‘All you need is trust’: examining trust, information sharing, and supplier performance perception in SMEs from a social exchange perspective

Kotcharin, Suntichai; Dehe, Benjamin; Boonchoo, Pattana Article ‘All you need is trust’: examining trust, information sharing, and supplier performance perception in SMEs from a social exchange perspective Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Kotcharin, Suntichai; Dehe, Benjamin; Boonchoo, Pattana (2024) : ‘All you need is trust’: examining trust, information sharing, and supplier performance perception in SMEs from a social exchange perspective, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 1-19, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2415523 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/326621 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cogent Business & Management ISSN: 2331-1975 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 ‘All you need is trust’: examining trust, information sharing, and supplier performance perception in SMEs from a social exchange perspective Suntichai Kotcharin, Benjamin Dehe & Pattana Boonchoo To cite this article: Suntichai Kotcharin, Benjamin Dehe & Pattana Boonchoo (2024) ‘All you need is trust’: examining trust, information sharing, and supplier performance perception in SMEs from a social exchange perspective, Cogent Business & Management, 11:1, 2415523, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2415523 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2415523 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group View supplementary material Published online: 15 Oct 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1186 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 2 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 ManageMent | ReseaRch aRticle Cogent Business & ManageMent 2024, VoL. 11, no. 1, 2415523 ‘All you need is trust’: examining trust, information sharing, and supplier performance perception in SMEs from a social exchange perspective suntichai Kotcharina , Benjamin Deheb and Pattana Boonchooc aDepartment of international Business, Logistics and transport, thammasat Business school, thammasat university, Bangkok, thailand; bBusiness information systems, auckland university of technology, east auckland City, new Zealand; cDepartment of Marketing, thammasat Business school, thammasat university, Bangkok, thailand ABSTRACT the purpose of this study is to substantiate the interrelationships between the perceived value of supplier performance, trust, and information sharing in the context of small and medium-sized agribusiness enterprises (sMes), in an emerging economy. a survey was conducted to collect data from 83 licensed orchid flower exporters (buyer firms) in thailand. the collected data was used to test hypotheses using path analysis. the empirical findings provide valuable insights into trust in buyer-supplier relationships from a social exchange perspective. specifically, the study confirms that a high level of perceived value of supplier performance leads to greater trust between the parties, which in turn indirectly increases the level of information sharing. this implies and validates that trust plays a crucial role in fostering positive outcomes and strengthening buyer-supplier relationships. Building mutual trust between buyers and suppliers can ultimately result in more successful supply chain performance. the study suggests that small and medium orchid flower exporters build trust with key suppliers to secure valuable resources and capabilities by sharing information. this study contributes by investigating the sources of trust, the relationship between trust and the mediating role that it plays in linking the perceived value of supplier performance and information sharing within sMes. 1. Introduction in recent years, the importance of trust in establishing and maintaining high-performing, effective and efficient and resilient supply chains has gained attention from both academic researchers and practitioners (Bianchi & abu saleh, 2020; Blome etal., 2023; Bokrantz & Dul, 2023; chamola etal., 2022). Over the past two decades, arms-length agreements have been evolving toward collaborative relationships based on trust and information sharing (corsten & Felde, 2005; alshurideh etal., 2022). While developing trust can be costly and time-consuming, it is essential for establishing strong buyer-supplier bonds, and increasing performance and satisfaction (Doney & cannon, 1997; Bodendorf et al., 2022). in emerging economies, especially between small and medium enterprises (sMes), the concept of trust appears less formal. it relies significantly on socialisation mechanisms (Manfredi & capik, 2022). trust can be described as confidence in the competence and integrity of another party and is widely recognised as a precondition for positive inter-organisational relationships and effective supply chain performance (han etal., 2021). in general, trust is categorised into competence-based or integrity-based features (assis et al., 2023; Manfredi & capik, 2022). sMes often have limited resources and knowledge, which may hinder the successful establishment of long-term collaboration with their supply chain partners. as a result, assis etal. (2023), who conduct qualitative research in agri-food supply chains, suggest © 2024 the author(s). Published by informa uK Limited, trading as taylor & Francis group. CONTACT Pattana Boonchoo [email protected].ac.th Department of Marketing, thammasat Business school, thammasat university, 2 Prachan Road, Pranakorn, Bangkok 10200, thailand supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2415523. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2415523 this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. the terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 7 December 2023 Revised 29 March 2024 accepted 2 October 2024 KEYWORDS supplier performance; trust; information sharing; social exchange theory; agribusiness sMes; path analysis SUBJECTS Business, Management and accounting; agricultural Development; Business & Planning; asian Business 2 s. KOtchaRin etal. that researchers should explore further the elements that enable building trust and attempt to confirm relationships between constructs. While, trust is considered one most researched constructs in the relationship management literature (Bloemer etal., 2013; Jalal ahamed & noboa, 2023), trust theory is still evolving, and its conceptualisation and operationalisation remain hazy (Rani et al., 2018). importantly, a general understanding of the antecedents and the role of trust in information sharing remains limited. studying trust in the perishable supply chain composed of sMes in emerging economies is worthy of investigation and different from the more traditional research setting, between large firms in developed countries (Manfredi & capik, 2022). Moreover, previous research has documented antecedents of trust, such as satisfaction, communication, competence, shared values, and co-creation (Franklin & Marshall, 2019), as well as the role of process-oriented mechanisms, such as product delivery reliability and conformance to quality, in establishing and nurturing trust between supplier and buyer firms (ha et al., 2011; stuart et al., 2012). this is in line with Bianchi and abu saleh (2020) who have also called for further investigation into the antecedent of trust to gain a more complete understanding of trust in supply chain partnerships. in this study, we argue that the perceived supplier performance from the buyer’s standpoint can be an important antecedent of trust-led collaborative behaviour. We suggest that the perception of supplier performance may be the root of motivation in the supplier selection decision. While some prior studies have focused solely on supplier trust (Dyer & chu, 2003) and others on buyer trust (Franklin & Marshall, 2019), our research seeks to clarify the importance of the buyer’s trust-information linkage. specifically, we argue that buyers who are downstream and closer to customers in the supply chain play an important role in the information-sharing process. Our research also aims to distinguish between supplier and buyer trust, which has not been clearly differentiated previously (gualandris & Kalchschmidt, 2016). Moreover, researchers have called for further investigation into the antecedent of trust to gain a deeper understanding of trust in supply chain partnerships (Bianchi & abu saleh, 2020; han et al., 2021; Kwon & suh, 2004). Kwon and suh (2004) propose that social exchange variables, including perceived satisfaction and partner reputation, positively influence the level of trust in partner firms. similarly, selnes (1998) suggests that satisfaction and trust can explain the relationship between two parties. Positive experiences or satisfaction can result from acceptable expectations of how the supplier should behave (selnes, 1998). consistent with the work of Barry etal. (2008), the perceived value, such as the supplier’s performance perception, can provide trust to the buyer who has certain sentiments and expected outcomes. For example, Kwon and suh (2004) added that supplier reputation, based on the buyer’s perception, enhances the supplier’s ability to deliver quality products/services. the perception of value from the supplier is an important aspect of the buyer-supplier relationship. sahay (2003) suggested that managing relationships in the supply chain requires a high level of perceived value, such as highly reliable and dependable service levels. the relationship will be strengthened when both partners can offer support when needed (huang & Wilkinson, 2013). similarly, the characteristics of the offering can influence the buyer’s perception of product and service performance (de Ruyter et al., 2001). this raises the question of whether a perceived level of value in the supplier’s performance can foster trust in the supplier. as a result, we believe that there is a need to integrate the firms’ competencies (e.g. quality and service efficiency and price and delivery efficiency) into the research model, as antecedents to trust to fill the aforementioned research gap. although the relationship between trust and information sharing has been studied, the nature of their relationship remains unclear. On the one hand, some studies propose that information sharing has a positive effect on trust (Kwon & suh, 2004; On etal., 2013; Panahifar etal., 2018). For instance, On etal. (2013) studied the international joint venture context and discovered that collaborative integration, such as sharing information, resources, and goals, increases trust. On the other hand, some studies suggest that a buyer’s trust in a supplier itself positively relates to information sharing (cai et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2014). nonetheless, we believe that there is an opportunity to increase our understanding of trust by conceptualising it further (Fawcett et al., 2017). in this study, we set out to examine the antecedents of trust and its role in the supply chain relationships of sMes in an emerging economy. this attempts to fill the research gap raised by graca etal. (2015), who suggested testing the relationships between trust and the exchange climate of exporters in different countries. We have focused on the agribusiness supply chains in thailand due to a lack of empirical evidence supporting the development of cOgent Business & ManageMent 3 buyer’s trust in this context (Routroy & Behera, 2017). Perishable supply chains also have specific characteristics, including seasonality, long supply lead times, and short product life cycles, which create complexities, potentially affecting supply chain performances. hence, forming collaboration is critical to coping with such uncertainties. Moreover, shared information can be viewed as a unique capability, which is critical for establishing stable and competitive supply chains (Wang et al., 2023). in the context of emerging markets, ho et al. (2023) reported a lack of collaboration in the agricultural supply chain and called for more trust within the supply network. Furthermore, many studies in the agri-product sector relied either on case studies (Matopoulos et al., 2007; uddin, 2017) or conceptual work (luo etal., 2018). scholars have advocated for the use of quantitative research, such as surveys, to be complementary to the current body of knowledge. they also noted that researchers should employ different theories beyond the resource-based view and transaction cost economies. Finally, several previous studies recommended conducting research in other contexts (Fawcett etal., 2017; huang & Wilkinson, 2013). these key factors have motivated us in the pursuit of this study from a social exchange perspective. We believe the aforementioned provides the newness and relevance of this study. in this paper, we argue that the perishable product supply chain in an emerging market is an important context to study trust building, and therefore, we posit the following questions: (i) how does perceived supplier performance from buyers increase buyer’s trust and information sharing? and (ii) What is the role of trust in the relationship between perceived supplier performance from buyers and information sharing? thailand is the world’s top exporter of tropical orchid flowers. thai orchid flower growers are key supply chain members contributing to healthy export performance. however, these growers face several challenges, including a failure to develop and introduce new species into the market continuously, the inability to produce the volume required to meet market demand, as well as experiencing export issues and trade barriers imposed by trading partner countries (Phinaitrup, 2014). Perishable products, such as tropical orchid flowers, are sensitive to quality deterioration over time and are susceptible to contamination, disease, and damage (chen et al., 2022; lusiantoro et al., 2018). additionally, the uncertainty of demand and the variability of short shelf lives of perishable products can adversely affect the quality and safety of perishable products without proper storage facilities. Researchers have suggested implementing supply chain integration to cope with these problems. We argue that working together, such as sharing information between exporters (buyer firms) and growers (supplier firms), requires supply chain governance, such as a high level of trust. in summary, this study examines the effects of the perceived value of supplier performance on trust in suppliers and how this leads to information sharing from the buyer’s perspective. We are interested in exploring the role of the buyer in building trust to increase collaborative relationships with their suppliers. Buyer trust in their supplier increases buyer confidence, which helps to reduce short-term inequities, lower transaction costs, and enhance longer-term benefits (Doney & cannon, 1997; Zhou, 2022). Due to the growth of agribusiness in developing countries, farmers and growers are required to coordinate their production and marketing activities cost-effectively and meet the quality, volume, and timing required by agribusiness buyers (Vroegindewey etal., 2018). in general, farmers are small and medium enterprises (sMes) that have a low level of use of information and communication technologies (Matopoulos et al., 2007). as part of our research, we explore how the buyer’s perceived value of supplier performance leads to increased trust in the supplier and, as a result, improves information sharing. the contribution of this study is threefold. Firstly, our study provides empirical evidence of the linkage between the buyer’s perception of supplier performance, trust, and information sharing. this builds on graca etal. (2015) work, which analysed behavioural attributes in buyer-supplier relationships in the B2B context. secondly, we confirm how trust can be a critical enabler for information sharing between firms. this is in line with Müller et al. (2020) who found positive linkages between trust and information sharing in sMes. One of the core elements of supply chain integration is information sharing, and the agricultural, perishable product supply chain provides a relevant context to study this phenomenon. Finally, this research contributes to the literature on the antecedent of trust, which several prior studies have called to explore further (Bianchi & abu saleh, 2020). this study provides empirical evidence that the buyer’s perception of supplier performance, particularly in terms of price and delivery performance, can improve their trust in the supplier, which in turn leads to information sharing. 4 s. KOtchaRin etal. 2. Literature review and hypotheses development 2.1. Theoretical background We employ social exchange theory as the framework for our research hypotheses. according to Blau (1964), social exchange theory refers to the voluntary actions of individuals that are motivated by the expected returns and typical outcomes they receive from others. the theory assumes that these actions are voluntary and operate under uncertainty, with no guarantee of reciprocal benefits (ahmad et al., 2022; Das & teng, 2002). additionally, trust is considered an integral part of any social exchange process (Blau, 1964; hald et al., 2009). this theory views people’s social behaviour in terms of exchanging resources, and this exchange process occurs when two parties directly exchange favours with each other (Das & teng, 2002). the social exchange theory offers a useful framework for analysing buyer-supplier relationships as it integrates relationship value, trust, and power/dependence perspectives. according to hald et al. (2009), the perceived expected value is a key factor in establishing and maintaining relationships between actors a and B. the authors explain that to attract actor B, actor a must provide the expected value. When an exchange leads to a reward, it is expected to continue. in contrast, when the exchange fails, firms tend to avoid entering into such relationships in the future (Wang et al., 2023). Moreover, the literature suggests that the primary motivation for two actors to come together is to reduce risk and transaction costs (hald et al., 2009). Other scholars have documented the role of social exchange processes and value creation within strategic buyer-supplier relationships (carey et al., 2011). Buyers can gain a competitive advantage through their social networks. social capital, which includes the relational dimension of trust and obligation, is defined as the sum of actual and potential resources embedded within, accessible through, and derived from an individual’s or social unit’s network of relationships (nahapiet & ghoshal, 1998). carey et al. (2011) suggest that the relational dimension of social exchange theory can refer to trust in the personal relationship between people. trust is an important component of social exchange because it facilitates informal cooperation and leads to better information sharing between organisations (Dyer & chu, 2003; hald etal., 2009). in addition, trust can be considered a function of both the past performance of the exchange and their expectations of the future (ahamed & noboa, 2023). in this study, we define trust as ‘one party’s confidence in the other party’ (Barney & hansen, 1994). according to the social exchange theory, trust is developed through the regular discharge of obligations and the gradual expansion of exchange over time (hald etal., 2009). in our study, the orchid growers or suppliers should be rewarded for the social exchange with their buyers, and vice versa, creating a mutual dependency. the literature also suggests that, with a high level of buyer’s perceived trust, the exchange is more likely to be maintained. conversely, a low level of buyer’s perceived trust indicates a risky relationship, and the buyer may seek alternative means of supply (hald et al., 2009). 2.2. The antecedents and consequences of trust in supply chain relationships in the existing literature on trust in supply chain relationships, two key streams emerge when examining the antecedents of trust (see table 1): relational factors and structural factors. the relational factors stream focuses on the interpersonal and interorganisational characteristics that help to build trust. this encompasses overall satisfaction (aurier & n’goala, 2010), management relationships (Wang etal., 2014), role autonomy, clan culture, functional impact, and organisational tenure (Perrone et al., 2003). Furthermore, satisfaction, competence, and communication (selnes, 1998), as well as B2B sustainability positioning (casidy & Yan, 2022), communication (Bianchi & abu saleh, 2020), knowledge sharing (charterina et al., 2018), and perceived order fulfilment capability, reputation, and perceived website quality (Qureshi et al., 2009), have been identified as relational antecedents of trust. the structural factors stream, on the other hand, highlights the importance of power dynamics, contractual agreements, and institutional support in developing trust. this includes power (Ke et al., 2009), supplier development (Rajput etal., 2019), buyer dependency and contracts (handfield & Bechtel, 2002), legal protection, government assistance, the importance of guanxi (cai et al., 2010), and contracts (charterina et al., 2018). cOgent Business & ManageMent 5 Regarding the consequences of trust in supply chain relationships, the literature reveals two main streams: relationship outcomes and performance outcomes. the relationship outcomes stream emphasises the importance of trust in the quality and strength of relationships between supply chain participants. this includes relationship commitment (aurier & n’goala, 2010; Bianchi & abu saleh, 2020), the extent and quality of information sharing (Wang etal., 2014), customer loyalty (Paparoidamis etal., 2019), enhancement (selnes, 1998), non-economic satisfaction (Ferro et al., 2016), and information sharing and collaborative planning (cai et al., 2010). the performance outcomes stream emphasises the actual benefits that trust provides to supply chain partners. this includes escMs adoption intention (Ke et al., 2009), supplier performance improvement (Rajput et al., 2019), trust in purchasing managers (Perrone et al., 2003), responsiveness in terms of lead times, time delivery record, and customisation (handfield & Bechtel, 2002), buyer performance in financial and relational aspects (casidy & Yan, 2022), product innovation performance (charterina etal., 2018), retailer performance (Yang et al., 2014), and repurchasing intention (Qureshi et al., 2009). the research framework presented in this study, which identifies perceptions of the efficiency of supplier quality and service quality, as well as perceptions of supplier price and delivery efficiency, as antecedents of trust, and information sharing as a result of trust, is consistent with both the relational factors stream of antecedents and the relationship outcomes stream of consequences found in the existing literature. this study’s trust antecedents, which include judgments of supplier quality, service quality, price efficiency, and delivery efficiency, are consistent with the relational factors stream because they focus on interorganisational components that lead to the building of trust. this is consistent with prior research, which has highlighted contentment, competence, and communication (selnes, 1998), as well as perceived order fulfilment capabilities, reputation, and perceived website quality (Qureshi etal., 2009) as relational antecedents of trust. in this study, the outcome of trust, information sharing, is part of the relationship outcomes stream, which emphasises the impact of trust on the quality and strength of supply chain partner relationships. this finding is congruent with the findings of Wang etal. (2014), who recognised the extent and quality of information sharing as a result of trust, and cai etal. (2010), who discovered that trust promotes information sharing and collaborative planning. By connecting the relational factors stream of antecedents and the relationship outcomes stream of consequences, this research framework adds to the existing literature by focusing on the specific antecedents and consequences of trust in the context of supplier-buyer relationships. 2.3. The relationship between the buyer’s perceived value of supplier performance and buyer trust the perceived expected value is defined as the perceived trade-off values between multiple benefits and sacrifices gained through a relationship (hald etal., 2009). in this study, we focus on the buyer’s perceptions of their supplier’s abilities, which are considered important by the buyers. Previous research Table 1. antecedents and consequences of trust in supply chain relationships. author(s) antecedent(s) to trust Consequence(s) of trust aurier and n’goala (2010)overall satisfaction Relationship Commitment Wang et al. (2014)Managerial ties extent of information sharing, Quality of information shared Ke et al. (2009)Power esCMs adoption intention Rajput et al. (2019)supplier development supplier performance improvement Perrone et al. (2003)Role autonomy clan culture, functional influence, organisational tenure trust in purchasing manager Paparoidamis et al. (2019)Product quality, sales service quality, technical repair service support, complaint handling service Customer loyalty Handfield and Bechtel (2002)Buyer dependence, contracts Responsiveness (lead times, time delivery record, customisation) selnes (1998)satisfaction, competence, communication enhancement Casidy and Yan (2022)B2B sustainability positioning Buyer performance (financial, relational) Cai et al. (2010)Legal protection, government support, importance of guanxi information sharing, collaborative planning Ferro et al. (2016)economic satisfaction non-economic satisfaction Bianchi and abu saleh (2020) Communication Relationship commitment Charterina et al. (2018)Knowledge sharing, contracts Product innovation performance Yang et al. (2014)Perception differences of supplier performance Retailer performance Qureshi et al. (2009)Perceived capability of order fulfilment, reputation, perceived website quality Repurchasing intention 6 s. KOtchaRin etal. suggests that perceived satisfaction can enhance the level of trust if the supply chain partners can produce mutually satisfactory outcomes (Kwon & suh, 2004). trust in a supplier can reduce transaction costs in an exchange relationship and increase channel members’ coordinated joint efforts (Bhattarai et al., 2013; Doney & cannon, 1997). however, we still have a poor understanding of how the buyer’s perception of supplier performance leads to increased trust. Wagner and Krause (2009) suggest that short-term supplier performance indicators should be measured by the buying firm based on their relationship with a given supplier. they propose measuring the buying firm’s supplier development effort from the supplier’s outputs, which are measurable at the buying firm. Buyers expect suppliers to perform in terms of quality, cost, delivery, and service improvement in the short term, as well as in terms of long-term capabilities (Wagner & Krause, 2009). according to the authors, buying firms perform supplier development to enhance supplier performance. to realise supplier performance and the benefits of increased supplier capabilities, both buyingand supplier firms should engage in relationship-specific investments. the cooperative relationship can take the form of information sharing, and both firms are required to contribute resources to the development effort. however, we argue that before entering into cooperative information sharing, trust is a required antecedent. Wagner and Krause (2009) suggest that the nature and quality of supplier inputs are crucial in developing a cooperative relationship with buying firms. these authors also investigate the relationship between a buying firm’s goals of improving a supplier’s product and delivery performance and their efforts to transfer tacit knowledge, discovering a positive relationship between the two. however, we aim to extend this investigation by examining how a buyer’s perception of supplier performance leads to an increase in trust in the supplier. While previous studies have shown associations between supplier performance, such as quality and service, and a buying firm’s competitive capabilities, little is known about the relationship between the perceived expected value of supplier performance and buyer’s trust. We seek to explore whether a high level of perceived value in supplier performance can enhance a buyer’s trust in their supplier. We also review the literature related to supplier selection. satisfaction with supplier performance is associated with the attributes of supplier performance or the evaluation of supplier performance. although quality is typically regarded as the most important criterion for supplier selection, cost and delivery are preferred criteria when selecting the actual supplier (Krause et al., 2007; Poole & Donovan, 2014). some researchers argue that unit price and quality are equally important criteria (Famiyeh & Kwarteng, 2018). however, some argue that quality is a prerequisite for a firm to continue to be in business rather than a means of achieving a competitive advantage. Firms that can provide reliable delivery can also offer lower prices (cannon et al., 2010; Famiyeh & Kwarteng, 2018). From the buyer’s perspective, supplier performance influences their interest in continuing the supply relationship (Krause et al., 2007). three aspects of supplier performance, namely (1) relative price/cost, (2) product/service performance, and (3) delivery performance, have a significant impact on the buying firm’s overall evaluation of the supplier (cannon et al., 2010). these authors also contend that the supplier’s performance in terms of the purchase price, total cost, and terms of sale facilitates the buyer’s entry into a relationship with the supplier. Price, product performance, and delivery performance are all important factors in the buyer-supplier relationship (cannon et al., 2010). similarly, quality, service, and delivery are important drivers of supplier relationship value (ulaga, 2003). Moreover, the components of expected value that buyers perceive as critical (i.e. cost reduction, time compression, and innovation) are driven by close supplier relationships (hald et al., 2009). a qualitative study found that price reductions are the most important factor in buyer-supplier relationships. additionally, ulaga (2003) reveals that the ability of the supplier to reduce the buyer’s time to market is critical in terms of product development. the literature also suggests that if a supplier wants to remain competitive in the marketplace, delivery performance improvement is needed (Rashid, 2014). Firms seek to make a profit, and the cost of materials is the most important factor for supplier selection (Mwikali & Kavale, 2012). Doney and cannon (1997) found that the selected supplier firms had higher levels of trust because the aspects of the marketing mix, such as price and reliable delivery, usually lead to sales. their findings show that cost and delivery performance are related to professional buyers’ objective priorities. Our study proposes that a buyer’s expectations of supplier performance can drive the collaborative relationship towards trust. Buyers rely on suppliers to reap the benefits of their offerings, resulting in a cOgent Business & ManageMent 7 mutually beneficial relationship that falls under the social exchange theory. Welker et al. (2008) suggested that order winner features of a business condition (e.g. costs, speed, reliability, and quality) are achieved through information sharing. For example, information sharing with supply chain partners regarding product information, price, timing, forecasts, product specifications, and capacities will enable them to gain efficiencies and efficacies. according to Kannan and tan (2006), buyers seek to establish close relationships with key suppliers to improve quality and delivery service or reduce costs. When purchasing products or services in today’s marketplace, buyers consider multiple attributes of suppliers. For example, in the orchid flower export market, the majority of sales take place at the destination via a bidding system in which exporters pay 30% of the sale price per flower bundle and receive 70% of the sale price. exporters use a cost-plus pricing strategy to determine how much to pay orchid growers, taking into account bidding prices at the destination. non-price competition is a factor in the export of orchid flowers, as air freight is used to transport the flowers, and delivery time is critical. Due to limited airfreight space, exporters face high freight rates during various festivals in Japan. Quality control is also important in orchid trading because flowers must be free of insects and disasters before being exported. large exporters typically maintain quality control from the initial stages of production to post-harvest packing (Department of agriculture, 2011). Drawing upon the social exchange theory, we argue that when buyers receive expected value contributions through exchange behaviour with the suppliers, it creates an obligation and a sense of reciprocation that positively influences the level of trust in the supplier. Based on this argument, we propose the following hypotheses: h1: a high level of the buyer’s perception of the supplier’s product quality and service performance will positively lead to an increase in buyer’s trust. h2: a high level of the buyer’s perception of the supplier’s price and delivery performance will positively lead to an increase in buyer’s trust. 2.4. The relationship between trust and information sharing trust is essential for facilitating informal cooperation, reducing transaction and negotiation costs, and enhancing superior information sharing between participating firms (Dyer & chu, 2003; hald etal., 2009). therefore, trust plays a critical role in establishing interorganisational relationships. according to a social exchange perspective, trust is a fundamental element in presenting oneself as an attractive partner (hald et al., 2009). ireland and Webb (2007) argued that a certain level of trust should exist between firms before engaging in any relationship. Prior studies have emphasised the importance of information sharing in managing perishable inventory and improving supply chain performance (lusiantoro et al., 2018). collaboration creates value for both suppliers and buyers, who are co-producers of value (cheung et al., 2011). information sharing is defined as the extent to which firms share various related, accurate, complete plans and procedures with main suppliers promptly (cao et al., 2010). the benefits of sharing information include inventory reduction, waste reduction, increased freshness, improved service levels, and greater customer satisfaction (lusiantoro et al., 2018). the authors also assert that the uncertainty in demand and supply would be reduced. Moreover, decision-making and cost reduction across the supply chain would be improved (lusiantoro et al., 2018). ireland and Webb (2007) argued that trust is a necessary precondition for engaging in any business relationship. this is in line with Müller et al. (2020), who demonstrated that trust has a positive relationship with digital information sharing in the context of sMes. these authors viewed trust as social capital, a prerequisite for information sharing. in our study, we define trust as a supplier’s managerial and technical capabilities to perform a given set of tasks. according to Zaheer et al. (1998), interfirm trust is defined as one party’s expectation that the other party will fulfil obligations, behave predictably, and act and negotiate fairly, even if opportunities to exploit vulnerabilities arise (cai et al., 2010). We follow prior studies in defining buyer trust as the expectation of desired actions performed by other parties (Das & teng, 1998). trust is essential for successful collaboration among market chain actors (ho et al., 2023). cai et al. (2010) looked into the effects of trust on information integration and discovered a link between interfirm trust and information sharing. this 14 s. KOtchaRin etal. information sharing, in the context of orchid flower exports in thailand. the findings validate that trust plays a crucial role in information sharing. this may appear rather underwhelming initially, but it is worth noting that cost and delivery performance of suppliers are more critical in building buyer’s trust than product quality and service. therefore, this research has managerial implications for buying firm executives regarding the strategies that can be employed to develop trust-based relationships with their suppliers in the agribusiness sector, in emerging markets. in terms of theoretical contribution, we establish the antecedent of trust in buyer-supplier relationships and demonstrate the mediating role of trust between perceived supplier performance and information sharing. We argue it contributes to the social exchange theory by demonstrating that sharing information requires buyer’s trust. a high level of perceived supplier performance from the buyers stimulates trust-building and information sharing. this is in line with ho etal. (2023) and Wang etal. (2023), who suggest that trust ties the relationship between supplier performance and information sharing. trust is directly associated with the reciprocity of relationship capital, which corroborates the social exchange theory. Our findings also highlight the significance of the perceived value of cost and delivery performance of suppliers in building buyer trust, which in turn positively relates to information sharing. the results suggest that exporting firms in this industry have adopted a long-term approach and built collaborative relationships with their suppliers. such collaborative efforts, including information sharing, can be facilitated through trust. the study suggests that the exporting firms in the orchid flower industry prioritise building trust with key growers to secure valuable resources and capabilities from their suppliers. information sharing between the two parties can benefit both in various ways, such as helping buyers plan their exports and marketing strategies. Furthermore, this study sheds light on how buyers select their growers to strengthen their competitive advantage in the market, emphasising the importance of trust as a key factor in supplier selection and relationship management. By cultivating trust-based relationships with their growers, exporters can not only gain access to valuable resources and capabilities but also enhance their ability to compete effectively in the global marketplace. We believe that our findings will be of interest to sMes’ managers of agri-products in thailand and other southeast asian countries, foreign importers, and government policymakers as they develop and promote supplier collaborations and supply chain integrations. 6.2. Limitations and further research While our study offers important insights into the role of trust as a mediator between buyer perceptions of supplier performance and information sharing, it is not without limitations. First, we need to acknowledge that we agree with graca etal. (2015) about the two-way relationship between trust and information sharing, and we accept that in this study, only one way was fully analysed. We would urge future research to capture the bi-directional nature of this relationship. second, the survey was distributed to only orchid exporters in thailand, which may limit the generalisability of the results. to address this limitation, future research should include the supplier perspective and collect data from other industries and countries to compare the findings. third, our study does not account for any specific cultural characteristics; however, we believe that trust is a culturally contingent construct and would be dependent on its context and the respondent’s set of beliefs and behaviours. hence, future studies could investigate the level of individualism or collectivism, the power distance, and/or the uncertainty avoidance of the buyer firms to enhance our understanding of buyer-supplier trust building. additionally, longitudinal analysis and in-depth case studies could provide more comprehensive insights into the ongoing relationship elements beyond what a cross-sectional research design can capture. longitudinal and dyadic data collection would provide a better understanding of the development of trust in buyer-supplier relationships. Finally, we agree with Papadopoulos etal. (2022), who explained that under the high volatility and uncertainty observed in emerging economies, sMes will rapidly deploy digital technologies to increase their performance and efficiency. Big data, artificial intelligence (ai), and blockchain are reshaping supply chains and facilitating information sharing, which will enable sMes to rapidly develop new types of trust (Brookbanks & Parry, 2022; Müller etal., 2020). We would encourage researchers to study this promising area further in the context of trust and information sharing. cOgent Business & ManageMent 15 Acknowledgement We would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. Authors’ contribution the authors confirm their contribution to the paper as follows: study initiation: suntichai Kotcharin, Benjamin Dehe, Pattana Boonchoo. study conception and design: suntichai Kotcharin, Benjamin Dehe, Pattana Boonchoo. Data analysis and interpretation: suntichai Kotcharin, Benjamin Dehe, Pattana Boonchoo. Draft manuscript: suntichai Kotcharin, Benjamin Dehe. Manuscript preparation: suntichai Kotcharin, Benjamin Dehe, Pattana Boonchoo. all authors have reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscripts. Furthermore, all authors are accountable for all aspects of the work. Disclosure statement no potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Ethical approval this study has been reviewed and approved by the human Research ethics committee of thammasat university (social sciences), as evidenced by the issuance of certificate of approval no. 131/2566. Statement of informed consent the human Research ethics committee has granted a waiver of written informed consent for this research, as the study participants do not belong to a vulnerable group, the research involves no more than minimal risk, and the questionnaire is designed to be anonymous. informed consent was obtained verbally from the respondents when they were invited to participate in the study. Funding no funding was received for this research. About the authors Suntichai Kotcharin is an associate Professor in international Business, logistics, and transport at thammasat Business school, thammasat university, thailand. suntichai is a member of thammasat university’s centre for excellence in Operations Management and information Management. suntichai’s research interests are in the areas of transportation finance, logistics, supply chain management, and esg. Benjamin Dehe is an associate Professor in supply chain Management at auckland university of technology, specialising in industry 4.0 technologies and digital transformation. his research explores how these innovations impact productivity and sustainability within supply chains and manufacturing firms. his work has been published in prominent national and international journals, including the international Journal of Operations and Production Management, Journal of technology transfer, the Journal of Business Research, and Production Planning & control. Pattana Boonchoo is an assistant Professor of Marketing at thammasat Business school, thammasat university. his research focuses on international marketing, entrepreneurial marketing, and tourism and hospitality marketing. ORCID suntichai Kotcharin http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5633-004X Benjamin Dehe http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3016-1871 Pattana Boonchoo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9731-764X Data availability statement the participants of this study did not provide written consent for their data to be shared publicly. Due to the sensitive nature of the research, supporting data is not available for public access. 16 s. KOtchaRin etal. References ahamed, a. J., & noboa, F. (2022). interconnectedness of trust-commitment-export performance dimensions: a model of the contingent effect of calculative commitment. Cogent Business & Management, 9(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/23311975.2022.2088461 ahamed, a. J., & noboa, F. (2023). Driving performance in exporter-importer exchange relationships: the efficacy of interorganizational trust as a response to exchange risks. Cogent Business & Management, 10(3), 2256953. https:// doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2256953 ahmad, R., nawaz, M. R., ishaq, M. i., Khan, M. M., & ashraf, h. a. (2022). social exchange theory: systematic review and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1015921. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1015921 akrout, h., Diallo, M. F., akrout, W., & chandon, J. l. (2016). affective trust in buyer-seller relationships: a two-dimensional scale. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31(2), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JBiM-11-2014-0223 alshurideh, M., Kurdi, B., alzoubi, h., Obeidat, B., hamadneh, s., & ahmad, a. (2022). the influence of supply chain partners’ integrations on organizational performance: the moderating role of trust. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 10(4), 1191–1202. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2022.8.009 assis, M. t. Q. M., lucas, M. R. D. P. V., & Rainho, M. M. (2023). the influence of trust for sustainable agri-food production: empirical evidence of a mariculturist supply chain in southern Brazil. British Food Journal, 125(12), 4268– 4290. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-08-2022-0734 aurier, P., & n’goala, g. (2010). the differing and mediating roles of trust and relationship commitment in service relationship maintenance and development. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(3), 303–325. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11747-009-0163-z Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, l. W. (1991). assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421–458. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393203 Barney, J. B., & hansen, M. h. (1994). trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15(s1), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150912 Barry, J. M., Dion, P., & Johnson, W. (2008). a cross-cultural examination of relationship strength in B2B services. Journal of Services Marketing, 22(2), 114–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040810862868 Baruch, Y., & holtom, B. c. (2008). survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139–1160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708094863 Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. g. (1980). significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588 Bhattarai, s., lyne, M. c., & Martin, s. K. (2013). assessing the performance of a supply chain for organic vegetables from a smallholder perspective. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, 3(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/JaDee-12-2012-0031 Bianchi, c., & abu saleh, M. (2020). investigating sMe importer–foreign supplier relationship trust and commitment. Journal of Business Research, 119, 572–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.023 Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Willey. Bloemer, J., Pluymaekers, M., & Odekerken, a. (2013). trust and affective commitment as energizing forces for export performance. International Business Review, 22(2), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2012.05.002 Blome, c., Paulraj, a., Preuss, l., & Roehrich, J. K. (2023). trust and opportunism as paradoxical tension: implications for achieving sustainability in buyer-supplier relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 108, 94–107. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.11.006 Bodendorf, F., Xie, Q., Merkl, P., & Franke, J. (2022). a multi-perspective approach to support collaborative cost management in supplier-buyer dyads. International Journal of Production Economics, 245no., 108380. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108380 Bokrantz, J., & Dul, J. (2023). Building and testing necessity theories in supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 59(1), 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12287 Brookbanks, M., & Parry, g. (2022). the impact of a blockchain platform on trust in established relationships: a case study of wine supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 27(7), 128–146. https://doi. org/10.1108/scM-05-2021-0227 cai, s., Jun, M., & Yang, Z. (2010). implementing supply chain information integration in china: the role of institutional forces and trust. Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28(3), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jom.2009.11.005 cannon, J. P., Doney, P. M., Mullen, M. R., & Petersen, K. J. (2010). Building long-term orientation in buyer–supplier relationships: the moderating role of culture. Journal of Operations Management, 28(6), 506–521. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.02.002 cao, M., Vonderembse, M. a., Zhang, Q., & Ragu-nathan, t. s. (2010). supply chain collaboration: conceptualization and instrument development. International Journal of Production Research, 48(22), 6613–6635. https://doi. org/10.1080/00207540903349039 carey, s., lawson, B., & Krause, D. R. (2011). social capital configuration, legal bonds and performance in buyer–supplier relationships. Journal of Operations Management, 29(4), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.08.003 cOgent Business & ManageMent 17 casidy, R., & Yan, l. (2022). the effects of supplier B2B sustainability positioning on buyer performance: the role of trust. Industrial Marketing Management, 102, 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.02.005 chamola, D., Dey, a. K., sahay, a., & singh, R. (2022). Building members’ trust in a producer company through social capital. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, 12(5), 809–823. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JaDee-11-2020-0276 charterina, J., landeta, J., & Basterretxea, i. (2018). Mediation effects of trust and contracts on knowledge-sharing and product innovation: evidence from the european machine tool industry. European Journal of Innovation Management, 21(2), 274–293. https://doi.org/10.1108/eJiM-03-2017-0030 chen, t., liu, c., & Xu, X. (2022). coordination of perishable product supply chains with a joint contract under yield and demand uncertainty. Sustainability, 14(19), 12658. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912658 cheung, M. s., Myers, M. B., & Mentzer, J. (2011). the value of relational learning in global buyer-supplier exchanges: a dyadic perspective and test of the pie-sharing premise. Strategic Management Journal, 32(10), 1061–1082. https:// doi.org/10.1002/smj.926 corsten, D., & Felde, J. (2005). exploring the performance effects of key‐supplier collaboration: an empirical investigation into swiss buyer‐supplier relationships. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 35(6), 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030510611666 Dadzie, K. Q., Dadzie, c. a., & Williams, a. J. (2018). trust and duration of buyer-seller relationship in emerging markets. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 33(1), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBiM-04-2017-0090 Das, t. K., & teng, B. s. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.2307/259291 Das, t. K., & teng, B. s. (2002). alliance constellations: a social exchange perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 445–456. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134389 Day, M., Fawcett, s. e., Fawcett, a. M., & Magnan, g. M. (2013). trust and relational embeddedness: exploring a paradox of trust pattern development in key supplier relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(2), 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.12.004 de Ruyter, K., Moorman, l., & lemmink, J. (2001). antecedents of commitment and trust in customer–supplier relationships in high technology markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(3), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/ s0019-8501(99)00091-7 Department of agriculture. (2011). “Strategic plan for Thai orchid in the global market” (in Thai). Retrieved March 20, 2022, from http://www.agriman.doae.go.th/home/agri1/agri1.3/strategics_2554/06_orchid2554-2559.pdf Department of international trade Promotion. (2019). “Orchid flowers” (in Thai). Retrieved June 30, 2020, from https:// oldweb.ditp.go.th/contents_attach/539560/539560.pdf 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/10.2307/1251829 Dyer, J. h., & chu, W. (2003). the role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance: empirical evidence from the united states, Japan, and Korea. Organization Science, 14(1), 57–68. https://doi. org/10.1287/orsc.14.1.57.12806 Famiyeh, s., & Kwarteng, a. (2018). supplier selection and firm performance empirical evidence from a developing country’s environment. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 35(3), 690–710. https://doi. org/10.1108/iJQRM-06-2016-0091 Ferro, c., Padin, c., svensson, g., & Payan, J. (2016). trust and commitment as mediators between economic and non-economic satisfaction in manufacturer-supplier relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBiM-07-2013-0154 Fawcett, s. e., Jin, Y. h., Fawcett, a. M., & Magnan, g. (2017). i know it when i see it: the nature of trust, trustworthiness signals, and strategic trust construction. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 28(4), 914–938. https://doi.org/10.1108/iJlM-11-2016-0268 Fishcher, c. (2013). trust and communication in european agri‐food chains. Supply Chain Management, 8(12), 208– 218. Franklin, D., & Marshall, R. (2019). adding co-creation as an antecedent condition leading to trust in business-to-business relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 77, 170–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.10.002 graca, s. s., Barry, J. M., & Doney, P. M. (2015). Performance outcomes of behavioral attributes in buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 30(7), 805–816. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBiM-04-2014-0072 gualandris, J., & Kalchschmidt, M. (2016). Developing environmental and social performance: the role of suppliers’ sustainability and buyer–supplier trust. International Journal of Production Research, 54(8), 2470–2486. https://doi.or g/10.1080/00207543.2015.1106018 ha, B. c., Park, Y. K., & cho, s. (2011). suppliers’ affective trust and trust in competency in buyers: its effect on collaboration and logistics efficiency. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(1), 56–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571111098744 hair, J. F., anderson, R. e., tatham, R. l., & Black, W. c. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Prentice-hall. hald, K. s., cordón, c., & Vollmann, t. e. (2009). towards an understanding of attraction in buyer–supplier relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(8), 960–970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.04.015 han, W., huang, Y., hughes, M., & Zhang, M. (2021). the trade-off between trust and distrust in supply chain collaboration. Industrial Marketing Management, 98, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.08.005 18 s. KOtchaRin etal. handfield, R. B., & Bechtel, c. (2002). the role of trust and relationship structure in improving supply chain responsiveness. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(4), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0019-8501(01)00169-9 ho, t. D., Dang, t. c., tran, V. h., trinh, t. h., & Banh, t. t. (2023). Factors affecting collaboration in agricultural supply chain: a case study in the north central region of Vietnam. Cogent Business & Management, 10(3), 2256072. https:// doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2256072 huang, Y., & Wilkinson, i. F. (2013). the dynamics and evolution of trust in business relationship. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(3), 455–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.02.016 ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. (2007). a cross-disciplinary exploration of entrepreneurship research. Journal of Management, 33(6), 891–927. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307307643 Kannan, V. R., & tan, K. c. (2006). Buyer‐supplier relationships: the impact of supplier selection and buyer‐supplier engagement on relationship and firm performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 36(10), 755–775. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030610714580 Ke, W., liu, h., Wei, K. K., gu, J., & chen, h. (2009). how do mediated and non-mediated power affect electronic supply chain management system adoption? the mediating effects of trust and institutional pressures. Decision Support Systems, 46(4), 839–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2008.11.008 Krause, D. R., handfield, R. B., & tyler, B. B. (2007). the relationships between supplier development, commitment, social capital accumulation and performance improvement. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 528–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.05.007 Krishna, s., & gopal, V. B. (2017). Diversifying activities of a rural cooperative bank: a case study. IASSI-Quarterly, 36(1), 97–115. Kwon, i. W., & suh, t. (2004). Factors affecting the level of trust and commitment in supply chain relationships. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 40(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2004.tb00165.x luo, J., Ji, c., Qiu, c., & Jia, F. (2018). agri-food supply chain management: Bibliometric and content analyses. Sustainability, 10(5), 1573. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051573 lusiantoro, l., Yates, n., Mena, c., & Varga, l. (2018). a refined framework of information sharing in perishable product supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 48(3), 254–283. https://doi. org/10.1108/iJPDlM-08-2017-0250 Manfredi, e., & capik, P. (2022). a case of trust‐building in the supply chain: emerging economies perspective. Strategic Change, 31(1), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2488 Matopoulos, a., Vlachopoulou, M., Manthou, V., & Manos, B. (2007). a conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration: empirical evidence from the agri-food industry. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(3), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540710742491 Müller, J. M., Veile, J. W., & Voigt, K. i. (2020). Prerequisites and incentives for digital information sharing in industry 4.0–an international comparison across data types. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 148, 106733. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106733 Mwikali, R., & Kavale, s. (2012). Factors affecting the selection of optimal suppliers in procurement management. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(14), 189–193. nahapiet, J., & ghoshal, s. (1998). social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.2307/259373 Odongo, W., Dora, M. K., Molnar, a., Ongeng, D., & gellynck, X. (2017). Role of power in supply chain performance: evidence from agribusiness sMes in uganda. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, 7(3), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1108/JaDee-09-2016-0066 Office of small and Medium enterprises Promotion. (2024). Definition of MSMEs. Retrieved March 19, 2024, from https://en.sme.go.th/en/ On, l. W., liang, X., Priem, R., & shaffer, M. (2013). top management team trust, behavioural integration and the performance of international joint ventures. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 7(2), 99–122. https://doi. org/10.1108/15587891311319413 Panahifar, F., Byrne, P. J., salam, M. a., & heavey, c. (2018). supply chain collaboration and firm’s performance: the critical role of information sharing and trust. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 31(3), 358–379. https:// doi.org/10.1108/JeiM-08-2017-0114 Papadopoulos, t., singh, s. P., spanaki, K., gunasekaran, a., & Dubey, R. (2022). towards the next generation of manufacturing: implications of big data and digitalization in the context of industry 4.0. Production Planning & Control, 33(2-3), 101–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1810767 Paparoidamis, n. g., Katsikeas, c. s., & chumpitaz, R. (2019). the role of supplier performance in building customer trust and loyalty: a cross-country examination. Industrial Marketing Management, 78, 183–197. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.02.005 Perrone, V., Zaheer, a., & Mcevily, B. (2003). Free to be trusted? Organizational constraints on trust in boundary spanners. Organization Science, 14(4), 422–439. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.4.422.17487 Phinaitrup, B. (2014). entrepreneurs’ adaptability to competitiveness in the orchid industry: a case study of thailand. Thammasat Review, 16(2), 75–92. Poole, n., & Donovan, J. (2014). Building cooperative capacity: the speciality coffee sector in nicaragua. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, 4(2), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1108/JaDee-01-2013-0002 cOgent Business & ManageMent 19 Poppo, l., Zhou, K. Z., & li, J. (2016). When can you trust “trust”? calculative trust, relational trust, and supplier performance. Strategic Management Journal, 37(4), 724–741. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2374 Qureshi, i., Fang, Y., Ramsey, e., Mccole, P., ibbotson, P., & compeau, D. (2009). understanding online customer repurchasing intention and the mediating role of trust–an empirical investigation in two developed countries. European Journal of Information Systems, 18(3), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2009.15 Rajput, a., gulzar, s., & shafi, K. (2019). impact of supplier development on supplier performance: Mediating role of trust. Business & Economic Review, 11(2), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.22547/BeR/11.2.3 Rani, h., arain, g. a., Kumar, a., & shaikh, i. R. (2018). the interplay between trust and distrust in the workplace: examining the effect of psychological contract breach on organizational disidentification. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 12(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/JaBs-02-2015-0022 Rashid, M. (2014). Supplier selection and evaluation in the context of telecom companies in Pakistan. Paper presented at the 2014 international conference on industrial engineering and Operations Management, Bali, indonesia (pp. 1525–1532). http://ieomsociety.org/ieom2014/pdfs/346.pdf Routroy, s., & Behera, a. (2017). agriculture supply chain: a systematic review of literature and implications for future research. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, 7(3), 275–302. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JaDee-06-2016-0039 sabel, c. F. (1993). studied trust: Building new forms of cooperation in a volatile economy. Human Relations, 46(9), 1133–1170. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600907 sahay, B. s. (2003). understanding trust in supply chain relationships. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 103(8), 553–563. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570310497602 selnes, F. (1998). antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer‐seller relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 32(3/4), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569810204580 stuart, F. i., Verville, J., & taskin, n. (2012). trust in buyer‐supplier relationships: supplier competency, interpersonal relationships and performance outcomes. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 25(4), 392–412. https://doi. org/10.1108/17410391211245856 timsina, K. P., Bastakoti, R. c., & shivakoti, g. P. (2016). achieving strategic fit in onion seed supply chain. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, 6(2), 127–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/JaDee-03-2014-0012 uddin, n. (2017). inter-organizational relational mechanism on firm performance: the case of australian agri-food industry supply chain. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(9), 1934–1953. https://doi.org/10.1108/iMDs-03-2016-0093 ulaga, W. (2003). capturing value creation in business relationships: a customer perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(8), 677–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.06.008 Vroegindewey, R., theriault, V., & staatz, J. (2018). coordinating cereal farmers and buyers: evidence from Mali. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, 8(2), 234–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/JaDee-11-2016-0075 Wagner, s. M., & Krause, D. R. (2009). supplier development: communication approaches, activities and goals. International Journal of Production Research, 47(12), 3161–3177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540701740074 Wang, Q., liu, X., huo, B., & Zhao, X. (2023). economic or relational first? establishing the competitiveness of third-party logistics information sharing by devoting specific assets and mutual trust. International Journal of Production Economics, 261, 108869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2023.108869 Wang, Z., Ye, F., & tan, K. h. (2014). effects of managerial ties and trust on supply chain information sharing and supplier opportunism. International Journal of Production Research, 52(23), 7046–7061. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020 7543.2014.932931 Welker, g. a., van der Vaart, t., & van Donk, D. P. (2008). the influence of business conditions on supply chain information-sharing mechanisms: a study among supply chain links of sMes. International Journal of Production Economics, 113(2), 706–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.04.016 Westland, c. J. (2010). lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(6), 476–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.04.016 Whipple, J. M., lynch, D. F., & nyaga, g. n. (2010). a buyer’s perspective on collaborative versus transactional relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(3), 507–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.11.008 Wu, W. P. (2008). Dimensions of social capital and firm competitiveness improvement: the mediating role of information sharing. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1), 122–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00741.x Wu, i. l., chuang, c. h., & hsu, c. h. (2014). information sharing and collaborative behaviours in enabling supply chain performance: a social exchange perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 148, 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.09.016 Yang, Z., Jia, F., & cai, s. (2014). the performance implications of perceptual differences of dependence in marketing channels: the mediating role of trust. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 26(3), 344–364. https://doi. org/10.1108/aPJMl-12-2013-0154 Zaheer, a., Mcevily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? exploring the effects of inter-organizational and inter-personal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.141 Zhao, X., lynch, J. g., Jr., & chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. pp. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257 Zhou, R. (2022). Research on influencing factors of supply chain trust and commitment based on transaction cost and social exchange theory. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 10(09), 530–548. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2022.109032