Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

When does justice drive alliance success? Direct and moderating effects based on transaction cost theory

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although the role of justice has long been documented in organizational contexts, little is known about the relative effects of distinct types of justice in inter-organizational relationships. Building on transaction cost theory (TCT), our research investigates how procedural justice and distributive justice affect alliance success differentially and under what conditions these effects are amplified or weakened. Results derived from a sample of 410 Chinese alliance firms involving two key informants per firm suggest that procedural justice has a greater influence on alliance success than distributive justice and that such a comparative effect varies across types of trust and conflict. Specifically, when alliance firms share a high level of goodwill trust or constructive conflict, they rely to a greater extent on procedural justice than on distributive justice to achieve alliance success. In contrast, when there is a high level of constructive conflict, alliance firms depend more heavily on distributive justice than on procedural justice to achieve success. Our study extends TCT to explain how, in the context of Chinese culture, firms employ appropriate tools of justice in ongoing alliances.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange[J]. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2(4), 267–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahlstrom, D., & Bruton, G. (2001). Learning from successful local private firms in China: Establishing legitimacy. Academy of Management Executive, 15(4), 72–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akram, T., Lei, S., Haider, M. J., Hussain, S., & Puig, L. C. (2017). The effect of organizational justice on knowledge sharing: Empirical evidence from the chinese telecommunications sector. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 2(3), 134–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. N. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1(2), 177–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision-making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. J. (1997). The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23(4), 495–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amason, A. C., & Schweiger, D. M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision-making, and organizational performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5(3), 239–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

  • Ariño, A., & Ring, P. S. (2010). The role of fairness in alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 31(10), 1054–1087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariño, A., La Torre, J. D., & Ring, P. S. (2001). Relational quality: Managing trust in corporate alliances. California Management Review, 44(1), 109–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balakrishnan, S., & Koza, M. P. (1993). Information asymmetry, adverse selection and joint ventures. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 20(1), 99–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, B. H., Postlethwaite, B. E., Klotz, A. C., Hamdani, M. R., & Brown, K. G. (2012). Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 151–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, J. (2002). Making sense of procedural fairness: How high procedural fairness can reduce or heighten the influence of outcome favorability. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 58–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, J., & Siegel, P. (1995). In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Understanding the interaction between procedural and distributive justice: The role of trust in Organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 391–413). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromiley, P., & Cummings, L. L. (1995). Transaction costs in organizations with trust. In: Bies, Robert J., Lewicki, Roy J., Sheeppad, Blair H. (Eds.), Research on Negotiations in Organizations. JAI Press, Greenwich.

  • Bromiley, P., Harris, J. (2006). Trust, transaction cost economics, and mechanisms. In: Bachmann, Reinhard, Zaheer, Akbar (Eds.), Handbook of Trust Research. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

  • Brown, J. R., Dev, C. S., & Lee, D. J. (2000). Managing marketing channel opportunism: The efficiency of alternative governance mechanisms. Journal of Marketing, 64(2), 51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. R., Cobb, A. T., & Lusch, R. F. (2006). The roles played by interorganizational contracts and justice in marketing channel relationships. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 166–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. C., Choi, J., & Chi, S. C. (2002). Making justice sense of local-expatriate compensation disparity: Mitigation by local referents, ideological explanations, and interpersonal sensitivity in China-foreign joint ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 807–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., Friedman, R., Yu, E., et al. (2011). Examining the positive and negative effects of guanxi practices: A multi-level analysis of guanxi practices and procedural justice perceptions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(2), 715–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosno, J. L., & Dahlstrom, R. (2008). A meta-analytic review of opportunism in exchange relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2), 191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, T. K., & Rahman, N. (2010). Determinants of partner opportunism in strategic alliances: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(1), 55–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, T. K., & Teng, B. (2001). Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. Organization Studies, 22(2), 251–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dechurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Maximizing the benefits of task conflict: The role of conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(1), 4–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elgoibar, P., Munduate, L., & Euwema, M. (2016). Building trust and constructive conflict management in organizations. In P. Elgoibar, M. Euwema, & L. Munduate (Eds.), Building trust and constructive conflict management in organizations. Industrial Relations & Conflict Management. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31475-4_1

  • Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, D. A., Harvey, M., & Lusch, R. F. (2006). Social exchange in supply chain relationships: The resulting benefits of procedural and distributive justice. Journal of Operations Management, 24(2), 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haar, J. M., & Spell, C. S. (2009). How does distributive justice affect work attitudes? The moderating effects of autonomy. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(8), 1827–1842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauenstein, N. M. A., McGonigle, T., & Flinder, S. W. (2001). A meta-analysis of the relationship between procedural justice and distributive justice: Implications for justice research. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 13(1), 39–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hearld, L. R., Alexander, J. A., Bodenschatz, L., et al. (2013). Decision-making justice and consensus building in multisector community health alliances: A mixed‐methods analysis. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 24(2), 139–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemmert, L., Bstieler, M., Okamuro, H. (2016). Bridging the cultural divide: Trust formation in university–industry research collaborations in the US, Japan, and South Korea. Technovation, 34(10), 605–616.

  • Hill, C. W. L. (1990). Cooperation, opportunism, and the invisible hand: Implications for transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 15(3), 500–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B. W., & Folger, R. (2004). Fairness and transaction costs: The contribution of organizational justice theory to an integrative model of economic organization. Organization Science, 15(6), 719–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, D. B., Golemon, P. L., Chen, Y., et al. (2009). Guanxi and business ethics in confucian society today: An empirical case study in Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2), 235–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilies, R., Wagner, D. T., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Explaining affective linkage in teams: Individual differences in susceptibility to contagion and individualism-collectivism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1140–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, O., De Vliert, E. V., & Veenstra, C. (1999). How task and person conflict shape the role of positive interdependence in management teams. Journal of Management, 25(2), 117–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K., & Mannix, E. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, F., & Jiang, X. (2019). The contingent value of resource complementarity for alliance performance: Evidence from chinese manufacturing firms. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 66(3), 354–367.

  • Jiang, X., Bao, Y., Xie, Y., & Gao, S. (2015). Partner trustworthiness, knowledge flow in strategic alliances, and firm competitiveness: A contingency perspective. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 804–814.

  • Jiang, X., Jiang, F., Arino, A., & Peng, M. W. (2017). Uncertainty, adaptation, and alliance performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 64(4), 605–615.

  • Johnson, J. P., Korsgaard, M. A., & Sapienza, H. J. (2002). Perceived justice, decision control, and commitment in international joint venture management teams. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1141–1160.

  • Kale, P., & Singh, H. (2007). Building firm capabilities through learning: The role of the alliance learning process in alliance capability and firm-level alliance success. Strategic Management Journal, 28(10), 981–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1998). Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and the knowledge economy. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural fairness and its impact on business organizations. Journal of Management, 26(4), 489–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 60–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, M. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Schweiger, D. M. (2002). Beaten before begun: The role of procedural justice in planning change. Journal of Management, 28(4), 497–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. (1995). The effects of supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(1), 54–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, D. M., & Harrington, T. C. (1990). Measuring nonresponse in customer service mail surveys. Journal of Business Logistics, 11(2), 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larcker, D. F., & Rusticus, T. O. (2010). On the use of instrumental variables in accounting research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 49(3), 186–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L., Jiang, F., Pei, Y., & Jiang, N. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation and strategic alliance success: The contingency role of relational factors. Journal of Business Research, 72(72), 46–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, B. T., & Loosemore, M. (2017). The effect of inter-organizational justice perceptions on organizational citizenship behaviors in construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 35(2), 95–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X. (2015). How does procedural justice climate influence individual outcomes? An affective perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(3), 771–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R. H., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1995). A field study of distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10(1), 99–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lui, S. S. (2009). The role of competence trust, formal contract, and time horizon in inter-organizational learning. Organization Science, 30(4), 333–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lui, S. S., & Ngo, H. Y. (2004). The role of trust and contractual safeguards on cooperation in non-equity alliances. Journal of Management, 30(4), 471–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumineau, F., Eckerd, S., & Handley, S. (2015). Inter-organizational conflicts: Research overview, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Strategic Contracting & Negotiation, 1(1), 42–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y. (2003). Industrial dynamics and managerial networking in an emerging market: The case of China. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1315–1327.

  • Luo, Y. (2005). How important are shared perceptions of procedural justice in cooperative alliances? Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 695–709.

  • Luo, Y. (2007). The independent and interactive roles of procedural, distributive, and interactional justice in strategic alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 644–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y. (2008). Procedural justice and interfirm cooperation in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y., Liu, Y., Yang, Q., Maksimov, V., & Hou, J. (2015). Improving performance and reducing cost in buyer–supplier relationships: The role of justice in curtailing opportunism. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 607–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, D., & Lumineau, F. (2011). Trust and collaboration in the aftermath of conflict: The effects of contract structure. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 981–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikula, G., Petri, B., & Tanzer, N. K. (1990). What people regard as unjust: Types and structures of everyday experiences of injustice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20(2), 133–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mo, S., Booth, B. A., & Wang, Z. (2012). How do chinese firms deal with inter-organizational conflict? Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 121–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molm, L. D., Collett, J. L., & Schaefer, D. R. (2006). Conflict and fairness in social exchange. Social Forces, 84(4), 2331–2352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narasimhan, R., Narayanan, S., & Srinivasan, R. (2013). An investigation of justice in supply chain relationships and their performance impact. Journal of Operations Management, 31(5), 236–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noorderhaven, N. G. (1992). The problem of contract enforcement in economic organization theory. Organization Studies, 13(2), 229–243.

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • Özgan, H. (2011). The relationships between organizational justice, confidence, commitment, and evaluating the manager and the perceptions of conflict management at the context of organizational behavior. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(1), 229–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penney, C. R., & Combs, J. G. (2019). A transaction cost perspective of alliance portfolio diversity. Journal of Management Studies, 57(6), 1074–1105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinkley, R. (1990). Dimensions of the conflict frame: Disputant interpretations of conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 117–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuer, J. J., & Koza, M. P. (2000). Asymmetric information and joint venture performance: Theory and evidence for domestic and international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 21(1), 81–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindfleisch, A. (2020). Transaction cost theory: Past, present and future. Academy of Marketing Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-019-00151-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: Past, present, and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 30–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ring, P. S. (1997). Processes facilitating reliance on trust in inter-organizational networks. In: M. Ebers (Ed.), The formation of inter-organizational networks[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Rose, G. M., & Shohan, A. (2004). Interorganizational task and emotional conflict with international channels of distribution. Journal of Business Research, 57(9), 942–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samaha, S. A., Palmatier, R. W., & Dant, R. P. (2011). Poisoning relationships: Perceived unfairness in channels of distribution. Journal of Marketing, 75(3), 99–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Şengün, A. E., & Wasti, S. N. (2007). Trust, control, and risk: A test of Das and Teng’s conceptual framework for pharmaceutical buyer–supplier relationships. Group & Organization Management, 32(4), 430–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serrat, O. (2017). Conflict in organizations. Knowledge Solutions[M]. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_83

  • Shen, L., Wang, Y., & Teng, W. (2017). The moderating effect of interdependence on contracts in achieving equity versus efficiency in interfirm relationships. Journal of Business Research, 78(9), 277–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi, W., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B. C., & Peng, M. W. (2014). Domestic alliance network to attract foreign partners: Evidence from international joint ventures in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(3), 338–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, M., Dyer, B., & Thieme, R. J. (2006). Conflict management and innovation performance: An integrated contingency perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(3), 341–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, R., Narayanan, S., & Narasimhan, R. (2018). An investigation of justice, conflict, and moderating effects of supplier autonomy and cultural distance in buyer-supplier relationships. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 65(1), 6–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 265–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold, D., Wan, P., & Tang, M. M. L. (2016). Trust and managing conflict: Partners in developing organizations. In P. Elgoibar, M. Euwema, & L. Munduate (Eds.), Building trust and constructive conflict management in organizations. Industrial relations & conflict management. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31475-4_4

  • Trada, S., & Goyal, V. (2017). The dual effects of perceived unfairness on opportunism in channel relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 64(7), 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 850–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welbourne, T. M., Balkin, D. B., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1995). Gainsharing a mutual monitoring, a combined agency-organizational justice interpretation. Academy Management Journal, 38(3), 881–899.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. Free Press, New York.

  • Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. Free Press, New York.

  • Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 269–296.

  • Williamson, O. E. (1996). The mechanisms of governance. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (2010). Transaction cost economics: The origins. Journal of Retailing, 86(3), 227–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, M. (2010). Guanxi management as complex adaptive systems: A case study of Taiwanese ODI in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(3), 419–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. The MIT Press.

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2006). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. South-Western.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xin, K. R., & Pearce, J. L. (1996). Guanxi: Connections as substitutes for formal institutional support. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1641–1658.

  • Zaefarian, G., Najafi-Tavani, Z., Henneberg, S. C., & Naudé, P. (2016). Do supplier perceptions of buyer fairness lead to supplier sales growth? Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 160–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effect of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhong, W., Su, C., Peng, J., & Yang, Z. (2017). Trust in interorganizational relationships: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1050–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (72272121; 71872147) and the Soft Science Research Project of Shaanxi Province (2019KRM013).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics and Management, Xi’an University of Technology, Xi’an, China

    Mi Che

  2. School of Management, Xi ’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China

    Xu Jiang & Yun-Long Pei

Authors
  1. Mi Che
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xu Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yun-Long Pei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xu Jiang.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Managerial relevance statement

Our research examines the effects of procedural justice and distributive justice on alliance success in a comparative contingent framework in the context in which Chinese firms form alliances. This examination offers alliance managers useful insights into how they can employ tools of justice appropriately by testing which type of justice is superior to the other and under what conditions one type of justice plays a more important role than the other one does. Managers are cautioned against taking on the risk involved in recognizing the varied comparative effects of justice types without considering an important fact, namely that trust and conflict vary by type, and differences between those types may influence the effectiveness of justice as a governance tool driving alliance success. Instead, managers should assess their ongoing relationships by considering these relational factors as contingencies. In particular, they should consider the atmosphere surrounding a collaboration when utilizing alliance justice.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Table 4 Reliability and validity (N = 410)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Che, M., Jiang, X. & Pei, YL. When does justice drive alliance success? Direct and moderating effects based on transaction cost theory. Asia Pac J Manag (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09898-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09898-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation