1 s2.0 S0019850120309160 Mainext

i An update to this article is included at the end
Industrial Marketing Management 93 (2021) 52–62
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Industrial Marketing Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/indmarman
Research paper
Sharing is the name of the game: Exploring the role of social media
communication practices on B2B customer relationships in the life
sciences industry
Susan Rose a, Diana Fandel b, Anastasiya Saraeva a, *, Anne Dibley a
a
Henley Business School, University of Reading, Greenlands Campus, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, RG9 3AU, United Kingdom
b
Lutgert College of Business, Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, FL 33965-6565, United States of America
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: The inclusion of social media as a communication channel in a vendor’s B2B digital marketing strategy is
B2B growing in importance. Understanding the effect of such practices upon customer relationships is crucial for
Shared beliefs firms as they increasingly engage in this way. This paper presents and tests a model that explores the effect of
Loyalty
vendor social media communication practices upon trust and loyalty in B2B customer relationships. A study
Trust
using quantitative data from 196 business customers of a United States life sciences firm is reported. The model
Social media practices
Communication indicates that trust and loyalty are influenced by a) the social media shared beliefs between the vendor and the
customer; b) the nature of the vendor’s social media communication with the customer; and c) the extent to
which the vendor’s social media communication practices enable effective customer-to-customer communica
tion. Trust is found to have a mediating role between these indicators and loyalty. Managerial implications are
discussed.
1. Introduction (ESN) that facilitates engagement and collaboration of internal stake

holders (Kroenke & Boyle, 2019). As a result of such B2B SM uses, the
The use of social media (SM) in B2B markets has now emerged as a GlobalWeb Index Report (2019) now identifies an emerging segment of
significant marketing topic and one that is attracting attention by aca ‘professional networkers’ representing 45% of the population of digital
demic researchers (Andersson & Wikström, 2017; Huang, Potter, & users.
Eyers, 2020; Nunan, Sibai, Schivinski, & Christodoulides, 2018; Wang, The use of SM in B2B markets enables those using such channels to
Rod, Ji, & Deng, 2017). This rise has gone hand-in-hand with the in reconcile social needs at both a personal and business levels (Chaffey,
crease in digital usage more broadly and particularly by those in the 2007; Chaffey, Ellis-Chadwick, Mayer, & Johnston, 2009; Huotari,
workplace. SM has become a generalised term that encompasses a range Ulkuniemi, Saraniemi, & Mäläskä, 2015). Specifically, from a business
of applications, including media channels such as YouTube; networking perspective, SM allows companies to achieve much faster and more
sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn; and social effective interactions with their customers, as well as other stakeholders
messaging applications such as WhatsApp, or WeChat in China (Glob such as suppliers and employees, which in consequence builds deeper
alWeb Index Report, 2019). However, some SM applications may be relationships (Huotari et al., 2015; Kho, 2008; Marshall, Moncrief,
more subject-specific and/or access controlled such as brand or user Rudd, & Lee, 2012). B2B SM supports four key internal business pro
hosted online communities e.g. ‘Oracle Community’ (see: community. cesses that are essential to relationship building. Firstly, marketing and
oracle.com); H&R Block (see: hrblock.com). Such online communities communications: SM supports B2B marketing activities such as product
used by customers or other stakeholders such as suppliers, promote and presentation, brand building (reputation and awareness in particular),
enable exchange of brand information. Additionally, SM may be used product promotion and customer communications (Avlonitis & Pan
internally within an organisation such as for employee forums e.g. agopoulos, 2010; Mangold & Faulds, 2009; Spence, Sellnow-Richmond,
‘Waitrose Partners’ (UK supermarket) idea platform (see Eames, 2020). Sellnow, & Lachlan, 2016; Stelzner, 2020; Zhang & Li, 2019). Secondly,
This particular platform is an example of an enterprise social network SM can support B2B sales management and business development and
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Saraeva).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.12.013
Received 27 October 2019; Received in revised form 27 November 2020; Accepted 28 December 2020
Available online 15 January 2021
0019-8501/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
S. Rose et al. Industrial Marketing Management 93 (2021) 52–62
reduce the cost of customer acquisition by generating referrals and 2014; Zhang & Li, 2019) and practical applications (O’Reilly & Eckert,
creating sales opportunities; qualifying prospects and helping to manage 2014). However, a deeper understanding of the effect of SM communi
relationships (Agnihotri, Kothandaraman, Kashyap, & Singh, 2012). It cation practices by vendors upon customer trust and loyalty is still called
has therefore been positively linked to sales performance (Itani, Agni for. Building on the work of Zhang and Li (2019), the contribution of this
hotri, & Dingus, 2017; Kumar, Bezawada, Rishika, Janakiraman, & study is to fill a gap in knowledge regarding the role of B2B communi
Kannan, 2016; Rodriguez, Peterson, & Krishnan, 2012) and the com cation within online customer communities for trust and loyalty build
bined effect of SM and CRM systems (often referred to as ‘social CRM’) ing. A further contribution of the paper is the identification of specific
now increases organisational ability to manage customer relationships B2B SM practices that are effective in building trust and loyalty. The
(Trainor, 2012). Thirdly, SM can be used by firms to co-create value for study develops and tests a research model that hypothesises the effect of
customers and to enhance the customer’s buying and/or consumption three SM practices on B2B customer trust and loyalty. In so doing the
experience thus building relationships (Agnihotri, Dingus, Hu, & Krush, study aims to answer the following three research questions:
2016; Diba, Vella, & Abratt, 2019; Rapp, Beitelspacher, Grewal, & 1. What are the vendor B2B Social Media communication practices
Hughes, 2013; Rodriguez et al., 2012). Finally, SM can support wider that can influence trust in customer relationships?
stakeholder relationship management within operational and supply chain 2. What is the effect of vendor B2B Social Media communication
management systems (Huang et al., 2020; Kho, 2008) or distribution practices upon customer loyalty?
channels (Habibi, Hamilton & Valos, 2015). In summary, as SM is now 3. Is the effect of B2B Social Media communication practices upon
supporting and changing a range of internal and external business pro loyalty mediated by trust?
cesses and can enhance a firm’s performance (Trainor, 2012). At the The paper first provides an overview of the B2B SM context with
current time we are seeing different levels of engagement by businesses reference to the industry focus of this study, life sciences. The life sci
in terms of their functional utilisation of SM (Iankova, Davies, Archer- ences organisation was selected as it is a characteristic B2B organisation
Brown, Marder, & Yau, 2019; Järvinen, Tollinen, Karjaluoto, & Jaya offering high tech, complex products and using SM channels to
wardhena, 2012). A deeper understanding of the beneficial outcomes of communicate with its customers and support the sales process. We re
utilising B2B SM for customer relationship building is therefore called view the literature in terms of the existing theoretical understanding of
for. the concepts of customer trust and loyalty and then move to discuss what
Given the wide application of SM, authors such as Habibi, Hamilton, is known about how SM can build trust and loyalty in B2B customer
Valos, and Callaghan (2015) propose that SM should be viewed as a relationships. A model is presented that proposes three SM communi
strategic activity for B2B organisations. Taking a strategic lens, a review cation practices that may influence trust and loyalty in customer re
of the literature identifies a number of roles or functions that SM can lationships. This is followed by an explanation of the methodology
play in the development and maintenance of customer relationships applied in the study including a discussion of the application of SM by
which are key to strategic success. Seen through the analogy of a the life sciences company used for data collection, the data analysis, and
“honeycomb of 7 social media building blocks”, Kietzmann et al. (2011, findings. Finally, a discussion of the conclusions and managerial impli
p. 244) identify specific functions or roles that B2B SM serves for the cations that can be drawn are presented.
firm. This framework provides a useful basis for exploring B2B SM and
the benefits and implications that it brings for companies. In this study 2. Theoretical background
we focus on the interaction between three of these functions. First
“conversations” that is to say the ways in which SM enables communi 2.1. The B2B social media context
cation between a vendor and customers about their products and ser
vices; second “groups” by exploring customer online communities that Social media information systems (SMISs) are the information sys
enable communication; and third “relationships” as we look at the effects tems that support the sharing of content amongst networks of users and
of SM interactions upon trust and loyalty in customer relationships. are generally discussed in the context of innovative information systems
Communication and the building of online customer communities (Bodea, Dascalu, Huemann, Velikic, & Mogos, 2017; Kroenke & Boyle,
are particularly relevant to B2B because community members are able to 2019). SMISs typically have a three-fold application: for users, com
share knowledge and expertise about products both with each other, as munities and SM providers. They contribute to key value chain activ
well as the vendor itself (Agnihotri et al., 2012). Agnihotri et al. (2012) ities, including supply chain management, marketing, communications,
particularly point to the value of SM to build expertise where organi manufacturing, and customer relationships (Kroenke & Boyle, 2019).
sations are delivering “complex products” such as in this study which SM itself is defined by Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) as “a group of
investigates the SM activity of a life sciences company offering highly Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and techno
technical products (p.335). For these reasons, it is the use of SM for logical foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and ex
communication via online customer communities to support B2B change of User Generated Content” (UGC) (p. 16). The key distinction
customer relationships that is one focus of this paper. from traditional media is that SM has become “a platform whereby
The second focus of this paper is upon the role that SM can play in the content and applications are no longer created and published by in
deepening of customer relationships by supporting the development of dividuals, but instead are continuously modified by all users in a
trust and loyalty. The importance of trust and loyalty in B2B relation participatory and collaborative fashion” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p.
ships is well established (Cannon, Doney, Mullen, & Petersen, 2010; 61). UGC has become the key point of difference for this form of
Lachlan, Spence, Edwards, et al., 2014, Lachlan, Spence, and Lin, 2014; communication, allowing both customers and vendors to create and
Lin & Spence, 2019; Moorman, Zaltman, & Deshpande, 1992; Morgan & disseminate content and opinions about many topics, including products
Hunt, 1994; Spence et al., 2016) as is also the long-term cost effective and services. SM can therefore play a key role in supporting the sales
ness and value of such relationships (Bill, Feurer, & Klarmann, 2020; process for organisations (Agnihotri et al., 2016, 2012) which is an area
Chuang, 2020; Lindgreen & Wynstra, 2005; Noordewier, John, & Nevin, of focus within this study. Moore, Hopkins, and Raymond (2013) iden
1990; Zhang & Li, 2019). It is also recognised that improved levels of tify the importance placed by B2B sales representatives on the use of
customer loyalty can result in increased levels of profitability (Andersen, relationship-oriented SM tools, including B2B online communities.
2005; Fornell & Wernerfelt, 1987; Harris & Goode, 2004; Noordewier Their research found that SM tools were particularly relevant to the B2B
et al., 1990). Investigations of the role that SM plays in building trust sales process at the prospecting stage, but also in handling the contin
and loyalty have now emerged within the B2B literature with an uation of customer relationships post-sale both of which rely on the
emphasis on the trust building effects of SM processing (Kim & Park, development of trust, a concept that is explored in this study.
2013; Wang et al., 2017; Westerman, Spence, & Van Der Heide, 2012, The advanced use of SM in B2C marketing is well documented
53
(Dijkmans, Kerkhof, & Beukeboom, 2015; Harrigan, Soutar, Choudhury, of the major barriers to investing in digital marketing (Cawsey &
& Lowe, 2015; Hudson, Roth, Madden, & Hudson, 2015; Kumar et al., Rowley, 2016; Iankova et al., 2019; Järvinen et al., 2012). Agnihotri
2016; Paniagua & Sapena, 2014) but distinctive differences in B2B et al. (2012) identify the important link between the measurement of SM
customer buying behaviour influence the use of SM application in B2B metrics and the motivation of salespeople using it. They advocate that
markets compared to consumer markets. Habibi et al. (2015) provide a clear performance criteria metrics should be set out for salespeople that
useful overview of these buying characteristics and their effects on B2B recognise their contribution towards the effectiveness of SM.
SM implementation. Typically, a number of individuals are influential in Having reviewed the B2B SM context, the focus of our study is on the
B2B purchase decisions, and purchase cycles may be longer whilst SM communication practices of a US life sciences company that manu
decision-making slower. Products tend to be high value and therefore factures highly technical, high cost products. There are a limited number
high risk, and customers will require greater reassurance to support the of studies in the context of B2B life science firms (Buratti, Parole & Satta,
purchase. Products tend to be complex, and customers are more 2018). Negruşa, Rus, and Sofică (2014) explore the role of SM for
knowledgeable about the context in which they are to be used. For these networking purposes in a cluster initiative in life sciences. Their study
reasons, the nature of B2B customer relationships are more personal and concludes that SM serves as a useful tool that allows an effective ex
intense than in B2C markets. These characteristics lead to specific change of know-how and innovation information between networks and
implementation of B2B SM. SM can be effective in targeting identified clusters. Customers of the firm in our study include healthcare organi
audiences to engage in conversations and dialogues that build knowl sations, hospital units such as oncology departments, pharmaceutical
edge and understanding of products. This is evident in the life sciences companies, forensic departments, and university laboratories. The
firm within the study who use SM to engage in dialogue around scientific organisation uses SM to communicate with customers via a range of
topics and product usage. SM can set the tone and content of the dis applications. Specifically, these customers are the users of their products
cussion with customers, and content can signal the technical compe who, as identified by Habibi et al. (2015) may influence the buying
tency and experience of the firm. Questions about quite complex decision but are often not the final decision-makers. The applications
products can be addressed, and the sales process can be supported via used include firm hosted webinars, podcasts, blogs, and a branded on
direct dialogue with the vendor that builds credibility in the vendor’s line customer community. The online community platform enables
brand. The life sciences firm in this study demonstrates these charac sharing of expertise and scientific resources (such as academic papers),
teristics including the importance of expertise, knowledgeable scientific opportunities to ask questions to scientists at the vendor organisation
users and more direct and intense customer relationships. For this and to hold community discussions in which experiences and opinions
reason, the life sciences company provided an appropriate context for can be shared. This shared communication vendor-to-customer(s) as
the study. well as customer-to-customer enables value co-creation either with, or
As a response to these characteristics, particular applications are between, customers. The intention of this SM activity is two-fold. First,
predominantly used in B2B SM. Webinars and blogs can be used by to enhance customer value and the experiences of users of complex
companies to communicate direct and complex messages around prod products via communications across a number of SM applications. In so
uct information to identified audiences (Agnihotri et al., 2012; Zhang & doing, the organisation seeks to build credibility and trust in both
Li, 2019). Public platforms such as LinkedIn or Facebook are now used products and corporate brand reputation (Lachlan, Spence, Edwards,
for B2B marketing as they enable communication at corporate and/or et al., 2014, Lachlan, Spence, and Lin, 2014). Second, the SM activity
product level to individuals who have self-identified their interest aims to support a sales strategy that leverages SM communication to
(Stelzner, 2020). Brand hosted B2B online communities offer not only provide ongoing dialogue with customer organisations (Agnihotri et al.,
content but also enable customer-to-customer and vendor-to-customer 2012). The objective of the study is to identify the role that such two-
communications that facilitate collaboration and sharing of knowledge way communication has upon building trust and loyalty with cus
(Katona & Sarvary, 2014), building community-centred environments, tomers using SM. We now explore the literature that supports the
promoting information sharing, support and collaboration that are theoretical development of the research model used in the study to
essential to effective customer relationships (Lin, Spence, & Lachlan, identify the linkage between SM communication practices and trust and
2016; Wang et al., 2017). Finally, SM is now used internally within loyalty.
organisations to facilitate communications between employees and/or
with management that enables sharing and collaboration of ideas and 2.2. Trust and loyalty in B2B relationships
experiences quickly and transparently (Leonardi, Huysman, & Stein
field, 2013), as well as to enterprise management processes such as in Trust has been most often conceptualised in relation to the degree to
operations and supply chain management (Huang et al., 2020). Whilst which one party can rely on the word of another, with reliability and
we have explored ‘what’ SM applications are used in B2B markets we integrity being key elements (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Moorman, Desh
should also consider ‘how’ organisations are set up for this shift in pande, and Zaltman (1993) define trust as “a willingness to rely on an
customer communications. There appears to be an argreement in the exchange partner in whom one has confidence”, emphasising the
literature on the importance of the role SM can play in the development importance of confidence in the other party (p. 82). The seminal liter
of firm’s strategic capabilities (Habibi et al., 2015; Nguyen, Yu, Mele ature around B2B customer trust focuses on an understanding of trust in
war, & Chen, 2015; Wang et al., 2017). As a result, it is evident from relation to four elements: vendor credibility, vendor benevolence,
such papers that there is a need for culture change within B2B firms in customer confidence in the vendor, and customer willingness to be
order for effective implementation of SM (Wang et al., 2017). vulnerable (Doney & Cannon, 1997; Ganesan, 1994; Grayson, Johnson,
Evaluation of the effectiveness of SM is crucial. Financial and non- & Chen, 2008; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Moorman et al., 1992;
financial metrics are used to evaluate SM effectiveness. Typically, non- Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Ritter & Geersbro, 2012). Confidence and cred
financial indicators are focused on measuring “the exposure, the ibility are based on evidence of vendor expertise and/or ability to get the
reach, the level and depth of the interaction of [social media] users with job done effectively. Credibility is often measured in terms of ‘trust
the company” (Costa e Silva, Duarte & Almeida, 2020: p. 4). Financial worthiness’ although Lachlan, Spence, Edwards, et al. (2014), Lachlan,
metrics focus on revenue, which involves tracking sales and costs asso Spence, and Lin (2014) distinguish between trustworthiness and ‘insti
ciated with SM implementation (Costa e Silva et al., 2020; Cytron, 2013; tutional trust’ the latter concept involving elements of reputation in
Hoffman & Fodor, 2010). Although a number of attempts have been addition to knowledge and expertise alone (Eisenman et al., 2012).
made to create metrics to measure SM ROI in both B2C and B2B, Similarly, Zhang and Li (2019) distinguish between interpersonal trust
Järvinen et al. (2012) conclude that there is still a lack of effective and inter-organisational trust, the latter requiring “faith from general
methods in determining B2B social media ROI, which is ultimately one people” rather than at individual level but propose that SM enables
54
customers to assess trustworthiness by enabling interpersonal commu of the timely exchange of information between a salesperson and
nication, say, with a salesperson (p. 1422). Benevolence on the other customer on SM as a crucial component of the trust building process.
hand embodies some form of intentionality and goodwill towards the Second, belief in the benevolence or goodwill of the organisation
customer (Mayer et al., 1995). Money, Saraeva, Garnelo-Gomez, Pain, towards the customer is a key element of trust (Money et al., 2017).
and Hillenbrand (2017) identify the role stakeholder behaviours play in Zhang and Li (2019) propose that when customers are confident in the
building relational strength. This includes trust as an important stake salesperson’s competency and benevolence they are more likely to
holder outcome, which is a fundamental intangible asset for the orga process information. In their study of the use of SM by B2B buyers in
nisation (MacMillan, Money, & Downing, 2000; Money & Hillenbrand, China they specifically tested the effect of SM usage upon belief about
2006; Money, Hillenbrand, Hunter, & Money, 2012). the benevolence of a vendor (as a component of trust) and purchase risk,
Customer loyalty can be defined in terms of behavioural loyalty, and their effects upon customer loyalty. Their findings indicated that a
attitudinal loyalty, or as a composite of both. Three key advantages buyer’s trust belief in the benevolence of the vendor improves customer
result from customer loyalty. First, loyal customers are less likely to loyalty and reduces perceptions of purchase risk. In this study we
switch to competitor suppliers and to behave opportunistically. Second, therefore similarly propose a relationship between trust and loyalty in
loyal customers reduce marketing costs due to the lower cost of acqui the context of B2B SM communication practices.
sition. Third, loyal customers have been found to generate profitability
via repeat purchasing behaviour (Ndubisi & Nataraajan, 2016). For 3. Model development and hypotheses
these reasons, loyalty may not be measurable only in behavioural out
comes like repeat purchase, because other factors such as high switching The research model is shown in Fig. 1. The model outlines three
costs may be influencing customer behaviour. Word of mouth is possibly antecedent constructs that represent vendor-sponsored SM communi
the best indicator of “intense loyalty” (Reichheld, 2001, p. 48) with cation practices. These practices are proposed to have a direct influence
attitudinal loyalty the more “enduring loyalty” (Caceres & Papar upon customer trust. Customer trust, in turn, influences customer loy
oidamis, 2007, p. 839). MacMillan et al. (2000) refer to such attitudinal alty. Trust is therefore presented as a mediator of the effect of vendor-
loyalty as “active allegiance”, which is demonstrated in positive sponsored SM communication practices upon loyalty.
customer behaviour towards the firm (p. 79). In addition to advocating
for the firm, this may include supportive behaviours such as standing up 3.1. Social media shared beliefs (SMSB)
for the brand at times of performance failure. SM may provide a useful
platform for customers to demonstrate their ‘active allegiance’ towards A perception of vendor benevolence can be fostered by developing
the firm. Community building, including networking and conversations shared values (Doney & Cannon, 1997). Morgan and Hunt (1994) define
within the community, now facilitated by SM have also been found to B2B shared values as “the extent to which partners have beliefs in
help build customer loyalty (McKee, 2010). common about what behaviours, goals, and policies are important or
unimportant, appropriate or inappropriate, and right or wrong” (p. 25).
2.3. Social media effects on trust and loyalty Shared beliefs are important to the relationship development process
between customers and vendors as well as to the maintenance of the
An increasing stream of literature is now focused on the trust relationship (Dwyer, Schurr, & Oh, 1987). The congruence of shared
building effects of B2B SM (Lachlan, Spence, Edwards, et al., 2014, values, and therefore beliefs, is identified by Mayer et al. (1995) and
Lachlan, Spence, and Lin, 2014; Lin & Spence, 2019; Westerman et al., Morgan and Hunt (1994) as an antecedent to trust. Porter, Donthu, and
2014; Zhang & Li, 2019). We draw on the theory of social capital to Baker (2012) propose that a vendor’s behavioural manifestation of
inform this B2B study of SM and its effect on trust. Social capital refers to shared values acts as an indicator to customers that the vendor is not
factors, tangible or intangible, that enable the activities of members opportunistic towards them and, therefore, facilitates customer trust in
within a social group (Coleman, 1988). Social capital exists within a the vendor.
social structure and the social relations amongst the persons within that The core features of SM are participation, sharing, and collaboration,
structure. If trust exists amongst the actors in a particular social struc and for this form of communication to be effective, both parties must
ture, the social capital of ‘trust’ can facilitate a more productive envi share similar beliefs about the role of SM in B2B relationships and
ronment for all members. In the context of SM this proposition means specifically how vendor-sponsored SM should be practiced. The impor
that building trust within an online group of customers would facilitate a tance of the customer’s belief in a salesperson’s integrity and benevo
more productive environment such as the effectiveness of ‘conversa lence has been identified (Zhang & Li, 2019), and one manifestation of
tions’ or the willingness to exchange information and/or experiences this can be via the customer’s experiences of how SM is practiced by the
between a vendor and members of the community. vendor and/or specific employee. Therefore, a shared belief about how
Vendor credibility and benevolence are two dimensions of trust that SM communication should be practiced may influence credibility and
SM activities particularly support. First, credibility is built by demon trust. Westerman et al. (2012) further make the point that elements of
strating expertise or competence (Westerman et al., 2014). SM users can the SM system may in itself influence beliefs about the source credibility
become reliant upon particular sources that have credibility for them which in turn builds trust. Therefore, in the proposed model we
(Lachlan, Spence, Edwards, et al., 2014, Lachlan, Spence, and Lin, hypothesise that shared beliefs about how vendor-sponsored SM should
2014). Additionally, use of particular SM channels or online technology be practiced will affect B2B customer trust.
can influence credibility and trust (Lin & Spence, 2019). By enabling
vendor content to be shared such as showcasing products, providing Hypothesis 1. SMSB has a direct positive effect on B2B customer trust
service reviews or providing customer testimonials, SM can build cred in the vendor.
ibility with current or prospective customers (Agnihotri et al., 2012). A
useful framework by Agnihotri et al. (2012) proposes that by linking two 3.2. Social media vendor-to-customer communication (SMV2CC)
forms of SM (‘social content enabler’ e.g. blogs or Twitter and ‘social
network enabler’ e.g. online communities or discussion forums), with One way to mitigate uncertainty and risk is via the effective use of
three salesperson behaviours (trust building, information sharing and communication (Lachlan, Spence, & Lin, 2014; Theron, Terblanche, &
customer service), value can be created both for the customer and the Boshoff, 2008). Communication has been identified as an antecedent to
organisation. This framework demonstrates the importance of trust trust; a history of effective communication between vendors and their
building practices aligning between vendor SM practices and sales customers will drive increased trust (Anderson & Weitz, 1989; Morgan &
person behaviour. Zhang and Li (2019) similarly identify the importance Hunt, 1994). Many research studies have identified openness as an
55
Fig. 1. Conceptual model of the effect of vendor social media communication practices upon B2B customer trust and B2B customer loyalty.
antecedent to trust (Butler, 1991; Farris, Senner, & Butterfield, 1973; performance of community members (Snow, Fjeldstad, Lettl, & Miles,
Gabarro, 1978; Hart, Capps, Cangemi, and Caillouet, 1986; Mayer et al., 2011). Therefore, customers join and participate in B2B community C2C
1995). This study assumes that openness is primarily operationalised communication in order to benefit from the social interactions that build
through communication. brand knowledge and experience. The context of this study is a firm-
Palmatier, Dant, Grewal, and Evans (2006) define communication as hosted community of B2B customers exchanging communications with
the “amount, frequency, and quality of information shared between the vendor and each other via SM.
exchange partners” (p. 138). Their research also includes vendor Social interactions in B2C have been found to be part of how online
expertise, defined as “knowledge, experience, and overall competency of brand communities communicate and function (McAlexander,
seller” (Palmatier et al., 2006, p. 138) as a separate antecedent to trust. Schouten, & Koenig, 2002; Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). McAlexander et al.
As has previously been suggested in Section 2.1, vendor ability is one of (2002) identify that such communities are always involved in the cre
the few prevalent trust antecedents throughout the extant literature. It is ation and sharing of meaning. This dynamic has also been found to be
argued that vendor expertise is a foundational factor in B2B communi important in interactions amongst customers when establishing a B2B
cation and is embedded in the definitional element ‘quality information’ brand (Mäläskä, Saraniemi, & Tahtinen, 2011). This has clear implica
included by Palmatier et al. (2006). In this study quality information is tions for how firms that utilise SM should leverage SM platforms. The
assumed to be a key element of UGC in B2B SM communications. opportunity to create and negotiate meaning about brand messages
B2B communication often includes informational updates such as quickly and globally, including trustworthiness, now partially resides
new product releases, or communication between, say, scientific cus with the customer when online. Given community participants’ sense of
tomers and vendors, which allows sharing of scientific content and accountability towards each other (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001), they may
research. Effective communication opens up the opportunity for feel morally obligated to share their thoughts and feelings about the
customer access to supplier ‘know-how’ (Palmatier, Houston, Dant, & brand, whether positive or negative, thus impacting upon trust.
Grewal, 2013). The effect of B2B SM in building beliefs in expertise as When discussing B2B online brand communities, the importance of
part of trust building has been recognised (Agnihotri et al., 2012). For the ability of customers to interact with each other emerges, as do the
this reason, this study recognises SM communication as being inclusive consequences of such interactions. Customers feel connected to each
of vendor expertise and hypothesises that such SM facilitated commu other and are reassured by knowing that there are other customers who
nication between the vendor and customer has a positive effect upon have similar product experiences or challenges (Bruhn et al., 2014).
customer trust. Feelings of security and reduced uncertainty have also been identified
(Bruhn et al., 2014; Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001), and benefits such as
Hypothesis 2. SMV2CC has a direct positive effect on B2B customer
engagement, loyalty, satisfaction and empowerment, trust and
trust in the vendor.
commitment have been found to be enhanced (Brodie, Ilic, Juric, &
Hollebeek, 2013).
3.3. Social media customer-to-customer communication (SMC2CC) Of particular note is the work of Bruhn et al. (2014), in which a
conceptual framework of the relationship between customer-to-
SM platforms enable the creation of online brand communities customer interactions, brand trust, and brand loyalty have been
within which users of the brand can share communication which may tested. Bruhn et al. (2014) hypothesised that trust in both the brand and
contribute to the development of customer trust and loyalty. Bruhn, the brand community itself influence the quality of C2C interactions,
Schnebelen, and Schaefer (2014) provide a specific definition of online which affect perceived benefits (functional, experiential, symbolic),
B2B brand community as “an accumulation of interrelated business which in turn affect brand loyalty. Whilst the findings of their study
people who come together in the virtual space of the internet and identified a positive relationship between the quality of C2C interactions
interact voluntarily, based on common, brand-related economic in and their consequences in terms of benefits and the effect on brand
terests and goals” (p. 168). They go on to posit that there are three loyalty, they did not confirm an effect of brand trust upon C2C in
central attributes of online B2B brand communities: “business interac teractions (although an effect was found between brand community
tion relationships, a culture of mutual trust-based engagement, and trust and C2C interactions). The Bruhn et al. (2014) study incorporates
common values” (Bruhn et al., 2014, p. 168). What is particularly trust at brand and community levels, whilst in our study we take a
characteristic of B2B communities, compared to B2C communities, is broader B2B customer/vendor relationship perspective. However, the
that they facilitate the exchange of brand-related knowledge, experi Bruhn et al. (2014) study led us to question the direction of the effect
ences, technical information, or solutions that will enhance the job
56
between trust and C2C communications. In this study we chose to research and 529 questionnaires were received, yielding a 2.8%
reverse this relationship and hypothesised that SM C2C communication response rate. This response rate is relatively low when compared to
has a direct effect upon customer trust in the vendor. published data (Baruch & Holtrom, 2008) but can be explained by the
highly specialised nature of the customer database in the life sciences
Hypothesis 3. SMC2CC has a direct positive effect on B2B customer
industry. After data cleansing a sample size of 196 was used to test the
trust in the vendor.
model, which is consistent with the guidelines of Hair et al. (2014,
2017).
3.4. The relationship between B2B customer trust and loyalty
4.2. Measures
Given the earlier theoretical support to the established relationship
between trust and loyalty in the context of SM (Zhang & Li, 2019), it is Following Churchill (1979), the data collection instrument was a
assumed in the development of the research model that in B2B cus multi-item questionnaire survey – with the exception of customer loy
tomer–vendor relationships supported by SM, trust will continue to alty, where a well-recognised single-item measure was used. Building on
drive loyalty. The effect upon customer loyalty to the vendor is Jarvis, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff (2003), the proposed conceptual
hypothesised to be mediated by customer trust. model incorporates five reflectively measured constructs, which repre
Hypothesis 4. B2B customer trust in the vendor has a direct positive sent perceptions and attitudes of individuals towards SM practices.
effect on customer loyalty towards the vendor in the context of social Reflective measures are typically interchangeable and induce perceptual
media practices. manifestations or ‘reflection’ of each underlying construct (see Dia
mantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006; Prigge, Homburg, & Fürst, 2018) in
Hypothesis 5. B2B customer trust mediates the effect of vendor- contrast to formative measures that ‘form’ or ‘build’ the construct (see
sponsored social media practices (SMSB, SMV2CC, SMC2CC) upon Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001; Menguc & Auh, 2008).
loyalty. Consistent with our conceptualisation, the measure of vendor-to-
customer SM communication was adapted from Theron et al. (2008)
4. The research study and Harris and Goode (2004). To measure customer-to-customer SM
communication, we utilised scales by Laroche, Habibi, Richard, and
The research study employed a quantitative cross-sectional design to Sankaranarayanan (2012) and Bruhn et al. (2014). Customer trust and
test and validate the proposed research model. The context of this study customer loyalty were assessed using measures developed by Doney and
is a vendor-hosted community of B2B customers of a US life sciences Cannon (1997) and Cater and Cater (2009) respectively. The five items
company drawn from a range of industries as previously identified. The measuring shared beliefs about SM practices were developed by the
company manufactures and distributes high tech instruments for use in research team as no pre-existing questions could be found. Considering
scientific work and other associated supplies to its customers. In addi requirements for successful development of reflective indicators (e.g. see
tion to a company-hosted private online customer community, the focal Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006), these five items were developed by
organisation interacts with its customers via publicly hosted SM plat following DeVellis’s (2016) guidelines using a process of qualitative B2B
forms and uses a range of SM applications (including webinars, podcasts, key informant interviews, coding, and thematic analysis. The five scale
videos, and blogs written by their scientists) to share product and sci items were verified quantitatively.1 The constructs were measured using
entific knowledge information. The objective of the SM activity is to seven-point Likert-type scales.
promote products, to support the sales process and to share information The final questionnaire items are presented at Appendix A in
and expertise in order to position the organisation as at the forefront of Table A.1. The survey was implemented using the firm’s Verint online
scientific research (direct technical support is provided by a dedicated survey tool.2 Respondents were invited to participate in the research via
department to the customer). In so doing the intention is to build the email invitations with an embedded link to the Verint online survey tool.
brand reputation and build trust and loyalty. An online survey was The email explained the purpose of the survey, requested consent,
distributed to individual users of their products within customer orga explained anonymity and confidentiality, and explained the incentive.
nisations who were engaging in SM actitivies. The study was approved by the University’s standard ethical procedures.
4.1. Sample selection and data collection 4.3. Common method bias
Adopting Blois’s (1999) definition of B2B, the unit of analysis was To evaluate whether the collected data suffered from common
individual employees of customer organisations, such as scientists, method bias, a statistical procedure offered by Harman (1976) was
medical personnel, and laboratory technicians, in an existing custom performed (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Specifically,
er–vendor relationship with the vendor and using their products. The a single-factor test revealed that in an unrotated factor analysis a total
sample therefore consisted of users of the firm’s products who formed variance of 43.02% was explained by one factor, which is below the
the vendor’s buying group. This unit of analysis was selected because the required threshold of 50%. We, thus, concluded that it was unlikely that
focus of the study is on SM shared beliefs and communication experi the collected data suffered from common method bias.
ences at the individual customer level and is consistent with social
capital theory as discussed in Section 2.3. The research focus was to 4.4. Analytical approach
capture customer responses regarding their use of vendor-sponsored SM
from the perspective of the individual executing her/his job whilst in the The developed model was tested using structural equation modeling
customer role. partial least squares (PLS-SEM) (e.g. see Aliasghar, Rose, & Chetty,
A probability sample was drawn from the United States customer 2019; Iankova et al., 2019; Itani et al., 2017). PLS-SEM is considered
database of the life science company. Incentivisation to participate in
the study was offered, which consisted of a $20 Amazon gift card for 50
randomly selected eligible participants who completed the question 1
The rotated initial solution resulted in one factor, which explained 60.08%
naire. We followed Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010) and Hair, of the variance, including the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling ade
Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt’s (2017) guidelines to establish a minimum quacy of 0.836 and the significant Barlett’s Test of Sphericity of p < 0.001.
sample size appropriate for the analysis (e.g. see Ashok, Day, & Narula, 2
Verint is a proprietary product that provides online survey delivery. Further
2018). A total of 18,859 customers were contacted to participate in the information can be found at: https://www.verint.com.
57
appropriate when: (a) assumptions regarding data distribution are not Table 2
met; (b) the focus is on prediction and theory development; and (c) the Structural model estimates.
sample size is relatively small (Hair et al., 2014, 2017, 2019; Reinartz, Paths Path t-value p- Hypotheses Acceptance
Haenlein, & Henseler, 2009; Sarstedt, Hair, Ringle, Thiele, & Gudergan, coefficient value
2016; Sarstedt, Ringle, & Hair, 2017). Given that this exploratory study 1. SMSB - > B2B 0.255 4.307 0.000 Hypothesis Yes
is focused on predicting key driver constructs with a sample size of 196 customer trust 1
and non-normally distributed data, PLS-SEM appeared to be a suitable 2. SMV2CC - > 0.342 4.229 0.000 Hypothesis Yes
approach. We used the SmartPLS 3.2.8 software and conducted a two- B2B customer 2
trust
stage approach to analysing a PLS model, including: (1) evaluation of 3. SMC2CC - > 0.211 2.542 0.006 Hypothesis Yes
the measurement model; and (2) assessment of the structural model B2B customer 3
(Hair et al., 2017). Finally, mediation analysis was evaluated following trust
Hair et al.’s (2017) recommendations, by performing a bootstrapping of 4. B2B customer 0.709 20.710 0.000 Hypothesis Yes
trust - > B2B 4
5000 samples to estimate direct and indirect effects. This approach is
customer
suggested to be robust in identifying mediation effects compared to loyalty
more traditional techniques (e.g. see Lussier & Hartmann, 2017;
MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004).
relationships between SMSB, SMV2CC, SMC2CC, and B2B customer
5. Results loyalty. Table 3 shows that all three indirect effects are found significant
for each of the indicators. Moving on to the direct effects, the results
5.1. Evaluation of the measurement model reveal that the direct effects of SMV2CC and SMC2CC are not significant,
suggesting that B2B customer trust fully mediates the relationships be
With an outer model comprising reflective measures, reliability was tween the two predictor variables and B2B customer loyalty. Interest
assessed via individual and composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s ingly, the direct effect of SMSB and B2B customer loyalty is significant at
alpha scores. Convergent validity was evaluated using average variance p < 0.01 level, suggesting that this relationship is only partially medi
extracted (AVE) and examination of the outer loadings, whilst discrim ated by B2B customer trust. Thus, we can conclude that Hypothesis 5 is
inant validity was tested using the Fornell–Larcker criterion. Table 1 partially supported.
summarises the results of the measurement model evaluation.
In the case of indicators, individual loadings exceed the established 6. Discussion
threshold of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2017). CR scores are found to be satisfactory
as they are above the required minimum of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2017). The The objective of the study was to identify the role that SM commu
AVE for each latent variable exceeds the minimum of 0.5 (Hair et al., nication practices can have on two key elements of B2B customer re
2017), providing sufficient evidence of convergent validity. Finally, the lationships (namely trust and loyalty) and our study provides a number
Fornell–Larcker criterion shows that the square root of AVE for each of contributions to this field of enquiry. First, consistent with social
latent variable exceeds the correlation with any other variable, con capital theory, all three predictive variables show a positive and sig
firming discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Overall, we can nificant effect upon trust. The study has demonstrated that the three SM
conclude that the measurement model has satisfactory levels of reli communication practices tested in the study (SMSB, SMV2CC, and
ability and validity of all latent variables. SMC2CC) do have a direct and positive effect and therefore can be
important to firms in building both trust and loyalty with customers.
5.2. Evaluation of the structural model This outcome contributes to the academic literature used in support of
the model’s development. Specifically, Morgan and Hunt’s (1994)
Table 2 outlines the results of the structural model evaluation. R2 commitment–trust theory supports predictive relevance, with both
values for the endogenous constructs indicate a moderate level of pre shared beliefs and vendor communications with customers positively
dictive accuracy (see Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011; Henseler, Ringle, & influencing customer trust. Doney and Cannon’s (1997) study of the
Sinkovics, 2009), specifically 0.411 for B2B customer trust and 0.503 for nature of trust in customer–vendor relationships found that a buying
B2B customer loyalty. We employ a one-tail test for significance as the firm’s trust of their supplier influenced anticipated future interactions.
developed hypotheses are directional and based on strong theoretical This study extends such pre-existing relationship marketing theory and
grounds (e.g. see Chen, Li, & Arnold, 2013). Following Henseler, shows that SMSB and SM communications with customers (SMV2CC,
Hubona, and Ray’s (2016) guidelines, we performed a bootstrapping of SMC2CC) similarly have positive influences upon customer trust in the
5000 samples to test for significance. vendor.
The effects of the three predictor variables on B2B trust are all found A second, and key contribution of the paper is the adaptation made to
positive and significant at the p < 0.01 level, with path coefficients of β the Bruhn et al. (2014) study of trust in B2B brand communities. Our
= 0.255 for SMSB, β = 0.342 for SMV2CC, and β = 0.211 for SMC2CC. study hypothesised that SMC2CC has a direct positive effect on B2B
These results provide strong support for Hypotheses 1–3. In addition, customer trust in the vendor. In so doing our study hypothesised a
Hypothesis 4 predicted a positive relationship between B2B customer reverse relationship to that of Bruhn et al. (2014) and which more
trust and B2B customer loyalty. The results reveal that this hypothesis is closely aligns with Laroche et al. (2012, p. 1760). Neither Bruhn et al.’s
also supported at the p < 0.01 level, with the path coefficient of β = (2014) hypothesis of brand trust positively affecting the customer-to-
0.709. customer interactions nor Laroche et al.’s (2012) hypothesis that com
munity engagement positively influence brand trust were supported in
5.3. Mediation analysis their studies. Our study hypothesised that Bruhn et al.’s (2014) B2B
relationship between these two constructs was likely to be valid, but the
Hypothesis 5 suggests that B2B customer trust mediates the direction of the independent and dependent variables was tested in
reverse in our study. Whilst the SMC2CC variable was not the strongest
influence upon trust, the findings of the study support this directional
Table 1
Measurement model estimates. change, providing a new contribution to vendor–seller relationship
marketing theory. This finding suggests that customer-to-customer
communication is still a valuable tool that may boost positive e-WOM
58
Table 3
Mediation analysis: direct and indirect effects.
Effects of: Effect on: Effect on:
B2B customer trust B2B customer loyalty
Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total
SMSB 0.255*** 0.255*** 0.192*** 0.167*** 0.359***

SMV2CC 0.342*** 0.342*** − 0.041 0.225*** 0.184**
SMC2CC 0.211*** 0.211*** − 0.012 0.167*** 0.155*
B2B customer trust 0.698***
Notes: one-tailed tests of significance.

*
p < 0.1.
**
p < 0.05.
***
p < 0.01.
(word of mouth) and enable stronger levels of trust between vendor and knowledge and skills within their digital marketing teams to adapt to
B2B customer. this form of customer engagement.
Third, of the three SM practices SMV2CC was found to have a Second, the study particularly demonstrates the importance of trust
stronger effect on trust. From this, we conclude that customers are most as a mediator of both vendor-to-customer and customer-to-customer
influenced by the vendor’s messages communicated via SM, rather than communications. This suggests that vendors should continue to build
the shared beliefs about SM or what customers hear from other cus trust via customer activities (both within and outside SM platforms)
tomers online. Our original assumption, based on the work of Palmatier rather than being solely reliant on existing forms of customer exchange.
et al. (2013), was that effective communication by B2B firms with their This implies that SM is not a substitute for existing customer engagement
customers is important because it keeps customers informed (about their practices, but rather an important addition to traditional communica
products and services) and bolsters the customer’s beliefs about the tion practices, such as corporate communications, trade advertising etc.
vendor’s expertise. The findings of our study suggest that this assump Third, the relevance of shared beliefs about SM practices indicates
tion is correct. SM may be a direct and vivid mechanism for informing that firms should be known not only for what they say in their SM
existing customers, which in turn influences existing levels of trust. In messages, but also what they stand for in terms of why and how they use
this study our respondents were in existing relationships with the SM. From the scale items tested within this study, these beliefs surround
vendor. SM is often viewed as a tool to build new customer relationships. what is communicated (Is it informative to the customer? Does it help them
This study suggests that SM is also a valuable tool to reinforce trust in to do their job?); how it is communicated (Does it make sense to them? –
existing B2B customer relationships. which may be important in a highly technical or complex field); and is
The fourth contribution is that the study demonstrates that the SM used fairly (Do I have an opportunity as a customer to give feedback?)?
existing theory that customer trust positively influences customer loy As customers judge firms by their behaviour (offline and online) and
alty (Doney & Cannon, 1997; Ganesan, 1994; Moorman et al., 1992; then infer from that what they stand for and what their future actions
Morgan & Hunt, 1994) continues to hold in the context of SM. However, might be (MacMillan et al., 2000), firms should be aware of the
we should be mindful of the fact that in this study the three SM practices importance of how their online SM practices will be viewed and the
together were found to account for 41% of the variance in trust overall in effect upon customer beliefs. This means ensuring that SM activities are
the vendor. This suggests that whilst there is still unexplained variance given senior-level accountability and are recognised as a central element
to be identified in the context of SM practices, they do explain nearly of a customer-oriented digital marketing strategy. SM practices are not
half of customer trust in vendors in B2B relationships. This indicates that just about sharing what the firm wants to say to customers, but also
academics should consider including SM practices when exploring B2B about how firms run and manage the SM that is being shared with the
customer relationships today. customer as part of their digital marketing strategy.
Furthermore, the study demonstrates that customer trust mediates
the relationship between all three SM practices (SMSB, SMV2CC and
SMC2CC) and customer loyalty. Most interestingly, only SMSB has a 6.2. Limitations and future research
direct and significant effect upon customer loyalty. SMSB refers to
shared beliefs about how SM should work and be delivered to customers, A number of limitations should be taken into consideration when
and so this finding suggests that customers are likely to be loyal to firms drawing conclusions and managerial implications from this study.
that appear to mirror their views about how SM should be implemented. First, aspects of the sample may create constraints with regard to the
Finally, we can conclude from the mediation results that as SMV2CC generalisability of the research findings. Given the response rate, the
and SMC2CC do not have a direct effect on customer loyalty, that B2B sample size could be considered small in comparison to the population
customer trust fully mediates the relationship between these two pre of customers at the life science company. Additionally, the fact that this
dictor variables and B2B customer loyalty. This suggests that trust must research was undertaken within one organisation and one industry, and
still be present for SM communications to be effective in maintaining data was only collected within the United States, could limit the gen
customer loyalty. eralisability and application of the findings and implications drawn.
Further replication of the model across a further range of industries and
6.1. Implications for practice geographies would enable wider validation of the model and confir
mation of its relevance. Second, the data used within this study was
A number of managerial implications can be identified from this drawn from B2B customers using a range of SM applications and no
study. First, the study demonstrates that, for B2B vendors, using SM as a control was applied for differences across them, or differences in the
form of two-way communication with customers is an effective mech capacity for customer-to-vendor and customer-to-customer communi
anism for influencing both trust and loyalty. It suggests that in a SM cations offered by each.
context trust can be built in B2B customers by the SM practices of the Further research is called for that utilises a methodology to test the
vendor. This should encourage vendors to engage with this form of effect of vendor practices within specific SM applications upon customer
customer communication and allocate resource to the development of trust and loyalty.
59
Appendix A
Table A.1
Questionnaire items
Construct Question Source
SMSB 1. [Vendor] should offer content via social media that helps customers conduct their research/do their jobs Developed by authors [1–5]
2. Vendor-sponsored social media should relate to customers in a way that makes sense to them
3. [Vendor] should use social media to communicate new product launches/new product features to customers
4. Social media should offer customers the opportunity to comment/give feedback
5. Vendor-sponsored social media should offer content that is highly informative
SMV2CC 1. The [Vendor] keeps me well-informed via their social media Theron et al. (2008) [1–3]
2. The [Vendor] provides frequent social media communication about issues that are important to me Harris and Goode (2004) [4]
3. The [Vendor] provides accurate information via their social media
4. The [Vendor’s] social media provides useful information to answer customer questions
SMC2CC 1. The [Vendor’s] customers share experiences about their vendor’s products online with other customers Laroche et al. (2012) [1–3]
2. The [Vendor’s] vendor-sponsored social media communities are useful for gathering information about products or the Bruhn et al. (2014) [4]
brand
3. Members of the [Vendor’s] vendor-sponsored social media community benefit from the community
4. I am very satisfied with the quality of interaction with other [Vendor] customers via their vendor-sponsored social
media
B2B Customer Trust 1. [Vendor] is genuinely concerned that our research/business succeeds Doney and Cannon (1997)
2. I trust the vendor keeps our interests in mind [1–3]
3. The vendor is trustworthy
B2B Customer 1. 1. I would recommend [Vendor] to my colleagues Cater and Cater (2009) [1]
Loyalty
References Cater, B., & Cater, T. (2009). Emotional and rational motivations for customer loyalty in
business-to-business professional services. Service Industries Journal, 29(8),
1151–1169.
Agnihotri, R., Dingus, R., Hu, M. Y., & Krush, M. T. (2016). Social media: Influencing
Cawsey, T., & Rowley, J. (2016). Social media brand building strategies in B2B
customer satisfaction in B2B sales. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 172–180.
companies. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 34(6), 754–776.
Agnihotri, R., Kothandaraman, P., Kashyap, R., & Singh, R. (2012). Bringing “social” into
Chaffey, D. (2007). E-business and E-commerce management: Strategy, implementation and
sales: The impact of salespeople’s social media use on service behaviors and value
practice. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
creation. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32(3), 333–348.
Chaffey, D., Ellis-Chadwick, F., Mayer, R., & Johnston, K. (2009). Internet marketing:
Aliasghar, O., Rose, E. L., & Chetty, S. (2019). Where to search for process innovations?
Strategy, implementation and practice. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
The mediating role of absorptive capacity and its impact on process innovation.
Chen, Y. C., Li, P. C., & Arnold, T. J. (2013). Effects of collaborative communication on
Industrial Marketing Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
the development of market-relating capabilities and relational performance metrics
indmarman.2019.01.014.
in industrial markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(8), 1181–1191.
Andersen, P. H. (2005). Relationship marketing and brand involvement of professionals
Chuang, S. H. (2020). Co-creating social media agility to build strong customer-firm
through web-enhanced brand communities: The case of Coloplast. Industrial
relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 84, 202–211.
Marketing Management, 34, 39–51.
Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1989). Determinants of continuity in conventional industrial
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 64–73. XVI(February),.
channel dyads. Marketing Science, 8(4), 310–323.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Andersson, S., & Wikström, N. (2017). Why and how are social media used in a B2B
Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
context, and which stakeholders are involved? Journal of Business & Industrial
Costa e Silva, S., Duarte, P. A. O., & Almeida, S. R. (2020). How companies evaluate the
Marketing, 32(8), 1098–1108.
ROI of social media marketing programmes: Insights from B2B and B2C. The Journal
Ashok, M., Day, M., & Narula, R. (2018). Buyer (dis)satisfaction and process innovation:
of Business and Industrial Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-06-2019-0291.
The case of information technology services provision. Industrial Marketing
Cytron, S. H. (2013). 5 lessons to learn about social media. Main Street Practitioner,
Management, 68, 132–144.
November (pp. 16–18).
Avlonitis, G. J., & Panagopoulos, N. G. (2010). Selling and sales management: An
DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications. London, England: Sage
introduction to the special section and recommendations on advancing the sales
Publications.
research agenda. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(7), 1045–1048.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in
Baruch, Y., & Holtrom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in
organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration.
organizational research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139–1160.
British Journal of Management, 17(4), 263–282.
Bill, F., Feurer, S., & Klarmann, M. (2020). Salesperson social media use in business-to-
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative
business relationships: An empirical test of an integrative framework linking
indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2),
antecedents and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1–19.
269–277.
Blois, K. J. (1999). Trust in business to business relationships: An evaluation of its status.
Diba, H., Vella, J. M., & Abratt, R. (2019). Social media influence on the B2B buying
Journal of Management Studies, 36(2), 197–215.
process. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34(7), 1482–1496.
Bodea, C. N., Dascalu, M. I., Huemann, M., Velikic, G., & Mogos, R. I. (2017). Challenges
Dijkmans, C., Kerkhof, P., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2015). A stage to engage: Social media
of implementing social media information systems in universities: A regional study.
use and corporate reputation. Tourism Management, 47, 58–67.
Issues In Information Systems, 18(3), 161–169.
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-
Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual
seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35–51.
brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1),
Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships.
105–114.
Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 11–27.
Bruhn, M., Schnebelen, S., & Schaefer, D. (2014). Antecedents and consequences of the
Eames, S. (2020). Waitrose customer story - Wazoku [online] Wazoku. Available at: http
quality of e-customer-to-customer interactions in B2B brand communities. Industrial
s://www.wazoku.com/resources/case-study-waitrose/ (Accessed 11 July 2020).
Marketing Management, 43(1), 164–176.
Eisenman, D. P., Williams, M. V., Glik, D., Long, A., Plough, A. L., & Ong, M. (2012). The
Buratti, N., Parola, F., & Satta, G. (2018). Insights on the adoption of social media
public health disaster trust scale: Validation of a brief measure. Journal of Public
marketing in B2B services. The TQM Journal, 30(5), 490–529.
Health Management and Practice, 18(4), E11–E18.
Butler, J. K., Jr. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust:
Farris, G. F., Senner, E. E., & Butterfield, D. A. (1973). Trust, culture, and organizational
Evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17(3), 643–663.
behavior. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 12(2), 144–157.
Caceres, R. C., & Paparoidamis, N. G. (2007). Service quality, relationship satisfaction,
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
trust, commitment and business-to-business loyalty. European Journal of Marketing,
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
41(7/8), 836–867.
39–50.
Cannon, J. P., Doney, P. M., Mullen, M. R., & Petersen, K. J. (2010). Building long-term
Fornell, C., & Wernerfelt, B. (1987). Defensive marketing strategy by customer complaint
orientation in buyer–supplier relationships: The moderating role of culture. Journal
management: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(4), 337–346.
of Operations Management, 28(6), 506–521.
60
Gabarro, J. J. (1978). The development of trust influence and expectations. In practices, brand trust and brand loyalty. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5),
A. G. Athos, & J. J. Gabarro (Eds.), Interpersonal behavior: Communication and 1755–1767.
understanding in relationships (pp. 290–303). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Leonardi, P. M., Huysman, M., & Steinfield, C. (2013). Enterprise social media:
Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. Definition, history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in
Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 1–19. organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), 1–19.
GlobalWeb Index Report. (2019). GlobalWebIndex’s flagship report on the latest trends Lin, X., & Spence, P. R. (2019). Others share this message, so we can trust it? An
in social media. Retrieved from https://www.globalwebindex.com/reports/social. examination of bandwagon cues on organizational trust in risk. Information
Grayson, K., Johnson, D., & Chen, D. R. (2008). Is firm trust essential in a trusted Processing & Management, 56(4), 1559–1564.
environment? How trust in the business context influences customers. Journal of Lin, X., Spence, P. R., & Lachlan, K. A. (2016). Social media and credibility indicators:
Marketing Research, 45(2), 241–256. The effect of influence cues. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 264–271.
Habibi, F., Hamilton, C. A., Valos, M. J., & Callaghan, M. (2015). E-marketing orientation Lindgreen, A., & Wynstra, F. (2005). Value in business markets: What do we know?
and social media implementation in B2B marketing. European Business Review, 27(6), Where are we going? Industrial Marketing Management, 34(7), 732–748.
638–655. Lussier, B., & Hartmann, N. N. (2017). How psychological resourcefulness increases
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: salesperson’s sales performance and the satisfaction of their customers: Exploring
A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Ltd. the mediating role of customer-oriented behaviours. Industrial Marketing
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least Management, 62, 160–170.
squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the
Publications. indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128.
of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–151. MacMillan, K., Money, K., & Downing, S. (2000). Successful business relationships.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to Journal of General Management, 26(1), 69–83.
report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. Mäläskä, M., Saraniemi, S., & Tahtinen, J. (2011). Network actors’ participation in B2B
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares SME branding. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(7), 1144–1152.
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the
European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. promotion mix. Business Horizons, 52(4), 357–365.
Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Marshall, G. W., Moncrief, W. C., Rudd, J. M., & Lee, N. (2012). Revolution in sales: The
Harrigan, P., Soutar, G., Choudhury, M. M., & Lowe, M. (2015). Modelling CRM in a impact of social media and related technology on the selling environment. Journal of
social media age. Australasian Marketing Journal, 23(1), 27–37. Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32(3), 349–363.
Harris, L. C., & Goode, M. M. (2004). The four levels of loyalty and the pivotal role of Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of
trust: A study of online service dynamics. Journal of Retailing, 80(2), 139–158. organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
Hart, K. M., Capps, H. R., Cangemi, J. P., & Caillouet, L. M. (1986). Exploring McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand community.
organizational trust and its multiple dimensions: A case study of general motors. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 38–54.
Organization Development Journal, 4(2), 31–39. McKee, S. (2010). Creative B2B branding (no, really): Building a creative brand in a business
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new world. Oxford, England: Goodfellow Publishers Limited.
technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116 Menguc, B., & Auh, S. (2008). The asymmetric moderating role of market orientation on
(1), 2–20. the ambidexterity–firm performance relationship for prospectors and defenders.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path Industrial Marketing Management, 37(4), 455–470.
modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20, Money, K., & Hillenbrand, C. (2006). Using reputation measurement to create value: An
277–320. analysis and integration of existing measures. Journal of General Management, 32,
Hoffman, D. L., & Fodor, M. (2010). Can you measure the ROI of your social media 1–12.
marketing? MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(1), 41–49. Money, K., Hillenbrand, C., Hunter, I., & Money, A. G. (2012). Modelling bi-directional
Huang, S., Potter, A., & Eyers, D. (2020). Social media in operations and supply chain research: A fresh approach to stakeholder theory. Journal of Strategy and
management: State-of-the-art and research directions. International Journal of Management, 5(1), 5–24.
Production Research, 58(6), 1893–1925. Money, K., Saraeva, A., Garnelo-Gomez, I., Pain, S., & Hillenbrand, C. (2017). Corporate
Hudson, S., Roth, M. S., Madden, T. J., & Hudson, R. (2015). The effects of social media reputation past and future: A review and integration of existing literature and a
on emotions, brand relationship quality, and word of mouth: An empirical study of framework for future research. Corporate Reputation Review, 20(3–4), 193–211.
music festival attendees. Tourism Management, 47, 68–76. Moore, J. N., Hopkins, C. D., & Raymond, M. A. (2013). Utilization of relationship-
Huotari, L., Ulkuniemi, P., Saraniemi, S., & Mäläskä, M. (2015). Analysis of content oriented social media in the selling process: A comparison of consumer (B2C) and
creation in social media by B2B companies. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, industrial (B2B) salespeople. Journal of Internet Commerce, 12(1), 48–75.
30(6), 761–770. Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market
Iankova, S., Davies, I., Archer-Brown, C., Marder, B., & Yau, A. (2019). A comparison of research relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 81–101.
social media marketing between B2B, B2C and mixed business models. Industrial Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and
Marketing Management, 81, 169–179. users of market research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations.
Itani, O. S., Agnihotri, R., & Dingus, R. (2017). Social media use in B2b sales and its Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 314–328.
impact on competitive intelligence collection and adaptive selling: Examining the Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship
role of learning orientation as an enabler. Industrial Marketing Management, 66, marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.
64–79. Muniz, A. M., Jr., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer
Järvinen, J., Tollinen, A., Karjaluoto, H., & Jayawardhena, C. (2012). Digital and social Research, 27(4), 412–432.
media marketing usage in B2B industrial section. Marketing Management Journal, 22 Ndubisi, N. O., & Nataraajan, R. (2016). Marketing relationships in the new millenium
(2), 102–117. B2B sector. Psychology & Marketing, 33(4), 227–231.
Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct Negruşa, A. L., Rus, R. V., & Sofică, A. (2014). Innovative tools used by business networks
indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer and clusters in communication. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 148,
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218. 588–595.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and Nguyen, B., Yu, X., Melewar, T. C., & Chen, J. (2015). Brand innovation and social media:
opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. Knowledge acquisition from social media, market orientation, and the moderating
Katona, Z., & Sarvary, M. (2014). Maersk line: B2B social media—“It’s communication, role of social media strategic capability. Industrial Marketing Management, 51, 11–25.
not marketing”. California Management Review, 56(3), 142–156. Noordewier, T. G., John, G., & Nevin, J. R. (1990). Performance outcomes of purchasing
Kho, N. D. (2008). B2B gets social media. EContent (Wilton, Conn.), 31(3), 26–30. arrangements in industrial buyer-vendor relationships. Journal of Marketing, 54(4),
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? 80–93.
Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Nunan, D., Sibai, O., Schivinski, B., & Christodoulides, G. (2018). Reflections on “social
Horizons, 54(3), 241–251. media: Influencing customer satisfaction in B2B sales” and a research agenda.
Kim, S., & Park, H. (2013). Effects of various characteristics of social commerce (s- Industrial Marketing Management, 75, 31–36.
commerce) on consumers’ trust and trust performance. International Journal of O’Reilly, K., & Eckert, J. (2014). Building relationships from the outside in: A case study
Information Management, 33(2), 318–332. of Falken Tire’s drift toward success. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 13(3),
Kroenke, D. M., & Boyle, R. J. (2019). Using MIS. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. 243–262.
Kumar, A., Bezawada, R., Rishika, R., Janakiraman, R., & Kannan, P. K. (2016). From Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors influencing the
social to sale: The effects of firm-generated content in social media on customer effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(4),
behavior. Journal of Marketing, 80(1), 7–25. 136–153.
Lachlan, K. A., Spence, P. R., Edwards, A., Reno, K. M., & Edwards, C. (2014). If you are Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., Dant, R. P., & Grewal, D. (2013). Relationship velocity:
quick enough, I will think about it: Information speed and trust in public health Toward a theory of relationship dynamics. Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 13–30.
organizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 377–380. Paniagua, J., & Sapena, J. (2014). Business performance and social media: Love or hate?
Lachlan, K. A., Spence, P. R., & Lin, X. (2014). Expressions of risk awareness and concern Business Horizons, 57(6), 719–728.
through twitter: On the utility of using the medium as an indication of audience Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
needs. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 554–559. biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
Laroche, M., Habibi, M. R., Richard, M. O., & Sankaranarayanan, R. (2012). The effects of remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
social media based brand communities on brand community markers, value creation
61
Porter, C. E., Donthu, N., & Baker, A. (2012). Gender differences in trust formation in Snow, C. C., Fjeldstad, Ø. D., Lettl, C., & Miles, R. E. (2011). Organizing continuous
virtual communities. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 20(1), 39–58. product development and commercialization: The collaborative community of firms
Prigge, J. K., Homburg, C., & Fürst, A. (2018). Addressing a product management’s model. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(1), 3–16.
orphan: How to externally implement product eliminations in a B2B setting. Spence, P. R., Sellnow-Richmond, D. D., Sellnow, T. L., & Lachlan, K. A. (2016). Social
Industrial Marketing Management, 68, 56–73. media and corporate reputation during crises: The viability of video-sharing websites
Rapp, A., Beitelspacher, L. S., Grewal, D., & Hughes, D. E. (2013). Understanding social for providing counter-messages to traditional broadcast news. Journal of Applied
media effects across seller, retailer, and consumer interactions. Journal of the Communication Research, 44(3), 199–215.
Academy of Marketing Science, 41(5), 547–566. Stelzner, M. A. (2020). Social media marketing industry report. In Social Media Examiner.
Reichheld, F. (2001). The loyalty effect: The hidden force behind growth, profits and lasting Theron, E., Terblanche, N. S., & Boshoff, C. (2008). The antecedents of relationship
value. Boston, USA: Harvard Business School Press. commitment in the management of relationships in business-to-business (B2B)
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the financial services. Journal of Marketing Management, 24(9–10), 997–1010.
efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Trainor, K. J. (2012). Relating social media technologies to performance: A capabilities-
Research in Marketing, 26(4), 332–344. based perspective. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32(3), 317–331.
Ritter, T., & Geersbro, J. (2012). Navigating in business relationships: Distinguishing Wang, Y., Rod, M., Ji, S., & Deng, Q. (2017). Social media capability in B2B marketing:
relationship value, relationship quality, and relationship structure. In The 28th IMP Toward a definition and a research model. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Conference: Combining the social and technological aspects of innovation: Relationships 32(8), 1125–1135.
and networks. Rome. Westerman, D., Spence, P. R., & Van Der Heide, B. (2012). A social network as
Rodriguez, M., Peterson, R. M., & Krishnan, V. (2012). Social media’s influence on information: The effect of system generated reports of connectedness on credibility
business-to-business sales performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales on twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 199–206.
Management, 32(3), 365–378. Westerman, D., Spence, P. R., & Van Der Heide, B. (2014). Social media as information
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., Thiele, K. O., & Gudergan, S. P. (2016). Estimation source: Recency of updates and credibility of information. Journal of Computer-
issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the bias lies! Journal of Business Research, 69(10), Mediated Communication, 19(2), 171–183.
3998–4010. Zhang, C. B., & Li, Y. N. (2019). How social media usage influences B2B customer loyalty:
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2017). Partial least squares structural equation Roles of trust and purchase risk. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34(7),
modeling. In C. Homburg, M. Klarmann, & A. Vomberg (Eds.), Handbook of market 1420–1433.
research (pp. 1–40). Springer.
62
Update
Volume 108, Issue , January 2023, Page 276
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.11.014
Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 276–276
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/indmarman
Corrigendum to “Sharing is the name of the game: Exploring the role of

social media communication practices on B2B customer relationships in the
life sciences industry” [Industrial Marketing Management 93(2021) 52–62/
IMM_8228]
Susan Rose a, Diana Fandel b, Anastasiya Saraeva a, *, Anne Dibley a
a
Henley Business School, University of Reading, Greenlands Campus, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, RG9 3, AU, United Kingdom
b
Lutgert College of Business, Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, FL 33965-6565, United States of America
The authors regret <Table 1 does not contain Measurement model

estimates results>. Table 1 full content is outlined below. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
DOI of original article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.12.013.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Saraeva).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.11.014
Available online 1 December 2022

0019-8501/© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1 s2.0 S0019850120309160 Mainext

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0019850120309160 Mainext

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0019850120309160 Mainext

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

i An update to this article is included at the end

Industrial Marketing Management 93 (2021) 52–62

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

1. Introduction (ESN) that facilitates engagement and collaboration of internal stake

B2B customer trust B2B customer loyalty

Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total

SMSB 0.255* 0.255* 0.192* 0.167* 0.359***

Notes: one-tailed tests of significance.

Construct Question Source

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

Corrigendum to “Sharing is the name of the game: Exploring the role of

The authors regret <Table 1 does not contain Measurement model

DOI of original article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.12.013.

Available online 1 December 2022

You might also like

1 s2.0 S0019850120309160 Mainext

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0019850120309160 Mainext

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0019850120309160 Mainext

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

i An update to this article is included at the end

Industrial Marketing Management 93 (2021) 52–62

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

1. Introduction (ESN) that facilitates engagement and collaboration of internal stake­

B2B customer trust B2B customer loyalty

Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total

SMSB 0.255*** 0.255*** 0.192*** 0.167*** 0.359***

Notes: one-tailed tests of significance.

Construct Question Source

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

Corrigendum to “Sharing is the name of the game: Exploring the role of

The authors regret <Table 1 does not contain Measurement model

DOI of original article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.12.013.

Available online 1 December 2022

You might also like

1. Introduction (ESN) that facilitates engagement and collaboration of internal stake

SMSB 0.255* 0.255* 0.192* 0.167* 0.359***