The multiple levels of trust when selecting suppliers – Insights from an automobile manufacturer

Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/indmarman

Research paper

The multiple levels of trust when selecting suppliers – Insights from an automobile manufacturer Ala (Pazirandeh) Arvidsson , Lisa Melander ⁎

Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Supply and Operations Management, 412 96 Göteborg, Sweden

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Supplier selection Interorganizational trust Network trust Automobile industry

In this study, we aim to develop a framework for the concept of trust prior to forming relationships when selecting suppliers. Entering a relationship with a supplier for an extended period requires a certain level of trust in different facets (such as interpersonal relationships, continuous supply, and compatibilities). In situations in which suppliers need to enter into relationships characterized by high uncertainties, such as sourcing for high technology, trust becomes even more important. The question raised is how this ex-ante trust is defined and used during the supplier selection, when the buyer decides to enter into a relationship with a potential supplier. The phenomenon is studied in the automobile industry, which is experiencing a higher level of dependency on suppliers for sensitive, and at times strategic, components. A single case of a major auto manufacturer is studied using 36 interviews. Our findings show that when selecting the supplier with which to enter a relationship, trust manifests itself on multiple levels: interpersonal, organizational, interorganizational, and network. Contrary to some previous suggestions in the literature, we found interrelationships across these levels.

1. Introduction Most companies in different industries feel the pressure to update their offerings according to technological developments and, e.g., move toward a higher level of automation and digitalization. As a result, many have been pushed into relationships with higher risks and uncertainties with suppliers outside their traditional supplier base or with firms on technologically uncertain projects. The higher levels of relationship uncertainties compared with previous supplier selection situations have challenged the traditional approaches. While previous studies encouraged buyers to perform more extensive supplier qualifications for such situations (Song & Di Benedetto, 2008), recent studies argue that there is a need to ‘take a leap of faith’ or ‘a will to believe’ stressing the importance of trust (De Ruyter, Moorman, & Lemmink, 2001; Latusek & Vlaar, 2018; Mikkelsen & Johnsen, 2019). Trust has been discussed in terms of both reason and will (Möllering, 2006). However, in practice, trust is not well-defined or conceptualized for supplier selection, or prior to entering a relationship. In general, trust is defined as, “the expectation that the other [party] will perform a particular action important to the trustor” (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 712) and is an important driver of the behaviorbased attractiveness of strategic partners (Tanskanen & Aminoff, 2015). During the initiation of a buyer-supplier relationship, trust, reputation

⁎

and mutual goals are suggested to be more important than investments and commitment (Dyer, 1996; Valtakoski, 2015). However, purchasing managers do not typically consider trust in their decisions (Smeltzer, 1997), which was also evident in the interviews conducted in our study. The process of selecting suppliers is generally extensive and firms need to consider many commercial and technical aspects (Van Weele, 2014). While price is a major factor in selecting a supplier, several studies have suggested that intangible relational aspects including trust are also important in selecting a supplier in different industries (Yadav & Sharma, 2016). The Choi and Hartley (1996) study of the automotive industry, for example, shows that in the selection of suppliers, automotive companies consider collaborative aspects and the potential for long-term relationships. Similarly, Kannan and Tan (2002) point to soft factors such as supplier commitment and trust as being important in the supplier selection process. However, the extant literature lacks studies on how trust can be conceptualized prior to entering into a relationship, where it manifests, and what it can entail. Additionally, while there is a broad body of research on how the buyer-supplier trust is built as a result of a relationship, we do not know how building trust prior to a relationship can be different. Trust in existing supplier partners has been a recurrent subject of research during the last two decades (Agndal & Nilsson, 2008; Akrout, 2015; Doney & Cannon, 1997; Dyer & Chu, 2011; Villena,

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. (Pazirandeh) Arvidsson), [email protected] (L. Melander).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.02.011 Received 30 November 2018; Received in revised form 22 January 2020; Accepted 12 February 2020 0019-8501/ © 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Please cite this article as: Ala (Pazirandeh) Arvidsson and Lisa Melander, Industrial Marketing Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.02.011

Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

A. (Pazirandeh) Arvidsson and L. Melander

Choi, & Revilla, 2019; Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998). While no direct link has been found between the duration of a relationship and the level of trust (Ganesan, 1994; Kumar, Scheer, & Steenkamp, 1995), many contend that trust is developed as a result of the relational aspects and during a relationship (Dyer & Chu, 2011). However, firms need to trust their potential partners prior to entering into a relationship (McKnight, Cummings, & Chervany, 1998), as considering trust when selecting a supplier will result in a more trustworthy relationship in the future (Laaksonen, Pajunen, & Kulmala, 2008). Nevertheless, few studies have attempted to explain how this trust is understood or explained (Ekici & Sohi, 2000), calling for more exploratory studies to gain a deeper understanding of the topic. This is specifically important in selecting suppliers associated with high levels of uncertainty such as technology related uncertainties, where the buying firm cannot fully project the future state of the technology or the development and production at the supplier. The Meyerson, Weick, and Kramer (1996) study on trusting partners in hastily formed relationships, uses the term “swift trust” to discuss the need to manage the issues of vulnerability, uncertainty, risk and expectations that surface, and can guide us in explaining pre-relationship trust. They suggest that trust in such situations is initially assumed by individuals and then later verified as the relationship progresses. Trust in such hastily formed relationships share similarities with forming trust when selecting a supplier, since they “exhibit behavior that presupposes trust, yet traditional forms of trust—familiarity, shared experience, reciprocal disclosure, threats and deterrents, fulfilled promises and demonstrations of non-exploitation of vulnerability—are not obvious in such systems” (Meyerson et al., 1996, p. 167). However, there are important differences between a supplier selection process, with the possibly long-term intentions that we focus on in this study, and trust formed for a limited duration of, e.g., a project, calling for deeper studies on the topic. Thus, with this study, we aim to conceptualize how trust is understood and used to select a supplier partner prior to signing a contract. Our study contributes to two streams of literature. We connect and add to existing studies which suggest measures for supplier trust. These studies have focused on supplier trust in ongoing relationships in a given context (see, e.g., Seppänen, Blomqvist, & Sundqvist, 2007) and are generally deductive, using limited quantitative measures, which consequently give us a limited understanding of the concept of trust. We aim to contribute to these studies by conducting in-depth interviews on the nature of trust prior to entering a contractual relationship. We also use the explanations given in the literature on how interorganizational connections are dependent on the ties between the individuals, as well as the organizations and even networks within which they operate (see, e.g., Berends, van Burg, & van Raaij, 2011; Gulati & Sytch, 2008), and consequently, also contribute back to this stream of literature. Some findings from this stream of research show that trust manifests itself at an interpersonal and interorganizational level, and it is also suggested that these levels impact each other (e.g. Huang, Gattiker, & Schwarz, 2008; Zaheer et al., 1998). Larson (1992) argues that during the supplier selection, interpersonal trust is the most important factor and reduces the perceived risks and uncertainties. However, in their study on trust in buyer-supplier relationships, Stuart, Verville, and Taskin (2012) find that interpersonal communication between the buyer's and supplier's employees did not have any significant impact on trust. Trust seemed to be synonymous with the supplier company meeting the expectations of the customer. Additionally, a trusting stance toward business partners seemed to be somewhat connected to the company/business culture, since it appears that companies with a high level of trust in their suppliers also trust their customers (Svensson, 2001). On the other hand, while there are arguments for interorganizational trust also being dependent on the network level connections (Zaheer et al., 1998), there are no empirical studies on the topic and we know little about how it manifests itself at this level and how it could be conceptualized. Thus, we connect, and add, to this stream of literature by bringing empirical

evidence (which has been scant), showing that trust manifests itself on all four distinct levels: interpersonal, organizational, interorganizational and network (compared with previous studies, which discuss mainly interpersonal and interorganizational levels) when selecting a supplier partner and that trust at one of these levels impacts trust on the others. We explore our aim and the abovementioned themes within a large manufacturer in the automotive industry, which, due to automation and digitalization, is facing the challenge of selecting suppliers outside its traditional relationships. The industry in general is typically looked upon as being traditional; however, products and manufacturing processes are increasingly influenced and based on new technologies (Kompalla, Studeny, Bartels, & Tigu, 2016). In selecting suppliers in this industry, it is of increased importance that the suppliers have competencies beyond development and production, for example, in module assemblies and the procurement of noncore components (Behncke, Abele, & Lindemann, 2011). As a result, it is not uncommon for manufacturers to have long-term relationships with the same supplier base that has developed a high level of experience and knowledge of its buyers' needs and habits. It has actually been found that in the automotive industry, a company's trustworthiness and market-share performance correlate (Dyer & Chu, 2011). Thus, it can be argued that suppliers need to be trusted or evaluated to some extent prior to selection to ensure they will remain trustworthy during the course of the relationship. Like many other industries, the recent radical shifts toward smarter technology, e.g., electrified and autonomous vehicles, require automakers to increasingly source software and technology from outside their traditional supplier base, which permeates their whole value chain (Gao, Kaas, Mohr, & Wee, 2016). This has triggered collaborations with large firms such as Uber and Google, as well as start-ups, with, at times, little or no knowledge of the industry (Winkelhake, 2018). As a result, automakers are increasingly being exposed to supply risks, including poor supplier selection, lack of qualification and partner opportunism. Such characteristics make this industry suitable for exploring the phenomenon. Svensson (2001) has also found that trust is understood and used quite differently by the automakers toward their suppliers. It has been suggested that, at least in the automotive industry, interpersonal trust does not necessarily translate into interorganizational trust. Instead, interorganizational trust is largely based on processes on which the business is built, or “process-based trust” (Dyer & Chu, 2011). Impersonal processes and routines develop a solid context for exchange, which allows individuals within the organization to come and go without affecting the organizational trust. In the following sections, we will first review the literature related to how buyers become embedded in their relationships which impact their supplier selection, the literature related to buyer-supplier trust and its different levels, and then represent the methodological approach taken in the paper. This is followed by our findings and discussions. 2. Theory 2.1. Interorganizational embeddedness and supplier selection As firms engage with one another, they become embedded within the networks created by their partnerships and the extended groups of companies within their networks. They engage in different levels of connectedness and create different ties. Their existing ties, past experiences and relationships, expectations, and position within a network create opportunities for, and impact, their future ties (Uzzi, 1997). Actions taken by companies are contextualized in the structures and relationships connected to such a network of relationships, or what is referred to as interorganizational embeddedness (Granovetter, 1985). Studies have shown that the embeddedness of organizations in their network of relationships affects their formation of new relationships (Uzzi, 1997). The level of embeddedness reflects the general experience 2

Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

A. (Pazirandeh) Arvidsson and L. Melander

of companies in establishing partnerships with other companies and indicates their success in partnerships. This is partly because, through the experiences gained, firms develop capabilities to successfully enter into new relationships (Park & Ungson, 1997). The experiences gained from network ties enhance the awareness and understanding of a company about the competencies and resources of other potential partners. The gained awareness can help to trust or distrust potential new partners (Gulati, 1995). Mutual understanding, trust, and commitment influence the opportunities and the willingness to engage in collaborations. Personal contacts, information channels, reputations, complementarity, and having a central role in the networks, are found to have an important role in trust and the successful formation of new and/or future partnerships (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Freeman, 1978; Gulati & Gargiulo, 1999; Pazirandeh & Maghsoudi, 2018; Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996). One distinction made by network researchers that is worth mentioning, is that of relational and structural components of ties, where the former component provides knowledge about current and prior partners through direct experiences; the structural component provides knowledge about potential partners indirectly from prior partners, their partners, and the whole network of firms connected to one another (Gulati, 1995). Structural embeddedness matters when social information also comes from indirect connections to third parties other than direct contacts (Gulati & Gargiulo, 1999). In this respect, it is suggested that two organizations are more likely to partner, if they share common third-party ties or previous experience of working with one another (Gulati & Gargiulo, 1999). Our study explores these and other structural and relational avenues which guide the formation of new partnerships by using the concept of the multiplicity of interorganizational trust in this stream of research.

an individual at the buyer organization and the buyer organization itself can be the subject of trust. This distinction gives rise two additional levels of trust, which Whipple, Griffis, and Daugherty (2013) refer to as organizational and interorganizational respectively. According to Ganesan and Hess (1997), organizational trust is when one individual (e.g., an employee at the buying firm) trusts another firm, e.g., the supplier organization, independent of the individual contacts at this firm. This is especially important for the concept of distrust, as the lack of trust in an individual can be compensated by the trust in the organization, or vice versa. The interorganizational level of trust is independent of the individuals at both organizations and based on the established ties and experiences between the organizations. In addition to the interpersonal, organizational and interorganizational levels, Whipple et al. (2013) argue that trust between organizations also manifests itself on the interorganizational network level (between one and many organizations). However, the definition of the network level of trust is quite vague, and it is not clear what is meant by “one and many organizations”. Theoretically, and using the ‘subject/object’ frame of reference, we can argue that the subject of trust at the ‘network level’ can be either the individual or the organization with the object being the network of individuals or the network of organizations at the supplier side. Based on their findings, Whipple et al. (2013, p 127) conclude that much more research is required to develop the concept of network-level trust, noting that it “is particularly important given the increase in interest in logistics/SCM research focused on social network theory and social network analysis methods”. While the network literature discusses that interorganizational embeddedness results in the required trust to engage with new partners (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Gulati, 1995; Powell et al., 1996), the abovementioned research on the levels of trust are discussed in the context of ongoing relationships. Moreover, extant research hardly discusses the nature of trust for the selection of partners more than those early discussions. The research on interpersonal trust is the most developed and sheds light on its importance to the pre-relationship phase, specifically, in negotiations. In this respect, higher interpersonal trust increases the tendency to choose partners even if they provide fewer resources than others, if the others are less trusted, and increases the implementation of negotiation agreements. Emotional trust can also decrease the use of deception in negotiations (as reported in Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012). Lee, Yang, and Graham (2006), additionally, argue that emotional discomfort from negotiations in different cultures is negatively related to interpersonal trust. Zaheer et al. (1998) argue that interorganizational trust also has a positive impact on negotiations by reducing the associated costs and conflicts. One question that arises is in which of the four levels (interpersonal, organizational, interorganizational, and network) trust manifests itself in the pre-relationship phase (i.e., prior to selecting a supplier) and how. Three levels of ex-ante trust can conceptually be argued for: the trust of the individual(s) at the buyer organization who select(s) the suppliers in the individual(s) on the selling side; the trust of the individual(s) at the buyer organization who select(s) the suppliers in the potential supplier organization; and, the trust based on the established structures between the buyer organization and the potential supplier organization. To gain a better understanding of this, this study explores how trust manifests itself on these levels and whether and how it manifests itself on the network levels.

2.2. Multiplicity of interorganizational trust Trust was originally considered to be an interpersonal phenomenon in, e.g., social sciences, and it is largely assumed so in organizational studies (cf. Lewis & Weigert, 1985; Rotter, 1967). It is firmly established that the embedded ties between organizations are dependent on the connection between individuals across organizations (Berends et al., 2011; Gulati & Sytch, 2008). These interpersonal connections are suggested to create differing levels of embeddedness (cf. Berends et al., 2011), and thus, differing degrees of trust. However, several studies in the organizational field have discussed the role and importance of trust between organizations, especially during transactions (cf. Gulati, 1995; Sako & Helper, 1998; Zaheer et al., 1998). Even within the same organization, and since organizations themselves are inherently multilevel systems, it is important to distinguish and discuss the subject (/level) of trust (e.g., individual or organizational) and the object (/referent) of trust (e.g., another individual such as a leader or the organization; (Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012), which we build on to discuss interorganizational trust during the supplier selection process. On the interpersonal level, the object of trust is the member of the partner organization, but on the interorganizational level, the object is the partner organization itself. It is suggested that buyers should differentiate between the interorganizational trust established with the seller organization, and the interpersonal trust with the individuals representing that organization (Doney & Cannon, 1997). McKnight et al. (1998) argue that interorganizational trust impacts interpersonal trust in the initiation phase of a relationship as both the personality of individuals, and having structures in place between the organizations, makes individuals have higher or lower initial trust going into a relationship. According to Fulmer and Gelfand (2012), it is also important to distinguish the subject of trust, e.g., on the interpersonal level of trust the subject of trust is an individual at one organization and the object is an individual at the other organization. However, the confusion arises when discussing the partner organization as the object of trust, as both

2.3. Types of buyer-supplier trust In business literature, trust has been defined varyingly and broadly and discussed in many different contexts, on different layers and levels, and it is generally accepted as a multidimensional and critical factor in the development of an interorganizational relationship (Zaheer et al., 1998; Zhang, Viswanathan, & Henke Jr, 2011). Trust between organizations is the sum of several factors that may be difficult to observe directly (Sako & Helper, 1998). Thus, to evaluate the level of trust in 3

Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

A. (Pazirandeh) Arvidsson and L. Melander

interorganizational relationships, closer consideration of the nature of trust is required. Many scholars have conceptualized trust by the confidence (see e.g. Morgan & Hunt, 1994) and belief (see e.g. Kumar et al., 1995) in a partner's credibility and benevolence (see e.g. Doney & Cannon, 1997). Sako (1992) and Mayer et al. (1995), among others, distinguish between three types of trust, all of which exist at different levels in an interorganizational relationship and change over time: competence/ability (i.e., the assumption that the partner's abilities will help carry out the agreement), contractual/integrity (i.e., the assumption that the other party will follow the agreement), and goodwill/ benevolence (i.e., the assumption that the partner has the intention to perform according to the agreements). We use this classification in our study to capture the multiplicity of this concept for the supplier selection context. The ability/competency trust refers to the assumptions regarding “that group of skills, competencies, and characteristics that enable a party to have influence within some specific domain” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 717). Valtakoski (2015) studies the initiation of buyer-seller relationships and identifies that trust has a cognitive dimension characterized by attributes representing credible demonstrations of success in implementing past solutions and the presence of formal education to demonstrate expertise related to the offerings. The findings by Stuart et al. (2012) suggest that, from a buyer's perspective, trust in a supplier is mainly defined by delivery reliability, quality conformance and general expectations of what constitutes a ‘good supply’. The ability element of trust has been argued to be the most important of the elements in business relationships (Mayer et al., 1995; Sako, 1992). The integrity/contractual trust involves the assumption about the parties upholding their agreements and keeping their oral and written promises (Sako, 1992). The existence of mutual goals and interests is fundamental for trust to flourish. Akrout (2015, p. 29) suggests that it is “paramount to pave a way for the emergence of trust” so that companies can create a fertile ground that encourages “mutual interest-seeking, needs and expectations management”. In a similar manner, Hardin (2002) claims that trust is merely the encapsulation of interest. He also argues that the trustee takes the trustor's interest into consideration only because the trustee values the continuation of the relationship. The goodwill/benevolence trust refers to the assumption about “the perception of a positive orientation of the trustor” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 716); focusing on the intensions and the motives (Ganesan, 1994). The possibility of identifying with another organization based on, e.g., matching goals, interests or values is also considered paramount to trust. Valtakoski (2015) also identifies willingness, or interest in the relationship, such as the other firm's brand, sacrifices made to participate in meetings abroad, resources allocated, and the knowledge of local competition, as one dimension of trust when initiating a relationship (i.e., what he terms an affective dimension). Pirson and Malhotra (2011: 1090) suggest that the “understanding and internalization of the interests and intentions of the other party, based on shared values and commitment” is an important part of trust. Transparency has also been mentioned as a prerequisite for trust (Agndal & Nilsson, 2008); e.g., having an open-book policy and being transparent in the way the party charges for a product or service can show trust and openness. Sources influencing the assessments should be evaluated to ensure their validity (Doney & Cannon, 1997). Finally, honesty, defined as the fairness of partners, their motivation to lie or their history or possibility of making false claims, is also connected to this element of trust (Whipple et al., 2013). With this study, we aim to better understand which of these elements, and potentially which others, are manifested during supplier selection.

case studies suitable for ‘how’ questions. Since the aim of this study was to gain in-depth understanding of ‘how’ trust is understood by purchasers during the supplier selection and in contemporary situations of high technological uncertainty, we opted to study a single case. A single case study is useful for studying the phenomenon in-depth, and fully explore how trust is understood and applied in supplier selections. Following this suggestion, our case study presents an illustration of trust prior to entering a buyer-supplier relationship. An established automaker in Sweden was selected as a representative of an organization facing the contemporary challenge of including trust as a parameter when selecting suppliers, when it already had an established supplier selection process and is a proponent of trust in its business relationships. The firm was selected since it operates in the automobile industry, an industry that has relied on suppliers extensively for a long time. Furthermore, the firm under study has extensive processes for selecting suppliers and is used to conduct supplier selection under technological uncertainty, hence, making it a suitable firm for our study. The firm has its headquarters in Sweden and operates globally, with many international suppliers. The firm is well-established, produces premium brand cars and has approximately 45,000 employees. As trust is a concept that requires a high level of communication with the respondents to gain a deep level of understanding, semistructured interviews were designed (as suggested by e.g. Easton, 2010). Data were collected from autumn 2015 to autumn 2017 from a total of 36 face-to-face interviews. Data on the purchasing process, the organization and the nature of the phenomenon were collected by one of the senior researchers by interviewing three persons at the top of the purchasing department. After the three initial interviews, a semistructured data collection guide was designed by the authors, covering the following themes: the way suppliers were selected and viewed during supplier selection; the concept of trust during supplier selection; how suppliers were trusted to enter a relationship with and based on what aspects and qualities; the relationship between a company and their representatives and extended ties. The interviews were conducted by at least two of the authors and discussed during weekly meetings in spring and autumn 2017, with the aim of reaching a saturation of information. The interviewees were selected to: 1) cover the different aspects considered when assessing supplier trust; 2) represent a wide range of the performed tasks (i.e., operational to a more strategic level); 3) represent work with different types of suppliers, in terms of size and commodity complexity; and 4) include internal supplier selection stakeholders (i.e., purchasing; Supplier Quality Management, SQM; and Research & Development, R&D). The selection of interviewees and supplier types was made together with the senior employee at the purchasing department of the company. The operational buyers were then identified and contacted through the corresponding person responsible for each supplier category. Finally, the responsible internal supplier-handlers from SQM and R&D were contacted (see Appendix). This selection was complemented with snowballing, where all interviewees were asked for other suitable contacts. All interviewees had a large amount of knowledge about the firm's supplier selection process and were continuously involved in supplier selections. This study is based on the key informants' perceptions of potential suppliers, which has been studied in four different levels of trust that were identified: interpersonal, organizational, interorganizational, and network. Each interview lasted 40–50 min. After the three initial interviews, a semi-structured data collection guide was designed by the authors, covering the following themes: the concept of the trust during supplier selection; how suppliers were trusted to enter a relationship with and based on what aspects and qualities; the relationship between a company and their representatives and extended ties. Each theme in the interview guide included a set of questions concerning the different aspects of trust in a supplier selection process. The questions were open-ended and designed to give the interviewee new perspectives to reflect on by asking for concrete examples based on his or her experience. Hence, it was possible to allow interviewees to

3. Method Authors such as Yin (2009) and Ellram (1996) recommend studying a contemporary and dynamic phenomenon with limited previous knowledge in its real-life context. Yin (2009) specifically recommends 4

Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

A. (Pazirandeh) Arvidsson and L. Melander

discuss interesting venues related to our themes. Prior to the interviews, each respondent was informed about our research and the themes that would guide the interview. All the interviews were recorded and transcribed. Later, the raw data (transcripts) were translated and analyzed by the authors. As each individual interview followed a slightly different route, each transcript was analyzed separately and the answers sorted by the corresponding question. The organized answers were then coded using an open coding technique (as defined by Yin, 2009). The answers of each interviewee were assessed and grouped if they had common traits, without aiming to assign any particular label to the groups themselves. The derived groups were assessed iteratively, with the number of repetitions varying between the groups. They were created based on either recurrent words or the nature of the content. Finally, the groups were given a suitable category name, and the traits for each category were compared with denominations from literature to potentially clarify the content through the use of common terminology. The processing of qualitative data concluded with a discussion on the potential gaps and similarities between the collected data and the theory identified during the literature review. Four levels of trust were identified: interpersonal (person-person), organizational (person-org), interorganizational (org-org), and network (person-network of orgs/persons and org-network or orgs). Coded information was then sorted into mega matrices of these four levels (Miles & Huberman, 1984); e.g., text referring to ‘supplier representatives’ were sorted into the interpersonal level, and text related to the individual purchaser's trust in the supplier organization was sorted into the organizational level of trust. Similarly, text referring to trust between the firm and the supplier organization was sorted into interorganizational trust, and text referring to supply chains (including, e.g., as the second and third tier of suppliers) was sorted under the label of network trust.

4.2. The supplier selection process of the case company The main purchasing process at the company, in which a supplier is nominated for business, is called the ‘sourcing process’. This process is triggered by the company's decision on vehicle development. Such a development requires new suppliers for certain new components or ideas. The vehicle development ‘sourcing process’ raises needs in the engineering department. First, the purchasing department prepares a sourcing plan, mapping the needs, required activities, timeframe, and suppliers to invite. Then, the department performs what is known as a ‘sourcing approach’, in which the internal buyer or buyer team (i.e., the individual or team responsible for the purchase) presents its strategy to the top management. The executives and CEOs of suppliers regularly meet with the company's top managers; they present their research and advanced engineering and together, they discuss what the suppliers can add to the company. Supplier relationship management is also a question of how incoming offers are handled and how they are used within existing processes and designs: “It's one thing to talk at an executive level, it's another to actually make something of it,” one of the company's executives argues. Hence, it is not only about having good relationships between firms at the top management level but also about how ideas discussed at the top management level are realized at operational levels. The study at the company shows a complexity of relationships at different levels between the company and potential suppliers. In these relationships, trust is an important ingredient that manifests differently at various levels within the company, as well as between individuals. In the development of a new car, the company often awards suppliers with contracts that last several years. Then, the supplier typically takes part in both the development and the production of a component. Before making such a supplier selection, suppliers, particularly new ones, are extensively reviewed. Three functions partake in the review: purchasing, SQM and R&D. For new suppliers, purchasing conducts an overall review of the company involving aspects such as financial data, ownership structure and the sustainability profile. A visit to the supplier is often made to interview the management, and the set of questions is guided by the use of an evaluation sheet. Purchasing also ensures that the supplier follows production purchasing global terms and conditions (PPGTC) and follows up with cost estimates and cost breakdowns of products. The company's SQM is responsible for reviewing production and quality issues at the supplier. A manufacturing site assessment (MSA) is made by visiting factories and includes conducting interviews and investigating processes and quality systems, as well as how defects and complaints are handled. A desktop and a quality review are also conducted. The R&D department reviews how well the supplier will manage technically to develop and produce a specific item. The supplier's technologies, technical capabilities, in-house knowledge and systems are reviewed. The results of the reviews made by purchasing, SQM and R&D are collected and the suppliers which pass all the reviews go through to the next stage in the selection process. After this, purchasing conducts negotiations with the suppliers to obtain the best price. A ‘business case’ is built and often, the supplier with the best price is selected.

4. Supplier selection at the automobile manufacturer 4.1. Supplier selection strategies, organization and vision of the case company Purchasing within the case company is a well-recognized and longestablished function. The purchasing function is included in the production process and, from a development point of view, with the top management of the business, in general. For the case company, supplier management, cost and quality are key factors. At the case company, approximately 70% of the vehicle production costs come from external suppliers. Purchasing for the manufacturing of vehicles is done in the Car Purchasing unit and includes all the components, raw materials and activities for the car itself. The annual turnover of direct materials for vehicle manufacturing in this company is approximately 76 BSEK. The company employs approximately 200 staff and has approximately 500 active suppliers for direct materials on some 1200 active sites. The main aim is to create the most efficient optimal supplier base for each individual purchase. Nevertheless, the company has been working with many of its suppliers for decades, and the top 10–15 suppliers have worked with the company for an average of 20 years. In such relationships, if neither party (the supplier or the company) cancels the purchase order by the end of the year, they continue the business relationship for another year. From a technical perspective, it is often easier to work with old and established suppliers since the organizations know each other, their respective capabilities and their people. However, this could result in them missing out on important innovations. In the last two years, they have tried to broaden their supply market knowledge. In the opinion of the chairman of the Car Purchasing unit, the greatest barriers are mindsets: “Such market scanning takes a lot of resources and people would rather stick to the old ways.” Hence, the challenge is not only about finding suitable suppliers, and trusting them but also to change the way purchasers work, as well as their attitude toward the process of supplier selection.

5. Results – The four levels of trust when selecting suppliers at the case company It is difficult to capture how individuals perceive trust, as they often have very different definitions of what it is. Our results suggest that a clear understanding or guideline for trust in a potential supplier was missing at the buying organization: “When dealing with a completely new supplier, you somehow have to assume that you can trust them” (P11). In our study, while many considered trust to be an underlying factor when entering into a relationship with another organization, some considered it a secondary, or even irrelevant, aspect: “When I look at our part in 5

Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

A. (Pazirandeh) Arvidsson and L. Melander

SQM, then there is no personal trust; our documents [processes] ensure that we focus on other factors…. Personal trust in one or two individuals doesn't matter. If I look at how purchasing works, with their evaluation criteria they are very fact driven” (S6). However, this is highly dependent on the individual's understanding of the concept of trust, as the quote above indicates, in a lack of interpersonal relationships, other levels of trust can become more important. On the other hand, in the very early stages of a new relationship, the company needed to trust the supplier without having been able to fully assess that particular supplier. Here, some discussed the role of individuals at their organization as a source of developing trust or distrust toward the potential supplier organization: “An individual can demolish your view of a supplier, just as an individual can trick you into thinking that the supplier is trustworthy” (P8). This suggests that in the early phase of a relationship, especially with a completely new firm where there are few established contacts between the firms, individuals can obtain a greater role in building trust. Individual opinions had a greater, and at times more sensitive, role in the absence of a clear guideline for the development of trust, as is evident in, e.g., the following conflicting statements by two purchasers: “I also check with my colleagues when we have a new supplier to see what their views and opinions are about the supplier representative and the supplier organization” (P2), in contrast to “Trust is very personal. I don't think it is something that can be put into a system or made into a policy. Trust is personal, it's emotions. It doesn't matter how good someone else thinks a supplier is if they are not good from my point of view” (P10). Hence, individuals may choose to consult colleagues in regard to trusting new acquaintances, and thus rely on others' views and opinions. However, some argued that trust is personal and cannot be built through experiences gained from colleagues. However, when digging deeper into the interviews, we can see (as summarized in Table 1) that trust actually manifests itself in the selection of suppliers at all four of the theoretical levels: interpersonal, organizational, interorganizational and network (as defined in the previous literature by e.g. Whipple et al., 2013). In Table 1, we have summarized the coded results of our interviews, which we categorized according to our theoretical framework, in terms of how trust was understood (i.e., Manifestation) and based on information about the sources (i.e., Source) on these four levels by the individuals in the purchasing (Px), SQM (Sx) and R&D (Rx) departments. We will elaborate on these findings in the following sections.

the organization is usually also good” (S1). Similar to trust in supplier representatives, trust in top management also leads to trust in the supplier organization. Here, it is believed that top management behavior shows the supplier's culture and reflects how the rest of the supplier company is organized. Since many automotive suppliers are larger than the case company, it is somewhat difficult to affect these suppliers' management, hence making credibility in the top management more important in the supplier selection phase. In addition, to build credibility, the supplier representatives need to have a mandate to make decisions, as well as good contacts internally with their top management. The daily contacts with sales representatives and KAMs were also important for building trust. A more experienced representative was also viewed as more credible: “Sometimes trust is related to the sales representatives, the knowledge they have, how long they have been doing this and their attitude” (P13) and “Companies lose out by having bad sales representatives I would say. Because we work so much together that we need to have a good relationship” (P13). Hence, it is important to build personal relationships, where the company's representatives are confident in the supplier representative, that this individual has good internal contacts, the mandate to make decisions, have previous experience and sufficient knowledge, as well as a positive attitude toward collaborating with the company. These are important foundations for building a business relationship between individuals. On this individual level, knowledge was also expressed as an important attribute for trust. The supplier representative needed to have knowledge about the company's offerings, manufacturing processes and technology, understand the cost structures, as well as behave professionally. The honesty of the individuals was related to their intentions, where, e.g., the supplier representatives did not have the intention to lie or deceive: “Trust is very important. I don't want to invite a supplier that I don't trust to the final negotiations. I want to be sure that they can do what they promise” (P18) and to argue for the company internally at the supplier: “The sales representatives need to fight for us internally at the supplier” (P6). The willingness of the individuals was expressed as their understanding of the company's needs for a specific component or technology. Finally, it was expressed that individuals were trusted more if they would admit to mistakes and inform the buyers about problems and failures. By knowing these issues, the company had a chance to help the supplier solve its problems. The supplier representatives also needed to be willing to fight internally to acquire resources for the company, which often competes with larger automotive customers such as Volkswagen or Toyota. This shows the importance of having a competent supplier representative that also has good internal contacts, making it easier for requests from the company to be understood and prioritized internally at the supplier. Hence, technological knowledge, skills in translating requests and good internal, as well as external relationships are important. A complex picture emerges, where trust in a supplier representative translates into trust in the individual, trust in the individual's knowledge and trust in the individual's internal relationships within the supplier organization.

5.1. Interpersonal trust between buyers and sellers Several of the respondents discussed trust in terms of how they trusted the individual supplier representatives. These discussions evolved around how trust in the supplier representative, their direct supplier contract, helped in forming the view of the supplier. The interviewees pointed to the importance of the representative in developing trust in a supplier: “The personal relationship is very important. If you meet good representatives from a company who create some kind of trust in that company” (P11) or that “a good key account manager [KAM] usually has a good organization and company behind him” (P20). Here, the supplier representative plays an important role in building trust, both in a personal relationship with the company representative and in being competent. There is a belief that building individual relationships with supplier representatives and thus building trust, leads to trust in the supplier organization. Hence, trust between individuals can result in trust toward organizations. Our data show a number of manifestations of interpersonal trust in terms of competence/ability (credibility and knowledge) and goodwill/benevolence (honesty, willingness, and transparency) (see Table 1). Credibility at the interpersonal level is related to trust in the top management and supplier representatives, as is whether the speaking partner has the mandate to make decisions. Trust in the top management of the supplier organization plays an important role for the individuals: “We meet with top management, if they are good then the rest of

5.2. Organizational trust of the buyers in the supplier organization Most of the individuals in our study also discussed several aspects that contributed to their trust in the supplier organization: “Somehow it's the person you work with on a daily basis who builds trust. But it is important to separate trust in individuals and the company” (P16). Trust in an individual does not automatically transfer into trust in an organization, and vice versa. It was also argued that trust in the organization is more important than trust in individuals: “I would say that 80% is the company and 20% is the representative” (P11). One person from the SQM department noted that people move within the organization, and thus, in addition to working with individuals they will also be working with the company. Trust in the organization was expressed as being able to trust that its systems, individuals, functions, and the entirety of the organization would be able to deliver: “I need to know that a whole organization 6

Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

A. (Pazirandeh) Arvidsson and L. Melander

Table 1 Manifestation and information sources of trust when selecting suppliers on different levels. Level of trust (subject of trust-object of trust)

Manifestation (How is trust understood?)

Information source (What is the understanding based on?)

Interpersonal (person at buyer orgperson at supplier org)

Competence/ability Credibility of the individual (top management at the supplier, representatives, contacts, etc. on e.g. decision making) [P1, P2, P3, P7, P8, P11, P13, P14, P15, P16, P18, S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, R1, R2] Knowledge of the individual (e.g. their own offering, processes, technology, cost structures; professionality) [P2, P7, P12, P13, P16, P18, S2, S4] Goodwill/benevolence Honesty of the individual (e.g. intentions) [P12, P14, P15, P16, P19, R1] Willingness of the individual (e.g. understand the company's needs) [P6, P12, P19] Transparency of the individual (e.g. admitting mistakes and informing about problems and failures) [P2, P10, P12, R2, R3]

Relational component Past experiences (Through working and interactions, Sales representative fights for the company internally to get resources) [P1, P6, P7, P16, P19, P20, R3] Present ties (Providing the information that we need, Interview management, Open dialogue) [P2, P7, P9, P13, P14, P16, P19, S1, R2] Structural component Past experiences (Providing good examples, Fact-based information) [P2, P3, P13, S1, R2] Present ties (Being proactive, Negotiation) [P1, P18, R2]

Organizational (person at buyer orgsupplier org)

Competence/ability Stability of the supplier org (e.g. top management changing often, financial, ownership) [P1, P8, P9, P14, S4] Knowledge of the supplier org (e.g. commercial & technical, development & production capacity, quality systems, routines & standards, certifications) [P8, P14, P15, P20, S2,S6,R1, R2] Performance of the supplier org (e.g. quality, logistics, delivery reliability, turnover) [P2, P3,P4,P8,P9,P14,P15,P18,S2, S6] Technology of the supplier org [P4, P7, P9, P14] (e.g. IT, production) Contractual/integrity Matching goals and interests of the supplier org [P14, P20, P23, S6] Goodwill/benevolence Transparency of the supplier org (e.g. information, organization systems, processes and structures) [P3, P9, P12, P14, P17, S3, S4, S6, S5, R1, R3]

Relational component Past experiences (SEM, MSA, reviews, visits, audits, Repeated defects) [P1, P9, P14, P17, S2, S3, S5, S6] Present ties (Understand our needs, how well they answer our questions, Accurate estimates, sharing possible challenges, Not trying to cheat to get advantages to win the deal, providing ideas and suggestions, Discussing processes) [P2, P3, P12, P14, P16, P22, S3, S4, R2] Structural component Past experiences (Colleagues views, Financial Reports, Similar previous work) [P1, P2, P3, P8, P14, P15, P20, P23, S3, S5, R1] Present ties (Common procedures across sites) [S5] Future potentials (Verifications, testing, and simulations, Improvement possibilities, Teach their product and technology) [P2, P9, R1, R2]

Inter-organizational (buyer orgsupplier org)

Competence/ability Experience in between the orgs (e.g. history, business today) [P4] Contractual/integrity Matching values of the two orgs (Business culture, code of conduct) [P6, P8, P17, S5] Goodwill/benevolence Collaborative/long-term orientation of the potential relationship between the orgs [P1, P7, P9, P15, P16, P17, P19, P20, P22, P23, R1, R2] Transparency of the relationship between the orgs (e.g. communication channels, complaint channels, etc.) [P12, S3, S6, R1]

Relational component Past experiences (Working according to our expectations, Keeping promises e.g. delivering a quota on time) [P2, P5, P12, P13, P17, P20, P23] Present ties (Joint idea discussions) [P12, P19, R1, R2] Structural component Future potentials (Sharing patents) [R1, R3]

Network (person at buyer org -the supplier org's network /

Competence/ability Global presence of the supplier org's network of orgs (e.g. to deliver to other factories globally) [P14, P20] Knowledge of suppliers of the supplier org [P15, P16, P21, S5] Reputation of customers of the supplier org [P12, P15, P16, P21, S4, S5, S6] Contractual/integrity Contractual agreements extended to the second-tier suppliers [P21]

Relational component Present ties (Binding documents and contracts) [P21] Structural component Past ties (References from e.g. other OEMs, Track record e.g. projects and customers e.g. supplier of premium brands e.g. BMW, Porsche) [P12, P14, P15, P16, S4, S5]

The buyer org- the supplier org's network)

can deliver, both during the project and during the production” (P18). Hence, trust is not limited to one aspect or one point in time but relates to multiple aspects in the long-term. As explained by several purchasers, such comprehensive trust in another organization would not be simply gained: “with extremely few exceptions, I don't trust a single supplier. They do what they can to rob us of money. It's as simple as that” (P4). Building trust requires relationships on multiple levels, which is a complex matter. However, not having trust is costly, as it requires processes for controlling the supplier: “if you don't trust your counterpart then you need to control and double check everything” (P16).

The aspects mentioned by the interviewees that had resulted in trusting the supplier organizations can be summarized as: competence/ ability (the organization's stability in terms of its ownership, changing of its top management, and its financial situation; knowledge capacities on different functions, e.g., commercial & technical, development & production capacity, quality systems, routines & standards, certifications, performance in, e.g., quality, logistics, delivery reliability, turnover; and, owned technology, e.g., IT or production technology), contractual/integrity (matching the organization on the questions on goals and interests with those of the company), and goodwill/benevolence 7

Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

A. (Pazirandeh) Arvidsson and L. Melander

(organizational transparency in terms of, e.g., information, organization systems, processes and structures). In particular, it was noted that it is important for the case company to develop trust in the supplier's technical and developmental capabilities: “Generally, you need to have some trust in the supplier, not just commercially but also technically, that they are able to deliver according to R&D's requirements” (P7). The information on these aspects were gathered from several different sources ranging from discussions to reports, visits, audits and different information that the organization shares. One of the purchasers noted: “With a new supplier, the focus is more on systems, structures and other things that are visible, things that you can try to find out during a visit” (P17). In this regard, it was noted how visits and audits can develop trust on the specific capacities and capabilities of that particular site, but perhaps not so much on another site. Similarly, in situations where suppliers had a joint venture, it would be necessary to assess it in relation to, e.g., understanding the alignment of the two organizations.

5.4. Network trust by the buyers in the supplier's network The respondents also mentioned many aspects related to how trust in the supplier's network of organizations impacts their trust in the organization in question related to competence/ability. Here, trust manifested itself, firstly, in the global presence of the supplier organization and its network of suppliers and customer organizations. In particular, it was important that the suppliers' supply chains were to be trusted. Potential issues with second-tier suppliers with, e.g., deliveries can directly impact the company. One of the purchasers mentioned how they experienced supply delays from one of their suppliers that was related to one of the supplier's sub-suppliers and was not that easily solved (P16). To combat this, the purchasers today both try to audit and gather information on the supplier network of the potential suppliers (indicating a personal confidence toward the supplier origination's network of organizations), and incorporate contractual agreements in case of second tier supplier changes (showing a system level trust between the buyer organization and the supplier's network or organizations): “We visit our suppliers and when there is a need we like to check their suppliers as well [second tier]. We need to trust that their suppliers can deliver and offer the right quality. It's also about how they handle the material, their processes and inspections. There is an automotive standard, so most suppliers have the same standards and ways of working, but we want to make sure that it works” (S5). Hence, although the supplier firms are trusted to some level, in regard to their supply chains, there is still a need to, e.g., combine trust with control, by visiting second-tier suppliers and making additional assessments. Many of the respondents also mentioned the importance of the supplier's network of customer organizations. These respondents all mentioned that the reputation of the customers increased their trust in the supplier firm, as is apparent in the following quote from one purchasing manager: “Trust in a supplier is largely about its track record … being an automotive supplier of premium brands such as BMW, Audi, Porsche, etc.” (P12). Since the firm knows that premium brands have high demands on their suppliers and conducts thorough supplier assessments, a supplier that has continuously delivered to such a customer is expected to have a high quality in their delivery. In addition to the confidence in the network of organizations, trust at this level is also manifests in the interpersonal ties that the top management executives have that can result in ‘tips’ on market developments and potential new suppliers.

5.3. Interorganizational trust between the buyer and supplier organizations Respondents also discussed the mutual trust of the organizations, in terms of all three aspects of competence/ability (experiences), contractual/integrity (matching values and interests), and goodwill/benevolence (collaborative/long-term orientation, and communication channels). Trust between organizations manifested itself through experience and included the history of the supplier, as well as previous collaborations. Suppliers were expected to show that they had succeeded with technological implementations, as well as commercial success in the past. For new suppliers, reviews of the organization are an important source of information: “We do a thorough investigation of our suppliers before they are selected. We look at financial data and make supplier evaluations. We build knowledge about a supplier if it is a new supplier to us” (P1). Experience is also expressed through the business that the supplier has today, where being an automotive supplier is important, as it shows that the supplier has the experience of delivering to other highly demanding customers. Matching values and interests included aspects such as the business culture and professional code of conduct: “Trust in relation to companies is that you can trust in a professional collaboration” (P16) and “We have to trust in the supplier that we are collaborating with, it's about trust in many areas. We need to understand each other and not have any hidden agendas between us” (R1). Hence, it is important that an understanding and an organizational trustworthiness exist between the firms. In addition, the suppliers were expected to work according to the firm's expectations, keeping promises and delivering on time: “That they do what they promise to do, on time, according to our contract” (P5). Although many of the company's relationships with suppliers are of a collaborative and long-term nature, there is still a need to be open to new suppliers, to access new technologies and to obtain a better price: “Long-term relationships are important, but we need to be open and try new suppliers” (P9). It may be comfortable to rely on a known supplier, the need for new suppliers was understood in the firm, even if it required more resources, time and money: “Sometimes it's worth taking in a new supplier and investing money in helping them” (P7). Hence, starting a collaboration with a new supplier often involves efforts in supplier development, where the firm helps the supplier to, e.g., develop their technologies, operations or materials. Finally, trust between organizations was also understood through communication channels, which included daily oral communication, as well as the sharing of documents, drawings, test results and similar information. For a new supplier, building infrastructure for communication usually takes some time: “For new suppliers we have a learning period, how we should communicate and contacts. From oral communication to drawings, models and simulations. The communication between the firms needs to be built on all levels” (R1). Hence, taking on a new supplier is complex and requires great effort to build a relationship.

6. Discussion The study shows several interesting issues related to the transaction and governance of the relationship between buyers and suppliers. Uncertainties in the context of selecting suppliers for product development make it difficult to have a transactional approach since contracts are not enough to govern these relationships. Thus, relational aspects of the governance of suppliers become more important, and trust more so in the supplier selection phase, as shown in previous studies (see e.g. Choi & Hartley, 1996; Huang et al., 2008). Our findings also point out that firms combine trust and control in order to manage uncertainties. Hence, our study confirms previous studies on how firms combine trust and control in buyer-supplier relationships (see e.g. Agndal & Nilsson, 2008; Blomqvist, Hurmelinna, & Seppanen, 2005; Brattström & Richtnér, 2014; Melander & Lakemond, 2015). However, these studies do not focus on trust in the pre-selection phase of interorganizational relationships. The network literature explains that trust is required for entering into a relationship and it is based on different structural and relational components of ties (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Gulati, 1995; Powell et al., 1996). Building on this explanation of partnerships, we found evidence of a firm in the automotive industry handling uncertainties in the selection of suppliers by consciously and unconsciously applying trust based on information from both the structural and relational 8

Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

A. (Pazirandeh) Arvidsson and L. Melander

components of its ties (based on past, present, and future expressions). Thus, we add to those previous studies by showing more specifically where trust manifests, based on what information and from which channels. Additionally, previous studies of supplier selections have investigated trust mostly on a single level of an interpersonal nature (Huang et al., 2008). Other studies have investigated two levels of trust in buyer-supplier relationships: the interorganizational and the interpersonal level (Ganesan & Hess, 1997). We have extended this previous literature by identifying four levels of trust between buyers and suppliers in the supplier selection process at our case company. We build on the interorganizational embeddedness literature and elaborate on the contentions by, e.g., Fulmer and Gelfand (2012), who suggest that trust at an organization is multi-leveled with various subjects and objects (or what they term referents), and Whipple et al. (2013), who suggest different levels of trust in interorganizational relationships. We empirically find that during the supplier selection process, trust manifests itself at four levels with a combination of individuals, organizations, and networks as the subject and object of trust, with the decision of “which supplier to partner with” being ultimately impacted. The interpersonal level of trust, which was the most clearly defined in previous literature, deals with the individuals in both organizations trusting each other. Here, we can refer back to the theory of “swift trust” (Meyerson et al., 1996), as the individuals initially had to assume trust, or what Mikkelsen and Johnsen (2019) call “taking a leap of faith,” based on past, present, and future-oriented information from structural and relational relationship channels, showing a need for careful qualification to build such initial trust. Similarly to, e.g., Pirson and Malhotra (2011), at the interpersonal level, we found that competence/ability trust was related to the credibility of the top management, supplier representatives, and whether the speaking partner had a mandate to make decisions. In addition, the daily contacts in the form of sales representatives and the KAM were important for building trust on an individual level. Credibility at this level was also related to expertise (Ganesan, 1994), with a more experienced representative being viewed as more credible. Goodwill/benevolence trust at the interpersonal level was related to honesty and transparency. Honesty was related to intentions, when supplier representatives did not have the intention to lie or deceive, which is often discussed in the literature (see e.g. Jones, Fawcett, Fawcett, & Wallin, 2010; Whipple et al., 2013). Finally, transparency was expressed as sharing information, as well as communicating failures (Pirson & Malhotra, 2011). The definition of the other levels of trust is more confusing in the literature, especially between the organizational and interorganizational level. The confusion arises as, theoretically, the organization can be the subject or object of the trust, and both the individual and the organization can be on the other end. In our case, trust did not manifest itself with the buying organization as the subject of trust and an individual at the supplier organization as the object of trust. Thus, we argue that this level of trust does not impact the supplier selection decision, and thus, it is not relevant to the pre-contract buyer-supplier context of the study (i.e. contrary to its relevance in the e.g. intra-firm context of one organization as discussed by e.g. Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012). However, we observed several manifestations of trust between the individuals within the buying organization involved in the supplier selection process and the supplier organization, which, connecting to Whipple et al. (2013), we term the organizational level. As is also discussed by scholars such as Ganesan and Hess (1997), organizational trust is when one individual at the buyer firm trusts the supplier firm, independently of the individual contacts at this firm. At the organizational level, trust was characterized as the trust a representative at the buying organization had in the supplier firm, including confidence in the supplier organization's stability, knowledge, and competence capacities in different functions, its performance and owned technology, the perception that the goals and interests of the organization matched those of his or her own company, and confidence

in the supplier's organizational transparency. Several of these aspects are in line with what has been discussed previously in the literature, e.g., Hardin (2002) on matching goals, and Pirson and Malhotra (2011) on transparency. While the other aspects can be compared with definitions given for credibility by, e.g., Stuart et al. (2012), they were stressed as independent factors impacting the trust in the supplier organizations, e.g., trust in the supplier firm's technical and developmental capabilities. The interorganizational level of trust, on the other hand, is related to the established organizational ties and not the individual connections (i.e., the organization as the subject and object of trust). We argue that this distinction is especially important to make, because of the impact trust at one level can have on another, e.g., a lack of trust in an individual can be compensated for by trust in the organization, or vice versa. The interorganizational dimension of trust manifested itself in established ties between the two organizations based on competence, contractual, and goodwill dimensions of the past experiences of the two organization (e.g., business relationships in other categories or arenas), the matching values and interests of the two organizations, collaborative/long-term orientation of the interfirm relationship, and communication channels existing between the two. Trust between organizations is manifested through experience with, e.g., suppliers needing to show that they have succeeded in the past with technological implementations and/or have had commercial success (Valtakoski, 2015). Matching values and interests include aspects such as business culture (Svensson, 2001) and professional code of conduct. Hence, it is important for there to be an understanding and organizational trustworthiness between the firms (Pirson & Malhotra, 2011). Collaborative and long-term orientation suggest a more relational view of the exchange, where the suppliers take part in development efforts by joining in idea discussions, problem solving, and other development activities (see e.g. Melander & Lakemond, 2015; Rosell, Lakemond, & Melander, 2017). As there are virtually no studies on the network level of trust, the expressions of the network as the subject or object of trust at this level can be vague. We argue that trust at the network level can be confidence in the suppliers' network of individuals or organizations, with emphasis on the suppliers' supply chains. The confidence in the supply chains was considered especially important in our case company, as the issues of second-tier suppliers with, e.g., deliveries, directly impact the company. Our empirics provided evidence on trust at this level being about the individuals trusting the extended relations and networks of the supplier. Several trust aspects, mainly related to competence, were also expressed at the network level, such as a global presence of the supplier organization and its network of suppliers and customers. Both present and direct ties such as existing documents, report and contracts, and past and indirect ties were used to establish trust at the network level. The past and indirect ties were based on references from other OEMs, the supplier track records, e.g., projects and customers, or being supplier of premium brands. However, we argue that trust on this level can also stem from established and embedded interorganizational and interpersonal ties within the network. In relation to the network of interpersonal ties, one example could be the network of CEOs or other top management levels with which referrals can be made and ideas shared, which, consequently, can translate into supplier recommendations from top management (i.e., as was also observed in our data). These observations extend our previous understanding of this concept in what, e.g., Whipple et al. (2013) referred to merely as the trust between one and several organizations. Our findings also show that trust on one of these levels impacts trust on another, e.g., trust in the top management of the supplier company leads to trust in the supplier firm, as it is believed that top management behavior indicates organizational culture and structures; interpersonal trust in supplier representatives can translate into trust in the supplier firm and development of interorganizational trust; a reputable network of extended customers or suppliers increases trust in the organization; 9

Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

A. (Pazirandeh) Arvidsson and L. Melander

and an existing relationship between the organizations can translate into individuals trusting each other. This is very clearly expressed in several of the quotes, as illustrated in the above sections, e.g., in relation to competence/ability in the following statement: “You lose trust in a person when you sign a deal and then it turns out that the management said no to the deal” (P8). This evidence contradicts the suggestion in previous literature about the interorganizational level of trust being independent of the other levels due to its impersonal and process orientation (e.g. Dyer & Chu, 2011; Svensson, 2001). This stream of previous research argues that the processes and routines develop a solid context for exchange, which allows individuals within the organization not to be affected by personal trust. While our case company had longlasting and established supplier selection processes, trust at the different levels impacted each other.

work by Sako (1992) and Mayer et al. (1995), which distinguishes between competence/ability, contractual/integrity and goodwill/benevolence trust. We find that elements from the three types of trust by these scholars can be found in each of our four levels of trust. Related to competence/ability, specifically, we find knowledge (at the interpersonal, organizational, and network level), stability, performance, technology (at the organizational level), experience (at the interorganizational level), and reputation and global presence (at the network level), to be important aspects in ex-ante trust during supplier selection (cf. Ganesan's, 1994 definition of credibility). However, as we have studied the supplier selection phase, we find more elements related to competence trust and goodwill trust than to contractual trust. This is natural, as our study does not include contracts per se, but the firm's previous experience of the suppliers' capability of carrying out previous contractual agreements is one part of trust during the supplier selection phase. We also find that matching the goals and interests at the organizational and interorganizational level stems from formalized aspects such as contracts and codes of conduct. Thirdly, we discuss, conceptually and empirically, how trust at the network level could be understood. While previous studies, especially the literature on network embeddedness (e.g. Dyer & Singh, 1998; Gulati, 1995), suggest that it is relevant to discuss trust at the network level, the concept is unclear as to what it actually means, and how it can manifest itself and impact on decisions or decision-makers (Schorsch, Wallenburg, & Wieland, 2017). Previous literature defines it merely as the trust between multiple organizations (cf. Whipple et al., 2013). We define this level of trust with greater precision and explain whose trust (the individuals at the buyer org) in what (the suppliers' network of orgs or individuals) or which network structures (the existing structures between the buyer organization and the suppliers' network of orgs; e.g., the contractual agreements for higher tier supplier changes) form the network level of trust. Additionally, our data show how these theoretical discussions actually manifest themselves in practice on the individual buyer's trust, based on the suppliers' network of customers, suppliers, and supply chain, and the contractual agreements for changes in the higher tier suppliers. Trust at this level can be related to the supplier's network's competence/ability in terms of, e.g., having reputable customers or competent suppliers and the competence/ability of the extended partners not to disrupt future supply; it could also be related to contractual/integrity elements governing the supplier's network, such as existing framework agreements for partner changes within the supply chain. Further in-depth research is required on the network level of trust in buyer-supplier relationships to paint an even clearer picture of its characteristics. Fourthly, our data shows that trust on the different levels in the context of our study impacts trust on the other levels; e.g., interpersonal trust is impacted by interorganizational trust. There is a debate in the literature on whether and how trust on one level impacts trust on another, especially in the automobile industry, as it is argued that the process orientation of the decisions results in the isolation of trust at the interorganizational and interpersonal levels (e.g. by Dyer & Chu, 2011). We contribute to this debate by empirically showing that trust on one of these levels impacts trust on the other. For instance, we observed that trust in the top management of the supplier company translated into trust in the supplier firm; a reputable network of extended customers increased the trust in the organization; and an existing relationship between the organizations translated into individuals trusting each other. Finally, our study explains the complexity of trust in traditional industries, such as the automobile industry. In this regard, our findings show that, contrary to the suggestions by, e.g., Svensson (2001) and Dyer and Chu (2011) – that buyer-supplier trust in the automobile industry is more interorganizational (or process-based) than interpersonal – trust is actually quite complex, manifests itself at all different levels, and the levels impact each other (e.g., interpersonal trust impacts interorganizational trust). Additionally, the presence of the different

7. Implications, limitations and future research With this study, we aimed to conceptualize how trust is understood and used to select a supplier partner by conducting 36 in-depth interviews with individuals involved in the supplier selection process in a single case of an established automaker. We built our study on the network literature which explains that trust built on different structural and relational components of past, present and future relationships, is an enabler for entering new successful partnerships (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Gulati, 1995; Powell et al., 1996). We found evidence of a firm in the automotive industry tapping into information from both structural and relational components of its relationship ties (based on past, present, and future expressions) to trust or distrust its potential new supplier partners. Thus, we add to those previous studies by showing at a more detailed level where trust manifests, on what information it is based and from which channels it comes. Firstly, we found evidence of trust manifesting itself between the buyer and its potential suppliers, ex-ante and during the supplier selection process. This finding adds to the extant literature on buyersupplier trust, which explains trust mainly as a concept during relationships (see e.g. Akrout, 2015; Zaheer et al., 1998). With our study we conceptualize trust as a concept used for supplier selection or the buyer trust in potential suppliers during the supplier selection phase. Secondly, our empirics show this ex-ante trust as manifesting itself at four distinct levels, with the subject and object of trust being the individual, the organization, and the network of individuals or the network of organizations. These findings add to the published studies on buyer-supplier trust by showing, with a higher level of precision, where trust manifests itself (between the subjects and objects of trust) and based on what information and from what channels. Previous empirical studies on buyer-supplier trust have not looked at data at these detailed levels. While the study by Fulmer and Gelfand (2012) is one of the few we have found that increases the level of precision when discussing trust, it does not focus on the interorganizational level (i.e., most of their discussions are on the firm level and conceptually argue for the trust of individuals, teams, and organizations within the firm). Our study expands their contention that research needs to be more precise in discussions on trust in the context of the buyer-supplier. Existing research on interorganizational trust also suggests a multi-level nature of trust (e.g. in Whipple et al., 2013), but it does not clarify the subject, object, level of impact (which we argue to be the supplier selection decision in the context of our study), or the level of analysis at the levels. Our findings suggest that the interpersonal level of trust is very much characterized as described in the buyer-supplier literature (see e.g. Pirson & Malhotra, 2011), but we find a more complete characterization of trust on the organizational, interorganizational and network levels. This is not surprising as most previous literature has focused on the interpersonal (see e.g. Doney & Cannon, 1997; Pirson & Malhotra, 2011; Valtakoski, 2015), and very few have discussed the network or organizational levels (see e.g. Whipple et al., 2013). This study extends the work on buyer-supplier trust, such as the 10

Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

A. (Pazirandeh) Arvidsson and L. Melander

functions in the buyer-supplier relationship makes the totality of trust in this context quite complex and, thus, we recommend more studies to understand how, and if, trust is understood differently among the different functions interacting between the buyer and supplier and to shed light on the potential implications of this. Our study points to a number of managerial implications. There is no straightforward guideline on how to measure trust; rather trust is a complex phenomenon that manifests itself on several levels. Managers need to be aware that trust is not limited to interpersonal trust between two individuals at the buyer and supplier. Rather, trust exists between several functions at the buyer and supplier, as well as being related to the suppliers' network. It has long been established that trust is important in buyer-supplier relationships, particularly in collaborative product developments. However, managers need to be aware that trust is already an important part in the supplier selection phase. In our study, we were also limited to the borders of the method and theoretical lens we took. First, our findings are limited to the borders of one company, which, due to, e.g., the specific culture, can impact the characteristics of trust at each level. Trust can be understood differently in various countries, industries, firms and between individuals.

Although the firm is international, the majority of our respondents were Swedish and working at the headquarter in Sweden, something which also may have affected our findings. Additionally, respondents are largely from purchasing, with relatively few from the R&D and quality units. This skew might also have affected the representation of characteristics at each level. Future studies could replicate this study in other organizational contexts with more representation from functions other than purchasing and explore the possibility of tensions or reinforcements regarding trust in such cross-functional sourcing settings. Theoretically, we focused on the trust the buyer has to assume prior to entering a relationship with the supplier (taking the buyer perspective), and not the trustworthiness of a supplier, which is a related and arguable important aspect of such an ex-ante trust. Future research should add the supplier perspective and the trustworthiness of the supplier to paint a more complete picture of the concept of ex-ante trust. Acknowledgments Familjen Knut och Ragnvi Jacobssons stiftelse, Sweden.

Appendix A. List of interviews Number of interviews per department and task level. Department

Role

Code

Purchasing top management

Vice President of Purchasing Director of Car Purchasing Senior Purchasing Manager Purchasing manager (powertrain) Senior buyer (commodity) Purchasing manager Senior buyer (commodity) Commodity buyer (interior) Purchasing manager (exterior) Commodity buyer Purchasing manager (forward sourcing) Commodity buyer (interior) Purchasing manager (closers) Senior buyer (commodity) Purchasing manager (interior) Purchasing manager (interior) Senior buyer (commodity) Purchasing manager (electronics) Purchasing manager (senior, interior) Purchaser (interior) Purchasing manager (interior) Category buyer (commodity) Purchasing manager (electronics and safety) Senior buyer (Engine) Senior purchasing manager Senior buyer (interior) Category buyer (control) SQM manager (site) SQM manager (senior site) SQM manager (site) SQM manager (senior site) SQM manager (site) SQM manager R&D Manager R&D Manager R& D Manager

P01 P02 P03 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 R1 R2 R3

Purchasing

SQM

R&D

Behncke, F. G., Abele, K., & Lindemann, U. (2011). Impact of product design decisions within product development on the supplier selection process at the automotive industry. Paper presented at the industrial engineering and engineering management (IEEM), 2011 IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management. Berends, H., van Burg, E., & van Raaij, E. M. (2011). Contacts and contracts: Cross-level network dynamics in the development of an aircraft material. Organization Science, 22(4), 940–960.

References Agndal, H., & Nilsson, U. (2008). Supply chain decision-making supported by an open books policy. International Journal of Production Economics, 116(1), 154–167. Akrout, H. (2015). A process perspective on trust in buyer–supplier relationships.“calculus” an intrinsic component of trust evolution. European Business Review, 27(1), 17–33.

11

Industrial Marketing Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

A. (Pazirandeh) Arvidsson and L. Melander

R. M. Kramer, & T. R. Tyler (Eds.). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 166–195). London: Sage publication. Mikkelsen, O. S., & Johnsen, T. E. (2019). Purchasing involvement in technologically uncertain new product development projects: Challenges and implications. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 25(3). Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publ.inc. Möllering, G. (2006). Trust: Reason, routine, reflexivity. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 58(July), 20–38. Park, S. H., & Ungson, G. R. (1997). The effect of national culture, organizational complementarity, and economic motivation on joint venture dissolution. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), 279–307. Pazirandeh, A., & Maghsoudi, A. (2018). Improved coordination during disaster relief operations through sharing of resources. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 69(8), 1227–1241. Pirson, M., & Malhotra, D. (2011). Foundations of organizational trust: What matters to different stakeholders? Organization Science, 22(4), 1087–1104. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145. Rosell, D., Lakemond, N., & Melander, L. (2017). Integrating supplier knowledge in new product development projects: Decoupled and coupled approaches. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(5), 1035–1052. Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35(4), 651–665. Sako, M. (1992). Price, quality and trust: Inter-firm relations in Britain and Japan: Cambridge university press. Sako, M., & Helper, S. (1998). Determinants of trust in supplier relations: Evidence from the automotive industry in Japan and the United States. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 34(3), 387–417. Schorsch, T., Wallenburg, C. M., & Wieland, A. (2017). The human factor in SCM: Introducing a meta-theory of behavioral supply chain management. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 47(4), 238–262. Seppänen, R., Blomqvist, K., & Sundqvist, S. (2007). Measuring inter-organizational trust—A critical review of the empirical research in 1990–2003. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(2), 249–265. Smeltzer, L. R. (1997). The meaning and origin of trust in buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 33(4), 40–48. Song, M., & Di Benedetto, C. (2008). Supplier's involvement and success of radical new product development in new ventures. Journal of Operations Management, 26(1), 1–22. Stuart, I. F., Verville, J., & Taskin, N. (2012). Trust in buyer-supplier relationships: Supplier competency, interpersonal relationships and performance outcomes. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 25(4), 392–412. Svensson, G. (2001). Perceived trust towards suppliers and customers in supply chains of the Swedish automotive industry. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 31(9), 647–662. Tanskanen, K., & Aminoff, A. (2015). Buyer and supplier attractiveness in a strategic relationship—A dyadic multiple-case study. Industrial Marketing Management, 50(October), 128–141. Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67. Valtakoski, A. (2015). Initiation of buyer–seller relationships: The impact of intangibility, trust and mitigation strategies. Industrial Marketing Management, 44(January), 107–118. Van Weele, A. J. (2014). Purchasing and supply chain management. Vol. Sixth. ed. Hampshire, UK: Cengage Learning EMEA. Villena, V. H., Choi, T. Y., & Revilla, E. (2019). Revisiting interorganizational trust: Is more always better or could more be worse? Journal of Management, 45(2), 752–785. Whipple, J. M., Griffis, S. E., & Daugherty, P. J. (2013). Conceptualizations of trust: Can we trust them? Journal of Business Logistics, 34(2), 117–130. Winkelhake, U. (2018). Corporate culture and organisation. The Digital Transformation of the Automotive Industry (pp. 179–221). Springer. Yadav, V., & Sharma, M. K. (2016). Multi-criteria supplier selection model using the analytic hierarchy process approach. Journal of Modelling in Management, 11(1), 326–354. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Applied social research methods(4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141–159. Zhang, C., Viswanathan, S., & Henke, J. W., Jr. (2011). The boundary spanning capabilities of purchasing agents in buyer–supplier trust development. Journal of Operations Management, 29(4), 318–328.

Blomqvist, K., Hurmelinna, P., & Seppanen, R. (2005). Playing the collaboration game right—Balancing trust and contracting. Technovation, 25(5), 497–504. Brattström, A., & Richtnér, A. (2014). Good cop–bad cop: Trust, control, and the lure of integration. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 584–598. Choi, T., & Hartley, J. (1996). An exploration of supplier selection practices across the supply chain. Journal of Operations Management, 14(4), 333–343. De Ruyter, K., Moorman, L., & Lemmink, J. (2001). Antecedents of commitment and trust in customer–supplier relationships in high technology markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(3), 271–286. Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35–51. Dyer, J. (1996). Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage: Evidence from the auto industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17(4), 271–291. Dyer, J. H., & Chu, W. (2011). The determinants of trust in supplier–automaker relationships in the US, Japan, and Korea. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(1), 10–27. Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679. Easton, G. (2010). Case study research. A critical realistic approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 118–128. Ekici, A., & Sohi, R. (2000). The role of pre-relational trust in first time supplier selection? Paper presented at the American marketing Association. Conference Proceedings. Ellram, L. (1996). The use of the case study method in logistics research. Journal of Business, 17(2), 93–137. Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239. Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1167–1230. Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 1–19. Ganesan, S., & Hess, R. (1997). Dimensions and levels of trust: Implications for commitment to a relationship. Marketing Letters, 8(4), 439–448. Gao, P., Kaas, H., Mohr, D., & Wee, D. (2016). Disruptive trends that will transform the auto industry. McKinsey Company. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 85–112. Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439–1493. Gulati, R., & Sytch, M. (2008). Does familiarity breed trust? Revisiting the antecedents of trust. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29(2–3), 165–190. Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Huang, X., Gattiker, T. F., & Schwarz, J. L. (2008). Interpersonal trust formation during the supplier selection process: The role of the communication channel. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44(3), 53–75. Jones, S. L., Fawcett, S. E., Fawcett, A. M., & Wallin, C. (2010). Benchmarking trust signals in supply chain alliances: Moving toward a robust measure of trust. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 17(5), 705–727. Kannan, V. R., & Tan, K. C. (2002). Supplier selection and assessment: Their impact on business performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 38(4), 11–21. Kompalla, A., Studeny, M., Bartels, A., & Tigu, G. (2016). Agile business strategies: How to adjust to rapidly changing environments? Paper presented at the proceedings of the 11th European conference on innovation and entrepreneurship 15–16 September 2016, Jyväakylä, Finland. Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. (1995). The effects of supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(1), 54–65. Laaksonen, T., Pajunen, K., & Kulmala, H. I. (2008). Co-evolution of trust and dependence in customer–supplier relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(8), 910–920. Larson, A. (1992). Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1), 76–104. Latusek, D., & Vlaar, P. W. (2018). Uncertainty in interorganizational collaboration and the dynamics of trust: A qualitative study. European Management Journal, 36(1), 12–27. Lee, K.-H., Yang, G., & Graham, J. L. (2006). Tension and trust in international business negotiations: American executives negotiating with Chinese executives. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(5), 623–641. Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967–985. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473–490. Melander, L., & Lakemond, N. (2015). Governance of supplier collaboration in technologically uncertain NPD projects. Industrial Marketing Management, 49(August), 116–127. Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In

12