The double deviation effect in B2B supply chains: Why buyers penalize repeated stockouts more severely and how suppliers can recover


Abstract views: 10 / PDF downloads: 5

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.71350/30624533105

Keywords:

Double deviation effect, B2B supply chains, stockout penalties, supplier recovery, behavioral operations, supply chain resilience

Abstract

This study reveals an overlooked yet important phenomenon in B2B supply chain relationships: the double deviation effect, whereby buyers impose drastically higher penalties—2.3 times greater—on suppliers for recurring stockouts than for one-off occurrences. While previous research has been predominantly focused on service recovery in B2C contexts, this study delineates the distinctive ways that industrial buyers assess supplier failure, going beyond operational performance to include process uncertainty and attribution processes. Employing a mixed-methods approach, we combined controlled experiments with 150 B2B procurement professionals with an in-depth case study of Toyota's supplier recovery system following the 2022 semiconductor crisis. According to our findings, buyers are 37% less likely to renew contracts after repeated stockouts, even when monetary impacts are the same as for isolated occurrences. This response is due to a shift in attribution, in which ongoing disruptions are perceived as indicative of systemic supplier vulnerability and not indicative of external hardships. These findings counter dominant supply chain risk management approaches, demonstrating that reactive recovery measures—like expedited shipping and monetary compensation—fail to rectify the deteriorating trust in institutions. In contrast, proactive interventions, like real-time monitoring dashboards of inventory and collaborative risk assessment platforms, have the potential to lower the magnitude of penalties by 24%. The research adds to the discipline through the introduction of double deviation penalty as a behavioral operations phenomenon, bringing attribution theory and supply chain governance together. The research offers empirical facts in the way of large-scale experiments and Fortune 50 supply chain validation, as well as suggesting a three-phase resilience framework specifically developed for high-value contracts. This research transforms stockouts into reputation-building opportunities for trust, defining supply chain resilience and allowing managers to engineer trust-sustaining systems for long-term partnerships.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Tetreault, M. S. (1990). The service encounter: Diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400105

Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the resilient supply chain. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 15(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090410700275

Craighead, C. W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M. J., & Handfield, R. B. (2007). The severity of supply chain disruptions: Design characteristics and mitigation capabilities. Decision Sciences, 38(1), 131–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2007.00151.x

Craighead, C. W., Ketchen, D. J., & Cheng, L. (2020). Toward a "theoretical toolbox" for supply chain sustainability. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 56(1), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12206

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice-Hall.

Deloitte. (2022). Global Automotive Supplier Study 2022: Navigating the storm. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.

Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299706100203

Ellram, L. M. (1990). The supplier selection decision in strategic partnerships. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 26(4), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.1990.tb00358.x

Ellram, L. M., & Tate, W. L. (2015). The evolution of the services and supply chain management interface: Past, present and future. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51(2), 64–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12075

Fombrun, C. J., & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–258. https://doi.org/10.2307/256324

Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151

Grover, V., & Malhotra, M. K. (2003). Transaction cost framework in operations and supply chain management research: Theory and measurement. Journal of Operations Management, 21(4), 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(03)00040-8

Heide, J. B., & John, G. (1990). Alliances in industrial purchasing: The determinants of joint action in buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(1), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379002700103

Hendricks, K. B., & Singhal, V. R. (2005). An empirical analysis of the effect of supply chain disruptions on long-run stock price performance and equity risk of the firm. Production and Operations Management, 14(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2005.tb00009.x

Johnston, R., & Michel, S. (2008). Three outcomes of service recovery: Customer recovery, process recovery and employee recovery. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 28(1), 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570810841105

McKinsey & Company. (2023). B2B Pulse: Highlights from our latest global survey. McKinsey & Company.

Michel, S., & Meuter, M. L. (2008). The service recovery paradox: True but overrated? Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 49(3), 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010880408321105

Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: Past, present, and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 30–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299706100403

Sheffi, Y., & Rice, J. B., Jr. (2005). A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(1), 41–48.

Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(3), 356–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379903600305

Sodhi, M. S., & Tang, C. S. (2012). Managing supply chain risk. Springer.

Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 60–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200205

Tukamuhabwa, B. R., Stevenson, M., Busby, J., & Zorzini, M. (2015). Supply chain resilience: Definition, review and theoretical foundations for further study. International Journal of Production Research, 53(18), 5592–5623. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1037934

Van Vaerenbergh, Y., Orsingher, C., Vermeir, I., & Larivière, B. (2014). A meta-analysis of relationships linking service failure attributions to customer outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 17(4), 381–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670514526060

Wagner, S. M., & Bode, C. (2008). An empirical examination of supply chain performance along several dimensions of risk. Journal of Business Logistics, 29(1), 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2158-1592.2008.tb00081.x

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548

Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. Free Press.

Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 269–296. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393356

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.

Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.141

Zsidisin, G. A., & Ellram, L. M. (2003). An agency theory investigation of supply risk management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 39(3), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2003.tb00156.x

Downloads

Published

2025-06-26

How to Cite

Dzreke, S. S., & Dzreke, S. E. (2025). The double deviation effect in B2B supply chains: Why buyers penalize repeated stockouts more severely and how suppliers can recover. Frontiers in Research, 1(1), 80–98. https://doi.org/10.71350/30624533105

Issue

Section

Articles