Volume 32, Issue 6 pp. 374-386

Justice served: Mitigating damaged trust stemming from supply chain disruptions

Qiong Wang

Qiong Wang

Division of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, The Price College of Business University of Oklahoma, 307 West Brooks, Room 1-k, Norman, OK 73019, United States

Search for more papers by this author
Christopher W. Craighead

Christopher W. Craighead

Department of Supply Chain & Information Systems, Smeal College of Business, Suite 465, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, United States

Search for more papers by this author
Julie Juan Li

Julie Juan Li

Department of Marketing, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 23 July 2014
Citations: 108
Corresponding author. Tel.: +814 865 0678.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the supports from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No. CityU 192813) and the Institute for the Study of Business Markets (ISBM) and the Center for Supply Chain Research at the Pennsylvania State University.

Tel.: +1 405 325 2668; fax: +1 405 325 2668.

Tel.: +852 34427865.

Abstract

This research examines the mitigation of damaged trust stemming from supplier-induced disruptions. We used the critical incident technique on 302 buying firms in China to capture two (one successful, one unsuccessful) supplier-induced disruptions (yielding a total of 604 incidents) to test our theorizing grounded in justice theory. We find evidence that different aspects of trust damage (ability, benevolence, and integrity) can be mitigated through the supplier's selective use of appropriate justice approaches (procedural, interactional, or distributive justice), which, in turn, foster relationship continuity intentions. Within this realm, we make a number of contributions. First, we find that procedural justice is the most effective mechanism (followed by distributive justice and interactional justice) to recoup the damage to buyers’ trust in the suppliers’ ability, benevolence, and integrity. Second, we find that mitigating damaged ability is the most powerful precursor (followed by recuperating damaged integrity) for locking in future business. Conversely, the mitigation of damaged benevolence is not found to affect future business intentions. Third, our post hoc results suggest that disruptions and consequent mitigation efforts pose relational threats as well as opportunities—yet the “double-edged” nature is affected by the “base” level of trust (i.e., the trust level prior to the disruption). Broadly, our study suggests that suppliers can overcome the negative relational repercussions of disruptions (that they caused) by employing well-developed, but nuanced, mitigation efforts and, in doing so, repair, solidify or even enhance the relationships.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.