See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267637271

Trust and Commitment in International Buyerseller Relationship: A Dyadic Study in an

Emerging Asian Country Context
CONFERENCE PAPER JUNE 2014
DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4802.6566

READS

87

3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
M Yunus Ali
Monash University (Malaysia)
51 PUBLICATIONS 227 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: M Yunus Ali

Retrieved on: 15 February 2016

Trust and Commitment in International Buyer-seller Relationship: A

Dyadic Study in an Emerging Asian Country Context
Rakib Ahmed, Reem Quashem and M Yunus Ali1
Research Fellow, School of Business, Monash University Malaysia Campus
Email: Rakib Ahmed: rakib@mpblbd.com & Reem Quashem: reemq.12@gmail.com
Associate Professor of Marketing, School of Business, Monash University Malaysia Campus, Jalan Lagoon
Selatan, 46150 Bandar Sunway, Selangor, MALAYSIA E-mail: Yunus.ali@monash.edu

ABSTRACT
International buyer-seller relationship is a well-researched field in developed country
contexts but it is relatively under researched in the growing international market context of
emerging nations towards generalization of theories. Moreover, most of the limited studies in
developing country contexts failed to depict true picture of the relationship for their biased
view caused by using prescriptive quantitative method based on importer perspective only.
This research adopted qualitative research method using dyadic approach to understand both
parties perspectives in the relationship in participants own narratives. While some of the
findings confirmed past finding from developed and developing country contexts, other
findings raised serious question on theoretical bases of International Business.
Methodological rigor and findings are discussed in this paper with limitations and future
research directions.

Key Words: Importer-exporter relationship; emerging country context; Dyadic approach

of research; Qualitative research method; Buyer-seller trust and commitment
INTRODUCTION
The core of international business activities lies in the formation and maintenance of a sound
buyer-seller relationship (Hakansson, 1982; Leonidou, Barnes, & Talias, 2006). However,
despite the long research tradition on buyer-seller relationships (IMP, 1982), what makes
international buyer-seller relationship a success still remains unanswered unequivocally. The
extant literature on international buyer-seller relationship mainly focuses on developed
country contexts (e.g. Aulakh, Kotabe & Sahay, 1996; Bloemer et al., 2013; Hakansson,
1982; Leonidou, Barnes, & Talias, 2006; Voldnes, Grnhaug, & Nilssen, 2012). Findings
from developed countries may not be generalized for developing countries because trust and
its consequences may vary across countries (Zaheer & Zaheer, 2006; Bstieler & Hemmert,
2008). Bianchi, and Saleh (2011) argue that importers relational behavior in emerging
countries may differ from that of developed countries due to differences in institutional
environment. Some recent studies have explored factors influencing importers trust and
commitment to their foreign suppliers in developing country contexts (Bianchi & Saleh,
2011; Nguyen & Nguyen, 2010; Saleh Ali & Ali, 2013; Saleh, Ali & Andaleeb, 2014; Saleh,
Ali & Julian, 2014; Skarmeas, Katsikeas, & Schlegelmilch, 2002). Despite some significant
empirical contributions of these studies, major drawback is their failure to reveal both
transacting parties perspectives on the table to understand what the other side considers as
1

Corresponding Author

Citation details: Ahmed, R., Quashem, R. & Ali, M. Y. (2014), Proceedings of the Fifth Aalborg
Conference: Finding Solutions to the New Challenges of Internationalization, Aalborg University, Aalborg,
Denmark, 4 6 June 2014

important in developing and maintaining the relationship. Furthermore, the prescriptive

model of quantitative research fails to capture details of the relationships from participants
own perspective.
Our search of the literature also revealed that not many studies on trust and commitment
looked at the importer-exporter relationship dyads that provide clear insights from both
exchange partners perspectives (Griffith, Myers, & Harvey, 2006). Dyadic perspective is
important because importers behavior may differ from that of exporters for their different
role in the buying and selling process (Lye & Hamilton, 2001; Overby & Servais, 2005) and
better understand the relationship commitment (Bloemer, Pluymaekers, & Odenkerken, 2013;
Leonidou, Palihawadana, Chari & Leonidou, 2011; Liu, 2012). This study is aimed at filling
these gaps by examining the trust and commitment relationships in an Asian developing
country context from the perspectives of importers and their export suppliers from developed
and developing countries (dyadic approach) in participants own narratives.
The novelty of the study is to understand key factors that both parties of the buyer-seller
relationship perceived to have driven their trust and commitment building process. This will
provide valuable insights of the participating importers and exporters in the relationship in
their own narration rather than researcher imposed boundaries in a quantitative study
approach. This will help managers to create cooperative strategies for building a trustworthy
and committed relationship.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The concept of trust and commitment occupies a central role in relationship marketing
(Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Palmatier, Dant, Grewal, & Evans, 2006). However, there is no
consensus on the predictors of trust and commitment in the extant literature (Saleh et al.,
2014a; Saleh et al 2014b). Scholars have investigated several predictors of trust such as
equity (Moore, 1998), competence and communication (Selnes, 1998), communication,
knowledge & experience, and opportunism (Saleh, Ali and Ali, 2013) and many others. An
extensive review of the relevant literature by Saleh and Ali (2009) revealed that out of the 66
predictors of distributor commitment only 12 were reappraised in more than one study. Since
this study aims at exploring relevant determinants of trust and commitment in participants
own narratives, the study in no way will be dictated by literature. However, literature review
will provide only a mind map as a guide for the study and help verify if any predictor of trust
and commitment is relevant in participants context. Nonetheless, an exhaustive list of
predictors of trust and commitment in importer-exporter relationship was drawn to link
findings of the study to the literature.
METHODOLOGY
This study has used a qualitative approach for its ability to provide in-depth and interpreted
understanding of the research participants (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). We considered case
study best suited for the exploratory study (Yin, 2009) such as this study to understand
importer exporter relationship. Furthermore, this study focuses on the dyadic aspect of the
relationship to avoid the collection of one-dimensional data (Litz, 1997) and reflect views of
both parties in the relationship.
Semi-structured open-ended interviews were conducted to obtain an in-depth understanding
of the antecedents of trust and commitment from the respondents on a clear set of open ended
questions. This ensured the participants to interpret the questions the way they are intended

and be more relaxed and candid in describing meaningful or important experiences using
their own words (Bariball & White, 1994).
The unit of analysis in this study is buyer-seller relationship in developing countries to
understand nuances of it in a broader context. We drew samples from the importing firms in
an emerging Asian country and their exchange partners either from developed and
developing countries. Purposive sampling was used to identify particular types of cases for
in-depth investigation (Neuman, 2006, p. 222). The purposive sampling requires cases that
satisfy some predetermined criteria (Patton, 2002). Two criteria were used for case selection.
First, cases were involved in importer exporter relationship for at least three years so that
their initial honeymoon period is over to experience the real tests of business. Second, cases
satisfy the cross cultural mix in order to find out any impact of cultural distance on trust and
commitment in importer exporter relationship. However, due to time and resources
constraints only four cases were studied for this dyadic study with limited scope of satisfying
the second criterion.
The data analysis framework proposed by Miles & Huberman (1994) consists of three
concurrent flows of activity which includes data reduction, data display, and drawing and
verifying conclusions (p.10). Furthermore, the analytic techniques of pattern-matching logic
and cross-case synthesis were used to identify the important predictors of trust and
commitment as well as relationship between trust and commitment. Accordingly, cases were
first individually described and then cross-compared to look at the patterns for both literal
(cases that predict similar results) and theoretical (cases that exhibit different circumstances)
replication. Necessary attempts were made for the descriptive and interpretive validity and
reliability. First, digital recording with permission was used to reduce interviewer error in
writing the data incorrectly. Second, cross checking of the summary findings to avoid any
missing information.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This section provides a summary of case profile followed by brief discussion on factors
identified by respondents as relevant in the development of trust and commitment. It focuses
on respondents assessment of these factors impact on trust and commitment through crosscase and dyadic analyses. Findings are summarized that explains the dyadic trust
commitment relationship process and ends with theoretical and managerial implications and
limitations.
Case Profile:
As indicated earlier four dyads of importing and exporting firms were interviewed for this
study. The key persons who were directly involved in the relationships in the importing and
exporting firms were invited and agreed to participate in the study. Table 1 provides case
profiles including trading partners type (including allocation of code for case analysis),
industry type, duration of the relationship, firm size, and the designation of the participants.

Table 1: Case Profiles

Case

Industry
Type

Length of
Relationship

Case 1
(C1)

Food
Industry

6 Years

Case 2
(C2)

Food
Industry

14 years

Case 3
(C3)

Food
Industry

12 years

Case 4
(C4)

Cosmetic
Industry

15 years

Partners
Firm Size*

Respondents
Type

Respondents
Designation

Medium

Importer (I1)

Managing Director

Medium

Exporter (E1)

Vice Chairman

Small

Importer (I2)

Executive Director

Large

Exporter (E2)

Executive Officer

Medium

Importer (I3)

Marketing Director

Large

Exporter (E3)

Regional Director

Medium

Importer (I4)

Managing Director

Large

Exporter (E4)

Business Development
Manager

*Firm Size: Small (< 1 Million), Medium (1 1000 Million), Large (> 1000 Million)
Findings of the In-Depth Interviews:
The objective of exploring an in-depth analysis of the antecedents of trust and commitment
and the role of trust in building commitment in importer exporter relationship was achieved
through cross-case analysis. The degree of influence of each factor revealed from in-depth
analysis of the dyadic interviews briefly discussed below.
Communication:
Communication is found to play a significant role in trust and commitment relationship
between importers and exporters in this study. Both the importers and exporters from sample
cases emphasized its role and they used email, telephone and face-to-face communication
channels. Respondents confirmed that the use of channel of communication depends on the
nature of message and situation in hand (Larson and Kulchitsky, 2000).
All respondents mentioned that face-to-face communication is most preferred because it
facilitates better communication though most respondents did not use it frequently.
E3 from C3 indicated frequent visit and face-to-face communication with his trading partner.
As for the email communication, respondents from three out of four cases (C1, C2, and C4)
mentioned that email communication is best suited for record keeping purposes and for
contractual agreement. In addition to a dyadic agreement in C2, respondent E1 from C1 and I4
from C4 agreed on record keeping role of email communication. With respect to such
argument, I2 from C2 for example explained:
Once I say something [in email] its on record, I have that on the record, if they reply something I
have that on the record. So, there is less chance of miscommunication.

However, E3 from C3 explained that email communication is not very common in upper level
management compared to telephone and face-to-face communication. The respondent
elaborated that:

The face to-face and telephone is very important for the chairman level. The chairman doesnt
communicate over the email. I have never written email to him and he has never written to me in
the last 10 years.

Telephone communication was found most common in resolving day-to-day urgent matters.
While Exporters in three out of four cases (E1, E2, and E3) indicated its use to resolve disputes
or complex situations such as catching up with the buyer on terms of contract, Importers in
three cases (I1, I2 and I4) indicated its use for urgent clarifications and pursue faster delivery.
Influence of Communication on Trust: Communication is found to play an important role in
creating trustworthy relationship. Exporter in two cases (E1 & E2) mentioned that
communication play an important role in creating trust. E1 from C1 explained that
communication tends to help building trust:
It takes at least about a year to see how they perform, how they are communicating, whether they
are responding on time. So all these things we take into consideration and over a period of time
only I can say whether they are a trustworthy customer.

Likewise, E2 from C2 stated that:

[] as the time goes by, we talk and communicate, we argue at good times and bad times, and we
tend to understand each other and understanding comes in a way and then we do trust.

Therefore, these insights from the exporters (E1 and E2) illustrate that communication leads to
exporters trust which lend support to similar evidence in the literature (Leonidou et al.,
2011; Nes et al., 2007; Saleh et al., 2014a).
In contrast, two respondents (E1 from C1, and I4 from C4) mentioned that once there is trust
between the parties, then only the communication takes place. For example, E1 from C1
reported that:
Communication only comes into my mind when I know that he is a trustworthy person or a
trustworthy company. When that level of confidence comes then the trust comes and when the trust
comes then only the sharing of information. When we share information, they also feel how good
the information they are getting. So thats what the mutual trustworthy relation is based on.

Although there is no dyadic agreement but it is found that communication play a strong role
in building trust. However, this study explains that communication is important to build trust.
However, some exchange of information like future market price only takes place when there
is trust between parties. Therefore, it can be said that communication and trust are antecedent
of each other which is congenial with the findings of Fawcett and Magnan (2004).
Communication and Commitment: Communication also found to have a positive effect on
commitment. Respondents from all four cases emphasized that communication has a positive
direct effect on creating committed relationship. Although there was no dyadic agreement in
any of the cases but both sides (E1 from C1, I2 from C2, E3 from C3, and I4 from C4) agreed
on such relationship. E1 from C1, for example mentioned that communication has positive
effect on affective commitment as the importer enjoys the relationship. He mentioned:
So, among the three suppliers they give us the number 1 priority. So why do they give us more
priority than other suppliers? It is an intangible benefit or relationship benefit means they feel
comfortable talking to me, talking to my company.

Similarly, when asked how to reach a committed relationship, E1 mentioned that

communication leads to affective commitment because through communication the exporter

tend to make the importer happy about the relationship and hence the importer becomes
attached to them. E3 from C3 reported that:
I think you have to make sure that we keep giving them new ideas. We have to keep supporting
them in their business. They have to understand that we are a part of [the importer] and they have
to understand that we play a role in their success story.

Therefore, it affirms that communication lead to affective commitment between importer and
exporter from both developed and developing country context. This finding is consistent with
the findings of ter Hoeven and Verhoeven (2013) that organizational communication has a
positive effect on affective commitment.
Cultural distance and Trust:
A section of the extant literature suggests impact of cultural distance on importer exporter
relationship, especially on learning and experience, trust and commitment. This study
revealed that while cultural difference was found to have an impact on learning and
experience, respondents largely rejected its influence in building trust or commitment.
Importers from of three out of four cases (C1, C3, and C4) rejected any relationship between
cultural distances on trust. In this regards I1 mentioned that:
I had a business partner in Hong Kong many years ago. I had difficulty understanding him but
was very sincere. We trusted each other. When trust is built up language or culture is not an issue.
I saw his trustworthiness and his sincerity.

Similarly, I4 from C4 explained that cultural distance have no effect on trust, instead honesty
and sincerity is more important in building trust. I4 narrated:
China has different culture, language and even less proficiency in English but once there is trust its
okay. We have some bad experience in China but thats not for the culture but thats for their honesty
and sincerity.

Hence, this study reveals that the cultural distance or similarity has no effect on building trust
in import export relationship that supports similar finding of Ha et al. (2004) but refutes past
empirical evidences (for e.g. Nes et al., 2007) of negative relationship between cultural
distance and trust.
With respect to the effect of culture on commitment, none of the respondents indicated any
impact of culture on building a committed relationship. Both parties from C1 (I1 and E1)
indicated that they share somewhat different culture and also provided a dyadic agreement on
no impact of culture in import export relationship. For example, I1 from C1 explained:
[Exporters] culture should be different because their race, their religion, their language is
different. So I dont expect the same. But it doesnt matter, it doesnt affect the relationship.

Similarly, E1 put this way:

That [culture] has got nothing to do. It all depends on how you are good to the business. How you
are treating the business, how you are treating the other customer or the supplier. That is what it
counts. Culture does not play much role here.

An interesting observation was revealed in C4 where both I4 and E4 agreed that they share
different culture. However, they differ in their opinion on the effect of cultural distance in
commitment. While I4 rejected any impact of culture on building a committed relationship, E4
indicated that cultural distance could be disastrous if the parties do not adjust to each others
culture. I4 from C4 explained that:

When [trading partner from] other culture can satisfy the desired expectations, we are committed
because they can handle. So it is not necessary that it has to be same culture in a relationship.

Whereas, E4 from C4 mentioned that:

If you see the leaders or person from each entity talking to each other and then if you see the
difference and if they dont share the same kind of culture then it will be a disaster. You see, when
there are differences in culture you need something to make this work. I dont think it is very
difficult for us to adjust to each other.

In sum, most respondents indicated that cultural distance has no effect on importer-exporter
trust and commitment that refutes Swifts (1999) finding. Only exception is E4 to suggest
potential disastrous effect of cultural distance on communication and commitment unless
parties adjust to each others culture. Findings may indicate that the informants were highly
experienced in international exchange that may have contributed in dealing with cultural
distance.
Cultural distance and Knowledge and experience:
At lease either respondent of all cases (C1 - C4) mentioned that knowledge & experience
about other partners culture is very important in importer exporter relationship. Respondents
from case C2 provided dyadic agreement on this. For example, E2 from C2 explained:
We tend to respect each other; the respect comes from knowing the culture instead of just allowing
it flow on. When we go to another country we always respect the culture of that country and also
we make effort to learn it. We find it interesting; we find it different but its important that we
respect it.

Similarly, I2 from C2 mentioned that:

Not all the suppliers understand the market. Thats a problem. They try to enter the market without
understanding the market, what is our need and want. They want to sell what they want to sell.
Sometimes you have to customize the product. Sometimes you have to understand the market,
understand the culture to sell the products.

Similarly, E3 from C3 reported that knowledge about the other partys culture is very
important before starting any relationship because importing firms behavior is different in
different culture and it is necessary to match with their culture. E3 explained:
When I travel around different countries I behave differently with different culture. In Bangladesh
its very, very different; it is very relationship oriented.

E4 from C4 also supported this way:

I think its more on sharing, and it is sensible to understand the culture. We understand our
partners culture and that is the reason why our relationship building is better than others. There
is always a cultural sensitivity, there is always a cultural bias, but if you try to understand and
embrace each other and know the weaknesses and strengths then you can go on a relationship.

These participants own narratives clearly explain that knowledge and experience about each
others culture is very crucial in importer exporter relationship. This clearly lends support to
Uppsala researchers (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977; 1990; Johanson and Wiedersheim-Paul,
1975) observation that learning and knowledge are impetus for doing business in
international market.

Opportunism and trust:

It was common among the participants to see opportunism as a powerful factor that affect
trust negatively. Most respondents indicated that opportunism directly affect trust. Both
parties from C1 and C3 as well as respondents from the exporting firms in other two cases
(E2 and E4) affirmed such negative relationship. E1 explained that importers often get
involved into opportunistic behavior in taking delivery of shipment especially by commercial
importers when the market is down that incur costs and that affect their trust. E1 said all
these things matter and I would like to make sure that the buyers perform as per contract. If
the buyers dont perform and they are not the trustworthy people.
E2 from C2 also explained similar views as E1. In contrast, I1 mentioned opportunism also
take place when the exporter become dishonest in delivering the right goods and that
immediately affects the trustworthy relationship. The experience of dishonesty by an exporter
was shared by I1 where he found everything in the container was useless and gone down the
drain. Trust was no more.
E3 from C3 cited different form of importer opportunism such as withholding information
that would affect the trust of the exporter. E3 stressed that:
If the importer starts doing business with another supplier without telling us, the trust will start
breaking up. If they come up and tell us openly that they start working with another supplier for
some issue then we understand and we also work together.

In contrast, I3 C3 explained that when exporters try to take the benefit of the other party then
it affects their trust on exporter. Focusing on this I3 put his context and explained:
There are some suppliers who take advantage when they find that we are a bit obligated. So with
those suppliers we cannot build that much trust

E4 on the other hand, explained that neither party in their relationship behaved
opportunistically that contributed to very trustworthy relationship. He also mentioned that
they are honest to each other and they dont keep any secret and therefore they are trusted by
each other. E4 mentioned that:
I mean you can see the level of trust when somebody is open and not hiding. I mean when
somebody is giving you everything, theres trust in there. When there is transparency then only you
can develop trust in there.

These evidences clearly suggest that opportunism has a negative effect on trust that are
consistent with finding of the dyadic study by Armstrong and Yee (2001) as well as other
extant literatures (Bianchi & Saleh, 2011; Saleh et al., 2014a; Walton et al., 2008).
Opportunism and commitment:
Respondents from three out of four cases (C1, C3, and C4), including dyadic agreement in
last two cases confirmed a direct negative effect of opportunism on commitment. However,
while E1 from C1 confirmed that opportunism has a direct effect on commitment, I1
suggested only an indirect negative effect on commitment through trust. E1 explained that
the importing firms should comply by the agreement; otherwise they wont be committed to
such firms. Moreover, E1 also mentioned that there are some importing firms who are always
opportunist and try to take advantage of the market price that affect exporter commitment
with those firms. E1 further elaborated that:
As I told you before word is more important. If you tell a word you should do it, you should
perform it. You cannot try to cheat. We shall not have any long-term relationship with such buyers.

Importer I1 from C1 narrated his past experience of buying from other supplier to take
advantage of the significant fall in market price, which affected trust of his regular supplier
and broke their affective commitment. I1 elaborated this way:
I bought few containers from another exporter to remain competitive in the falling international
market. I explained to them the reason for that but I lost their trust and we have no relationship
with that company anymore.

E3 from C3 mentioned that when a party tries to become opportunistic by being dishonest or
hiding information then it affects the committed relationship. He explained how their
relationship was affected with this importing firm (I3) in the past due to some disagreement
and how their honesty brought I3 back to a continuing relationship. E3 narrated this way:
They [importer] kept complaining about our [product] and they quietly changed [to other
supplier]. After a while they realized that we are the better company and came back to us. Now
they switched to [our product] because they know we are open, we are direct, we do not work on
the self-interest and now the relationship is even better.

I3 from C3 explained that when the other party has lack of sincerity and honesty, it affects the
affective commitment by affecting their emotional attachment to that exchange party. He
explained:
If I find that one of the suppliers is trying to take some extra benefit or advantage then I will try to
avoid that supplier and at the end they have no right to go for a long term relation.

E4 from C4 explained that lack of opportunism as being open and sharing all information
does help build the affective commitment positively. This is because by being open the
parties tend to like and enjoy and like the relationship. Moreover, E4 confirmed that they have
a very committed relationship with I4 because of their open information sharing. E4 explained
the relationship this way:
We wish this high level of commitment by being transparent. By giving reports what we have, I
mean transparency and business transparency, in the relationship. Transparency on losses,
transparency on wins, I mean its no longer a secret for both parties I guess.

I4 from C4 shared his past experience to explain how opportunism negatively impact
committed relationship with another supplier. He reported that:
We used to be an agent for a French company for a long time and business was going well. After
4/5 years of continuing relationship, the company started doing business with other agents without
informing us and our relationship was cut down.

In sum, it is evident that opportunism has a negative impact on exporter-importer

commitment relationship as confirmed by all the respondents. This may support the argument
of De Ruyter and Wetzels (1999) that in the presence of an affective commitment there is less
chance of opportunism between partners.
Impact of Knowledge & experience on Trust:
The in-depth interviews revealed a positive impact of knowledge and experience on building
trustworthy relationship. Respondents from three out of four cases (C1, C2, and C4) agreed
that the more knowledge and experience each party gains from the other strengthens the trust
between them. There was dyadic agreement between parties in two of these cases (C1, and
C2) where exporters and importers confirmed each others role in knowledge and experience
gathering and its impact on building their trustworthy relationship. In such view, I1 reported
how exporters sharing of future international market price knowledge of the products
increased their trust on the exporter. I1 reported that:

They [exporter] knew about the international market price of this particular product and they
shared that with us as an early indication on increasing market price and encouraged to book
advance and gain. This contributed to our knowledge and building trust on them.

His counterpart, E1 confirmed that as follows:

Sometimes we also inform our prices and market trend, how the market behaves [based on our
knowledge]. We also advise them to buy accordingly. When they find our advice is right then we
win their trust and confidence on us.

I2 from C2 explained a situation where the exporters lack of market knowledge contributed
to selling wrong products at a high price that affected importer trust on the exporter. I2
elaborated the experience as follows:
A bakery ingredients supplier from India sold us some products that had no market in Bangladesh
and they also sold us at a very high price. So at the end of the day we could not sell those
products. First we lost the trust on them and then there is no point continuing business with them.
Business is about trust.

E2 from C2 reported that:

We tend to know each others strong and weak points and thats how we get to know each other
better and thats how our trust developed over time. With each problem solving we learn from the
mistakes and we try to avoid it happen again. And from that learning we build trust that help solve
problem.

Likewise, I4 from C4 explained that their exporter helped them to gain knowledge and
understand about their products and through that they build trust on their exporter. I4
mentioned that:
We didnt know about this business, lot of issues there and lot of technicalities are there. So they
helped us to learn it and share with the customers. And they cooperate with us all the time. So we
build our trust.

In sum, evidences suggest that exporters knowledge and experience about the market,
business, and each other is vital to create importers trust, which is congruent with past
empirical findings (Saleh et al., 2014a; Saleh et al. 2014b).
Impact of Knowledge & Experience on Commitment:
The study finds that knowledge & experience has a positive impact on creating affective
commitment. Respondents from three out of four cases (C1, C2 & C4) (including dyadic
agreement between importer (I1) and exporter (E1)) provided some insights about how
knowledge & experience leads to commitment in importer exporter relationship. Both partied
in C1 confirmed that exporters sharing of market knowledge and experience help importer
benefit from this and enhances its commitment to the relationship.
I1 from C1 reported that:
They [exporter] give us the indications [on market price movement]and we are benefitted from
their advance. When we are benefitted we would love to do business with them in the future also.

His counterpart, E1 explained why they share such information:

My buyers may think in different angles, whether to buy or not, whether the price is right or not. I
have to give market information more than anything else. So, that is a next thing we have to do it.
If we dont do that we may lose some of the good customers.

Importer I4 highlighted how the exporters (E4) knowledge and experience about the
importers (I4) capability contributed to their commitment to the importer. I4 elaborated that
as follows:
Because of this high level of commitment they have made us their exclusive distributor. Their
initial aim was to know about our capability, whether we will be able to represent them in the
market, whether we know the customer, their product and how we approach the customer. They
wanted to know and be sure about these before appointing us exclusive distributor.

These evidences imply that knowledge and experience leads to commitment in the importer
exporter relationship that lend further support findings of Johanson and Vahlne (2006) from a
developing country context.
Dependence:
Some studies (e.g., Lusch & Brown, 1996) reported relationship between parties dependence
and trustworthy relationship. Two respondents provided support to its direct effect on trust
though there was no dyadic agreement in any of the cases. I2 from C2 elaborated his support
this way:
Thats where trust [is], thats where loyalty comes from. We stick to the supplier and the supplier
stick to us. The supplier try to supply as fast as possible and we try to push [the] supplier but that
does not mean we can go to other suppliers and buy from other suppliers.

Similarly, E3 from C3 stated that they are the only supplier for I3 and they [importer] are
growing their business. Hence, E3 indicated trust on the importer and their ability to pay for
imports. E3 highlighted:
We are the only supplier for them [the Bangladeshi importer]. They may delay payment for few
months but we know that they will pay us and we know that our business will grow with their
business growth. We have trust on them.

Dependence and Commitment:

Findings revealed that dependence is a significant driver of continuance commitment in
importer exporter relationship. Respondents from three out of four cases (C1, C3, and C4)
suggest that dependence influence continuance commitment because dependency binds them
to continue and remain loyal to the exchange partner. For example, E1 from C1 explained that
they have a customer grading system based on which they commit to the foreign buyers. The
exporter indicated that they are dependent on the importer because they supply custom made
products that make them remain committed for the transaction specific investment to make
the custom made products for the importer. E1 from C1 stated that:
Second [factor] is dependence. There are a few products [ name withheld] that we custom made
for them. So for that we specifically supply them and we are the only supplier for the customer.

Case 4 provides a compelling evidence of mutual dependence where both I4 and E4

categorically indicated their mutual dependence on each other and remain loyal to their
exchange partner. I4 mentioned:
They (the exporter) dont have any other distributor here and likewise we also do not approach
any other fragrance suppliers. So, we want to continue this relationship because we are both
dependent on each other.

Likewise, E4 mentioned:

I dont think there is any reason why we have to stop selling and not having a partnership with
[this importer] in the future. We have to grow hand in hand. I mean we have to grow
simultaneously with them.

From a general commitment perspective, dependence as an influencing factor of commitment

is consistent with past studies (Andaleeb, 1996; Kim, 2001; and Wetzels et al., 1998).
Trust as a driver of commitment:
The extant literature (e.g., Morgan & Hunt, 1994) highlights that trust plays a critical role in
developing an affective commitment. This study found support to that argument from most of
the respondents including dyadic agreement between the importers (I1 and I4) and the
exporter (E1 and E4) on such positive effect. I1 from C1 indicated:
It is the quality that affects a customers trust. Loss of trust affects our strong relationship. If we
lose business because of this [] then of course we have to look for other suppliers.

Similarly, E1 from C1 reported that:

If there is no trust, then there cannot be any relationship. We need to have a mutual trust first.
Then only the relationship starts building up. There cannot be any relationship without having
trust. Trust and confidence are very important [to continue].

I2 from C2 explained that trust is most important in a relationship. They often find suppliers
price as high but their trust on quality help to maintain commitment with the exporter. I2
elaborated:
Without trust there is basically nothing. The exporters cocoa powder is dearer but customers like
the product for high quality. We stick to [the exporter] because we trust them, no matter what.

Both I4 and E4 from C4 explained the vital role of trust in building affective commitment to
continue the relationship. Supporting this positive effect of trust on affective commitment, I4
mentioned that:
No trust building! I mean we are working with them and they are working with us over a course of
time, whether someone is trusted or not we can easily tell. We cannot get along all these years
without trust. In a long term business relationship, you must have trust, otherwise you cannot go
along.

Above evidences clearly suggest that trust play a significant role in creating committed
relationship that support the extant literatures (Morgan & Hunt, 1994) form developing
country context.
Trust and Commitment (antecedent of each other):
Scholars also argue for trust and commitment as antecedent of each other (Abosag & Lee,
2013). Only one case out of four cases (C3), indicated such a relationship. E3 from C3
reported that once the exporter becomes committed, their importer tend to improve their trust
and vice versa. E3 from C3 elaborated that:
We show our commitment, whatever we promise we stick to the word and we showed them in
action and thats how they build their trust and the trust getting stronger and stronger. I think its
a two way thing you know. They have to be committed and then we trust them, and we have to be
committed and then they trust us.

This is consistent with the findings of Abosag & Lee (2013) that trust and commitment are

the antecedent and outcome of each other.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In our investigation for the predictors of trust and commitment in a international buyer-seller
relationship, this dyadic study on importers from an Asian emerging country and their
exporting counterparts from both developed and developing countries revealed some
interesting findings. We found that while communication has positive effect on trust, frequent
communication and exchange of information between partners takes place in the presence of
trust. Knowledge and experience also have a direct positive effect on trust but cultural
distance was not found as a significant driver of trust. Most respondents mentioned that
parters sincerity and honesty are important in the trust building process and cultural distance
is not a factor in it partners from similar culture may not necessarily be sincere and honest.
Mutual dependence between partners was found to have positive effect on trust and partners
opportunism certainly is not conducive to build and maintain trusting relationship.
As a predictor of commitment, communication and mutual goal were found as important
drivers of affective commitment. As expected, opportunism was found to have a negative
impact on commitment whereas partners dependence was found to influence continuance
commitment between partners.
This study revealed mixed views on how trust and commitment work in an importer-exporter
relationship. While most respondents mentioned that trust is a significant driver for creating
affective commitment relationship, some even argued that partners commitment to each
other over a period of time is necessary to develop trust. Similar finding was reported by
Saleh et al. (2014a).
From the dyadic context of the study, a dyadic agreement was found on a number of factors.
It revealed that importers trust on the exporter tend to grow when the exporter has the
knowledge and experience about the market and the other party. While dyadic agreement on
no impact of cultural distance on commitment was expressed, such agreement was also
revealed on the importance of knowledge of each others culture in an importer exporter
relationship. Some dyadic agreement was also found on role of dependency in building
continuance commitment. This is because when a party feels dependent on another party, that
party feels obliged to continue and remain loyal with the other party.
Theoretical and Managerial implications:
This study confirms past findings on what help build trust and commitment in an
international buyer seller relationship as well as raises question on some of the factors that
are believed to help trust and commitment building. From a dyadic research perspective this
study found support to the expectation that communication as well as partners knowledge
and experience of each other play a role in building trust and commitment. Partners
dependence on each other also found to play a role in that process as reported by Lusch and
Brown (1996) from a domestic buyer seller perspective using Transaction Cost theory.
Respondents confirmed the importance of partners knowledge and understanding of each
others culture as a success factor, but they never experienced any role of cultural distance on
trust and commitment as highlighted in Internationalization Process Theory. However, this
requires more research in a dyadic context to further validate these findings. Furthermore,
this study confirmed the interrelated nature trust and commitment in a buyer-seller
relationship (Abosag and Lee, 2013).

This study provides guidance for export and import managers to develop strategies to foster
cooperative working relationship. First, knowledge and experience on each others culture is
important to manage cultural distance between exporter and importer, and create strong
harmonious relationship. Second, it can provide guidance on the use of appropriate
communication channels to build a trustworthy and committed relationship. Finally, exporter
an importer must avoid any form of opportunism to create and maintain a trustworthy and
committed relationship.
Limitations and direction for future research:
Like all the other studies, this study has some limitations. A small sample of four dyadic
cases (buyer seller relationship between Bangladeshi importers and exporting firms from
Sri-Lanka, Singapore, Germany, and Switzerland) is certainly a limitation to draw a credible
conclusion. Moreover, this sample limitation affected comparing two sets of dyadic samples
dyads between importers and exporters from developing countries v/s dyads between
importers from a developing country and suppliers from developed countries. Future research
can extend this dyadic study with relatively larger samples. Furthermore, importer exporter
relationship is dynamic, evolutionary and long-lasting phenomena (Leonidou & Kaleka,
1998). Therefore, longitudinal case study approach may be more suitable for the study of
dyadic trust commitment building process over a period of time.
REFERENCES
Abosag, I., & Lee, J. W. (2013). The formation of trust and commitment in business
relationships in the Middle East: Understanding Et-Moone relationships. Industrial
Business Review, 22(3), 602-614.
Andaleeb, S. S. (1996). An experimental investigation of satisfaction and commitment in
marketing channels: The role of trust and dependence. Journal of Retailing 72(1), 77-93.
Armstrong, R. W., & Yee, S. M. (2001). Do Chinese trust Chinese? A study of Chinese
buyers and sellers in Malaysia. Journal of International Marketing, 9(3), 63-86.
Aulakh, P., Kotabe, M., & Sahay, A. (1996). Trust and performance in cross-border
marketing partnerships: A behavioural approach. Journal of International Business
Studies, 27(5), 10051032.
Bariball, K. L., & White, A. (1994). Collecting data using semi-structured interview: a
discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19(2), 328-335.
Bianchi, C. C., & Saleh, M. A. (2011). Antecedents of importer relationship performance in
Latin America. Journal of Business Research, 64(3), 258-265.
Bloemer, J., Pluymaekers, M., & Odenkerken, A. (2013). Trust and affective commitment as
energizing forces for export performance. International Business Review, 22(2), 363-380.
Bstieler, L., & Hemmert, M. (2008). Developing Trust in Vertical Product Development
Partnerships: A Comparison of South Korea and Austria. Journal of World Business,
43(1), 35-46.
De Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (1999). Commitment in auditorclient relationships:
antecedents and consequences. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24(1), 57-75.
Fawcett, S. E., & Magnan, G. M. (2004). Ten guiding principles for high-impact SCM.
Business Horizons, 47(5), 67-74.
Griffith, D. A., Myers, M. B., & Harvey, M. G. (2006). An investigation of national cultures
influence on relationship and knowledge resources in interorganizational relationships
between Japan and the United States. Journal of International Marketing, 14(3), 1-32.

Hkansson, H. (1982). International marketing and purchasing of industrial goods: an

interaction approach. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.
IMP Group. International marketing and purchasing of industrial goods: An interaction
approach. New York: Wiley, 1982.
Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm: A model of
knowledge development and increasing foreign commitments. Journal of lnternational
Business Studies, 8(1), 23-32
Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (2006). Commitment and opportunity development in the
internationalization process: A note on the Uppsala internationalization process model.
Management International Review, 46(2), 165-178.
Johanson, J., & WiedersheimPaul, F. (1975). The internationalization of the firmfour
swedish cases 1. Journal of Management Studies, 12(3), 305-323.
Johansonm J., & Vahlne, J. E. (1990). The mechanism of Internationalisation. International
Marketing Review, 7(4), 11-24.
Kim, K. (2001). On the effects of customer conditions on distributor commitment and
supplier commitment in industrial channels of distribution. Journal of Business Research,
51(2), 87-99.
Larson, P. D., & Kulchitsky, J. D. (2000). The use and impact of communication media in
purchasing and supply management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 36(3), 29-39.
Leonidou, L. C., & Kaleka, A. A. (1998). Behavioural aspects of international buyer-seller
relationships: their association with export involvement. International Marketing Review,
15(5), 373-397.
Leonidou, L. C., Barnes, B. R., & Talias, M. A. (2006). Exporter-importer relationship
quality: The inhibiting role of uncertainty, distance, and conflict. Industrial Marketing
Management, 35(5), 576-588.
Leonidou, L. C., Palihawadana, D., Chari, S., & Leonidou, C. N. (2011). Drivers and
outcomes of importer adaptation in international buyer-seller relationships. Journal of
World Business, 46(4), 527-543.
Litz, R. (1997). The family firms exclusion from business school research: Explaining the
void; addressing the opportunity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(3), 5571.
Lusch, R. F., & Brown, J. R. (1996). Interdependency, contracting, and relational behavior in
marketing channels. Journal of Marketing, 1938.
Lye, A., & Hamilton, R. T. (2001). Importer perspectives on international exchange
relationships. International Business Review, 10 (1), 109-128.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook (2nd ed), Californoa: Sage Publications.
Moore, K.R. (1998) Trust and relationship commitment in logistics alliances: A buyer
perspective. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 34(1), 2437.
Morgan, M. R. & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing,
Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.
Nes, E. B., Solberg, C.A., & Silkoset, R. (2007). The impact of national culture and
communications on exporter-distributor relations and on export performance.
International Business Review, 16(4), 405-24.
Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approached
(6th ed), Boston: Pearson Education.

Nguyen, T. T. M., Nguyen, T. D. (2010). Learning to build quality business relationships in

export markets: evidence from Vietnamese exporters. Asia Pacific Business Review, 16(12), 203-220.
Overby, J., & Servais, W. (2005). Small and medium-sized firms' import behavior: The case
of Danish industrial purchasers. Industrial Marketing Management, 34 (1), 71-83.
Palmatier, P., Dant, P. R., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors influencing the
effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(4),
136156.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed), California: Sage
Publications.
Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (Eds.). (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social
science students and researchers. Sage Publications, London.
Saleh, M, A., & Ali, M. Y. (2009). Determinants of importer commitment in international
exchange: An agenda for future research. Journal of Management & Organization, 15(2),
186-205.
Saleh, M. A., Ali, M.Y. & Ali, Q.M. (2013). Assessing consumer and B2B importers' trust
and commitment: An Asian developing country perspective. Australasian Marketing
Journal, 21, 126-136
Saleh, M.A., Ali, M.Y. & Andaleeb, S.S (2014a), Explaining industrial importers
commitment from an emerging market perspective: theoretical and managerial insights,
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 29(1): 45 62
Saleh, M.A., Ali, M.Y. & Julian, C.C. (2014b), International buyer behaviourcommitment
relationship: An investigation of the empirical link in importing, International Business
Review, 23(2): 329-342
Selnes, F. (1998). Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer-seller
relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 32(3/4), 305-322.
Skarmeas, D., Katsikeas, C.S., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2002). Drivers of commitment and its
impact on performance in cross-cultural buyers-seller relationships: The importers
perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(4), 757-783.
Swift, J. S. (1999). Cultural closeness as a facet of cultural affinity: A contribution to the
theory of psychic distance. International Marketing Review, 16(3), 182-201.
ter Hoeven, C. L., & Verhoeven, J. W. (2013). Sharing is caring: Corporate social
responsibility awareness explaining the relationship of information flow with affective
commitment. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(2), 264-279.
Voldnes, G., Grnhaug, K., & Nilssen, F. (2012). Satisfaction in buyer-seller relationshipinfluence of cultural differences. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(7), 1081-1093.
Walton, J. R., Salazar, R. J., & Wang, J. (2008). The effects of adaptation, commitment and
trust in cross-cultural marketing relationships. The Journal of Applied Business Research,
24(3), 29-37.
Wetzels, M., Ruyter, K. de., & Birgelen, M.V. (1998). Marketing Service Relationships: The
Role of Commitment. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 13(4/5), 406-423.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and methods (4th ed.). USA: Sage
Publications.
Zaheer, S., & Zaheer, A. 2006. Trust across borders. Journal of International Business
Studies, 37(1), 2129.