메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국마케팅과학회 Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science(마케팅과학연구) Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science(마케팅과학연구) 제22권 제2호
발행연도
2012.1
수록면
131 - 144 (14page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
It is extremely difficult for small- and medium-sized (SMS) suppliers to survive and secure a stable performance without effectively dealing with manufacturer opportunism. Given the strategic importance of safeguarding or reducing manufacturer opportunism for SMS suppliers, our understanding on the issue is very limited. This research develops and tests a conceptual model that describes the linkages of the antecedent variables, such as supplier capabilities (core capabilities, operations capabilities), transaction-specific investments and interpersonal networks to the outcome variable, manufacturer opportunism. The conceptual model proposes that the antecedent variables affect manufacturer opportunism through two important mediating variables, a manufacturer’s dependence on a buyer and a manufacturer’s trust of a buyer. Seven hypotheses are derived on the basis of our research model and theoretical background. Data were collected through a survey. Participating organizations are SMS suppliers which have had exchange relationships with large manufacturers in Korea. The list of suppliers was obtained from purchasing managers at three large manufacturers, which are each internationally well-recognized organizations in semiconductors,electronics, and automobile parts, respectively . Covariance structure analysis was performed to test the hypotheses of this research. The major findings can be summarized as follows. First, the path from a supplier’s core capability to a manufacturer’s dependence as hypothesized in H1a is not significant. The path from the operations capability to dependence as hypothesized in H1b is significant. Second, the path from a supplier’s TSIs (Transaction-specific investments) to a manufacturer’s dependence is not significant, whereas that from a supplier’s TSIs to a manufacturer’s trust is highly significant. Thus H2a is not supported, whereas H2b is supported. Third, the path from a supplier’s interpersonal networks to a manufacturer’s trust is significant, implying that H3 is supported, unlike H4 – a manufacturer’s opportunism is not significantly influenced by the manufacturer’s dependence. This is consistent with H5: the path from a manufacturer’s trust to the manufacturer’s opportunism is negative and highly significant. Implications and future research directions are discussed.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (24)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0