Customer Bargaining Power, Strategic Fit, and Supplier Performance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior studies report mixed evidence on the impact of customers' bargaining power on supplier performance. We shed light on this mixed evidence by considering the moderating role of strategic fit. A strategically aligned supplier can provide long‐term benefits to the customer. As a result, powerful customers may trade off the short‐term benefits obtained through supplier concessions with the long‐term benefits derived from strategic fit. Thus, strategic fit can mitigate the negative impact of customers' bargaining power on supplier performance. We use data on supplier–customer dyads identified using financial disclosures of firms' major customers to examine this research question. We find that a strategic fit between suppliers and their customers on three distinct dimensions (innovation, customer orientation, and efficiency) attenuates the negative association between customers' relative bargaining power and supplier performance. These findings are robust to several sensitivity tests.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it