Content uploaded by Liviu-George MAHA
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Liviu-George MAHA on Nov 11, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Environmental Engineering and Management Journal July 2016, Vol.15, No. 7, 1635-1647
http://omicron.ch.tuiasi.ro/EEMJ/
“Gheorghe Asachi” Technical University of Iasi, Romania
SUSTAINABILITY IN RELATIONSHIP MARKETING:
AN EXPLORATORY MODEL FOR THE INDUSTRIAL FIELD
Teodor Păduraru1, Elena-Mădălina Vătămănescu2, Andreia Gabriela Andrei3,
Florina Pînzaru2, Alexandra Zbuchea2, Liviu George Maha3, Gabriela Boldureanu3
1Gh. Zane Institute of Economic and Social Researches, 2 Codrescu Street, 700481, Iasi, Romania
2College of Management, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, Blvd. Expoziției no. 30A, Bucharest
3Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Blvd. Carol I, no.11, 700506, Iasi, Romania
Abstract
The present paper proposes a new perspective on relationship marketing in international businesses, advancing a
multidimensional model, further referred to as CRMS model (the Cs of Relationship Marketing Sustainability), developed on five
key dimensions of Relationship Marketing Sustainability: Convergence, Commonality, Compatibility, Credibility, Connectivity.
Surpassing unidimensional approaches, the study makes a step forward to proposing and testing the CRMS integrative model
which explores sustainability in international relationship marketing. The frame of reference simultaneously considers the five
groups of factors. These factors were analyzed mostly separately in previous studies that were focused either on trust and
commitment, or on the intercultural learning and the influence of physical and cultural distance between partners. The research
uses a survey-based analysis to test the CRMS model within internationalized businesses from steel pipe industry with 107
participating companies from 13 European countries. The empirical results point out that the CRMS model has a significant
predictive power on the international partnerships and business profitability.
Key words: industrial marketing, relationship marketing, sustainable partnerships, sustainability
Received: October, 2015; Revised final: March, 2016; Accepted: April, 2016
Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed: e-mail: tpaduraru2005@yahoo.com
1. Introduction
Relationship marketing encompasses a wide
spectrum of relationship types and strategies,
reflecting the status quo of marketing practices in
multiple areas and fields out of which the business to
business sectors are prominent, since sustainability
and long-term competitiveness of the B2B companies
are highly dependent on the developed partnerships
(Samy et al., 2015). In this vein, long-term
relationships building with business stakeholders -
based on engagement in the co-creation of mutual
value - is considered a key strategy (Brito, 2011;
Grönroos, 2007; Palmatier, 2008; Pînzaru and
Galalae, 2009; Rakic and Rakic, 2015; Reinartz et
al., 2008; Zbuchea et al., 2009).
From a practical perspective, long-term
relationships facilitate operational costs limitation by
the experience effect as costs associated with loyal
customers preservation are much smaller than costs
involved in gaining new clients (Maxim, 2009). Also,
such relationships combine the advantages of
vertically integrated distributed systems (control and
coordination) with the advantages of systems
utilizing independent channel members, such as
flexibility, scale economies, efficiency and low
overhead (Kanagal, 2009). Although pricing
incentives are of the essence, a tenable competitive
advantage relies on the social bonds between
partners, a fact which engenders the customization
and personalization of the relationship. Therefore, the
view on long-term financial performance is linked to
Păduraru et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 15 (2016), 7, 1635-1647
improving profitability through sustainable
relationship marketing strategies and not through
discreet transactions that are short-term by nature
(Boldureanu et al., 2013; Kanagal, 2009; Kotler and
Keller, 2006).
Still, as Khojastehpour and Jones (2014)
argue, “a unified theoretical framework is lacking”,
especially when the relationship marketing and
internationalization dyad is concerned. The absence
of a thorough integrative analysis regarding
relationship marketing and its inherent sustainability
dimensions is also suggested by Müller (2014, p.
201) who discusses the issue of sustainability-
oriented customer relationship management. Here,
the author posits that “no research takes an integrated
perspective on what shapes sustainability activities
targeted at the customer and analyses how customers
and sustainability interdigitate”. Still, Arnold’s
(2015) study provides some valuable insights into
fostering sustainability by linking co-creation and
relationship management concepts. This clearly
marks a step forward to an integrative approach on
the matter and establishes the premises for other
studies in this line.
In this regard, our paper intends to advance a
theoretical model that considers new dimensions of
relationship marketing sustainability (Convergence,
Commonality, Compatibility, Credibility,
Connectivity), answering to the question: Is there a
significant predictive power of the five dimensions on
sustainable partnership building? The research tests
the model using European steel pipe industry as
context of analysis, and posits that the CRMS model
predicts international partnerships and their
profitability.
The option for addressing steel pipe SMEs is
supported by several arguments. On the one hand,
SMEs are regarded as the linchpin of the private
sector in the developing countries and not only
(Hampton and Rowell, 2010, 2013; Hutchinson and
Quintas, 2008; Ocloo et al., 2014). On the other
hand, the steel pipe field is illustrative of the
interaction and network approaches promoted by
IMP Group (Industrial Marketing and Purchasing)
which “takes the relationship as its unit of analysis”,
each episode influencing and being influenced by the
overall relationship (Fernandes and Proença, 2005).
Moreover, the conceptual pillars of relationship
marketing themselves were rooted in the industrial
field, in the early 1980s, when Barbara Jackson used
the term in her book Winning and Keeping Industrial
Customers (as cited in Brito, 2011). Since then, the
literature on distribution channels has brought
significant contributions to an articulated body of
research and knowledge on the relational perspective
and inter-organizational networks, reflecting the
dynamics of industrial markets and supply
relationships management (Brito, 2011; Corăbieru et
al., 2015; Ford, 2003; Håkansson et al., 2004;
Palmatier, 2008).
2. Literature review
2.1. The imperative for relationship marketing and
management integrative models in international
business
The extant literature on relationship marketing
has addressed different models concerning varied
relational stages. At this level, compelling
contributions have been made since 1979 when
Scazoni approached three stages of relationship
development, namely exploration, expansion and
commitment. Levitt (1983) and Dwyer et al. (1987)
spoke about relationship marketing as a gradual
process of establishing relationships, indicating five
major components: awareness, exploration,
expansion, commitment and dissolution.
Another model was provided by Payne (1995)
who concluded that the phases of relationship
marketing consist of actors’ different hypostases,
starting with prospects and customers, continuing
with clients and advocates and finishing with
members and partners. Similarly, Kotler (1997)
stressed on eight stages for developing relationships
that is suspects, prospects, first-time consumers,
repeat customers, clients, advocates, members, and
partners. More recently, Sin et al. (2005) advanced
six major stages for relationship marketing –
empathy, bonding, communication, shared value,
reciprocity and trust while Murphy et al. (2007)
proposed three phases for relationship marketing –
establishment, maintenance and reinforcement.
Additionally, Palmatier (2008) discussed a model of
inter-firm relationship marketing which is mainly
based on “interactions among many people or, in
effect, a network of relationships”. The researcher
laid emphasis on the overarching characteristics and
stages of relationship building, including relationship
strength (a mixture of relationship quality – trust and
commitment - and relationship breadth – network
density) and relationship efficacy (a mixture of
relationship quality and relationship composition -
network diversity or attractiveness).
Exploring a correlative perspective on the
relationship marketing stages and the
internationalization process, Khojastehpour and
Jones (2014) associate relationship marketing
elements (communication, trust, commitment and
satisfaction) with two main internationalization
phases, namely pre-internationalization (focused on
surpassing psychic distance) and post-
internationalization (focused on market entry and
positioning). The researchers consider that
communication represents the key element for
internationalization, because it entails both trust and
relationships building (Khojastehpour and Jones,
2014). Hereby, the authors underscored the fact that
the advanced model is the first of its kind in that it
proposes a “conceptual framework explaining
relationship marketing in an internationalized
context”.
Sustainability in relationship marketing: An exploratory model for the industrial field
A multidimensional perspective on the
internationalization process was also discussed by
Malhotra et al. (2003). Vătămănescu et al. (2014) and
Nicolescu et al. (2015) have made attempts to
elaborate on a multi-theoretical model for analyzing
the emergence of international businesses from a
relationship management angle, while Hampton and
Rowell (2013) and Denicolai et al. (2014) have
acknowledged that interdependencies between
factors and non-linear models would have to be
considered for uncovering the broad context and
dynamic of international relationships. At this level,
the sustainability of international relationship
marketing strategies should be addressed from the
competitiveness standpoint, that is, assuming a
flexible outlook on the environmental opportunities
often entail the creation of international or
transnational business networks (Sandberg, 2014).
Thus, managers are prone to handle the drivers of
cross-cultural interactions, of cross-border
relationship formation, development, adjustment and
sustainability (Alegre and Pla-Barber, 2014; Cannone
and Ughetto, 2014; Villar et al., 2014).
As concluded by the aforementioned studies, a
void of a thorough examination remains. This is why
our aim is to propose CRMS, an exploratory model
of relationship marketing sustainability. Its nature
may be accounted for as a continuous cycle through
all the phases (dimensions) of the model and as a
dynamic configuration of the model components in
relation to international contingencies. Consistent
with the interaction and network approaches
supported by the IMP Group, relationships are seen
as inter-organizationally-oriented, happening at a
dyadic level in a network context, highly reciprocal
and interdependent, traversing a series of phases
defined by mutual learning and adaptation
(Fernandes and Proença, 2005; Ford, 2003;
Håkansson et al., 2004; Samaha et al., 2014).
Managers are seen as parties engaged in
interpersonal and inter-organizational relationships
with a view to achieve personal, professional and
organizational objectives, consistent with Kanagal’s
(2009) vision on relationship managers as value
creators – “they have knowledge, skills and abilities
to perform their jobs (...) Some of the skills used by
relationship managers include creative problem
solving, innovativeness, cross-functional interaction,
conflict management, build trust, planning and
project management and leading teams”.
2.2. The advancement of CMRS, an integrative model
of Relationship Marketing Sustainability
2.2.1. Convergence
The condition of relationship building,
convergence, is the first dimension of the CMRS
model. It follows the assumption that B2B
relationships result from “subjective cost-benefit
analyses that attempt to maximize benefits and
minimize costs” (Palmatier, 2008) and the aim of
relationship marketing is crafting long-term
relationships that are profitable and mutually
satisfactory at multiple levels - economic, social and
technical (Kotler and Keller, 2006).
Even from the mid-90s, researchers like
Morgan and Hunt (1994) have underscored the idea
that businesses are highly dependent on the
relationships established, developed and maintained
with their suppliers, as a main driver for staying
ahead of competition. It follows that these
relationships can provide an organization with
substantial leverage at multiple levels and in a
sustainable manner: prices negotiation, quality
assurance, flows continuity, risk limitation,
opportunism reduction, knowledge sharing, mutual
experiences acquisition, better coordination and
control and so on (Brătianu and Orzea, 2013;
Kanagal, 2009; Parsons, 2002; Shaladi, 2012). At this
point, Palmatier (2008) concluded that “customer–
seller relationships help determine the seller’s
financial performance, and RM investments can pay
off in both short- and long-term financial returns”.
Likewise, Kanagal (2009) consistently argues that
relationship marketing “is one of the supports to
systematic action setting in competitive marketing
strategy”.
For SMEs, operating on the external markets
means progress and sometimes the main support for
survival (Sandberg, 2014; Suh and Kim, 2014),
because by resorting to B2B ties and international
networks, they increase their chances for profit and
sustainability through market selection and
management adjustments (Hampton and Rowell,
2010, 2013; Hutchinson and Quintas, 2008). Thus, as
Möhring (2002) presented the internationalization
advantages, organizations might strengthen their
market position as a consequence of the opportunities
for business development and for innovation derived
from information exchange and international
connections.
The longevity of the partnership with
prospective parties is crucial for the organization’s
long-term success and stability in the selected
market. This is why selecting a suitable partner when
entering international markets and nurturing a strong
relationship is of the essence (Catulli et al., 2006). It
is in this line that engaging in business relationships
with foreign partners unfolds a multilevel
convergence basis, namely win-win situations
objectivized in dyadic leverages.
2.2.2. Commonality
Since marketing is context-driven, the
emergence of genuine relationships is very much
dependent on the context variables, commonality
setting itself up as a decisive factor for similar or
subsidiary parties to interact and approach common
interests. Frequenting the same places is a
preliminary indicator of common interests and
ensures the premises of mutual understanding even in
cross-cultural realms (Festing and Maletzky, 2011).
Due to the fact that a well-managed
relationship should reduce risk and uncertainty,
Păduraru et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 15 (2016), 7, 1635-1647
commonality encompasses the importance of
psychological and geographical proximity in
relationship occurrence. Here, discussing the issues
of firm pre-internationalization, Khojastehpour and
Jones (2014) highlighted the importance of
overcoming the psychic distance, a concept which
encompasses multilevel differences (language,
culture, education, business principles and practices,
country development, etc.). Even if the influence of
the psychic distance on the internationalization
process is frequently indirect, it still afflicts
relationship building and entails contextual learning
and trust reification (Johanson and Vahlne, 2009).
Consequently, organizations are prone to a
gradual targeting of international markets, starting
with the most proximate ones (which offer basic
knowledge through associations and an easier access
to information). From this point forward, going
international will follow the logic of concentric
circles to markets with higher psychic distance
(Freeman et al., 2012).
2.2.3. Compatibility
Concessions are needed in order to achieve
compatibility, especially in the first steps of
relationship building, because it is known that the
main impediment in establishing international
partnerships and collaborations is to adjust values,
manners and viewpoints, according to economic
interests and to find resources for compatibility
(Caliguri and Tarique, 2012; Hohenthal et al., 2014).
Further, by nurturing compatibility and consistent
mutual exposure, the parties would be able to
diminish the psychic distance between them, creating
the premises for a successful business relationship
(Rodriguez and Wilson, 2002).
In this vein, the focus of communication has
to address cultural empathy and openness, for
surpassing potential barriers between partners
coming with country-specific differences in religion,
social norms and values, or even politics
(Khojastehpour and Johns, 2014; Samaha et al.,
2014) and the efforts should be directed towards
developing consistent interactions, considering the
partner’s interests and avoiding opportunistic
behaviors (Barnes et al., 2010).
Rodriguez and Wilson (2002) and Hampton
and Rowell (2010) insisted on the importance of
finding ways to potentiate compatibility in
intercultural interactions, showing that the absence of
similarity has a great negative impact on either
establishing or maintaining business relationships
and international operations. Leonidou (2004) and
Testa (2009) shared the same view, and they pointed
out that a source of competitive advantage lies in
getting along with your international partners, on
creating added value which is mutually beneficial.
This is why controlling psychic distance through an
ongoing relationship marketing management and an
effective communication emerges as prerequisites of
sustainable relationship building (Leonidou et al.,
2011).
2.2.4. Credibility
Credibility stems from the unfolding
interactive social exchanges, each positive interaction
and shared experience cementing the relationship
through commitment and trust (Andrei and Zait,
2014; Catulli et al., 2006; Morgan and Hunt, 1994;
Nijssen and van Herk, 2009; Samaha et al., 2014).
Here, there are several key concepts embodied by the
credibility dimension, some of them already
mentioned in a contiguous manner. For instance,
Khojastehpour and Johns (2014) elaborate on trust,
fulfilled promises, and loyalty. The sustainability of
the partnership is mainly based on communication, a
decisive catalyst for trust and commitment,
experience and satisfaction.
In the same direction, Shaladi (2012) asserts
that several factors are liable to underpin the basis of
sustainable relationships in international business
contexts, that is, commitment, trust, customer
orientation/empathy, experience/satisfaction, and
communication. The author describes commitment
“as the strongest predictor of voluntary decisions to
remain in a relationship” (Shaladi, 2012), a fact
which supports its crucial impact on the development
of long-term business relationships.
A compelling approach on trust is provided by
Kanagal (2009) who states that “trust ensures that the
relational exchange is mutually beneficial, as the
good intentions of partners are not in doubt”,
underlining that “relationship marketing is built on
the foundation of trust”. Ali and Birley (1998)
describe two interconnected types of trust, namely
characteristic-based trust and process-based trust.
The former refers to the ‘social similarity’ between
parties (similar social and cultural tenets and norms)
while the latter is more rational, highly dependent on
relationship experience and performance. The
process-based trust is potentiated by the situations
where primary issues of agreements cannot be
formalized or based on legal criteria and the word of
the other party is the only basis to rely upon (Shaladi,
2012). In the same light, Rodriguez and Wilson
(2002) discuss about trust and professionalism-based
partnerships and the importance of developing both
structural and social bonds between partners,
highlighting the relationship manager’s role in
building not only economic ties, but also social
relations. For instance, friendship represents a source
of satisfaction which enhances the chances for
maintaining and developing international businesses,
as shown by Rodriguez del Bosque et al. (2005) and
Hohenthal et al. (2014), who have emphasized that
both the economic and social dimensions are sources
for the overall satisfaction.
Analyzing the lifecycle of relationships,
Hampton and Rowell (2013) have explained that
immediately after a new business contact is made,
parties have certain hold-backs concerning the
partnership’s reliability, but after several transactions
that are successfully fulfilled, the trust and credibility
between partners arise, triggering a long lasting
commitment. It is in this particular point that
Sustainability in relationship marketing: An exploratory model for the industrial field
communication has the power to reinforce two-way
exchanges, ensuring the sharing of continuous and
meaningful information (Johns, 2012; Leonidou et
al., 2011).
2.2.5. Connectivity
The fifth dimension of the model –
connectivity – stresses on the importance of staying
always in touch with the most important partners and
on reifying relationships within a network structure.
The approach is rooted in Gummesson (2008)’s
assertion, that is “relationship marketing is
interaction in networks of relationships” and in IMP
group’s findings that successful businesses evolve
and are consolidated through dyadic relationships in
a network context (Brodie et al., 2008; Ford, 2003;
Johanson and Vahlne, 2009).
Operationalizing the concept of “social
networks”, D`Andrea et al. (2010) described them as
comprising nodes (actors) and ties (connections) with
different degrees of interdependency and influence,
while Scott (2000) pointed out that the importance
and the function of each actor might be provided by
its position and ties. The network goes beyond the
organization’s boundaries as its actors develop intra-
organizational and inter-organizational relationships
at the same time, within a collaborative macro-
environment (Apetrei et al., 2015; Dumitrescu et al.,
2015; Nowicka et al., 2012).
The aforementioned situation is indicative of
industrial organizations acting in business arenas
which gather a limited number of prospective
partners (suppliers, buyers, stockists, competitors)
(Håkansson et al., 2004; Håkansson and Snehota,
2006; Shaladi, 2012). As Palmatier (2008) suggests,
“network theory developed in sociology provides
valuable insights into the impact of the structural
characteristics of interaction among multiple entities
(e.g., individuals, firms) within an overall network”.
Industrial networks can be defined as “complex
aggregations of relationships, hard to plan, predict or
manage” while the process of aggregation is far from
being simple or additive (Fernandes and Proença,
2005). Focusing on international businesses, the role
of networks seems to be crucial for the relationships
development all the more so as “networking is easy
to engage in as a result of advances in technology
and is also quite effective” (Shaladi, 2012).
All in all, social exchange through
international business networks stands for a
precondition of the growth strategies of organizations
and, consequently, relationship managers should be
open both to its internal resources and to the
network’s resources, and to act correspondingly for
improving the position of their business within the
network, creating a capital of trust that generates
incentives for the overall sustainability (Cannone and
Ughetto, 2014; Hohenthal et al., 2014).
3. Material and methods
3.1. Research motivation and approach
Considering the potential influence of
Convergence, Commonality, Compatibility,
Credibility and Connectivity, as depicted from the
literature review, our research aims to investigate
their predictive power and contributions in achieving
relationship marketing sustainability in international
partnerships within the industrial field.
To this end, we resorted to European steel
pipe SMEs to explore the cumulative influence and
individual effects of the five dimensions on SME's
ability to achieve sustainability in international
relationship marketing. This approach would be
among the first research endeavors of its kind as few
studies have addressed relationship marketing
sustainability within a multidimensional framework.
Since our approach was mainly exploratory,
we followed a two-step path. Firstly, we used
regression and principal components analysis (PCA)
to get preliminary results by answering to the
research question: Is there a significant predictive
power of the five dimensions on sustainable
partnership building? Secondly, based on the
preliminary results obtained, we developed the
research hypotheses and the CRMS model (presented
in Fig.1) to explore the influences exerted by each of
the 5 C dimensions using PLS-SEM (partial least
square structural equation modeling).
3.2. Data collection: sample and procedure
Top managers (considered as key informants)
from 109 European SMEs activating in the steel pipe
industry (13 countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Poland, Romania,
Slovenia, Spain, The Netherlands, Turkey, Ukraine)
participated in our questionnaire-based survey.
Subjects were sent e-mail invitations to fill in the
questionnaire, all contact details being provided by a
Romanian manager in the field. Two respondents
were excluded from the study, as they did not fill in
all the items of the questionnaire. Thus, the resulting
sample was of 107 subjects, aged between 35 and 60
years. The survey was completed in 2014. During the
same period, another two surveys were conducted on
complementary issues.
3.3. Research instrument
The data collection relied on a questionnaire-
based survey about facts and attitudes associated with
international partnering strategies and approaches.
The questionnaire was developed by the authors,
based on the literature and the insights previously
gained from in-depth interviews conducted with 6
managers from European steel pipe SMEs. The final
questionnaire comprised 20 items measured on a
five-point Likert scale, questions that were selected
after the interviews, from an initial 25-item version
derived from the literature. An additional section
including information about participant’s age,
nationality, education, years of experience in the field
and the origin country of the firm.
Păduraru et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 15 (2016), 7, 1635-1647
Thus, 20 items (detailed in Table 1) were used
to collect data regarding the outcomes of relationship
building on one hand, and the potential factors liable
to influence the reported outcomes, on the other
hand. The outcomes were assessed using two items
(Q19 and Q20) that formed the RMS dimension. The
RMS dimension is thus a composite variable which
includes the estimated business profitability and the
number of international partners, assuming that
multiple collaborations are an indicator of solid and
viable business arrangements. The potential factors
of influence were assessed using 18 items (Q1 to Q18
grouped on the five dimensions: Convergence,
Commonality, Compatibility, Credibility,
Connectivity).
3.4. Research methods and techniques
The collected data was processed by
employing a preliminary analysis using regression
and principal components analysis (PCA). Further,
the elaboration and investigation of the model and its
hypotheses (Fig. 1) relied on the exploratory
structural equation modeling technique, PLS-SEM,
operationalized through ADANCO 2.0 software
(Henseler and Dijkstra, 2015). Preliminary analysis,
and model evaluation are the object of the following
section.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Preliminary analysis
Regression analysis was used to test the
influences that managers’ approaches (the 18 items:
Q1 to Q18) exert on the measured outcomes (Q19
and Q20). As resulted from the regression analysis
using Q19 as dependent variable, the 18 items
significantly predict the profitability achieved
through international strategic collaborations (F =
22.81, p < .05 in Table 3), explaining 78.7% of the
variability (according to the Adjusted R Square value
in Table 2). The second regression analysis has been
run on Q20. The 18 items significantly predicted the
actual number of international partners (F = 5.88, p <
.05 in Table 5), explaining 45.3% of the results
variability (according to the Adjusted R Square,
Table 4).
Since the 18 items predicted the estimated
business profitability achieved through international
partnerships with 78.7%, respectively the number of
international partners with 45.3%, we computed a
factor analysis to investigate the number of principal
components. Consistent with our assumption, the
results of the factor analysis using the criterion of
Eigenvalues greater than 1 to extract principal
components indicated a five-factor solution (Table
7).
Table 1. Questionnaire items
Item no. Item content Dimension
Q1 I go international only after acquiring reasonable knowledge about the targeted market. Commonality
Q2 Having access to the informational and experiential resources of business and professional networks
provides us important competitive advantages. Connectivity
Q3 Going international is part of my firm’s sustainability strategies. Convergence
Q4 I find social exchange in business networks as a catalyst of sustaina
b
le international partnerships. Connectivity
Q5 Creating and joining business networks are important for the firm development in a dynamic
environment. Connectivity
Q6 I find intercultural similarity as mandatory in order to settle sustainable partnerships. Compatibility
Q7 I select my international partners in accordance with my social and organizational values. Compatibility
Q8 I consider intercultural learning and respect as an important factor for developing future partnerships. Compatibility
Q9 When meeting prospective partners, I often place personal and social preferences above business
interests. Commonality
Q10 I approach venturing into new markets as a step by step enterprise. Commonality
Q11 I’d rather collaborate with long-term loyal partners than with short-term - profitable partners. Credibility
Q12 Maintaining inter-connectivity – through multiple and varied channels and connections is decisive for
keeping up with the new trends on the market. Connectivity
Q13 I prefer to establish international partnerships with businessmen from similar or proximate markets. Commonality
Q14 Building international partnerships is fundamental for my firm’s long-term performance. Convergence
Q15 I’d rather attend regional fairs, exhibitions, workshops etc. than faraway events. Commonality
Q16 I develop international partnerships only if they rely on fulfilled promises. Credibility
Q17 I engage in international partnerships whenever the financial outcomes provide competitive
advantages. Convergence
Q18 I engage in sustainable international partnerships only if trust and commitment are mutually proved. Credibility
Q19 Estimated business profitability achieved through international partnerships. RMS
Q20 Number of international partners. RMS
Table 2. Model summary from regression analysis on Q19
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 0.91 .824 .787 .313
Predictors: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q13, Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q18
Dependent: Q19
Sustainability in relationship marketing: An exploratory model for the industrial field
Table 3. ANOVA results from regression analysis on Q19
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 40.206 18 2.234 22.812 .000
b
Residual 8.616 88 .098
Total 48.822 106
Predictors: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q13, Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q18
Dependent: Q19
Table 4. Model summary from regression analysis on Q20
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .739a .546 .453 1.06799
Predictors: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q13, Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q18
Dependent: Q20
Table 5. ANOVA results from Regression Analysis on Q20
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 120.823 18 6.712 5.885 .000
b
Residual 100.374 88 1.141
Total 221.196 106
Predictors: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q13, Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q18
Dependent: Q20
Table 6. KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .530
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 1601.226
d
f
153
Sig. .000
Table 7. Total variance: Principal component analysis. Extract
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 6.273 34.849 34.849 6.273 34.849 34.849
2 2.359 13.103 47.952 2.359 13.103 47.952
3 2.203 12.237 60.189 2.203 12.237 60.189
4 1.748 9.713 69.903 1.748 9.713 69.903
5 1.123 6.241 76.143 1.123 6.241 76.143
6 .977 5.428 81.571
7 .710 3.946 85.517
8 .583 3.239 88.756
9 .511 2.840 91.596
10 .353 1.961 93.557
11 .328 1.825 95.382
12 .249 1.383 96.764
13 .194 1.076 97.840
14 .124 .688 98.527
15 .105 .581 99.108
16 .089 .497 99.605
17 .047 .261 99.866
18 .024 .134 100.000
The factor analysis was computed given the
adequacy of the sample size (N=107, higher than the
minimum requested of 90; 90=18x5). KMO and
Bartlett's tests (Table 6) indicated an acceptable (but
low) sample size (KMO measure at .530), and a
significant level of Bartlett's test of sphericity
(p=.000), supporting the adequacy of the applied
statistical analysis in order to investigate our data.
Also, the statistics indicated an adequate level of
correlation among variables (r < .80) and a large
number of high correlations (r > .30).
4.2. Conceptual model
With a view to support a thorough
argumentation, an exploratory partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was further
employed for developing and testing the CRMS
framework and its hypotheses (Fig. 1).
We hypothesized that each of the five
dimensions exerts a significant positive influence
(direct or indirect) on relationship marketing
sustainability:
Păduraru et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 15 (2016), 7, 1635-1647
Fig. 1. CRMS model of Relationship Marketing Sustainability
Convergence on RMS (H1), Credibility on RMS
(H2), Commonality on RMS (H3), Compatibility on
RMS (H4), and Connectivity on RMS (H5). We also
assumed that CRMS dimensions might be
interconnected, influencing one another as follows:
Credibility is influencing Convergence (H6),
Compatibility is influencing Convergence (H7) and
Commonality is influencing Compatibility (H8) and
Convergence (H9).
4.3. Model analysis
The research model was thoroughly examined
according with PLS-SEM standards described by
Chin (1998): we tested measurement validity and
reliability (1), and we performed the bootstrapping
procedure (according with Hair et al., 2014) to
determine variance, effect sizes and predictive
relevance of the structural model (2), as well as the
path coefficients and loadings significance (3).
ADANCO 2.0 software (Henseler and
Dijkstra, 2015) was used for analysis, since it runs
consistent PLS, that connects all latent variables to
calculate the estimations, being the most
recommended algorithm for such models like ours,
comprising both reflective and composite constructs
(Henseler et al., 2016).
4.4. Measurement model validation
The results presented in Table 8 (α > 0.7, ρA>
0.7, composite reliability CR > 0.8, and the average
variance extracted values AVE > 0.5) show that the
measurement model meets all criteria for validity,
reliability and convergent validity indicated in the
literature (Henseler et al., 2016; Fornell and Larker,
1981; Nunnally, 1978; Zait and Zait, 2009).
The heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations
(HTMT values < 0.81) indicate that the CRMS model
meets the most restrictive criterion (HTMT .85) of
discriminant validity (being under the 0.85 limit, as
indicated by Henseler et al., 2016).
Discriminant validity was also confirmed with
Fornell-Larcker criterion, results showing that the
squared correlations are lower than AVE values
reported in diagonal (Table 9).
Finally, the VIF values (between 1.250 and
1.000) were lower than the 3.3 threshold indicated by
Diamantopoulos and Siguaw (2006), indicating no
multicollinearity. As a consequence, all the statistics
confirmed the validity and the reliability of the
measurement model.
4.5. Structural model analysis and results discussion
The results (Fig. 2) of the bootstrapping
procedure for structural model variance, effect size
and predictive relevance indicates that the CRMS
model explains more than half of RMS variance
(Table 10), and each dimension exerts a direct effect
(Table 11) or an indirect effect (Table 12) on RMS.
Table 11 and Table 12 summarize, for each
relationship among the latent variables, the
regression path coefficients (β) and their statistical
significance (t statistics and p values), as well as
Cohen's (f2) effect size for the direct effects.
The results (Table 11) highlight two direct
effects: the direct, positive, significant and large-size
effect of Convergence (Convergence → RMS, β=
0.508; t= 7.745; p<0.1; f2 = 0.499), and the direct,
positive, significant and medium-size effect of
Connectivity (Connectivity → RMS, β= 0.393; t=
3.446; p<0.1; f2 = 0.299). The effect sizes were
interpreted according with Cohen’s (1988)
indications for small (0.02), medium (0.15), and large
(0.35) effects. Thus, our findings confirm H1 and H5
hypotheses, indicating Convergence as main
predictor and effects driver, a result that is also
supported by the extant literature (Kotler and Keller,
2006; Kanagal, 2009; Palmatier, 2008; Shaladi, 2012,
etc.). Authors approach partners’ convergence
(multilevel mutual interests) as the condition of
relationship marketing and of the inherent
sustainability primacy.
Sustainability in relationship marketing: An exploratory model for the industrial field
Table 8. Reliability and convergent validity of the measurement model
Construct Items α ρA CR AVE
Compatibility (reflective) Q6, Q7, Q8 0.781 0.823 0.873 0.698
Credibility (reflective) Q11, Q16, Q18 0.711 0.735 0.834 0.627
Commonality (reflective) Q1, Q9, Q10, Q15, Q13 0.759 0.847 0.826 0.530
Convergence (reflective) Q3, Q14, Q17 0.729 0.780 0.844 0.646
Connectivity (formative) Q2, Q4, Q5, Q12 n.a. 1.0000 n.a. 0.000
RMS (formative) Q19, Q20 n.a 1.0000 n.a. 0.000
Table 9. Discriminant validity - Fornell-Larcker criterion (Squared correlations; AVE in diagonal)
Construct Compatibility Credibility Commonality Convervence Connectivity RMS
Compatibility 0.6977
Credibility 0.1584 0.6270
Commonality 0.3927 0.2613 0.5297
Convergence 0.1998 0.3545 0.1185 0.6464
Connectivity 0.1288 0.0359 0.1118 0.0773
RMS 0.0648 0.1193 0.0684 0.3809 0.2855
Fig. 2. CRMS model of Relationship Marketing Sustainability. Path coefficients and explained variances
of the structural model
Table 10. Results of the Structural Model Evaluation, Predictive Relevance
Construct Coefficient of determination (R2)
Compatibility 0.393
Convergence 0.407
RMS 0.524
Table 11. Results of the Structural Model Evaluation. Direct Effects
Standard bootstrap results Percentile bootstrap
quantiles Effect size
Effect β Mean SE T-value p 2-tailed 2.5% 97.50% Cohen's f2
Compatibility→
Convergence
0.250 0.238 0.096 2.601 0.009 0.044 0.418 0.088
Credibility→
Convergence
0.496 0.513 0.080 6.176 0.000 0.352 0.672 0.349
Commonality→
Compatibility
0.627 0.645 0.061 10.265 0.000 0.522 0.762 0.647
Convergence→ RMS 0.508 0.506 0.066 7.745 0.000 0.363 0.623 0.499
Connectivity→ RMS 0.393 0.395 0.114 3.446 0.001 0.236 0.554 0.299
Table 12. Results of the Structural Model Evaluation. Indirect Effects
Standard bootstrap results Percentile bootstrap quantiles
Effect β Mean SE T-value p 2-tailed 2.5% 97.5%
Compatibility → RMS 0.127 0.117 0.043 2.925 0.004 0.024 0.190
Credibility → RMS 0.252 0.261 0.058 4.312 0.000 0.153 0.380
Commonality →
Convergence
0.156 0.155 0.065 2.390 0.017 0.028 0.282
Commonality → RMS 0.079 0.076 0.030 2.676 0.008 0.015 0.128
Păduraru et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 15 (2016), 7, 1635-1647
In fact, the emergence of the absence of
convergence triggers the dissolution of the
partnership as its mere foundation is lacking.
Although moderate, the direct positive effect
of connectivity on relationship marketing
sustainability reflects the empirical condition of
today’s competitive SMEs – connections within a
network-based business environment, open channels
and social media technology usage, as deemed by
Håkansson and Snehota (2006), Shaladi (2012),
Cannone and Ughetto (2014) and Hohenthal et al.
(2014) among others.
The reported statistics on this particular
relation are very relevant all the more so as SMEs in
the industrial field (like the ones in our sample) are
indicative of the capitalization of network marketing,
by harvesting the proper position and connections in
a hyper-connected system.
Supporting H2, H3 and H4 hypotheses, the
indirect effects (reported in Table 12) indicate that
each of the other three dimensions exert significant
positive influences on relationship marketing
sustainability: Credibility → RMS (β= 0.252; t=
4.312; p<0.1); Compatibility → RMS (β= 0.127; t=
2.925; p<0.1); Commonality → RMS (β= 0.079; t=
2.676; p<0.1).
The results detailed in Table 11 and Table 12
indicate that additional positive relations exist
between four of the five predictors, as follows: the
direct effect of Credibility on Convergence and the
direct effect of Compatibility on Convergence (H6
and H7 hypotheses are confirmed). Also,
Commonality exerts an indirect effect on
Convergence and a direct positive influence on
Compatibility (H9 and H8 hypotheses are supported).
Consistent with previous theoretical
developments (Catulli et al., 2006; Morgan and Hunt,
1994; Nijssen and van Herk, 2009; Samaha et al.,
2014, etc.), our results show that partners’ credibility
has an important role in generating relationship
marketing sustainability, especially in a B2B context.
Still, in this vein, the sustainability imperative can be
achieved only through the ongoing convergence of
parties’ business interests. In the absence of
convergence, the partners’ credibility would only set
itself up as a personal factor and not as a relational
incentive. Trust, commitment, engagement, mutual
satisfaction are process features and therefore they
depend on the input condition, that is, convergence.
Likewise, partners’ compatibility, although a catalyst
of relationship building, cannot objectivise in a
business framework without the incidence of
convergence. In fact, adding value and gaining a
competitive advantage are the driving force of each
partnership and the acknowledgement of a win-win
relationship allows further adjustments, concessions
and intercultural learning (as sustained by Caliguri
and Tarique, 2012; Hampton and Rowell, 2013;
Hohenthal et al., 2014, etc). It is in this particular line
that commonality, the context of relationship
building, emerges as a prerequisite of relationship
marketing sustainability. The availability of different
opportunities for business partners to interact is
useful only if and when they are similar in what
primary aspects are concerned (thus, compatible),
only if and when they have shared interests and
foresee mutual benefits (thus being convergent).
Consequently, the propensity towards reducing the
psychic distance is engendered by envisioning a
strong and long-term competitive advantage (also
underscored by Freeman et al., 2012; Khojastehpour
and Jones, 2014, etc.)
The corroboration of all the direct and indirect
effects resulted from our exploratory PLS-SEM
analysis engenders the idea of an integrative CRMS
framework, each of the CRMS components being
closely linked, together contributing to the
relationship marketing sustainability.
5. Conclusions
Sustainability in relationship marketing was
explored as a theoretical framework (CMRS) liable
to propose a multidimensional approach on the
dynamics of international partnerships building. The
endeavor started from a research gap regarding the
relationship marketing in international industrial
relationships, from a sustainability-driven viewpoint.
Empirical results from our study pointed out
that the five dimensions (Convergence,
Commonality, Compatibility, Credibility,
Connectivity) have a significant predictive power on
the number of partners and business profitability
achieved through international partnerships, together
contributing to the relationship marketing
sustainability. Further, by thoroughly investigating
CMRS framework and the nature of the influences
between its latent variables, we found that two of the
predictors (Convergence and Connectivity) exert
direct effects on relationship marketing sustainability
(RMS) while the other three (Commonality,
Compatibility, Credibility) exert indirect effects on
RMS. As foreseen from the conceptual framework,
the main driver, Convergence, lies at the core of the
model, as a condition of relationship building.
Since the purpose of this research was to
explore the tiers of relationship marketing at an
international scale and their influence on facts and
figures related to the firm performance in the long
run, the proposed CMRS model is mainly focused on
the socio-economic, cultural and psychological
components of the international business
relationships building. The main limit of the study
refers to the convenience sample comprising
managers from the European steel pipe industry. As
previously discussed, although the sample is quite
large in relation to the extant number of European
steel pipe SMEs, the results cannot be generalized to
the entire population at a global scale. Also, the
selected subjects are solely from European SMEs in
the field, giving way to specific approaches on
international partnerships building.
Sustainability in relationship marketing: An exploratory model for the industrial field
Against this backdrop, the study would benefit
from further valuable contributions. On the one hand,
extended samples including worldwide businessmen
in the field would become an important asset as it
would reflect global-scale viewpoints. Secondly, the
research may address subjects from other fields
which would facilitate extended and more consistent
samples. Thirdly, based on CRMS dimensions, a
future research might develop a measurement using
only reflective constructs in order to enable the use of
confirmatory SEM tools such as AMOS for re-testing
the concept and the relationships that we have found
using exploratory PLS-SEM.
To sum up, in this point, CRMS stands for a
pilot, mainly exploratory, endeavor to coagulate the
multiple facets of relationship marketing
sustainability in international business and it remains
open to pertinent adjustments and completions.
Still, CRMS model offers a multidimensional
framework of analysis that opens new perspectives
for a better understanding and unfolding of the
international partnerships challenges and outcomes.
Furthermore, its extrapolation to the study of
transnational corporate actors would become a
valuable asset both for the scholarly literature and for
the managerial practice.
References
Ali H., Birley S., (1998), The role of trust in the marketing
activities of entrepreneurs establishing new venture,
Journal of Marketing Management, 14, 749-763.
Andrei A.G., Zait A., (2014), Branding insights: an
interdisciplinary journey from perception to action, In:
Strategica. Management, Finance, and Ethics,
Brătianu C., Zbuchea A., Pînzaru F., Vătămănescu E.-
M. (Eds.), Tritonic, Bucharest, 593-604.
Apetrei A., Kureshi N.I., Horodnic I.A., (2015), When
culture shapes international business, Journal of
Business Research, 68, 1519-1521.
Arnold M., (2015), Fostering sustainability by linking co-
creation and relationship management concepts,
Journal of Cleaner Production,
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.059.
Barnes B.R., Leonidou L.C., Siu N.Y.M., Leonidou C.,
(2010), Opportunism as the inhibiting trigger for
developing long-term-oriented Western exporter-Hong
Kong importer relationships, Journal of International
Marketing, 18, 35-63.
Boldureanu G., Lache C., Boldureanu D., Păduraru T.,
Niculescu N., (2013), Students’ entrepreneurial
competencies and orientation. Reality and prospects,
Environmental Engineering and Management Journal,
12, 1535-1541.
Brătianu C., Orzea I., (2013), The entropic intellectual
capital model, Knowledge Management Research &
Practice, 11, 133-141.
Brito C., (2011), Relationship marketing: old wine in a new
bottle?, Innovative Marketing, 7, 66-77.
Brodie R.J., Coviello N.E., Winklhofer H., (2008),
Contemporary marketing practices research program:
a review of the first decade, Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 23, 84-94.
Caliguri P., Tarique I., (2012), Dynamic cross-cultural
competencies and global leadership effectiveness,
Journal of World Business, 47, 612-622.
Cannone G., Ughetto E., (2014), Born globals: A cross-
country survey on high-tech start-ups, International
Business Review, 23, 272-283.
Catulli M., Lavergne D., Smart S., (2006), Testing a
relational model across national borders: The case of
the library products and supplies industry, In:
Conference proceedings, Academy of Marketing
conference, Academy of Marketing, London.
Chin W.W., (1998), The partial least squares approach to
structural equation modeling, In Modern methods for
business research, Marcoulides G.A. (Ed.), Lawrence
Erlbaum Mahwah New Jersey, 295-358.
Corăbieru P., Corăbieru A., Vasilescu D.D., (2015),
Research and trends in product life cycle management
in the context of sustainable development,
Environmental Engineering and Management Journal
14, 205-212.
D’Andrea A., Ferri F., Grifoni P., (2010), An overview of
methods for virtual social networks analysis, In:
Computational social network analysis trends, tools
and research advances, Abraham
Dumitrescu D., Simionescu L.N., Roman A., (2015),
Environmental responsibility and company financial
performance: the case of Romanian manufacturing
industry, Environmental Engineering and
Management Journal, 14, 2947-2957.
Denicolai S., Zucchella A., Strange R., (2014), Knowledge
assets and firm international performance,
International Business Review, 23, 55-62.
Diamantopoulos A., Siguaw J.A., (2006), Formative versus
reflective indicators in organizational measure
development: A comparison and empirical illustration,
British Journal of Management, 17, 263-282.
Dwyer F., Schurr P., Oh S., (1987), Developing buyer-
seller relationships, Journal of Marketing, 51, 11-27.
Fernandes T.M., Proença J.F., (2005), Relationships and
relationship marketing: An interdisciplinary
perspective, In: Dealing with dualities, Proc. 21th IMP
Group Annual Conference, Wynstra F., Dittrich K.,
Jaspers F. (Eds), Rotterdam, RSM Erasmus
University, Netherlands.
Festing M., Maletzky M., (2011), Cross-cultural leadership
adjustment - A multilevel framework based on the
theory of structuration, Human Resource Management
Review, 21, 186-200.
Ford D., (2003), Understanding business marketing and
purchasing: An interaction approach, 3rd Edition,
Thomson Learning, London.
Fornell C., Larcker D.F., (1981), Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research,
18, 39-50.
Freeman S., Giroud A., Kalfadellis P., Ghauri P., (2012),
Psychic distance and environment: impact on
increased, European Business Review, 24, 351-373.
Grönroos C., (2007), Service management and marketing:
Customer management in service competition, 3rd
Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Hair J.F., Sarstedt M., Hopkins, L.G., Kuppelwieser V.,
(2014), Partial least squares structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM). An emerging tool in business
research, European Business Review, 26, 106-121.
Håkansson H., Harrison D., Waluszewski A., (2004),
Rethinking Marketing – Developing a New
Understanding of Markets, John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester.
Håkansson H., Snehota I., (2006), No business is an island:
The network concept of business strategy,
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 22, 256-270.
Păduraru et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 15 (2016), 7, 1635-1647
Hampton A., Rowell J., (2010), Leveraging integrated
partnerships as a means of developing international
capability: An SME case study, International Journal
of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 10,
19-30.
Hampton A., Rowell J., (2013), An evolution in research
practice for investigating international business
relationships, Management Dynamics in the
Knowledge Economy, 1, 161-178.
Henseler J., Dijkstra T.K., (2015), ADANCO 2.0. Kleve:
Composite modeling, On line at:
http://www.compositemodeling.com.
Henseler J., Hubona G., Ray P.A., (2016), Using PLS path
modeling in new technology research: updated
guidelines, Industrial Management & Data Systems,
116, 2-20.
Hohenthal J., Johanson J., Johanson M., (2014), Network
knowledge and business-relationship value in the
foreign market, International Business Review, 23, 4-
19.
Hutchinson V., Quintas P., (2008), Do SMEs do
knowledge management? Or simply manage what they
know?, International Small Business Journal, 26, 131-
154.
Johanson J., Vahlne J.E., (2009), The Uppsala
internationalization process model revisited: From
liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership,
Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1411-
1431.
Johns R., (2012), Relationship marketing in a self-service
context: no longer applicable?, Journal of Relationship
Marketing, 11, 91-115.
Kanagal N., (2009), Role of relationship marketing in
competitive marketing strategy, Journal of
Management and Marketing Research, 2, 1-17.
Khojastehpour M., Johns R., (2014), Internationalization
and relationship marketing: an introduction, European
Business Review, 26, 238-253.
Kotler P., (1997), Marketing management: Analysis,
planning, implementation, and control, 9th Edition,
Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey.
Kotler P., Keller K.L., (2006), Marketing Management,
12th Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey.
Leonidou L.C., (2004), Industrial manufacturer-customer
relationships: The discriminating role of the buying
situation, Industrial Marketing Management, 33, 731-
742.
Leonidou L.C., Palihawadana D., Chari S., Leonidou C.N.,
(2011), Drivers and outcomes of importer adaptation
in international buyer– seller Relationships, Journal of
World Business, 46, 527-543.
Levitt T., (1983), The Marketing Imagination, The Free
Press, New York, NY.
Malhotra N.K., Aggarwal J., Ulgado F.M., (2003),
Internationalization and entry modes: A
multitheoretical framework and research propositions,
Journal of International Marketing, 11, 1-31.
Maxim A., (2009), Relationship marketing – a new
paradigm in marketing theory and practice, Analele
ştiințifice ale Universității “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din
Iaşi, Tomul LVI Științe Economice.
Möhring J., (2002), SMEs and cluster internationalisation,
East West Cluster Conference, OECD, Paris.
Morgan R., Hunt S., (1994), The commitment-trust theory
of relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, 58,
20-38.
Müller A.L., (2014), Sustainability and customer
relationship management: current state of research and
future research opportunities, Management Review
Quarterly, 64, 201-224.
Murphy P.E., Laczniak G.R., Wood G., (2007), An ethical
basis for relationship marketing: a virtue ethics
perspective, European Journal of Marketing, 41, 37-
57.
Nicolescu L., Vătămănescu E.M., Andrei A.G., Pînzaru F.,
(2015), Towards a sustainability framework for
relationship marketing. An insight into European steel
pipe businesses, In: New Trend in Sustainable
Business and Consumption, BASIQ 2015 International
Conference, Pamfilie R., Dinu V., Tăchiciu L. (Eds.),
ASE Publishing House, Bucharest, 449-456.
Nijssen E.J., van Herk H., (2009), Conjoining international
marketing and relationship marketing: Exploring
consumers' cross-border service relationships, Journal
of International Marketing, 17, 91-115.
Nowicka M., Dima I.C., Ștefan C., (2012), Integrating the
IC concept into strategies for the development of
regional network systems, European Journal of
Business and Social Sciences, 1, 21-33.
Nunnally C.J., (1978), Psychometric Methods, New York:
Harper and Row.
Ocloo C.E., Akaba S., Worwui-Brown D.K., (2014),
Globalization and competitiveness: Challenges of
small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Accra,
Ghana, International Journal of Business and Social
Science, 5, 1-10.
Palmatier R.W., (2008), Relationship Marketing,
Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Parsons A.L., (2002), What determines buyer-seller
relationship quality? An Iivestigation from the buyer’s
perspective, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
38, 4-12.
Payne A., (1995), Advances in Relationship Marketing,
Kogan Page, London.
Rakic B., Rakic M., (2015), Holistic management of
marketing sustainability in the process of sustainable
development, Environmental Engineering and
Management Journal, 14, 887-900.
Reinartz W., Thomas J., Bascoul G., (2008), Investigating
cross-buying and customer loyalty, Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 22, 5-20.
Rodriguez C.M., Wilson D.T., (2002), Relationship
bonding and trust as a foundation for commitment in
U.S.-Mexican strategic alliances: A structural equation
modelling approach, Journal of International
Marketing, 10, 53-76.
Rodriguez del Bosque R.I., Collado Agudo J., San Martin
Gutierrez H., (2005), Determinants of economic and
social satisfaction in manufacturer-distributor
relationships, Industrial Marketing Management, 35,
666-675.
Samaha S.A., Beck J.T., Palmatier R.W., (2014), The role
of culture in international relationship marketing,
Journal of Marketing, 78, 78-98.
Samy G.M., Samy C.P., Ammasaiappan M., (2015),
Integrated management systems for better
environmental performance and sustainable
development – A review, Environmental Engineering
and Management Journal, 14, 985-1000.
Sandberg S., (2014), Experiential knowledge antecedents
of the SME network node configuration in emerging
market business networks, International Business
Review, 23, 20-29.
Sustainability in relationship marketing: An exploratory model for the industrial field
Scott J., (2000), Social Network Analysis. A Handbook,
Sage, London.
Shaladi B., (2012), Business relationship development and
the influence of psychic distance, Innovative
Marketing, 8, 73-80.
Sin L., Tse A., Yau O., Chow R., Lee J., Lau L., (2005),
Relationship marketing orientation: scale development
and cross-cultural validation, Journal of Business
Research, 58, 185-194.
Suh Y., Kim M.S., (2014), Internationally leading SMEs
vs. internationalized SMEs: Evidence of success
factors from South Korea, International Business
Review, 23, 115-129.
Testa M., (2009), National culture, leadership and
citizenship: Implications for cross-cultural
management, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 28, 78-85.
Vătămănescu E.M., Alexandru V.A., Gorgos E.A., (2014),
The Five Cs Model of Business Internationalization
(CMBI) – a Preliminary Theoretical Insight into
Today’s Business Internationalization Challenges, In:
Strategica. Management, Finance, and Ethics,
Brătianu C., Zbuchea A., Pînzaru F., Vătămănescu E.-
M. (Eds.), Tritonic, Bucharest, 537-558.
Villar C., Alegre J., Pla-Barber J., (2014), Exploring the
role of knowledge management practices on exports:
A dynamic capabilities view, International Business
Review, 23, 38-44.
Zait D., Zait A., (2009), Research anticipation: The
methodological choice, Review of International
Comparative Management, 10, 902-909.
Zbuchea A., Pînzaru F., Galalae C., (2009), Relationship
marketing - the new marketing approach, Proc. 4th
International conference on Business excellence,
Brătianu C., Lixăndroiu D., Pop A.N. (Eds.),
Infomarket, Brașov, 304-308.
