Tangible and intangible resource inequity in customer‐supplier relationships

Purpose – This study aims to investigate the effects of perceived tangible and intangible resource inequity and the moderating effect of long‐term orientation on future collaboration. Design/methodology/approach – Outcome and moderating measures were developed using structural equation modeling. Data were collected at the project level of customer‐supplier relationships via survey among German and Swiss firms. The results were generated with regression and subgroup analyses. Findings – The higher the negative tangible inequity or intangible inequity, the lower the customers' willingness to collaborate on future projects with suppliers. However, negative intangible inequity showed a stronger negative effect than negative tangible inequity. When long‐term orientation is in the model, the effects of inequity are stronger in short‐term relationships. Research limitations/implications – The study extends equity theory and provides a fruitful basis for future research at the project level of the customer‐supplier relationships. Specifically, since the effects of negative intangible inequity are stronger than the effects of negative tangible inequity, intangible resources may be more important than tangible resources to the future of customer‐supplier relationships. Since prior research does not delineate between tangible and intangible inequity, this is a unique finding and an important contribution to the application of equity theory in business. Cultural homogeneity is a limitation of the study. Furthermore, a longitudinal study could add insight. Originality/value – This research offers a distinction between the effects of tangible and intangible resource inequity; it disaggregates the concepts of tangible and intangible resource inequity and tests the effects of either “positive inequity” (i.e. receiving more than deserved) or “negative inequity” (i.e. receiving less than deserved); and it separates short‐term from long‐term oriented companies to allow for a more discrete analysis, than prior approaches, of the effects of inequity on the propensity for future collaboration.