Essays on supplier responsiveness and buyer firm value - Nyenrode ...

constructs, for cross-cultural factors. We could find none specific to The Netherlands.
We then proceeded to informally discuss with academics and practitioners/industry
specialists about their interpretations of each of the five variables’ definitions. The
results are discussed below.
Supplier responsiveness. The definition provided in Chapter 2 was
“accumulative market response generated by internal supplier firm processes to meet
their buyer needs.” This definition is based on a synthesis of the definitions of Kohli
and Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater (1990) of the concept of market
orientation. However, from our discussions with fellow academics three major themes
occurred. First, a supplier’s responsiveness includes a market offering component
(goods and services). The second component was the speed of the strategic supplier’s
response or timeliness. The third component was market intelligence sharing
exemplified by activities such as potential market lead sharing. These concepts
converge with our definition; therefore, we used the original survey scale for supplier
responsiveness employed in Chapter 2. Chapter 2 used the MARKOR scale
developed by Kohli et al. (1993) for our analysis. Since the purpose of this chapter is
to test whether the model in Chapter 2 applies in different markets.
Idiosyncratic relational risk. The definition provided in Chapter 2 was “the
risk which exists because of entering into a specific relationship with another
company.” This definition was postulated because of the confluence of two
perspectives, namely: financial market understanding of the concept of idiosyncratic
risk and management perspective of supplier risk (Sharpe, 1964; Krajlic, 1983).
Central to this concept is the tenet that idiosyncratic relational risk is avoidable by
preempting the risk via marketing measures the supplier enacts. Our informal
discussions with fellow academics and peers reinforced the face validity of the scales
used in Chapter 2 for relational idiosyncratic risk measurement in The Netherlands.
Therefore, we used the scales used in Chapter 2.
Buyer satisfaction. Chapter 2 defined buyer satisfaction as “an overall
evaluation based on the total purchase and consumption experience with a good or
service over time” (Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994). They include both
economic and non-economic satisfaction in their conceptualization. Our informal
discussions reinforced this understanding, and therefore, we used the same scale for
this paper. We used the four items the original scale used in Chapter 2. These were
adapted from the original satisfaction scale used by Ruekert and Churchill (1984).
Supplier brand value. The supplier’s brand value is defined in Chapter 2 from
the perspective of the strategic buying center team as the shared collective memories
about the supplier’s brand, which provide it leverage that it would otherwise not have
without the brand. Therefore, we used the two original items developed in Chapter 2.
There was no difference in our understanding of supplier brand value from the
concept in the literature.
Buyer firm future value. Buyer firm future value is computed by a single
measure that is composed of volatility and variability in the future cash flows because
of the strategic supplier. The informal discussions and literature review lead us to
believe that volatility and variability in buyer cash flows are important measures for
measuring buyer firm value in both the United States and The Netherlands. The items
used in this chapter for measuring the constructs are the same as those in Chapter 2.
Please refer to Table 2.18 for the items used and the codes.
85