English (pdf)
Article in xml format
Article references
Automatic translation
Send this article by e-mail
Cited by SciELO 
Cited by Google 
Similars in
SciELO 
Similars in Google 
Permalink
1. Introduction
Satisfaction is widely acknowledged as a critical factor influencing repurchase, recommendations, and customer loyalty (Hutchinson et al., 2011; Ranaweera and Prabhu, 2003; Whipple et al., 2010). In the realm of business relationships (BRs), maintaining satisfaction is paramount to ensure their longevity (Ng, 2012). Nevertheless, consensus is lacking regarding the factors that drive, sustain, and impact satisfaction in BRs among companies. Notably, the concept of “satisfaction” often intertwines with “trust” and “commitment,” forming a complex and multifaceted nexus. Some argue that trust influences satisfaction (Ganesan, 1994), while others contend that satisfaction not only affects trust but is also an iterative and cyclical process (Farrelly and Quester 2005).
In our quest to explore this topic, we uncovered a literature review titled “Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Relationship Marketing: A Meta-Analysis” through an extensive search for BR literature reviews between 2010 and 2023 on Scopus and Web of Science. The authors underscore the presence of mediating factors that exert intricate and diverse effects on BRs within the context of relationship marketing strategies. They emphasize the significant influence of cooperation and recommendations on BRs, sometimes surpassing the impact of objective supplier performance. Additionally, they discuss the role of dependency in enhancing performance through means like increasing provider-switching costs and exit barriers (Palmatier et al., 2006).
A second literature review on satisfaction in BRs, titled “A Review of Buyer-supplier Relationship Typologies: Progress, Problems, and Future Directions” (Tangpong et al., 2015), delves into the limitations of BR typologies in explaining buyer behavior. The authors propose the creation of different relationship typologies between suppliers and customers based on dimensions such as the level of cooperation, distribution of power, and the degree of mutual knowledge between buyer and seller.
In a third literature review on BRs, titled “The Buyer-seller Relationship: A Literature Synthesis on Dynamic Perspectives,” it becomes evident that most research on dynamic buyer-seller relationships aligns with one of four perspectives: the relationship lifecycle, relationship age, relationship velocity, and the asymmetric-dynamic perspective. The authors highlight the limited exploration of the antecedents and consequences of trust, satisfaction, and commitment, with other constructs like relationship quality, loyalty, recommendations, and commitment receiving even less attention (Hussain et al., 2020).
Within the domain of satisfaction in BRs, there exists a specific set of factors that can adversely affect it-dark side behaviors, a term coined by Frow et al. (2011a), referring to actions that undermine or deteriorate BRs. Some of these behaviors originate from providers, such as concealing information from customers, attempting to create confusion (McGovern and Moon, 2007), selling customer information to third parties without consent, providing misleading information, lacking respect for privacy, imposing unjustified charges, and withholding critical information. On the other hand, customers can also exhibit dark side behaviors when they seek to take advantage of their providers (Frow et al., 2011a).
Despite the prevalence of dark-side behaviors in BRs, they have not received as much scholarly attention as other relationship marketing issues (Frow et al., 2011a). A deeper understanding of these behaviors could pave the way for research proposals with both academic and practical significance, aimed at mitigating their impact on satisfaction in BRs. In line with this, the Marketing Science Institute’s 2021 report emphasizes the importance of prioritizing customer value across all firm-customer touchpoints, particularly recognizing the heightened significance of trust in contemporary business relationships. The report posits pertinent questions for future research, including “How can companies foster customer trust?” and “What strategies are most effective in cultivating enduring customer loyalty?” (Marketing Science Institute, 2021).
Studies suggest that negative behaviors may exert a more substantial influence on Business Relationships (BRs) compared to positive actions (Baumeister et al., 2001). Nonetheless, research on these behaviors remains scarce within the context of BR literature. Our literature search for this article did not yield any reviews specifically focusing on the manifestations of dark side behaviors (hereafter referred to as MDSB) and their impact on satisfaction in BRs.
Hence, it is deemed pertinent to conduct a comprehensive literature review to identify existing studies on satisfaction in company BRs, with a particular emphasis on those investigating MDSBs and their implications.
2. Theoretical Contextualization
In a landscape where customers wield increasing power, companies must employ a strategic approach centered on relationships to achieve their business goals. Nurturing strong Business Relationships (BRs) is instrumental in realizing these objectives (Ahmmed et al., 2019).
The term “relationship marketing” was first coined by Berry et al. (1995), who defined it as a strategic framework encompassing all of a company’s activities aimed at building, sustaining, and enhancing relationships with customers. Relationship marketing represents a resurgence of concepts and practices prevalent in the pre-industrial era (Sheth, 2011; Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995), when suppliers and customers collaborated to establish and maintain BRs.
Modern marketers face the challenge of not only interpreting customer needs based on their purchasing behavior but also anticipating future requirements to ensure brand loyalty (Ahmmed et al., 2019). Grönroos (1994) defines relationship marketing as the process of identifying, establishing, maintaining, and enhancing relationships with customers and other stakeholders, ultimately leading to profit generation and the achievement of mutual goals. Additionally, Johanson (1982) posit that exchange is fundamental to understanding marketing, underscoring the interdependency among parties within a relationship. For this article, we adopt the following definition of a BR: “the exchange of goods or services between a supplier and a client mediated by economic remuneration” (Bagozzi, 1975, p. 36). BRs require sustained exchanges, and adherence to specific patterns (Ford et al., 2003) and are characterized by unique feelings, attitudes, and behaviors (Piwoni-Krzeszowska, 2014).
BRs serve as the cornerstone of relationship marketing, and their creation hinges on numerous factors, including the cultural environment, the capacity of the relationship to deliver value to all parties, resource balance, two-way communication, reciprocity, trust, commitment, cooperation, adaptability, negotiation skills, risk management, empathy, and the quality of social interactions emanating from the BR (Ahmmed et al., 2019).
Various descriptions of contentment in BRs encompass cognitive aspects. One such interpretation characterizes BRs as a comprehensive evaluation of their adherence (Dwyer et al., 1987). Other definitions emphasize affective components, like the definition proposed by Anderson and Narus, which views satisfaction as a positive emotional state arising from the evaluation of all aspects within a BR between a supplier company and a customer company (Anderson and Narus, 1990).
Certain authors suggest that satisfaction acts as a precursor to other BR factors such as continuity and cooperation (Mysen and Svensson, 2010). Additionally, satisfaction is viewed as an “iterative and cyclical process” (Farrelly and Quester, 2005, p. 213). Geyskens and Steenkamp (2000) argue that satisfaction serves as a precursor to BR success and mediates the impact of other factors on relationship outcomes (Davis-Sramek et al., 2009; Hutchinson et al., 2011). It is also considered an ongoing assessment influenced by the exchange’s characteristics (Dou et al., 2010; Mysen and Svensson, 2010). Roberts-Lombard et al. (2019) assert that satisfaction is an outcome of commitment and trust.
It is worth noting that the concept of the “dark side” in BRs emerged in the late 1990s (Hakansson and Snehota, 1995). In addition to the meanings attributed to this term by McGovern and Moon (2007) and Frow et al. (2011b), “dark side” is also used within the context of BRs to denote:
Challenges, difficulties, and inconveniences stemming from structural issues in BRs, such as disparities in size or power imbalances, creativity, or performance issues (Abosag and Naudé, 2014).
Uncharted aspects of BR dynamics (Miocevic, 2020).
Negative consequences result from excessive collaboration between partners in a BR (Homburg and Tischer, 2023; Villena et al., 2020).
Negative behaviors occurring within a BR can spill over into other business relationships (Zhang et al., 2021).
3. Theoretical development
In this article, we have employed the principles outlined by Tranfield et al. (2003) to conduct a comprehensive literature review. Our focus has been particularly on adhering to the protocol and steps delineated for conducting the review, carefully selecting appropriate keywords and search terms, and establishing clear criteria for the exclusion of articles. Additionally, our approach aligns with the content analysis parameters set forth by Duriau et al. (2007) to ensure the rigor of our literature review process. We have also conformed to the criteria specified by the Universidad de Sevilla (2019) for journal inclusion and exclusion. Furthermore, we have taken into consideration the guidelines provided by Pérez-Rave (2018), especially in terms of selecting relevant study topics and eliminating redundant content.
To execute our comprehensive literature search, we have utilized the robust Scopus and Web of Science databases. Our search has encompassed papers published within the timeframe spanning 2010 to 2023. Detailed information regarding our criteria and search terms is presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Search results for articles in Scopus on July 22, 2023
| Description | Amount |
|---|---|
| #1 Title(factors OR determinants OR aspects OR predictors OR drivers OR regressors)* | 633159 |
| #2 Title(relationships OR association OR link OR relation OR dealing OR ties)* | 567487 |
| #3 Title (Business OR commercial OR “Buyer Seller” OR Trade OR trading OR industrial OR “Dark side”)* | 44 |
| #1 AND #2 AND #3 | 8 |
| Application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, using the article description sheet proposed in Pérez-Rave (2019, p. 95). | 8 |
Source: Authors’ own elaboration from Scopus data.
The Table 2 shows the results of the literature review conducted in Web of Science on July 23, 2023. The following terms were used: factors, determinants, aspects, predictors, drivers, regressors, relationships, association, link, relation, dealing, ties, business, commercial, “Buyer-Seller”, trade, trading, industrial, and “Dark side”.
Table 2 Search results for articles in Web of Science on July 23, 2023
| Description | Amount |
|---|---|
| #1 Title(factors OR determinants OR aspects OR predictors OR drivers OR regressors)* | 576029 |
| #2 Title(relationships OR association OR link OR relation OR dealing OR ties)* | 587823 |
| #3 Title (Business OR commercial OR “Buyer Seller” OR Trade OR trading OR industrial OR “Dark side”)* | 153784 |
| #1 AND #2 AND #3 | 50 |
| Application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, using the article description sheet proposed in Pérez-Rave (2019, p. 95). | 22 |
Source: Authors’ own elaboration from WOS data.
The search was conducted for the period 2011 to 2023 and was limited to research articles.
Table 3 presents the criteria used to determine the inclusion and exclusion of articles:
Table 3 Inclusion/exclusion criteria for the studies
| Specifications |
|---|
| C1. The studies are from journals indexed in Scopus and Web of Science. This means that these journals at least satisfy conditions such as a peer review system, compliance with academic quality standards, timeliness of publication, and diversity in the editorial team (Universidad de Sevilla, 2019). |
| C2. The article’s topic of interest must be satisfaction in business relationships. |
| C3. The article must provide at least one aspect that influences satisfaction in business relationships. |
| C4. Business is the context of observation of the topic. Articles from sectors such as health sciences, education, etc., were excluded. |
| C6. Studies were included only once (repetitions were excluded). |
Source: Pérez-Rave, 2018.
The table below shows the results of the literature review conducted in Scopus on July 23, 2023. The following terms were used: factors, determinants, aspects, predictors, drivers, regressors, relationships, association, link, relation, dealing, ties, business, commercial, “Buyer-Seller”, trade, trading, industrial, and “Dark side”.
Once the articles were gathered from Scopus and Web of Science, they were filtered the list using the following criteria:
The articles had to originate from journals indexed in Scopus or Web of Science.
The journals had to adhere to specific criteria, including peer review, adherence to academic quality standards, adherence to editing timelines, and diversity in the editorial team, as per the guidelines outlined by the Universidad de Sevilla (2019).
Business Relationships (BRs) had to be the central focus of each article.
Each article had to address at least one aspect that influences satisfaction in BRs.
We exclusively considered primary documents.
The context of the articles had to be related to business, excluding documents from other areas of knowledge, in line with the recommendations of Pérez-Rave (2018).
By following this procedure, a final list of 30 articles was compiled, as detailed in Table 4.
Table 4 Articles selected and bibliometric description
| ID | Study | Journal | Quartile |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Leonidou et al. (2017) | Industrial marketing management | 1 |
| 2 | Piricz (2018) | Serbian Journal of Management | 3 |
| 3 | Akrout & Diallo (2017) | Industrial marketing management | 1 |
| 4 | Sharafizad & Standing (2017) | Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship | 2 |
| 5 | Leonidou et al. (2017) | Journal of World Business | 1 |
| 6 | Seres-Huszárik et al. (2017) | Acta Polytechnica Hungarica | 2 |
| 8 | Gao et al. (2016) | Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and logistics | 2 |
| 9 | Orlova et al. (2015) | Indian Journal of Science and technology | 4 |
| 10 | Corsaro (2015) | Australasian Marketing Journal | 2 |
| 11 | Gërdoçi et al. (2015) | New Medit | 2 |
| 12 | Barnes et al. (2015) | Journal of International Marketing | 1 |
| 13 | Raeside & Khan (2015) | International Journal of Business and society | 1 |
| 14 | Zunk (2015) | International Journal of Engineering business management | 4 |
| 15 | Sellitto et al. (2021) | Sustainable Production and consumption | 1 |
| 16 | McCord & Gunderson (2014) | International Journal of Construction Education and Research | 2 |
| 17 | Poddar et al. (2013) | Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice | 1 |
| 18 | Abdul et al. (2015) | Australasian Marketing Journal | 1 |
| 19 | Visentin & Scarpi (2012) | Industrial Marketing Management | 1 |
| 20 | Leonidou et al. (2011) | Journal of World Business | 1 |
| 21 | Jena et al. (2011) | Journal of Indian business research | 2 |
| 22 | Gërdoçi et al. (2017) | Studies in agricultural economics | 3 |
| 23 | Dutta et al. (2020) | International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management | 3 |
| 24 | Cabral et al. (2019) | RAUSP Management Journal | 2 |
| 25 | Sales Baptista (2014) | Journal of business & industrial marketing | 2 |
| 26 | Chung et al. (2016) | Industrial Marketing Management | 1 |
| 27 | Homburg & Tischer (2023) | Journal of the academy of marketing science | 1 |
| 28 | Miocevic (2020) | Journal of business and industrial marketing | 2 |
| 29 | Villena et al. (2011) | Journal of Operations Management | 1 |
| 30 | Villena et al. (2020) | Journal of Supply Chain Management | 1 |
Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on the literature review from WOS and SCOPUS.
4. Theoretical references of the articles
Social exchange theory is used as the main theoretical reference (Chung et al., 2016; Dutta et al., 2020; Leonidou, Aykol, Fotiadis et al., 2017; Leonidou, Aykol, Spyropoulou et al., 2017; Piricz, 2018; Sales-Baptista, 2014; Visentin and Scarpi, 2012; Zunk, 2015; Jena et al., 2011). This theory focuses on the exchange of resources (material and non-material) through social interactions (Emerson, 1976) It asserts that transactional exchange alone falls short of comprehensively elucidating the behavior of parties within an exchange relationship (Cook and Emerson, 1978). Furthermore, beyond the intrinsic value of the items being exchanged, reciprocity emerges as a crucial factor within such relationships (Cook and Emerson, 1978).
Other theoretical frameworks utilized encompass social psychology (Akrout et al., 2016; Swann Jr. and Gill, 1997), relationship marketing (Dutta et al., 2020; Corsaro, 2015; Gazdecki, 2018; Huderek-Glapska and Nowak, 2016; Poddar et al., 2013; Visentin and Scarpi, 2012), social capital (Miocevic, 2020; Villena et al., 2011), role theory (Gao et al., 2016), economics (Cabral et al., 2019; Raeside and Khan, 2015; Gërdoçi et al., 2017; Dutta et al., 2020), international relations (Barnes et al., 2015; Leonidou et al., 2011), the resource-based view (Chung et al., 2016; Homburg and Tischer, 2023), and Dynamic Capabilities Theory (Homburg and Tischer, 2023).
5. Methodological aspects
This section will address methodological aspects of the analyzed articles, including the unit of analysis, study types, and employed instruments.
5.1. Unit of analysis
In one instance, the focal point of analysis was the social capital of companies. In another case, the duration of business relationships served as the unit of analysis. In seventeen instances, the company itself was the primary unit under scrutiny. In five cases, the analysis centered around the perspectives of company representatives, while in six cases, the unit of analysis was the business relationship itself.
5.2. Study types
A total of 18 documents utilized a quantitative methodology, while 8 studies adopted a qualitative approach. Additionally, 4 articles employed a mixed methodology.
5.3. Instrument
In 20 articles, the primary data collection instrument employed was a survey. Two articles relied on document analysis, two studies utilized a semi-structured survey, one study employed a semi-structured interview, and in five articles, both surveys and structured interviews were utilized as data collection methods.
6. Aspects affecting satisfaction in companies’ BRs
The analysis of the aforementioned documents revealed that satisfaction in business relationships can be influenced by the factors outlined in Table 5.
Table 5 Aspects affecting satisfaction in companies’ BRs
| Author | Aspect |
|---|---|
| Zunk (2015) | Risk of suffering damage or loss for maintaining the business relationship |
| Leonidou et al. (2017) | The future probability of the working relationship |
| Akrout & Diallo (2017) | Calculative trust |
| Huderek-Glapska & Nowak (2016) | Supplier retention strategies |
| Zunk (2015) | Good assistance in hard times |
| Gao et al. (2016) | Business friendship |
| Cabral et al. (2019) | Volume and value of trade |
| Miocevic (2020) | Relationship investments and relational capital, knowledge of the partner in a relationship |
| Corsaro (2015); Abdul et al. (2015) | Trust |
| Raeside & Khan (2015) | Credibility, benevolence, commitment, integrity |
| Sales-Baptista (2014) | Adaptation to supplier processes |
| Barnes et al. (2015) | Communication, personal credibility, and personal affection |
| Leonidou, Aykol, Spyropoulou et al. (2017) | The exercise of coercive power |
| Leonidou et al. (2011) | Trust |
| Piricz (2018) | The ability of supplier and customer to enter into agreements |
| Visentin & Scarpi, (2012) | Loyalty |
| Gazdecki (2018) | Contractual conditions |
| Sellitto et al. (2021) | Gaps between product generation and consumption |
| Poddar et al. (2013) | Commercial promotions |
| Visentin & Scarpi (2012) | Negative experiences in young relationships |
| Leonidou et al. (2011) | Buyer adaptation |
| Jena et al. (2011) | Product Quality |
| Gërdoçi et al. (2017) | Uncertainty |
| Dutta et al. (2020) | Communication, information exchange, uncertainty management, relationship continuity, trust and adaptation |
| Cabral et al. (2019) | Greater number of transactions, greater volume of assets dedicated to customer service, sale of more than one product |
| Chung et al. (2016); Villena et al. (2020); Villena et al. (2011) | Excessive exploitation of social ties |
| Homburg & Tischer (2023) | Effective management of customer contact points |
Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on the literature review from WOS and Scopus.
Furthermore, Table 6 provides a comprehensive list of MDSBs that have the potential to impact business relationships.
Table 6 MDSB impacting satisfaction in business relationships between companies
| Author | Aspect |
|---|---|
| Hallén & Wiedersheim (2003) | Distance, or preventive attitude delaying or distorting the information flow between supplier and customers |
| Leonidou, Aykol, Spyropoulou et al. (2017) | Opportunism, or the interest to take advantage of a situation at the expense of the counterpart |
| Payne & Frow (2017) | Sale of customer information to third parties without authorization, giving misleading information, disrespect for privacy, unjustified charges |
| McGovern & Moon (2007) | Hiding information from a customer and intention to create confusion |
Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on the literature review from WOS and Scopus.
Table 7 presents the items from the instruments utilized in the studies chosen for the development of this article.
Table 7 Analysis of the items from instruments used in the above-mentioned research works
| Item | Aspects evaluated | Author |
|---|---|---|
| Failing to comply with the requests of our firm will result in financial and other penalties against this importer. | Coercive power | Leonidou et al. (2008). |
| We threaten to withdraw from what we originally promised if this importer does not comply with our requests. | ||
| We threaten to take legal action, if this importer does not comply with our requests. | ||
| We withhold important support from this importer, by requesting compliance with our demands. | ||
| We threaten to deal with another importer, to make this importer submit to our demands. | ||
| We offer this importer specific incentives when it is reluctant to cooperate with us. | ||
| We have the upper hand in the relationship with this importer, due to the power allowed us under the contract. | ||
| We demand the compliance of this importer because we know that it appreciates and admires us. | ||
| We use our unique competence to make this importer accept our recommendations. | ||
| We withhold critical information concerning the relationship, to better control this importer. | ||
| We do not have close relationships with individuals working in this importing firm. | Distance | Hallén & Sandström (1991) |
| We are not familiar with this importer’s business environment. | ||
| We are very familiar with the organizational culture, values, and attitudes of this importer. | ||
| We are not aware of many things about the structural characteristics of this importer’s organization. | ||
| We are familiar with the working methods and processes followed by this importer | ||
| This importer alters the facts slightly. | Opportunism | Yilmaz & Hunt (2001) |
| This importer promises to do things without actually doing them later. | ||
| This importer fails to provide us with the support it is obliged to provide. | ||
| This importer avoids fulfilling its responsibilities unless it is watched closely. | ||
| Our relationship with this importer is characterized by a great degree of uncertainty. | Uncertainty | Leonidou & Kaleka (1998). |
| There is adequate information for us to make future decisions regarding this working relationship. | ||
| We face difficulties in monitoring trends concerning the working relationship with this importer. | ||
| We are confident about making future decisions regarding aspects of the relationship with this importer. | ||
| We cannot accurately anticipate how this importer will act in the future in the working relationship. | ||
| Despite its agreement with our company, this importer has been disloyal to us many times in the past. | Infidelity | Mattingly et al. (2010), Kumar et al. (1992). |
| This importer shows greater motivation to engage in business activities with other exporters, rather than developing business with our company. | ||
| This importer not only does business with other exporting firms selling similar goods but also develops social bonds with them. | ||
| This importer negotiates with other export suppliers of similar goods to obtain better business terms than what we can offer. | ||
| This supplier has a reputation for fairness with its customers. | Reputation | Anderson & Weitz (1992). |
| We tell each other things we would not want others to know. | Trust | |
| This seller shares our values. | Shared values | Brashear et al. (2003). |
| This seller respects the confidentiality of the information we share. | ||
| This seller often behaves in a manner contrary to common rules. | ||
| The supplier realizes that not being opportunistic accords with their interest. | Calculative trust | Shou et al. (2011). |
| The supplier realizes that violating our trust will certainly be sanctioned. | ||
| When making important decisions, the seller is concerned about our welfare. | Benevolence | Kumar et al. (1995). |
| It is necessary to be careful with this seller. | ||
| I have great respect for this client and vice versa. | Affective trust | Akrout et al. (2016). |
| The supplier is well-known for being sincere in dealing with its customers. | Reputation | Gao et al. (2016). |
| We accommodate what this supplier would like for us to do. | Adaptation | Gao et al. (2016). |
| This supplier’s representative is not trustworthy. | Credibility | Barnes et al. (2015). |
| This exporter is not always completely honest with us. | Trust | |
| We find it necessary to be cautious with this exporter. | ||
| We expect our relationship with this vendor to continue for a long time. | Satisfaction | Poddar et al. (2013). |
| This vendor does not make false claims. | Trust | |
| This exporter always keeps a trade secret concerning our business venture. | Trust | Leonidou et al. (2011). |
| Several times this exporter was caught making false claims. | ||
| We would like to continue our work with this supplier. | Commitment | Roberts-Lombard et al. (2019). |
| Our firm is comfortable about its relationship with this supplier. | Satisfaction | |
| This customer hides important information that is of interest to us. | Opportunism | |
| There is much conflict in the relationship with this customer. | Conflict | |
| This customer is not always honest with us. | Opportunism | |
| Our firm is comfortable about its relationship with this supplier. | Satisfaction | Mysen et al. (2015). |
Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on the literature review from WOS and Scopus.
It is important to clarify the meaning of certain concepts.
Coercive power refers to the perception that one party in a relationship possesses the ability to enforce penalties if their demands are not met, resulting in a tendency for the perceiver to comply with the other party’s requests (Leonidou et al., 2011). Opportunism, on the other hand, entails self-interest in exploiting a situation at the expense of the other party (Leonidou, Aykol, Spyropoulou, et al., 2017). Betrayal can manifest in various ways, including deception, the disclosure of confidential information, a failure to assist, or the maintenance of an illicit parallel relationship (Rachman, 2010).
7. Discussion of the results
The most important finding about dark behavior in commercial relationships between companies is the different ways that the concept of MDSBs is interpreted. While research on business relationships has grown and expanded to examine the interactions of behaviors across relationships, the lack of clarity surrounding the MDSBs concept makes it difficult to classify studies that focus on a specific subtype of MDSBs that has been discussed in the literature. This subtype, as highlighted by McGovern and Moon (2007), Frow et al. (2011a), and Frow et al. (2011b), calls for the development of a distinct line of research that examines relational behaviors that intentionally pursue self-interest at the expense of harming the partner.
Within the analyzed articles, a recurring assertion emerges: specific MDSBs typically have an impact on satisfaction within business relationships (BRs). This has led to calls for further research in this field. Embracing these recommendations through rigorous research efforts may uncover additional MDSBs and shed light on their effects on satisfaction in BRs.
The suggested recommendations advocate for several approaches, including longitudinal studies, investigations in diverse contexts spanning various industries, and the examination of BRs where suppliers and customers coexist in the same space. Furthermore, they emphasize the importance of exploring dimensions such as opportunism and betrayal in BRs, scrutinizing BRs within cross-cultural contexts, considering perspectives beyond those of supplier and customer representatives, and analyzing the dynamics of satisfaction in BRs within emerging economies.
This article focuses on identifying a restricted set of MDSBs: betrayal, disloyalty, and opportunism in business relationships between companies, (Leonidou, Aykol, Spyropoulou et al., 2017; Leonidou, Aykol, Fotiadis et al., 2017; Corsaro, 2015), In other words, these are the types of behaviors identified by McGovern and Moon (2007), Frow et al. (2011a), and Frow et al. (2011b). Specifically, these are behaviors characterized by the intent to pursue personal or company benefits on the part of the individual exhibiting these behaviors, while seeking to harm their partner, whether that partner is a supplier or a customer. MDSBs within BRs manifest as intricate social phenomena necessitating extensive assimilation of contextual information to comprehend their origins, mechanisms, and ramifications for the relationships. Notably, the reviewed articles discuss MDSBs in BRs without distinguishing among large, medium, and small companies, despite the distinctive attributes and challenges each company typefaces from a relationship marketing perspective. Tailored strategies, aligned with the peculiarities of individual BRs, are imperative to alleviate the impact of MDSBs on intercompany relationships.
Unexplored within the analyzed research are context-driven variations in MDSBs within BRs. Companies navigating emerging economies frequently grapple with adverse factors like violence and corruption, potentially compelling them or their representatives to resort to dark-side behaviors as adaptive mechanisms. Such behaviors, intended to surmount adversities and thrive, represent a dimension yet unaddressed.
8. Conclusions
Manifestations of dark side behavior (MDSBs) in business relationships between companies (BRs) can take very different forms depending on the size of the companies involved in the BR, their cultural differences, their power asymmetries, or the quality of interpersonal relationships among a supplier’s representatives and a customer’s representatives. It is necessary to conduct further research on a specific types of behaviors that in the literature are included in the group of manifestations of dark side behavior, the actions aimed at obtaining personal or corporate benefits while seeking to harm the partner, whether that partner is a supplier or a customer. This will help to enrich the number of existing categories, understand the influence of MDSB on satisfaction in BRs, and facilitate the design of strategies to both avoid their emergence and mitigate their impact.
Self-reported instruments were used as the main information collection mechanism in the studies analyzed here: individuals responsible for maintaining BRs between companies gave their ideas; that is, their opinions on the aspects affecting satisfaction in the BRs. Hence, it is necessary to use information collection instruments that prevent biases when information is collected, particularly social desirability bias -typical of self-report measures- as individuals tend to give answers that are liked by the person who is asking the questions (Edwards, 1953).
15 out of the 30 studies analyzed in this article used data coming from self-reports from the individuals who are involved in the BRs between companies to conduct their analysis. The use of self-report measures is a limitation in these studies, as they make it difficult for people involved in business relationships to reveal when they have engaged in unethical or inappropriate behaviors in their interactions with suppliers or customers.
Therefore, it is necessary to counteract biases by making use of different information-gathering tools other than self-reported instruments. Among these tools, it is possible to use observation and documentary analysis. The triangulation of information obtained from different sources may also assist in finding patterns in the emergence and impacts of the MDSBs on the satisfaction of BRs. Thus, it may be concluded that research on MDSB raises methodological challenges that future research works are called upon to face.
Among the most important methodological challenges in the study of MDSBs is the need to create instruments that make it possible to provide evidence of the existence of these behaviors in suppliers, customers, and other stakeholders interested in a business relationship.
