Table A2 Research agenda table: power... | Emerald Publishing

Table A2

Research agenda table: power bases and commitment pathways

Power type	Key research question	Commitment pathway	Buyer countervailing power	Possible study designs
Reward power	How do supply chain partners' use of reward-based influence tactics affect buyer trust, commitment, and cooperation under varying dependence conditions?	RSA → Affective/Quality → Calculative	Buyer alternatives	Scenario-based experiments manipulating reward types and fairness perceptions; field surveys measuring the interplay between reward use and relational outcomes; or longitudinal studies tracking how ongoing incentives alter commitment over time
Coercive power	How does a supply chain partner's use or threat of coercive tactics affect buyer compliance, trust erosion, and relationship recovery over time?	RSA → Affective	Buyer contractual safeguards	Longitudinal field studies tracking perceptions of coercion and relationship outcomes across multiple periods; scenario-based experiments modeling short-term versus delayed reactions; or archival analyses examining contract enforcement events and subsequent performance
Legitimate power	How does formal or institutional authority influence buyers' calculative commitment and compliance across different governance contexts?	Quality → Calculative	Regulatory oversight	Cross-industry surveys capturing perceived legitimacy and formal authority structures; archival analyses of contracts, certifications, or regulatory frameworks that institutionalize authority; or longitudinal studies examining how legitimacy and commitment evolve as governance mechanisms mature
Referent power	How does reputational admiration or cultural alignment with a supply chain partner enhance affective commitment and relational identification?	RSA → Affective	Cultural alignment	Network analyses examining how admiration and identification flow through interfirm relationships; case-comparative studies of culturally aligned partnerships; or mixed-method studies combining surveys and interviews to capture the social-symbolic mechanisms of referent power
Expert power	How does a partner's technical expertise or knowledge superiority influence buyers' calculative commitment and perceived dependence?	Quality → Calculative	Technology dependency	Scenario-based experiments manipulating perceived expertise and technology dependency; dyadic surveys comparing self-rated versus perceived expertise across partners; or qualitative case studies of high-knowledge exchanges such as technology or professional service supply chains
Informational power	How does information transparency or asymmetry within supply chain relationships influence affective and calculative commitment?	RSA → Affective/Quality → Calculative	Information symmetry	Experimental designs manipulating levels of information openness or control; field surveys assessing perceived information symmetry and its relational effects; or longitudinal studies tracking how transparency initiatives reshape trust and dependence over time
Power base shifts over time	How do changes in relational and economic power bases influence the stability and evolution of buyer–supplier commitment?	Both paths	Buyer resource evolution	Longitudinal panel studies tracking shifts in dependence, resources, and influence perceptions across time; multi-wave surveys examining how transitions between power bases affect both affective and calculative commitment; or archival analyses tracing industry or firm-level changes in power balance
Countervailing power interactions	Can buyers' ESG performance or sustainability certifications offset suppliers' reputational (relationship) power and rebalance commitment across both affective and calculative pathways?	Both paths	ESG standing	Comparative case studies examining ESG-driven countervailing power in supply networks; cross-sectional or dyadic surveys capturing both supplier reputation and buyer ESG standing; or mixed-method designs linking secondary ESG data with relational outcome measures
Multi-actor power dynamics	How does power operate and interact across triadic or network supply chain contexts, and how do these configurations influence affective and calculative commitment?	Both paths	Network density	Network analyses mapping relational and economic influence across multiple actors; longitudinal or temporal network studies capturing how power structures evolve; or comparative case studies examining triadic configurations (e.g. buyer–supplier–customer or supplier–supplier–buyer networks)

Power type	Key research question	Commitment pathway	Buyer countervailing power	Possible study designs
Reward power	How do supply chain partners' use of reward-based influence tactics affect buyer trust, commitment, and cooperation under varying dependence conditions?	RSA → Affective/Quality → Calculative	Buyer alternatives	Scenario-based experiments manipulating reward types and fairness perceptions; field surveys measuring the interplay between reward use and relational outcomes; or longitudinal studies tracking how ongoing incentives alter commitment over time
Coercive power	How does a supply chain partner's use or threat of coercive tactics affect buyer compliance, trust erosion, and relationship recovery over time?	RSA → Affective	Buyer contractual safeguards	Longitudinal field studies tracking perceptions of coercion and relationship outcomes across multiple periods; scenario-based experiments modeling short-term versus delayed reactions; or archival analyses examining contract enforcement events and subsequent performance
Legitimate power	How does formal or institutional authority influence buyers' calculative commitment and compliance across different governance contexts?	Quality → Calculative	Regulatory oversight	Cross-industry surveys capturing perceived legitimacy and formal authority structures; archival analyses of contracts, certifications, or regulatory frameworks that institutionalize authority; or longitudinal studies examining how legitimacy and commitment evolve as governance mechanisms mature
Referent power	How does reputational admiration or cultural alignment with a supply chain partner enhance affective commitment and relational identification?	RSA → Affective	Cultural alignment	Network analyses examining how admiration and identification flow through interfirm relationships; case-comparative studies of culturally aligned partnerships; or mixed-method studies combining surveys and interviews to capture the social-symbolic mechanisms of referent power
Expert power	How does a partner's technical expertise or knowledge superiority influence buyers' calculative commitment and perceived dependence?	Quality → Calculative	Technology dependency	Scenario-based experiments manipulating perceived expertise and technology dependency; dyadic surveys comparing self-rated versus perceived expertise across partners; or qualitative case studies of high-knowledge exchanges such as technology or professional service supply chains
Informational power	How does information transparency or asymmetry within supply chain relationships influence affective and calculative commitment?	RSA → Affective/Quality → Calculative	Information symmetry	Experimental designs manipulating levels of information openness or control; field surveys assessing perceived information symmetry and its relational effects; or longitudinal studies tracking how transparency initiatives reshape trust and dependence over time
Power base shifts over time	How do changes in relational and economic power bases influence the stability and evolution of buyer–supplier commitment?	Both paths	Buyer resource evolution	Longitudinal panel studies tracking shifts in dependence, resources, and influence perceptions across time; multi-wave surveys examining how transitions between power bases affect both affective and calculative commitment; or archival analyses tracing industry or firm-level changes in power balance
Countervailing power interactions	Can buyers' ESG performance or sustainability certifications offset suppliers' reputational (relationship) power and rebalance commitment across both affective and calculative pathways?	Both paths	ESG standing	Comparative case studies examining ESG-driven countervailing power in supply networks; cross-sectional or dyadic surveys capturing both supplier reputation and buyer ESG standing; or mixed-method designs linking secondary ESG data with relational outcome measures
Multi-actor power dynamics	How does power operate and interact across triadic or network supply chain contexts, and how do these configurations influence affective and calculative commitment?	Both paths	Network density	Network analyses mapping relational and economic influence across multiple actors; longitudinal or temporal network studies capturing how power structures evolve; or comparative case studies examining triadic configurations (e.g. buyer–supplier–customer or supplier–supplier–buyer networks)