Power imbalanced relationships: cases from UK fresh food supply

Abstract

Purpose This study investigates the issue of power in business‐to‐business relationships and constitutes an appraisal of the theory relating to issues of supply chain relationships; in which the received view from the relationship marketing literature with its emphasis on trust, dyadic symmetry and mutuality is questioned. It is contended, alternatively that other types of relationships, for example, those based on selfishness are equally relevant; and that power imbalanced business relationships are just as important to the understanding of business exchange. Design/methodology/approach Specific reference is made to power relationships in vertical food supply channels in the UK, where the majority of control lies in the hands of large multiple retailers. The paper cites case material drawn from studies into the relationships between UK‐based fresh food supplier organisations and their principal customers, the leading UK food retailers. Findings Specific outcomes are determined with regard to issues of power, mutuality and the nature of power‐dependent relationships. Power play is omnipresent in exchange relationships and is not always seen in a negative light. Relationship‐building is perfectly possible in asymmetric relationships and weaker parties are tolerant of power imbalance. Research limitations/implications The study concludes that power should be a central consideration when concerned with business relationships and that imbalances in power are no specific barrier to parties entering into relationships or to their success. Practical implications Findings from chosen case studies are transferable to other vertical channel circumstances. Any future investigation should consider the expression and limits of power and the boundaries of tolerance to power imbalance. Originality/value Provides evidence of the nature of power‐dependent business relationships.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 156 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.