The Role of Trust in Supplier Relationships: Perspectives from Procurement Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study explores the pivotal role of trust in supplier relationships from the perspectives of procurement professionals. Through in-depth interviews with diverse industry stakeholders, the research examines the multifaceted nature of trust, its antecedents, dynamics, challenges, and strategic implications within modern supply chain management. Trust is conceptualized as a cornerstone that fosters collaborative exchanges, mitigates risks, and enhances organizational resilience in a competitive global marketplace. Findings highlight key factors influencing trust formation, including effective communication, ethical conduct, relationship history, transparency, and cultural alignment. Challenges such as perceived opportunism, communication breakdowns, and regulatory compliance issues are identified as barriers requiring proactive management strategies. Strategies for building and maintaining trust emphasize proactive engagement, transparent decision-making, performance evaluation, mutual benefit alignment, and effective conflict management. The study further explores the impact of trust on procurement decisions, supplier performance, innovation capabilities, cost efficiencies, and long-term sustainability. Practically, the research underscores the importance of integrating trust-building initiatives into supplier relationship management strategies to optimize operational efficiencies, foster innovation, and achieve sustainable growth. By aligning procurement practices with supplier capabilities and market dynamics, organizations can navigate complexities, seize opportunities, and enhance strategic partnerships that drive mutual value creation. Future research directions include exploring emerging trends such as digitalization, sustainability, and ethical considerations in trust-based supply chain interactions.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".