CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 762Customer Service Quality and LoyaltyQuality and Supply ManagementOutsourcing and Supply Chain Management

Relationship value and relationship quality: Broadening the nomological network of business‐to‐business relationships

Ulaga, Wolfgang, Eggert, Andreas·2006·European Journal of Marketing
DOI 10.1108/03090560610648075
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: Established models of buyer‐seller relationships do not reflect managerial emphasis on supplier performance evaluation when modelling business relationships. Proposes that relationship value should be included as a key constituent in such models. Aims to explore the construct's links with key constituents of relationship quality, i.e. commitment, satisfaction, and trust. Design/methodology/approach: A two‐stage research design was used. First, depth‐interviews were conducted with ten senior‐level purchasing managers in US manufacturing companies. Second, data were gathered in a nation‐wide mail survey among 400 purchasing professionals. Findings: The findings suggest that relationship value is an antecedent to relationship quality and behavioural outcomes in the nomological network of relationship marketing. Value displays a stronger impact on satisfaction than on commitment and trust. Value also directly impacts a customer's intention to expand business with a supplier. In turn, its impact on the propensity to leave a relationship is mediated by relationship quality. Contrary to previous research, trust does not appear in this study as an antecedent of behavioural outcomes, but as a mediator of the satisfaction‐commitment link. Research limitations/implications: Confirms the role of value as a key relationship building‐block. Researchers should integrate this cognitive performance‐based construct in models of business relationships. Limitations and research directions refer to the sampling procedure, the need to include the supplier's value perceptions, the possibility of conducting longitudinal research, and the opportunity to assess additional moderating variables. Practical implications: When the goal is to increase business with an existing customer, managers should focus on relationship value. In turn, when managers are concerned with the risk of customers leaving a relationship, they should focus on relationship quality. Trust appears as an important ingredient in stabilising existing business relationships. Originality/value: Stresses the pivotal role of relationship value in marketing. Contributes to a better fit between relationship marketing models and managerial practice in business markets.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/03090560610648075

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ulaga and Eggert (2006) rely on the theory of reasoned action to predict that the effect of perceived value on loyalty is mediated by relationship quality.

    “In a similar manner, Ulaga and Eggert (2006) rely on Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975) theory of reasoned action to predict a relationship between customer value and loyalty, such that the effect of the cognitive variable (i.e., perceived value) is mediated by an affective variable (i.e., relationship quality) to result in a behavior (i.e., customer loyalty).”

    From Understanding and managing customer relational benefits in services: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Ulaga and Eggert 2006

  • Relative to B2C customers, B2B customers tend to exhibit lower levels of customer loyalty, more carefully consider the trade-offs between costs and benefits, and focus more on long-term benefits.

    “Relative to B2C customers, B2B customers tend to exhibit lower levels of customer loyalty, more carefully consider the trade-offs between costs and benefits, and focus more on long-term benefits (Lam et al. 2004; Palmatier et al. 2006; Ulaga and Eggert 2006).”

    From Understanding and managing customer relational benefits in services: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Ulaga and Eggert 2006

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ulaga, W., & Eggert, A.
Affiliations
  • ESCP Business School (DE)
  • Paderborn University (DE)
ORCID
Venue
European Journal of Marketing
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2006-03-01
Volume
40
Issue
3/4
Pages
311-327
ISSN
0309-0566 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/03090560610648075
OpenAlex
W1563184709
Cited by
762
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 53 · 2013: 66 · 2012: 44
FWCI
43.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
  • European Journal of Marketing (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Quality and Supply Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Outsourcing and Supply Chain Management
Keywords
relationship value, relationship quality, buyer-supplier relationships, relationship marketing, trust, customer satisfaction, relationship commitment, supplier performance evaluation, purchasing managers, breakup, B2B marketing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review