When reputational power shapes commitment: industry reputation, supplier adaptation and product quality

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to examine how supplier behavior, specifically relationship-specific adaptation and product quality, shapes two forms of buyer commitment: affective and calculative. Drawing on social exchange theory, we investigate how reputational power, operationalized as the non-coercive influence a supplier derives from its industry reputation, moderates these behavioral effects. We treat industry reputation not as a behavioral act but as a reputational form of non-coercive power that alters how buyers interpret suppliers’ actions. Design/methodology/approach Guided by social exchange theory, this manuscript employs two field studies targeting purchasing professionals. Study 1 investigates how relationship-specific adaptation affects affective commitment, while Study 2 examines the impact of product quality on calculative commitment. Both models assess the moderating effect of perceived reputational power. Psychometric validity was evaluated using covariance-based structural equation modeling in Analysis of Moment Structures, and hypotheses were tested using Hayes’ PROCESS macro in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, employing moderated mediation models with bootstrapped confidence intervals. Findings Relationship-specific adaptation increases affective commitment, while product quality drives calculative commitment. Reputational power strengthens the relational pathway but does not affect the economic one, indicating that buyers respond emotionally to reputation only when relational behaviors are present. Power's influence is thus relational rather than transactional. Practical implications Suppliers with high power can reduce adaptation yet retain loyalty and performance benefits. Managers should thus invest in building strong brand recognition, balancing the trade-offs between meeting demands and leveraging reputational capital. Meanwhile, buyers must avoid over-reliance on powerful suppliers to preserve bargaining capacity. The findings highlight that intangible factors like reputation can be as critical as product or service quality. Suppliers must ensure responsiveness to maintain trust. Overall, managing power asymmetries is vital for sustaining healthy, performance-enhancing buyer-supplier relationships. Social implications In highlighting how supplier reputation can tilt relationship power, the study's findings have broader societal implications around fairness and collaboration in business partnerships. When powerful suppliers leverage their industry status, it can create unequal power dynamics that may pressure buyers into unfavorable terms, potentially affecting employee welfare, local communities and smaller firms with fewer resources. Conversely, understanding these dynamics encourages transparent, equitable relationships, prompting businesses to adopt fair negotiation practices, share information and foster trust. Consequently, better-managed power imbalances can lead to more ethical business conduct, greater social responsibility and potentially more inclusive supply chain ecosystems for all stakeholders. Originality/value This study introduces supplier industry reputation as a non-coercive form of power and shows how it differentially affects relational and economic forms of commitment. Guided by social exchange theory, we model relationship-specific adaptation and product quality as behavioral antecedents of affective and calculative commitment, respectively and test how supplier reputation – conceptualized as non-coercive power – moderates both pathways By distinguishing between affective and calculative commitment and modeling them in parallel, the study advances understanding of how social and economic value interact in supply chain relationships, re-centering power as a critical dynamic in an era dominated by relationship marketing.