Preferred customer status, supplier satisfaction and their contingencies

  • Frederik G. S. Vos
Part of the Advanced Studies in Supply Management book series (ASSM)


Over the last decades, firms have increasingly shifted from traditional in‐house value creation strategies to cooperative buyer‐supplier relationships as a source of value creation and competitive advantage. To reap extensive benefits from relationships with suppliers, assuring supplier satisfaction and achieving preferred customer status are key for buyers. In the past, several mechanisms have been identified that influence supplier satisfaction and preferred customer status; however, little is known about the role of major contingency factors such as: product types, dependencies and the power to influence them. The dissertation focuses on the potential of preferred customer status to mitigate the negative effects of buyer dependency, the influences of a buyer’s power usage on supplier satisfaction, and potential perception differences of preferred status in buyer‐supplier relationships. Additionally, the dissertation adds novel methods (i.e. partial least squares point predictions and polynomial regressions with response surface modeling) together with a dyadic perspective to supplier satisfaction and preferred customer research. These methods enable an assessment of the predictive abilities of models, reveal curvilinear interaction effects and discover asymmetric relationships between factors, which would not have been discovered otherwise.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Batenburg, R. (2007): E‐procurement adoption by European firms: A quantitative analysis, in: Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 13, pp. 182–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baxter, R. (2012): How can business buyers attract sellers’ resources?: Empirical evidence for preferred customer treatment from suppliers, in: Industrial Marketing Management, 41, pp. 1249–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blois, K. (2010): The legitimacy of power in business‐to‐business relationships, in: Marketing Theory, 10, pp. 161–172.Google Scholar
  4. Bloom, P. N.; Perry, V.G. (2001): Retailer power and supplier welfare: The case of Wal‐Mart, in: Journal of Retailing, 77, pp. 379–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boer, L. de; Holmen, E.; Pop‐Sitar, C. (2003): Purchasing as an organizational design problem: the case of non‐product‐related items and services, in: Management Decision, 41, pp. 911–922.Google Scholar
  6. Bowersox, D. J.; Closs, D.C. (1996): Logistical Management: The Integrated Supply Chain Process, New York, The McGraw‐Hill Companies.Google Scholar
  7. Caniato, F.; Golini, R.; Luzzini, D.; Ronchi, S. (2010): Towards full integration: EProcurement implementation stages, in: Benchmarking, 17, pp. 491–515.Google Scholar
  8. Caniëls, M.C.; Gelderman, C.J. (2007): Power and interdependence in buyer‐supplier relationships: A purchasing portfolio approach, in: Industrial Marketing Management, 36, pp. 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Casciaro, T.; Piskorski, M.J. (2005): Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory, in: Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, pp. 167–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, J.; Zhao, X.; Lewis, M.; Squire, B. (2016a): A Multi‐Method Investigation of Buyer Power and Supplier Motivation to Share Knowledge, in: Production and Operations Management, 25, pp. 417–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, Y.‐S.; Su, H.‐C.; Ro, Y.K. (2016b): Can I read your mind? Perception gaps in supply chain relationships, in: Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 22, pp. 311–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chopra, S.; Meindl, P. (2007): Supply chain management. Strategy, planning & operation, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Dyer, J.H.; Hatch, N.W. (2006): Relation‐specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: creating advantage through network relationships, in: Strategic Management Journal, 27, pp. 701–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989): Agency theory: An assessment and review, in: The Academy of Management Review, 14, pp. 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellis, S.C.; Henke, J.W.; Kull, T.J. (2012): The effect of buyer behaviors on preferred customer status and access to supplier technological innovation: An empirical study of supplier perceptions, in: Industrial Marketing Management, 41, pp. 1259–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Emerson, R.M. (1962): Power‐dependence relations, in: American Sociological Review, 25, pp. 31‐41.Google Scholar
  17. Gulati, R.; Sytch, M. (2007): Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in interorganizational relationships: Effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer’s performance in procurement relationships, in: Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, pp. 32–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hausman, A.; Johnston, W.J. (2010): The impact of coercive and non‐coercive forms of influence on trust, commitment, and compliance in supply chains, in: Industrial Marketing Management, 39, pp. 519–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huo, B.; Wang, Q.; Zhao, X.; Schuh, S. (2016): Threats and benefits of power discrepancies between organisations: a supply chain perspective, in: International Journal of Production Research, 54, pp. 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hüttinger, L. (2014): Preferential costomer treatment by suppliers – identifying benefits and antecedents, Berlin, Logos Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. Hüttinger, L.; Schiele, H.; Schröer, D. (2014): Exploring the antecedents of preferential customer treatment by suppliers: A mixed methods approach, in: Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19, pp. 697–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hüttinger, L.; Schiele, H.; Veldman, J. (2012): The drivers of customer attractiveness, supplier satisfaction and preferred customer status: A literature review, in: Industrial Marketing Management, 41, pp. 1194–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ingram, T.; Laforge, R.; Avila, R.; Schwepker, C.; Williams, M. (2007): Professional selling: A trust‐based approach, Mason, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  24. Ireland, R.D.; Webb, J.W. (2007): A multi‐theoretic perspective on trust and power in strategic supply chains, in: Journal of Operations Management, 25, pp. 482–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacobs, D. (1974): Dependency and Vulnerability: An Exchange Approach to the Control of Organizations, in: Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, pp. 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee, S.C.; Pak, B.Y.; Lee, H.G. (2004): Business value of B2B electronic commerce: the critical role of inter‐firm collaboration, in: Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 2, pp. 350–361.Google Scholar
  27. Leonidou, L.C.; Talias, M.A.; Leonidou, C.N. (2008): Exercised power as a driver of trust and commitment in cross‐border industrial buyer‐seller relationships, in: Industrial Marketing Management, 37, pp. 92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levine, S.S.; Prietula, M.J. (2013): Open collaboration for innovation: principles and performance, in: Organization Science, 25, pp. 1414–1431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liker, J.K.; Choi, T.Y. (2004): Building deep supplier relationships, in: Harvard business review, 82, pp. 104–113.Google Scholar
  30. Mol, M.J. (2003): Purchasing’s strategic relevance, in: Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 9, pp. 43–50.Google Scholar
  31. Mosgaard, M.; Riisgaard, H.; Huulgaard, R.D. (2013): Greening non‐product‐related procurement – when policy meets reality, in: Journal of Cleaner Production, 39, pp. 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nandeesh, S.; Mylvaganan, R.; Siddappa, S. (2015): A multi‐step recommendation engine for efficient indirect procurement, in: 2015 IEEE International Advance Computing Conference (IACC), 12–13 June 2015, pp. 377–380.Google Scholar
  33. Neef, D. (2001): E‐procurement: From strategy to implementation, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pentice‐Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Nollet, J.; Rebolledo, C.; Popel, V. (2012): Becoming a preferred customer one step at a time, in: Industrial Marketing Management, 41, pp. 1186–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nyaga, G.N.; Whipple, J.M.; Lynch, D.F. (2010): Examining supply chain relationships: Do buyer and supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ?, in: Journal of Operations Management, 28, pp. 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oosterhuis, M.; Molleman, E.; van der Vaart, T. (2013): Differences in buyers’ and suppliers’ perceptions of supply chain attributes, in: International Journal of Production Economics, 142, pp. 158–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pfeffer, J.; Salancik, G.R. (2003): The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rehme, J.; Nordigården, D.; Ellström, D.; Chicksand, D. (2016): Power in distribution channels – Supplier assortment strategy for balancing power, in: Industrial Marketing Management, 54, pp. 176–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roberts, E.B. (2001): Benchmarking global strategic management of technology, in: Research‐Technology Management, 44, pp. 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sunil Kumar, C.V.; Routroy, S. (2016): Analysis of preferred customer enablers from supplier’s perspective, in: Business Process Management Journal, 22, pp. 1170–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schiele, H. (2012): Accessing supplier innovation by being their preferred customer, in: Research‐Technology Management, 55, pp. 44–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schiele, H.; Calvi, R.; Gibbert, M. (2012): Customer attractiveness, supplier satisfaction and preferred customer status: Introduction, definitions and an overarching framework, in: Industrial Marketing Management, 41, pp. 1178–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schiele, H.; Veldman, J.; Hüttinger, L. (2011a): Being a preferred customer of leading suppliers and its impact on supplier contribution to innovation, in: Evangelista, P.; McKinnon, A.; Sweeney, E. (eds.): Supply Chain Innovation for Competing in Highly Dynamic Markets: Challenges and Solutions, Hershey PA: Business Science Reference.Google Scholar
  44. Schiele, H.; Veldman, J.; Hüttinger, L. (2011b): Supplier innovativeness and supplier pricing: The role of preferred customer status, in: International Journal of Innovation Management, 15, pp. 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schiele, H.; Vos, F.G.S. (2015): Dependency on suppliers as a peril in the acquisition of innovations? The role of buyer attractiveness in mitigating potential negative dependency effects in buyer‐supplier relations, in: Australasian Marketing Journal, 23, pp. 139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Simon, H.A. (1955): A behavioral model of rational choice, in: The quarterly journal of economics, 69, pp. 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sturm, R.E.; Antonakis, J. (2015): Interpersonal Power A Review, Critique, and Research Agenda, in: Journal of Management, 41, pp. 136–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tassabehji, R.; Moorhouse, A. (2008): The changing role of procurement: Developing professional effectiveness, in: Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 14, pp. 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Villa, F. Da; Panizzollo, R. (1996): Buyer‐subcontractor relationships in the Italian clothing industry: An interpretive framework, in: International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16, pp. 38–61.Google Scholar
  50. Villena, V.H.; Choi, T.Y.; Revilla, E. (2016): Revisiting interorganizational trust: is more always better or could more be worse?, in: Journal of Management, Vol 45, Issue 2, pp. 752–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Villena, V.H.; Revilla, E.; Choi, T.Y. (2011): The dark side of buyer‐supplier relationships: A social capital perspective, in: Journal of Operations Management, 29, pp. 561–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vos, F.G.S.; Schiele, H.; Hüttinger, L. (2016): Supplier Satisfaction: Explanation and Out‐of‐Sample Prediction for Direct and Indirect Procurement, in: Journal of Business Research, 69, pp. 4613–4623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederik G. S. Vos
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Management and GovernanceUniversity of TwenteEnschedeNiederlande

Personalised recommendations