El individualismo en el Estado Constitucional

Trust and commitment are critical elements in developing any kind of relationship. In the case of network relationships, trust and commitment enhance evidently the possibilities for having a successful performance in the supply chain. These two concepts are rooted in the social exchange theory.

Social exchange theory emerged from the integration of diverse areas of research as social psychology, philosophy, anthropology, economics, sociology, behavioral psychology, engineering and computer science (Cook and Emerson 1978; Ellis 2000; Cook and Rice

88

2003; Daudi et al. 2016). This theory is based on the proposition that entities relation with each other expecting a recompense in return (Emerson 1976). Indeed, the anticipation for recompense or the prevention of a negative retribution yields the motivation to interact with social beings both, as groups or individuals. In addition, the interaction incentive depends on the balance between the interaction recompense and the interaction cost (Yang et al. 2008; Kale et al. 2009). If as a result of the interaction one of the parts does not gain the anticipated recompense, then the disappointed party will purposely avoid further exchanges (Homans 1974). Or said it in other words, as long as a particular interaction is recompensed, the higher is the probability to repeat that interaction. In the supply chain background, this theory provides a better understanding of the dynamic in the relationship between supplier and manufacturer. For instance, (Narasimhan et al. 2009) pointed out how the supplier expects a reward from the manufacturer due to its contribution to the manufacturing firm via its SCM policies. A set of elemental economic reinforcement and psychological principles are responsible for modeling the people interaction at individual or group level. This comprises a group of behavioral attributes, i.e. trust, commitment, power, justice, relative dependence, and reciprocity (Bock and Kim 2002).

Researchers have study social exchange attributes (e.g. trust, commitment, power, reciprocity) to explain the influence and relationship of these attributes and the firm /network performance (e.g. Morgan and Hunt 1994; Kwon and Suh 2004; Hua et al. 2009; Johanson and Vahlne 2009; He et al. 2014; Wu et al. 2014; Mandal 2016). Several studies have examined collaborative and information sharing behavior at an inter-firm level in the supply chain context (Kwon and Suh 2004; Yang et al. 2008; Omar et al. 2012; Tewari et al. 2013; Mandal 2016). Among these studies trust and commitment have been highlighted as the key behavioral attributes that provide stability within the supply chain relationship (Kwon and Suh 2004; Yang et al. 2008; Chen et al. 2011; Day et al. 2013; He et al. 2014; Wu et al. 2014).

Trust is characterized as the human behavior that include reliability, the wordy of another and integrity that leads to the reliability among each part of a relationship (Johanson and Vahlne 2009). Gambetta (2000) stated that trust corresponds to the possibility perceived by the trustor that a trustee will perform an action. Rotter (1967) stated that “one of the most salient factors in the effectiveness of our present complex social organization is the willingness of one or more individuals in a social unit to trust others. The efficiency, adjustment, and even survival of any social group depend upon the presence or absence of such trust”. In the context of

89

collaborative networks, Daudi et al. (2016) defined trust as “of confidence trustor– party develops in trustee–party based on the expectation that trustee–party will perform a particular action necessary to trustor–party, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control trustee–party”. In addition, Thorgren et al. (2011) handled an study to explain trust and the building of trust among allies in a multipart alliance. They examined the mechanisms that allow partner firms to build trust in a scenario with free-riding risk and the relationship between these mechanisms and the firms’ size. From their study, they concluded that trust is “at the core of establishing successful exchange in every alliance with several members where the risk of free-riding is apparent”. Therefore, trust is a relevant factor in developing a relationship among supply chain partners. The absence of such ability in the supply chain leads to inefficiency and ineffectiveness performance reflected in transactional costs (e.g. certifications, inspections); thus, “the presence of trust improves measurably the chance of successful supply chain performance” (Kwon and Suh 2004).

Commitment is defined as “an exchange partner believing that an ongoing relationship with another is so important as to warrant maximum efforts at maintaining it; that is, the committed party believes the relationship endures indefinitely” and has been drew on the notions of commitment from marriage, organization and social exchange theory (Morgan and Hunt 1994). Within a relationship, the notion of commitment refers to the willing for maintaining a ‘valuable relationship’ indeterminately. The value of the relationship is directly related to the importance assigned to that particular relation. The willing for a lasting relationship is reflected in the efforts and actions of the involved parties for sustaining the relationship. On the other hand, in the context of firm’s internationalization, (Johanson and Vahlne 2009) referred to commitment as the degree of inflexibility where it is a network relationship or a particular investment in the market. In other words, it is the degree of dependency between the exchange partners as commitment-building requires the investment of effort, time and short-term sacrifices for gaining mutual benefits in long-term. The degree of commitment will last and growth as long as the partners perceive that maintaining a particular relationship is in line with their interest in long-term despite the dependency to pay for it.

Morgan and Hunt (1994) conceptualized the relational exchange in marketing and the impact of trust and commitment as key factors that lead the relationship marketing to productive, effective and successful relationships (Figure 2-19) .The authors proposed a theory labelled ‘key mediating variable’ to frame one side in the relationship exchange and the commitment

90

and trust in the side’s relationship. As trust and relationship commitment constitute key constructs, the auhtors positioned these two elements in the middle of five relevant predecesors (i.e. shared values, relationship benefits, communication, relationship termination costs, and opportunistic behavior) and five consequences (i.e., cooperation, decision-making uncertainty, propensity to leave, acquiescence, and functional conflict).

Figure 2-19 The key mediating variable model of relationship management Source: Morgan and Hunt (1994)

Morgan and Hunt stated that trust and commitment are ‘key due to their function of encouraging marketers to (1) decline short-term substitutes in favor of the long-term benefits expected by engaging with the current partners, (2) support to retain the relational investments by collaborating with exchange partners, and (3) regard probable high-risk activities as being safe due to their confidence that their partners will not proceed opportunistically. Hence, when both social attributes are present, they generate outcomes that prompt effectiveness, productivity and efficiency. Furthermore, the author tested their model using data collected from a retailers of automobile tire and supported their key mediating variable model.

91

Kwon and Suh (2005) examined the relationship between several constructs from transaction cost analysis (including behavioral uncertainty, asset specificity, and partner’s opportunism), social exchange theory (information sharing) and the level of trust. From their findings, the authors provided empirical evidence that the levels of commitment have a strong relationship with the levels of trust as it was previously hypothesized by Morgan and Hunt (1994). They also found that information sharing has a positive impact on improving the level of trust by reducing partner’s uncertainty behavior. Finally, they argued “that commitment is a key in achieving supply chain integration and trust is a root in fostering such commitment”.

Yang et al. (2008) investigated the antecedents of relational stability in supply chain alliances in relation to goal interdependence and the social exchange theory. In the context of alliances, the authors argued that the mutual respect for suppliers and buyers is the result of relational commitment as well as it removes the necessity for competition from rivalries. Furthermore, trust constitutes a stimulus that generates more satisfactory working atmospheres for supply chain partners. Trust provides incentives for cooperative efforts, increases the reliability of contractors, and decreases uncertainties and risk. Finally, the based on the findings, the authors suggested that trust and commitment are two relevant precursors for relational stability impacting the performance within the alliance.

For the purpose of this work, trust is the social attribute that enables the development of effective social-business networks, and act as a mechanism for learning and gain new knowledge. Indeed, the lack of knowledge can be overcome through trusty relationships as in the case of firms that run a foreign business by trusting in a middleman despite firm's lack of knowledge (Johanson and Vahlne 2009). Trust is also seem as a precondition for learning (Vahlne and Johanson 2013). The existing social capital sustains the learning processes which in turn sustain the development of further social capital. Trust is also a precondition needed to enhance commitment among the partners in a supply chain. The presence of trust enhances the efficiency and effectiveness by reducing the necessity to establish formal contractual conditions which allows faster times of set-up, and the transaction costs (e.g. inspection, verification, certification costs) (Kwon and Suh 2004; Chen et al. 2011; Ellis 2011). On the basis of trust, commitment is the willingness of establishing a more stable relationship through the exchange of resources and efforts which also leads to increase the relationship dependency and resources inflexibility. Finally, from the business network approach for internationalization, this work adopts Johanson and Vahlne (2009) propositions regarding building trust and commitment as necessary preconditions for internationalization.

92