally, according to the research’s findings, sales managers must focus their efforts on meeting the economic expectations of B2B partners to secure financial gains (economic satisfaction) and on promoting attitudes orientated towards working together (cooperation), as these actions will improve the non-economic satisfaction of the participants in the collaboration. Ferro-Soto et al. (2022) and Sales-Vivó et al. (2020) agreed that when B2B sellers benefit economically from being in relationships with their customers – as the customers contribute to sellers’ financial performance – there is a greater intent to remain in the relationships with B2B buyers. Non-economic satisfaction (relational satisfaction) is related to social issues, associated with partners’ emotional experiences in a B2B relationship. Relationally satisfied partners are expected to maintain a positive affective response towards a partnership. This will contribute to strengthening the relationship’s stability. In this regard, sales managers should strive to establish good interpersonal relationships with partners, foster an atmosphere in which favourable impressions are generated between the parties, treat each other with respect, and promote the open sharing of information that avoids distrust and fear of the appearance of opportunistic behaviour. These results align with studies by B2B researchers in established (Spain) and emerging (South Africa) markets, emphasising the importance of relationship building through psychological principles, such as mutual respect, integrity and honesty. Furthermore, the results indicate that through the development of positive relationships founded on cooperation and inclusion, there is a greater willingness to continue with the relationship in the future (Rodríguez et al., 2022; Vieira et al., 2023).
Conclusions and suggestions for future research
This study addresses an area in literature that requires additional research, namely how economic and non-economic satisfaction can be incorporated into a nomological network with continuity, coordination and cooperation based on a B2B seller’s perspective. Furthermore, this study contributes to uncovering the role of continuity, coordination and cooperation between economic satisfaction and non-economic satisfaction in B2B seller relationships. Consequently, it extends knowledge in relation to the existing theory and previous research in B2B seller relationships. However, the study is limited to B2B seller relationships in southern Europe, which complements findings reported in northern Europe. Therefore, new research can confirm the validity and reliability of reported findings in other countries in a non-European B2B setting. Other options are to assess the research model within a B2B buyer relationship context or to explore other intermediary constructs between economic and non-economic satisfaction, such as commitment, trust, opportunism and conflict. These suggestions align with future research propositions proposed by well-versed scholars in the field of B2B marketing, such as Høgevold et al. (2021) and Payan et al. (2019).
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Authors’ contributions
C.F.-S., C.P., M.R-L., G.S. and N.H. contributed equally to this article.
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance for studies involving human participants are not required in Spain. This article followed all ethical standards for research.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, M.R.-L.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.
References
Aichner, T., & Gruber, B. (2017). Managing customer touchpoints and customer satisfaction in B2B mass customization: A case study. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 8(3), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.24867/IJIEM-2017-3-114
Anderson, J.C., & Narus, J.A., (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. Journal of marketing, 54(1), 42–58.
Arthur, E., Agbemabiese, G.C., Amoako, G.K., & Anim, P.A. (2023). Commitment, trust, relative dependence, and customer loyalty in the B2B setting: The role of customer satisfaction. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-08-2022-0375
Bagdoniene, L., & Zilione, R. (2009). Business to business relationships: The variables in the context of success. Social Sciences, 66(4), 16–25.
Brennan, R., Canning, L., & McDowell, R. (2020). Business-to-business marketing (5th edn.). Sage.
Brown, J.R., Lusch, R.F., & Smith, L.P. (1991). Conflict and satisfaction in an industrial channel of distribution. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 21(6), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000000390
Cassia, F., Haugland, S.A., & Magno, F. (2021). Fairness and behavioral intentions in discrete B2B transactions: A study of small business firms. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 36(13), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-12-2019-0538
Chai, L., Li, J., Tangpong, C., & Clauss, T. (2020). The interplays of coopetition, conflicts, trust, and efficiency process innovation in vertical B2B relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 85, 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.11.004
Chang, Y., Wang, X., Su, L., & Cui, A.P. (2021). B2B brand orientation, relationship commitment, and buyer-supplier relational performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 36(2), 324–336. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-10-2019-0454
Chatterjee, S., Chaudhuri, R., & Vrontis, D. (2023). Digital resilience and new business models in the post-COVID-19 scenario: From B2B perspective in the era of knowledge economy. Journal of Enterprise Information Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-10-2022-0383
Chen, Z., Huang, Y., & Sternquist, B. (2011). Guanxi practice and Chinese buyer-supplier relationships: The buyer’s perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(4), 569–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.12.013
Crick, J.M., & Crick, D. (2020). Coopetition and COVID-19: Collaborative business-to-business marketing strategies in a pandemic crisis. Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.05.016
Crowston, K. (1997). A coordination theory approach to organizational process design. Organization Science, 8(2), 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.2.157
Dasanayaka, S.W.S.B., Al Serhan, O., Glambosky, M., & Gleason, K. (2020). The business-to-business relationship: Examining Sri Lankan telecommunication operators and vendors. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 35(6), 1069–1087. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-06-2019-0303
Del Bosque Rodríguez, I.R., Collado Agudo, J., & San Martín Gutiérrez, H. (2006). Determinants of economic and social satisfaction in manufacturer-distributor relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(6), 666–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.05.006
Fehr, L.C.F.D.A., & Rocha, W., (2018). Open-book accounting and trust: influence on buyer-supplier relationship. RAUSP Management Journal, 53, 597–621.
Ferro-Soto, C., Padin, C., Mpinganjira, M., Svensson, G., & Hogevold, N. (2022). The influence of economic and non-economic satisfaction on formalization, specific investments, and dependence in B2B relationships. Operations and Supply Chain Management, 15(3), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.31387/oscm0500352
Ferro-Soto, C., Padin, C., Svensson, G., & Høgevold, N. (2023). The role of trust and commitment as mediators between economic and non-economic satisfaction in sales manager B2B relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 38(1), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-02-2021-0076
Gaskin, J. (2013). SEM series part 6: Multivariate assumptions. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkp1DKbU-es
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(99)00021-4
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379903600207
Gimeno-Arias, F., Santos-Jaén, J.M., Valls Martínez, M.d.C., & Sánchez-Pérez, M. (2023). From trust and dependence commitment to B2B engagement: An empirical analysis of inter-organizational cooperation in FMCG. Electronic Research Archive, 31(12), 7511–7543. https://doi.org/10.3934/era.2023379
Glavee-Geo, R. (2019). Does supplier development lead to supplier satisfaction and relationship continuation? Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 25(3), 100537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2019.05.002
Grönroos, C., & Helle, P. (2012). Return on relationships: Conceptual understanding and measurement of mutual gains from relational business engagements. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 27(5), 344–359. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858621211236025
Guan, J.-L., Lee, T.-R., Mostert, P., Svensson, G., & Høgevold, N.M. (2023). A nomological framework of antecedents and postcedents to satisfaction in purchase and sales business relationships. Journal of Contemporary Marketing Science, 6(1), 46–63. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCMARS-02-2022-0003
Guan, J.-L., Lee, T.-R., Otero-Neira, C., Svensson, G., & Høgevold, N.M. (2022). Action and social alignment constituents of collaboration in B2B relationships: Buyer and seller perspectives. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 21(3), 194–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332667.2021.1933876
Guenther, P., & Guenther, M. (2022). Can B2B firms benefit from competitors’ advertising? A dynamic business environment perspective on an emerging communication form. Industrial Marketing Management, 102, 352–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.01.016
Guiltinan, J.P., Rejab, I.B., & Rodgers, W.C. (1980). Factors influencing coordination in a franchise channel. Journal of Retailing, 56(3), 41–58.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th edn.). Prentice Hall.
Han, S.-L., & Lee, J.W. (2021). Does corporate social responsibility matter even in the B2B market?: Effect of B2B CSR on customer trust. Industrial Marketing Management, 93, 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.12.008
He, J., & Sun, L. (2020). Does continuity matter? Developing a new long-term orientation structure in a cross-cultural context: A study on supply chain relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 186–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.05.003
Heide, J.B., & John, G. (1988). The role of dependence balancing in safeguarding transaction-specific assets in conventional channels. Journal of Marketing, 52(1), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200103
Hein, A., Weking, J., Schreieck, M., Wiesche, M., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H. (2019). Value co-creation practices in business-to-business platform ecosystems. Electronic Markets, 29, 503–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-019-00337-y
Høgevold, N., Svensson, G., & Roberts-Lombard, M. (2020). Opportunism and conflict as precursors of non-economic and economic satisfaction outcomes in seller-customer business relationships. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 27(4), 375–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2020.1831213
Høgevold, N.M., Rodriguez, R., Svensson, G., & Roberts-Lombard, M. (2022). Validating the sequential logic of quality constructs in seller-customer business relationships – Antecedents, mediator and outcomes. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 29(1), 43–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2022.2039480
Høgevold, N.M., Svensson, G., & Mpinganjira, M. (2021). A seller perspective on economic and non-economic satisfaction as precursors to formalisation, specific investments and dependence in business relationships. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 51(3), 281–304. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-11-2019-0336
Høgevold, N.M., Svensson, G., Mostert, P., & Zietsman, M.L. (2020). Continuity, coordination and cooperation as mediators between economic and non-economic satisfaction – A sales perspective. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 21(6), 1752–1773. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.13506
Holm, D.B., Eriksson, K., & Johanson, J. (1996). Business networks and cooperation in international business relationships. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(5), 1033–1053. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490162
Hughes, T., Vafeas, M., & Hilton, T. (2018). Resource integration for co-creation between marketing agencies and clients. European Journal of Marketing, 52(5/6), 1329–1354. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-10-2015-0725
Huntley, J.K. (2006). Conceptualization and measurement of relationship quality: Linking relationship quality to actual sales and recommendation intention. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(6), 703–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.05.011
Jaiyeoba, O., Svotwa, D.T., & Roberts-Lombard, M. (2020). Precursors and outcome of customer satisfaction/delight in business-to-consumer relationships in Botswana. South African Journal of Business Management, 51(1), a1809. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v51i1.1809
Jiang, Z., Shiu, E., Henneberg, S., & Naude, P. (2016). Relationship quality in business to business relationships – Reviewing the current literatures and proposing a new measurement model. Psychology & Marketing, 33(4), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20876
Jyh-Liang, G., Lee, T.-R., Roberts-Lombard, M., Svensson, G., & Høgevold, N. (2022). Exploring opportunism, conflict, noneconomic satisfaction and economic satisfaction in a B2B context – A buyer and seller perspective. South African Journal of Business Management, 53(1), a3346. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v53i1.3346
Kamali, G.R., Rouzbahani, M.T., Rahimi, F.A., & Zalaghi, R. (2017). The impact of key indicators of relationship quality on cooperation, coordination and relationship continuity – National Iranian South Oil Company. Special Issue of International Review, 1, 99–108.
Kampani, R., Mostert, P., & Van der Merwe, M.C. (2023). Trust and economic satisfaction as antecedents, and loyalty as outcome, of small business customers’ cooperation and coordination in banking relationships. Management & Marketing, 21(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.52846/MNMK.21.1.01
Kauffman, R., & Pointer, L. (2022). Impact of digital technology on velocity of B2B buyer-supplier relationship development. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 37(7), 1515–1529. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-07-2020-0326
Kofi Amoako, G., Baadu Adams, G., & Doe, J.K. (2020). Intention to continue relationship in B to B setting – Case of Guinness Ghana Breweries – Some preliminary findings. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 27(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2020.1713563
Koponen, J.P., & Julkunen, S.M. (2022). Development of long-term B2B customer relationships: The role of self-disclosure and relational cost/benefit evaluation. European Journal of Marketing, 56(13), 194–235. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2020-0492
Kotze, R., & Hofmeyr, K. (2022). Effecting successful shared value creation: The role of organisations in fence-line communities. South African Journal of Business Management, 53(1), a2992. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v53i1.2992
Kumar, N., & Ganguly, K.K. (2021). External diffusion of B2B e-procurement and firm financial performance: Role of information transparency and supply chain coordination. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 34(4), 1037–1060. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-02-2020-0060
Kumar, N., Scheer, L.K., & Steenkamp, J.B.E. (1995). The effects of perceived interdependence on dealer attitudes. Journal of marketing research, 32(3), 348–356.
Kuo, M.-J., Zhu, D.-S., & White, L.P. (2020). An integrated B2B guanxi model: A Taiwan perspective. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 19(4), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332667.2019.1705743
Lambe, C.J., Wittmann, C.M., & Spekman, R.E. (2001). Social exchange theory and research on business-to-business relational exchange. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 8(3), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1300/J033v08n03_01
Lancastre, A., & Lages, L.F. (2006). The relationship between buyer and a B2B e-marketplace: Cooperation determinants in an electronic market context. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(6), 774–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.03.011
Lasrado, F., Thaichon, P., & Nyadzayo, M.W. (2023). Exploring the role of relationship management and relationship quality in B2B: Empirical insights and future research directions. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 38(5), 1055–1086. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-05-2021-0267
Latinovic, Z., & Chatterjee, S.C. (2022). Achieving the promise of AI and ML in delivering economic and relational customer value in B2B. Journal of Business Research, 144, 966–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.052
Lee, S.C., Pak, B.Y., & Lee, H.G. (2003). Business value of B2B electronic commerce: The critical role of inter-firm collaboration. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 2(4), 350–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1567-4223(03)00003-6
Lusch, R.F., & Brown, J.R. (1996). Interdependency, contracting, and relational behavior in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299606000404
Lussier, B., & Hall, Z.R. (2018). Cooperation in B2B relationships: Factors that influence customers’ perceptions of salesperson cooperation. Industrial Marketing Management, 69, 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.09.019
Malone, T.W. (1988). Modeling coordination in organizations and markets. In Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence (pp. 151–158). Morgan Kaufmann.
Marcos-Cuevas, J., Nätti, S., Palo, T., & Baumann, J. (2016). Value co-creation practices and capabilities: Sustained purposeful engagement across B2B systems. Industrial Marketing Management, 56, 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.03.012
Marvasti, N.B., Huhtala, J.-P., Yousefi, Z.R., Vaniala, I., Upreti, B., Malo, P., Kaski, S., & Tikkanen, H. (2021). Is this company a lead customer? Estimating stages of B2B buying journey. Industrial Marketing Management, 97, 126–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.06.003
Mbango, P. (2017). Business-to-business framework of relationship marketing in the South African cement manufacturing industry. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 21(1), 1–13.
McNeill, R.G., & Nienaber, H. (2019). Chaos towards order: Rethinking relational exchange in hotel B2B sales and marketing. In Y. Ekinci, L. Sharples, G. Viglia, & D. Gursoy (Eds.), Conference proceedings of the 9th advances in hospitality and tourism marketing and management conference (pp. 31–43). University of Portsmouth.
McNeill, R.G., & Nienaber, H. (2020). Into the weeds of hotel B2B sales: What contributes to buyer/seller relational exchange success or failure?. Journal of Tourism Quarterly, 2(1–2), 40–53.
McNeilly, K.M., & Russ, F.A. (1992). Coordination in the marketing channel. Advances in distribution channel research, 1(2), pp. 161–186.
Miao, Y., Du, R., Li, J., & Westland, J.C. (2019). A two-sided matching model in the context of B2B export cross-border e-commerce. Electronic Commerce Research, 19, 841–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-019-09361-8
Mpinganjira, M., Roberts-Lombard, M., & Svensson, G. (2017). Validating the relationship between trust, commitment, economic and non-economic satisfaction in South African buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 32(3), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-04-2015-0073
Mujianto, M., Hartoyo, H., Nurmalina, R., & Yusuf, E.Z. (2023). The unraveling loyalty model of traditional retail to suppliers for business sustainability in the digital transformation era: Insight from MSMEs in Indonesia. Sustainability, 15(3), 2827. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032827
Mukherjee, S., Musarra, G., & Banerjee, S. (2023). Contract length and buyer satisfaction with the supplier in B2B partnerships: Evidence from an experiment. Industrial Marketing Management, 112, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2023.04.014
Mysen, T., & Svensson, G. (2010). RELQUAL’s impact on satisfaction in Norwegian business relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 25(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858621011017741
Naudé, P., & Buttle, F. (2000). Assessing relationship quality. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(4), 351–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(00)00112-7
Nurhayati, K., Tavasszy, L., & Rezaei, J. (2023). Joint B2B supply chain decision-making: Drivers, facilitators and barriers. International Journal of Production Economics, 256, 108721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108721
Padgett, D., Hopkins, C.D., & Williams, Z. (2020). Buyer dependence in B2B relationships: The role of supplier investments, commitment form, and trust. Journal of Business Research, 119, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.019
Padin, C., Ferro, C., & Svensson, G. (2017). Validity and reliability of satisfaction as a mediator between quality constructs in manufacturer-supplier relationships through time and across contexts. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 24(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2016.1275799
Padin, C., Ferro, C., & Svensson, G. (2017). Validity and reliability of satisfaction as a mediator between quality constructs in manufacturer-supplier relationships through time and across contexts. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 24(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2016.1275799
Payan, J.M., & Svensson, G., (2007). Co-operation, coordination, and specific assets in inter-organisational relationships. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(7-8), 797–813.
Payan, J.M., Padín, C., Ferro, C., & Svensson, G. (2019). Action and social alignment components of collaboration in SME business relationships. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 31(6), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2018.1459014
Prior, D.D. (2023). B2B customer engagement strategy: An introduction to managing customer experience. Springer Nature.
Rauyruen, P., & Miller, K.E., (2007). Relationship quality as a predictor of B2B customer loyalty. Journal of business research, 60(1), pp. 21–31.
Rodríguez, R., Høgevold, N., Otero-Neira, C., & Svensson, G. (2022). A sequential logic model between sales performance and salesperson satisfaction in B2B markets. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 37(1), 180–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-09-2020-0422
Rosenzweig, E.D., & Roth, A.V. (2007). B2B seller competence: Construct development and measurement using a supply chain strategy lens. Journal of Operations Management, 25(6), 1311–1331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.007
Ruiz-Martínez, A., Frasquet, M., & Gil-Saura, I. (2019). How to measure B2B relationship value to increase satisfaction and loyalty. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34(8), 1866–1878. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-10-2018-0289
Rusthollkarhu, S., Hautamaki, P., & Aarikka-Stenroos, L. (2021). Value (co-)creation in B2B sales ecosystems. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 36(4), 590–598. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-03-2020-0130
Sales-Vivó, V., Gil-Saura, I., & Gallarza, M. (2020). Modelling value co-creation in triadic B2B industrial relationships. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 38(7), 941–955. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-11-2019-0574
Sales-Vivó, V., Gil-Saura, I., & Gallarza, M.G. (2021a). Value co-creation and satisfaction in B2B context: A triadic study in the furniture industry. Sustainability, 13(1), 152. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010152
Sales-Vivó, V., Gil-Saura, I., & Gallarza, M.G. (2021b). Comparing relationship of quality-satisfaction models: Effects of B2B value co-creation. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 49(7), 941–957. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-10-2020-0394
Samiee, S. (2008). Global marketing effectiveness via alliances and electronic commerce in business-to-business markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.09.003
Samudro, A., Sumarwan, U., Yusuf, E.Z., & Simanjuntak, M. (2018). Perceived value, social bond, and switching cost as antecedents and predictors of customer loyalty in the B2B chemical industry context: A literature review. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 10(4), 124–138. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v10n4p124
Sanzo, M.J., Santos, M.L., Vásquez, R., & Álvarez, L.I. (2003). The effect of market orientation on buyer-seller relationship satisfaction. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(4), 327–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(01)00200-0
Seebacher, U.G. (Ed.). (2021). B2B marketing: A guidebook for the classroom to the boardroom. Springer International Publishing.
Servajean-Hilst, R., Donada, C., & BenMahmoud-Jouini, S. (2021). Vertical innovation partnerships and relational performance: The mediating role of trust, interdependence, and familiarity. Industrial Marketing Management, 97, 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.06.015
Sharma, N. (2022). How core, technical and social components of business relationship value drive customer satisfaction and loyalty in high tech B2B market. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 37(5), 975–994. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-12-2020-0554
Sierra, J.J., & McQuitty, S. (2005). Service providers and customers: Social exchange theory and service loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(6), 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040510620166
Sigindi, T. (2017). Satisfaction and dimensions of loyalty in B2B markets: A study among the users of electronic security services. International Business and Global Economy, 36(1), 248–261. https://doi.org/10.4467/23539496IB.17.017.7465
Skinner, S.J., Gassenheimer, J.B., & Kelley, S.W. (1992). Cooperation in supplier-dealer relations. Journal of Retailing, 68(2), 174–193.
Sun, P.C., Pan, F.T., Wu, P.C., & Kuo, C.C. (2014). An empirical study of B2B relationship value-offering type as a moderator. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 6(1), 79–97.
Sun, Y., & Xing, J. (2023). The impact of gamification motivation on green consumption behavior – An empirical study based on Ant Forest. Sustainability, 15(1), 512. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010512
Svensson, G., Ferro-Soto, C., Padin, C., & Otero-Neira, C. (2023). Collaborative B2B sales partnerships in supply chains: An integrative framework of social and action alignment. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 29(3), 100227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2023.100227
Svensson, G., Mpinganjira, M., & Roberts-Lombard, M. (2019). The antecedents and postcedents of satisfaction in business-to-business relationships in South Africa. South African Journal of Business Management, 50(1), a212. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v50i1.212
Svensson, G., Mysen, T., & Payan, J. (2010). Balancing the sequential logic of quality constructs in manufacturing-supplier relationships – Causes and outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 63(11), 1209–1214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.10.019
Uvet, H. (2020). Importance of logistics service quality in customer satisfaction: An empirical study. Operations and Supply Chain Management, 13(1), 1–10. http://doi.org/10.31387/oscm0400248
Van Tonder, E., & Nel, C.B. (2018). Validating relationship marketing factors predicting B2B customer loyalty towards crop protection suppliers. Journal of Contemporary Management, 15(1), 224–249.
Varela, J.C.S., Svensson, G., & Mpinganjira, M. (2019). Validating trust and commitment as mediators between economic and non-economic satisfaction in Puerto Rican buyer-supplier relationships. International Journal of Procurement Management, 12(4), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPM.2019.10022621
Vatavwala, S., Kumar, B., Sharma, A., Billore, A., & Sadh, A. (2022). Customer disengagement in business-to-business markets: A framework for analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 105, 114–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.05.018
Vieira, V.A., Araujo, C.F., & Almeida, M.I.S.d. (2024). Customer relational benefit: A second-order meta-analysis and an alternative framework. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 48(1), e12987. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12987
Vieira, V.A., Mayberry, R., Boles, J., Johnson-Busbin, J., & Pereira, R.C. (2023). The mediating role of cooperative norms in the formation of buyer commitment in the buyer-seller relationship. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 38(7), 1409–1423. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-01-2021-0044
Vlachos, I., & Polichronidou, V. (2024). Multi-demand supply chain triads and the role of third-party logistics providers. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 35(1), 136–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-04-2022-0161
Walz, A.M. (2009). The definition, creation, and evolution of buyer-seller relationships. LSU Doctoral Dissertations, p. 3751. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/3751
Wu, L.-Y., Chen, P.-Y., & Chen, K.-Y. (2015). Why does loyalty-cooperation behavior vary over buyer-seller relationship? Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2322–2329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.04.001
Wuyts, S., & Van den Bulte, C. (2022). Control and coordination in B2B networks. In G.L. Lilien, J.A. Petersen, & S. Wuyts (Eds.), Handbook of business-to-business marketing (2nd edn., pp. 75–95). Edward Elgar.
Zhou, L., Mao, H., Zhao, T., Wang, V.L., Wang, X., & Zuo, P. (2022). How B2B platform improves buyers’ performance: Insights into platform’s substitution effect. Journal of Business Research, 143, 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.060
Zhu, Z., Lin, S., Jiang, Y., & Liu, Q. (2022). The coordination effect of B2B digital process capabilities on competitive performance: Balancing or complementing. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 35(3), 918–946. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-01-2021-0037
Zietsman, M., Mostert, P., & Svensson, G. (2020a). Economic and non-economic satisfaction as outcomes of micro-enterprises’ perceived value from banking relationships. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 27(3), 263–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2020.1787027
Zietsman, M.L., Mostert, P., & Svensson, G. (2020b). A multidimensional approach to the outcomes of perceived value in business relationships. European Business Review, 32(4), 709–729. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2019-0258
Zietsman, M.L., Mostert, P., & Svensson, G. (2023). Precursors and outcomes of perceived value in B2B banking services: A nomological framework. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 22(4), 330–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332667.2023.2234812
Zou, W., Brax, S.A., & Rajala, R. (2021). The effects of competence-based, expressive and collaborative service performance on the B2B service relationship. Technology Innovation Management Review, 11(5), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1439
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
