1 Introduction

Suppliers are a critical component of a supply chain and can have a significant impact on supply chain performance. In 2007, Krause, Handfield and Tyler examined the impact of various aspects of social capital on buying firm performance, specifically on cost, quality, delivery, and flexibility, by surveying respondents from the automotive and electronic industries within the United States. Their study is important in that it was one of the first studies to examine aspects of all three dimensions - structural, relational, and cognitive - of social capital in the context of the buyer-supplier relationship (BSR). The study found statistical support that buyer commitment, shared values, buyer dependence, and supplier development had a positive impact on buyer performance (Krause et al. 2007).

The model developed by Krause et al. (2007) has not been tested outside of the United States. Because of differences in country culture, the findings may differ when the model is applied in another country such as China. Cultural differences exist between the United States and China, which could impact business practices. For example, a recent study found that plants in Asian economies with a collectivist orientation were more likely to invest in operations infrastructure than western economies with an individualist orientation (Power et al. 2010). Since China is an important source of suppliers due to their comparative low cost, understanding more about doing business in China is relevant and timely (Lockström and Lei 2013). This study extends the Krause et al. (2007) study by replicating it in China and in a variety of industries beyond the automotive and electronic industries.

Replication studies are essential to building good theory (Flynn et al. 1990; Toncar and Munch 2010) and serve a number of purposes: (1) resolve contradictory findings of prior research, (2) enhance generalizability by extending the research to new contexts, and (3) assess reliability and internal validity of the original research (Hubbard et al. 1998; Pagell and Krause 2004; Toncar and Munch 2010). Scholars have identified three types of replications: (1) pure replication in which the original study is exactly duplicated, (2) replication with extension in which a small number of parameters are changed, and (3) pure generation in which a replication is based on prior research but all key parameters are changed (Hubbard et al. 1998; Toncar and Munch 2010). In this study, we utilize the replication with extension methodology to examine the effect of Chinese culture on the social capital model developed and tested in the United States (Krause et al. 2007). Replications with extensions are basic to empirical generalization and knowledge development (Hubbard et al. 1998) and determine if prior studies can be generalized to other contexts; such as populations, time periods, organizations, and geographic areas. This type of replication has been used to study the impact of culture on original research (Sammaddar and Kadiyala 2006; Sanders et al. 2008).

To assist the reader in identifying the current and prior study, we use terminology from a replication study by Sammaddar and Kadiyala (2006). The original study will be referred to as the target study; the current study is the focal study. The target study was performed in two industries in the United States, while the focal study simultaneously extends the target study to a variety of industries in both the United States and China. The purpose of this study is to determine if the social capital model developed in the Krause et al (2007) is generalizable to China and a variety of industries.

2 Literature review

2.1 Overview of social capital and the target study

According to Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998), there are three dimensions of social capital: structural, relational, and cognitive. The structural dimension represents the network properties while the relational dimension represents the personal relationship between parties. The last dimension, cognitive, represents shared values and meanings. Several studies have considered the impact of these dimensions in a BSR context. For example, one study explicitly considered the relational and structural dimensions and found that both of these dimensions of social capital had positive effects on buyer performance (Lawson et al. 2008). All three dimensions of social capital within the context of the BSR were found to positively impact buyer performance in Spain (Villena et al. 2011). In a separate study, the relational dimension characterized by trust, obligation, and identification with the supplier had a positive impact on buyer innovation (Carey and Lawson 2011). The target study proposed that aspects of the three dimensions of social capital would positively impact buying firm performance.

2.1.1 Structural dimension of social capital

The structural dimension of social capital represents the practices and manners through which connections among people are made in the workplace, for example, through weekly meetings with suppliers or trade associations (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998). While there are many constructs in the literature that explain this dimension, the target study used the constructs of performance evaluation, supplier development, and information sharing. Performance evaluation provides feedback to suppliers so they can improve their performance. Within the target study, formal evaluation, feedback of the evaluation results, and supplier certification were the three item measures of performance evaluation. Item measures for supplier development were based on activities, such as site visits, training and having a dedicated supplier team that focus on the dedication of the buying firm’s personnel to improve the supplier’s skills. Information sharing is the exchange of information that can help both the buyer and supplier activities (Heide and Miner 1992). The three items from the target study included frequency of exchange of information, exchange of information when helpful to the other party, and keeping the other party informed about events that impact the other party.

2.1.2 Relational dimension of social capital

The relational dimension identifies the importance of personal relationships in social capital. These relationships develop over time based on a history of interactions and trust (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998). While the structural dimension provides a means for actors to connect, the relational dimension builds on those connections to form personal bonds of friendship and has been characterized by a number of constructs. The target study used buyer commitment, supplier dependence, and buyer dependence. Buyer commitment represents the belief by both parties that the relationship will continue into the future (Heide and Miner 1992). The target study used long-term relationship, loyalty, and working with the supplier in the future to measure buyer commitment.

Supplier dependence represents the extent that the supplier relies on the buying firm’s business (Krause et al. 2007). The target study used four measures reflecting the ability of the supplier to find another buying firm for its product and the effect on price and operations if the supplier loses the buying firm’s business. Buyer dependence represents how hard it is to replace the supplier and the level of availability of alternate suppliers (Heide and Miner 1992). The target study used four measures to capture buyer dependence that reflect the ease of finding an alternative supplier and the ease of adapting production or product to utilize a different component from a different supplier.

2.1.3 Cognitive dimension of social capital

The cognitive dimension includes common goals and shared values (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998). Shared values have been found to positively impact business relationships (Tsai and Ghoshal 1998; Krause et al. 2007). The three item measures representing shared values in the target study were: both firms share the same business values, parties often agree on what is in the best interest of the relationship, and the supplier shares our goals for this business.

2.2 Buying firm performance

Numerous studies have analyzed the impact that a good relationship with a supplier can have on buying firm performance. Terpend et al. (2008) identified 151 articles in the years from 1986 to 2005 that studied various aspects of the buyer supplier relationship. Tremendous support was found for a connection between the buyer-supplier relationship and positive outcomes in western cultures. When it comes to outcomes, firms traditionally follow four key strategies to gain competitive advantage: cost, quality, delivery, and flexibility (Ward and McCreery 1998).

2.3 Culture and related hypotheses

Culture is defined as the “collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another” (Hofstede 2001). A seminal work by Hofstede and Bond (1988) indicates that culture consists of five dimensions: individualism versus collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity versus femininity, and long-term versus short-term orientation. In an individualistic society such as the United States, the focus is on the individual, which results in an emphasis on personal freedoms, looking after oneself, and pursuing personal rather than group goals. Whereas, China is a much more collective society and therefore scored much lower than the United States on individualism. Chinese become members of strong cohesive groups beginning at birth and continues throughout their lifetimes. Members of the group support each other, have high levels of trust, and work to promote harmony within the group (Hofstede 1980).

Power distance is the degree to which less powerful members of a society expect and accept that power is distributed unequally (Hofstede et al. 2010). Both the followers and leaders of a society accept inequality with followers even expecting power to be distributed unequally. Cultures with a large power distance such as China believe that the powerful should have privileges while cultures with a small power distance such as the United States prize equality for all individuals. The next dimension is uncertainty avoidance, which is the degree to which members of a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. Societies who tend to avoid uncertainty have a need for structure, rules, and often experience high stress in their jobs. The United States scored slightly higher than China on the need to avoid uncertainty.

Gender roles comprise the fourth dimension. A masculine society has clearly defined gender roles with men expected to be assertive, tough, and focused on material wealth; while women should be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. A feminine society exists when gender roles overlap (Hofstede et al. 2010). Both Chinese and the United States are considered to be masculine focused societies. The fifth cultural dimension deals with the time orientation of a society and is also referred to as “Confucius dynamism.” Societies with a long-term orientation value stability, persistence, thrift, and hierarchical relationships. Conversely societies with a short-term orientation focus on activities such as short-term profits. China scores high on long-term orientation while the United States scores high on short-term orientation (Hofstede et al. 2010). For convenience, we summarize our discussion of Hofstede’s cultural dimension differences between the United States and China in Table 1.

Table 1 Cultural differences between United States and China
Full size table

Because of these cultural differences, business logic is different in China than in western countries (Park and Luo 2001; Jiang 2002). The Chinese have a strong national culture dating back 5,000 years to the time of Confucius. Thus, an understanding of Chinese culture is essential to conducting business in China. A particular example of a unique cultural activity in China is the practice of guanxi, which represents “friendship with implications of continued exchange of favors” (Lovett et al. 1999; Jiang 2002). Guanxi is an ancient system based on a network of personal relationships. It is doing business on the basis of personal relationships that includes exchange of favors. Originally based on family relationships, it has now expanded to acquaintances that facilitate business dealings. It is a system of personal relationships that carries long-term social obligations and plays a major role in business relationships. Not only does guanxi provide entrance into Chinese society, it is essential for doing business in China, especially supply chain management (Jiang and Prater 2002; Lee and Dawes 2005; Lee 2007).

Recent studies provide empirical support that culture impacts business practices. Within the context of BSRs, trust has been found to be more important in collectivist cultures, while performance is more important in individualistic societies (Cannon et al. 2010). In a recent study, national cultural was found to impact the influence of social responsibility on supplier selection. In the United States, social responsibility in the selection of suppliers impacted both the current state measured by firm sales and future state measured by sales growth. In China, social responsibility only impacted sales growth providing evidence of China’s long-term orientation with an emphasis on the future (Thornton et al. 2013). Cultural differences between Asian (including China) and western (including the US) countries were found to impact purchasing practices (Kristal et al. 2011).

Given China’s long-term orientation, suppliers should be more willing to work cooperatively with buyers who have shown a commitment to the relationship. This can result in a lack of opportunistic behavior and the growth and nurturing of the relationship (Lockström et al. 2010). In fact, in the study of Chinese buying firms in the automotive industry, 21 of the 30 firms indicated that a long-term orientation to the partnership with the supplier is important (Lockström et al. 2010). Collectivism also contributes to buyer commitment between buyers and suppliers. Commitment between firms is often higher in eastern countries that are highly collectivist than in Western countries that are more individualistic (Hofstede 2001). In a highly collectivist society, exchange parties promote both their own and partner interests which lead to a higher level of commitment between the parties (Ryu et al. 2011). China is a highly collectivist society with has a long-term orientation as compared to the United States (Hofstede and Bond 1988), thus we expect buyer commitment to have a greater impact in China.

Hypothesis 1a

There is a positive relationship between buying firms’ commitments to long-term relationships with key suppliers and buying firm performance.

Hypothesis 1b

There is a stronger positive relationship between buying firms commitments to long-term relationships with key suppliers and buying firm performance in China than in the United States.

Given the higher level of collectivism in China than in the United States (Hofstede and Bond 1988), there is a greater focus on group achievement (Cannon et al. 2010); thus shared value is important. In a high collectivist society, partners strongly believe in a shared fate (Ryu et al. 2011). A critical component of guanxi, a key component of the collectivistic Chinese society, is the emphasis on long-term relationships. A long-term cooperative business relationship based on common interests is a key factor in business success in China (Su et al. 2007).

The benefit of sharing values is illustrated by the outcome that Chinese buying firms and their suppliers with whom they shared similar performance goals were able to align their business strategies (Lockström et al. 2010). Shared common goals between buyers and suppliers in China were found to improve both explicit and tacit knowledge of the buyer (Li et al. 2008). As in the target study, we expect that shared values will positively impact buyer’s performance. However because of the collectivist nature of China, we expect a stronger impact in China than in the United States. Thus, we propose the following hypotheses regarding cognitive capital.

Hypothesis 2a

There is a positive relationship between buying firms’ perceptions of shared values and goals with key suppliers and buyer firm performance improvements.

Hypothesis 2b

There is a stronger positive relationship between buying firms’ perceptions of shared values and goals with key suppliers and buying firm performance in China than in the United States.

Studies conducted in China indicate that social capital impacts a firm’s willingness to invest resources (Batjargal and Liu 2004; Power et al. 2010) and in a sense, working with suppliers to improve their performance represents a form of investment. Plants in Asian economies with a collectivist orientation were more likely to invest in operations infrastructure than western economies with an individualist orientation (Power et al. 2010). Also, the individual/collective dimension of culture has been found to impact the willingness of firms to invest in manufacturing infrastructure and quality programs (Wiengarten et al. 2011). In a study of Chinese buying firms, 93 % of the respondents indicated that they were involved in continuous supplier development (Lockström et al. 2010). Additionally a study of Chinese furniture manufacturers reported a high importance on monitoring supplier quality (Robb et al. 2008). With guanxi’s focus on developing (investing in) relationships between business partners (Lee and Humphreys 2007), it is not surprising that they found a positive relationship between guanxi and supplier development.

Reciprocity--the exchange of favors--is an important facet of guanxi (Jiang and Prater 2002). Information sharing can be considered an exchange of information and can represent a form of favor. A study of Chinese buyers reported effective communication as critical to their supplier integration efforts. Also, almost half of those Chinese buying firms reported that they had supplier appraisal systems with corresponding penalties for low performance as well as potential rewards in the form of increased business for high performance (Lockström et al. 2010).

Supplier development, information sharing, and supplier evaluation represent different mechanisms to exchange information between buyers and suppliers (Krause et al. 2007). The target study hypothesized that supplier evaluation and routine exchange of information should impact cost. However supplier development requires a greater investment in resources, which is often associated with improvements in quality, delivery, and flexibility. We expect the same positive relationships in China. In light of China’s willingness to invest in long-term resources, we actually hypothesize that the impact of supplier development will be greater in China.

Hypothesis 3a

There is a positive relationship between supplier development, information sharing, and supplier evaluation with buying firm performance.

Hypothesis 3b

There is a stronger positive relationship between buyers’ supplier development activities and buyer firm performance in China than in the United States.

Dependence is the extent of need for resources that are held by another organization (Zhao et al. 2007) and, conversely, power is the control that one organization has over another. Thus as organization A’s dependence on organization B increases, organization B’s power over organization A increases. However, a key dimension of Chinese culture is that the Chinese are very comfortable with the uneven distribution of power (Hofstede 2007). In fact they seek powerful partners in the hope that their power can be extended to other guanxi relationships. As in the target study, we expect that buyer dependence and supplier dependence will impact buyer’s performance. However, with Chinese acceptance of power inequality, we propose the impact to be stronger in China.

Hypothesis 4a

There is a positive relationship between buyer and supplier dependency on the relationship and buying firm performance.

Hypothesis 4b

There is a stronger positive relationship between buyer and supplier dependency on the relationship and buying firm performance in China than in the United States.

3 Methodology

3.1 Data collection

Because we expanded the target study to China, a third party survey vendor translated the survey into the Chinese language. Chinese professors and Ph.D. students verified the accuracy of the translation. Next, the survey was pilot tested with 22 Chinese executives who were in residence in the United States. The survey was distributed to United States and Chinese executive MBA students attending classes at one of the author’s affiliated university. Other Chinese executives were attending program classes held in Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen. The survey was specifically distributed to professionals participating in executive MBA programs thus ensuring that the respondents have significant practical experience and knowledge as well as hold a relatively senior position in their firms. Also, the class required students to interview their firm’s supply chain manager concerning supply chain and purchasing issues. Thus the survey was an easy extension of the required work, although the supply chain manager’s response was voluntary if they felt that they were releasing proprietary information. The final sample used in this analysis consisted of 352 responses from United States executives and 178 responses from China executives. Table 2 provides information about the demographics of the respondents.

Table 2 Industry and sales data (%)
Full size table

3.1.1 Common method bias

As the survey item responses for both independent and dependent variables came from the same group of respondents, it may result in common method bias (CMB) (Podsakoff and Organ 1986). We conducted a Harmon one-factor test to determine whether CMB presented a threat. This technique assumes there is CMB if a single factor is present, or one factor accounts for most of the variance (Doty and Glick 1998; Podsakoff and Organ 1986). Our results indicated that more than one factor was extracted, with a total variance of 68 %. The most covariance explained by one factor was 21 %, indicating that common method bias did not appear to present a problem.

3.2 Measurement model

We followed the standard two-step process for structural equation modeling where the measurement model is examined first, and then the structural model is examined to test the hypotheses (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). We used the AMOS multiple group functionality, which enables us to simultaneously evaluate both the United States and China populations. It provides unique parameters for each population, while providing combined fit indices for the two populations. This method allows us to use the critical ratio for differences function provided by Amos, which enabled us to determine if differences between the comparative factor loadings of the two populations were statistically significant. “The critical ratio for a pair of parameter estimators provides a test of the hypothesis that the two parameters are equal” (Byrne 2010). Amos generates a critical ratio or z value for each pair of parameters, which is used to determine p values. The z value is calculated as the difference between the two parameters divided by the estimate of the standard error of the differences.

The factor loadings for the United States and China populations along with the reliability values for the constructs are provided in Table 3. Factor loadings that are statistically different between the two populations are also identified. The average variance extracted (AVE) for the supplier evaluation construct in the China population was 37 %, which is below the recommended threshold of 50 % (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Further review of this construct revealed that one of the item measures has a factor loadings of .49, less than the recommended threshold of .70 (Hair et al. 2006). For composite reliability, all constructs except the supplier evaluation in China exceeded the recommended minimum threshold of 0.70 (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). Being a replication study, we retained the item measures and supplier evaluation construct in China for comparison purposes to the target study. It is interesting to note that five item measures, BDEP 4, SEVAL3, SDEV1, SDEV2, and SDEV3, are statistically different between the two populations. The item measure descriptions are included in the Appendix.

Table 3 Measurement model
Full size table

3.3 Structural model

The multiple model function in Amos was used to simultaneously evaluate the structural model for the two populations. Figs 1 and 2 provide the structural equation model for China and United States, respectively. Table 4 provides a comparison of the China and United States path coefficients obtained from the SEM, including identification of key parameter differences and the overall. Based on suggested thresholds of the different fit parameters included in Table 4, the model fit is acceptable (Segar and Grover 1998; Hu and Bentler 1999, Zhang et al. 2003).

Fig 1
figure 1

China model

Full size image
Fig 2
figure 2

United States model

Full size image
Table 4 Standard path coefficients from structural model
Full size table

3.4 Results

Buyer commitment has a significant positive impact (p < .05) on the dependent variable in both populations, which matches the target study’s results. Given this finding and the presence of significant effects of buyer commitment on both dependent variables in both counties, results provide full support for H1a. In addition, buyer commitment’s impact is stronger in China than in the United States for both models. The critical ratio test, indicating the difference between the China and United States samples, is statistically significant at p < .05 for buyer commitment; thus providing support for H1b that the effect is stronger in China. The concept of shared values has a significant positive impact (p < .05) in the United States, but not in China. There is only partial support for H2a and no support for H2b. For the control variables, industry had a positive impact on buyer performance in the United States.

Information sharing, supplier evaluation and supplier development do not have a statistically significant impact on cost in the United States, thus aligning with results found in the target study. Interestingly, supplier development has a statistically significant (p < .05) negative impact on buyer performance in China. These findings result in no support for H3a or H3b. Buyer dependence and supplier dependence did not have an impact on buyer performance, thus no support for H4a or H4b.

4 Discussion and conclusions

4.1 Discussion of findings

The target study examined the impact of various aspects of social capital between buying firms and their suppliers on buying firm performance (Krause et al. 2007). The target study was conducted in two industries in the United States, while the focal study replicated the target study by surveying respondents representing the United States and China in a number of industries. This provides the ability to examine the impact of both industry and culture on the original model. Separate evaluation of construct validity for both the United States and China data indicated that all constructs were valid in both populations, except the supplier evaluation construct in the China population. Specifically the items related to supplier certification exhibited low reliability. This finding indicates that scales developed in one country may not be generalizable to another country and therefore reliability should be tested within the specific country context. Recently, Chinese management scholars recommended the need for Chinese indigenous management studies based on Chinese local context and phenomena and mentioned that western-developed scales may not be applicable in a Chinese context (Zhang, Li and Foley 2014; Ke 2012).

To aid in our discussion, findings of both studies are summarized in Table 5. Buyer commitment was the only variable that had a positive impact on buyer performance in both studies and countries. Buyer commitment has a stronger impact on buying performance in China than in the United States. In fact it was the only variable to impact buyer performance. The difference in buyer commitment could be attributed to a cultural difference between China (long-term orientation) and the United States (short-term orientation) (Hofstede et al. 2010).

Table 5 Summary of statistically significant results on buying firm performance
Full size table

Shared values are important in both studies in the United States, but not in China. Given the collectivist nature of China with a focus on group harmony, we were surprised by this finding. Therefore we ran a post-hoc analysis to evaluate the model for each performance dimension separately (cost, quality, flexibility, and delivery). We found that shared values had a significant positive impact on cost. China competes on cost, so it is logical that a common interest in cost containment would be important.

As in the target study, information sharing, supplier evaluation, and supplier dependence positively impacted buyer performance. In contrast, buyer dependence impacted performance in the target study and not in the focal study for either country. In a similar manner as done with the China data, we ran an analysis for the United States using only the performance dimension of cost (see Table 6). In the US cost model, buyer dependence and industry was an important influence on buyer performance. The focal study includes service industries while the target study involved only two manufacturing industries. This finding suggests that buyer dependence on the supplier may be impacted by the industries that focus on product cost, such as the manufacturing industry.

Table 6 Dependent variable cost model
Full size table

In the focal study, we were surprised to find that neither supplier nor buyer dependency impacted either of the performance outcomes in China. This finding could be a result of the power dimension. Since the Chinese culture is comfortable with power differences, they may not acknowledge that buyer or supplier dependence could impact performance.

Supplier development had a statistically significant negative impact on performance in China. However, as mentioned previously, the scales used to measure supplier development in China exhibited low reliability. Additionally, the performance variable was a composite of cost, quality, delivery, and flexibility. Given a recent study’s observation in China that buyers had to spend considerable resources on monitoring and inspecting suppliers (Lockström et al. 2010); it is possible that Chinese managers may view the resources required to evaluate and develop suppliers as a reduction in cost efficiency without a corresponding benefit. Future research should further investigate the relationship between performance and supplier development in China by developing context specific scales and analyzing the impact on specific dimensions of performance, like cost.

In summary, the purpose of the focal study was to extend the target study in two important contexts (1) industry and (2) China. The target study was conducted in the automotive and electronic industries in the United States and the focal study was conducted in both the manufacturing and service industries in the United States and China. Buyer dependence was the only difference noted between the two United States populations that may be attributed to industry differences. In all other forms of social capital, similar results were found. Thus social capital between buying firms and their suppliers in the US is found to be important regardless of industry. In comparing the US and China, buyer commitment positively impacted buying firm performance in both countries, while shared values only impacted buying firm performance in the United States. Further research indicated that shared values are important in China when only considering the impact on cost performance.

4.2 Implications for practitioners

The need for businesses to better manage effectively across cultures continues to grow. The management of suppliers is a critical link in the supply chain and can impact the overall success of a company’s ability to offer quality products and services. Because of China’s increasing importance in the global economy, many firms in the United States are looking to China for suppliers and China is one of the most challenging countries for foreigners to engage in business (Paine 2010). To be successful, managers should develop a clear understanding of the unique culture and political environment existing in China. Buyer commitment to the relationship was found to impact both aspects of performance in the China sample, thereby implying that relationships are vital to success in doing business in China. An insightful analogy is that the business relationship is viewed as dating in the United States while it is viewed as a marriage in China (Ganster 2009). With the Chinese tending to take a long-term view of life that translates into the desire for long-term partnership; firms seeking to successfully do business in China need to approach the buyer-supplier relationship with a long-term view.

4.3 Limitations and closing comments

Replication studies help to build good theory by expanding important original studies to assess generalizability in different contexts. The Krause et al. (2007) study was one of the first studies to consider all three dimensions of social capital theory in studying the buyer supplier relationship. We replicated this study in two important contexts: industry and China. Because our study is a replication study, we used the same item measures from the original study. However, we did find five items measures with statistically significant factor loadings between the United States and China (Table 3). These scale differences could impact the results, thus future studies should consider developing context specific scales for China, especially since many of the research frameworks used in the operations management discipline were developed in western cultures. Our study results suggest that some aspects of social capital theory developed in western cultures, such as the importance of buyer commitment, may be valuable in understanding business relationships in eastern cultures, such as China.

Our study used a composite of cost, quality, delivery, and flexibility for the dependent variable buyer performance. Since firms often compete on a subset of these performance dimensions, future research should include an evaluation of the impact of supplier relationship methods on specific components of performance.

Additionally, we acknowledge that we consider the relationship from the viewpoint of the buyer. Also given the challenges of collecting objective performance data, we based buyer performance on the perception of the respondents. However, perception impacts the decision making process, thus our approach is to capture the buyer perception of their supplier on their performance. Finally, we recognize that many concepts exist, besides those included in this study, that impact actual performance. While this replication study provides insights concerning social capital and its impact in the BSR in China as compared to the United States, more research is needed for identifying and understanding additional factors that impact the BSR and ultimately performance.