Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges Vol. 15, iss. 2., December 2024 doi: 10.2478/jlst-2024-0004 Article History: Received March 2024; Revised May 2024; Accepted June 2024 ©2024 The Authors. Published by Sciendo on behalf of University of Maribor, Faculty of Logistics, Slovenia. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license 10 The influence of negotiation approaches on supplier relationship management in Zimbabwe's fast-food industry Paul MUKUCHA 1 , Felix CHARI 2 *, Divaries Cosmas JARAVAZA 1 , and Victor SHUMBA 3 1 Bindura University of Science Education/Marketing Department, Bindura, Zimbabwe 2 Bindura University of Science Education/Economics Department, Bindura, Zimbabwe 3 Lupane State University/Department of Business Management, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe *Corresponding Author Abstract — Supplier Relationship Management (SRM) has become a cornerstone of business success since the transformation of the procurement function to supply chain management. Extant literature has documented various predictors of vibrant supplier relationships. However, missing in the extant literature is the potential of negotiation approaches to cultivation of healthy supplier relationships. This study therefore sought to determine the influence of negotiation approaches on SRM. A sample of 150 dyadic transactions in the fast-food restaurant industry was surveyed. The broad dichotomous categorisation of negotiation methods into distributive and integrative approaches was used. SRM was operationalised using dimensions such as commitment, trust, communication, adaptation, and satisfaction. After conducting a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) the results revealed that the distributive strategy was weakly linked to supplier relationship, while a strong supplier relationship was observed in the use of integrative negotiation strategy. It was therefore recommended that procurement practitioners must employ integrative negotiation strategies and tactics in order to create sustainable supplier relationship management. Index Terms — distributive negotiation, integrative negotiation, supplier relationship management, fast-food industry I. INTRODUCTION Procurement function no longer relies on the traditional discrete transactions that are characterised by simple transfer of ownership (Ghijsen Semeijin & Ernston, 2009). Increasingly, most firms are turning to Supplier Relationship Management (SRM) (Oduro, Nyarku & Gbadeyan, 2020). SRM is defined as a set of practices and methods for dealing with suppliers of vital inputs that are critical in the profit attainment goal and competitive advantage (O’Brin, 2013; Lambert & Schwiterman, 2012; Fogg, 2009). SRM has of recent become increasingly more important as suppliers are no longer competing for buyers, but rather it is the buyers who are now competing for suppliers (Vos, Schiele & Huttinger, 2016). Healthy buyer-supplier relationships are central in sustainable supply chain management processes (Lynch, 2010), and are a key source of competitive advantage (Schiele, Veldman & Huttinger, 2011). SRM is the surrogate of Customer Relationship Marketing (CRM) practised on the other side of the supply chain in what is often referred to as reverse marketing (Leenders & Blenkhorn, 1988). The trend of reverse marketing is influenced by the growing scarcity of suitable suppliers (Cordon & Vollman, 2008). This has resulted in buyers seeking to present a favourable image to the suppliers so as to be granted the preferred customer status and attain supplier loyalty (Schiele, Calvi & Gilbert, 2012). This has been motivated by the fact that effective supplier relationship management leads to reductions in late deliveries, reductions in supply of substandard and missing items, minimisation of refusal to supply, and eradication of arbitrary price increases (Larson & Kulchitsky, 2000). Moreover, effective SRM leads to proprietary skills for new product development, and act as a form of good governance practice (Gyampah, Boakye, Adaku, & Famiyeh, 2019; Dyer, 1998). In the extant literature there is a scarcity of the determinants of an effective SRM. However, negotiation seems to be a plausible prerequisite for sustainable SRM (Lysons & Farrington, 2020). Negotiation is a complex social process involving decision making aimed at resolving opposing interests (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2011). The most common characteristics of negotiations are that there are two or more parties involved, there is a conflict of needs, and there should be a compromise position at the conclusion of the negotiation process (O’Brien, 2013). Negotiation is pervasive in most situations ranging from courtship to Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges Vol. 15, iss. 2., December 2024 doi: 10.2478/jlst-2024-0004 11 commerce (O’Brien, 2013). Negotiations are usually appropriate for strategic items where there is a considerable degree of symmetric power (Caniels & Gelderman, 2005). Symmetric power entails that a buyer and a supplier equally rely on each other (Hoejmose, Grosvold & Millington, 2013). Strategic items are goods and services that have got high profit impact and supply risk (Kraljic, 1983). The risk inherent in strategic items emanates from the fact that they are usually acquired through single sourcing hence the need for negotiation to get value for money (Kralijic, 1983). However, the effect of negotiation approaches on supplier relationships management in food industry has been largely unexamined, and therefore warrants investigation. It is a common knowledge that both distributive and integrative approaches to negotiation are widely practiced in most procurement processes. However, missing in the extant literature is the differential effects of these two negotiation approaches in creating sustainable supplier relationships. Therefore, the thrust of this study is to determine the best negotiation approach in terms of creating appropriate supplier relationships. Thus, the main research question in this study is premised in what is the best negotiation approach for creating solid buyer-supplier relationships? Henceforth, the rest of this study is organised as follows: literature review of the association between negotiation approaches and supplier relationship management, the relevant research methodology, data analysis and empirical findings presentation, and lastly conclusions and recommendations. II. LITERATURE REVIEW Negotiation is located at the formative stages of a buyer-seller relationship (Lysons & Farrington, 2012). The creation of a sustainable relationship is therefore premised on the negotiation approaches adopted by both parties to a transaction (Benton, 2014). It is therefore plausible to suggest that the negotiation process is antecedent to the supplier relationships. This is despite the is an equally compelling school of thought that suggest that the nature of supplier relationships may be a predictor of the negotiation approaches that may be adopted by the transacting partners. A. Negotiation approaches Negotiation is defined as the discussion between parties aimed at reaching a mutual agreement (Pruitt, 1981). Negotiations in supply chain management cover a broad spectrum of issues ranging from price, quality, delivery, payment, and after-sale services (Lysons & Farrington, 2020). Negotiation strategies are generaly configured as an integrative and distributive dichotomy (Canet-Giner & Sqorin-Iborra, 2007; Henderson & Cool 2010), implying that it is either creating or claiming value (Sebentus, 1992), despite that there are other approaches in the extant literature (Gyampah, Boakye, Adaku & Famiyeh, 2019). B. Distributive approach The distributive approach is a negotiation strategy that is characterised by zero-sum transaction over a fixed limited resource (Krause, Terpend & Peterson, 2006). It is also known as competitive, win-lose, or hard bargaining Chopra, Meindl & Kalra, 2016). This approach aims at gaining a larger slice of a fixed pie at the expense of a negotiating partner (Amanatullah, Morris & Curhan, 2008). This approach is predatorial in nature premised on the proverbial value claiming strategy while defending against an opponent who is believed to be pursuing the same strategy (Zachariassen, 2008; Calhoun & Smith, 1999). It aims at winning at all costs without regarding the concerns of the other party (Calhoun & Smith, 1999). Distributive outcomes are associated with conflicting goals usually emanating from limited resources leading to a win-lose situation (Barthelmess, 2018). The tactics employed in the distributive negotiations are the manipulation of information flow and application of time pressure (Lewicki, Saunders & Minton, 2015). Distributive approach involves issues such as haggling over a price to be paid (Barry & Friedman, 19998). However, the distributive approach found support from academics such as Pruitt and Cornevale (1993) who emphasised on the importance of making high demands and few concessions. Distributive negotiation works where there is Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges Vol. 15, iss. 2., December 2024 doi: 10.2478/jlst-2024-0004 12 power inequality, and therefore once the imbalance in power fades the concluded agreement is unlikely to last (Albin, 2019). C. Integrative approach The integrative approach is a negotiation strategy that is characterised by value creation, focus on mutual interests, problem restructuring, and open exchange of information (Bazerman & Moore, 2008; Grant 2005). In the integrative approach one party’s gains should not necessarily lead to the other party’s losses (Lysons & Farrington, 2016). It is therefore a win-win situation where the parties involved end up with a mutually acceptable outcome (Lax & Sebenius, 1986). Integrative approaches have been attributed to stronger relationships that are sustainable (De Dreu et al., 2000). The integrative outcome is characterised by both the negotiating sides achieving their goals in a win-win situation (Barthelmess, Enzmann, Settlen & Scharmeli, 2018). Due to a win-win situation that characterises the integrative negotiations, this approach tends to take a long-term orientation in its operations (Lewicki, Saunders & Minton, 2001). The integrative negotiation leverage on free flow of information and the desire by both parties to understand each other’s latent and manifest needs and objectives (Grant 2005; Lewicki et al., 2015). To achieve its objectives, the integrative approach employs tactics such as depersonalising the problem, separation of the problem definition from the solution, generation of alternatives, and expansion of resources for the benefit of both parties (Krause, Terpend & Peterson, 2006). However, negotiators who align themselves with integrative negotiations are often considered weak by those around them (Falcao, 2013). Integrative negotiation is generally preferable for all involved in negotiation, as the needs and concerns of both sides will be met to some degree and builds long-term relationships (Park, Rahman, Suh & Hussin, 2019; Albin, 2019). The choice of negotiation strategy is, therefore, critical in negotiation outcomes and supplier relationship management. D. Supplier relationship management Supplier relationship management is defined as a comprehensive approach to developing and managing a firm’s interactions with suppliers of goods and services (Trent, 2005). The supplier relationship management process is anchored on several descriptive and normative theories such as the Network Theory (NT), Transaction Cost Economies (TCE) (Brouthers & Hennart, 2007), and the Social Exchange Theory (SET) (BALU, 1964). Under the NT, a network is an arrangement characterising recurrent contractual links involving independent firms (Borgati & Foster, 2003; Dierderen & Jonkers, 2001). Sustainable networks in the buyer- seller relationships leverage on economic bases, technology, expertise, trust, and legitimacy as sources of power (Thorelli, 1986). The TCE provides a framework for managing the buyer-supplier relationships with the focus on issues such as contract management and asset investment (Brouthers & Hennart, 2007). The TCE is mainly concerned with the cost of transaction rather than the cost of production. The TCE includes some governance mechanisms that are meant to avoid uncertainties and act as mitigation strategies in a relationship (Luo, Liu, Yang, Maksimov & Hou, 2015). Insights drawn from this theory leads to deductions such as that the strength of buyer-supplier relationship is leveraged on transaction costs (Claro, Zylbersztajin & Omta, 2004). Usually, the determination of transaction costs is done through surrogate measurements like transaction specific investments such as human and physical assets. However, the shortcomings of the TCE theory are that it ignores the other relationships that are within the peripheries of the focal transaction (Claro et al., 2004). The other theory that is pervasive in understanding SRM is the SET. Previous research has applied the SET framework in understanding both negotiation strategies (e.g., Bottom et al., 2006; Wolfe & McGinn, 2005; Kingshott, 2006; Granovetter, 2005; Luo, 2002), and supplier relationships (Wagner, Coley & Lindermann, 2011). The SET explains that the norms involved in reciprocating benefits (Goulder, 1960) between interacting partners, and parties are motivated by the benefits they obtain from a relationship (Thibaut & Kelly, 1959). SET posits that interacting parties expect rewards and avoid penalties during interpersonal transactions (Bandura, 1986). SET is premised on the concept of reciprocity. This implies that actions of the parties elicit reciprocal behaviour of almost the same magnitude (Griffin et al., 2006). Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges Vol. 15, iss. 2., December 2024 doi: 10.2478/jlst-2024-0004 13 E. Hypotheses development Commitment (H1) Commitment is the willingness and an enduring desire of trading partners to sustain a relationship (Moorman, Zaltman & Deshpande, 1992). In literature commitment is identified as either calculative or affective (Kumar, Hibbard & Stern, 1994). Calculative commitment relates to the consideration of both relationship inputs and outputs (Evanschitzky, Iyer, Plassmann, Niessing & Meffert, 2016; Fullerton, 2005). Partners will only abide in a relationship when the benefits realised outweigh the costs incurred. In affective relationship there is a general predisposition towards liking the relationships despite its upsets (Hsiao, Shen & Chao, 2015). Usually, sustainable relationships are established through affective commitment, although calculative commitment usually acts as a precursor to affective commitment. It is therefore prudent to deduce that calculative commitment is associated with distributive negotiation strategies while affective commitment has a strong affinity towards integrative negotiation strategies. It is therefore hypothesised that; H1: Negotiation approaches yield significantly different supplier commitment levels with the levels of commitment expected to be higher under the integrative scenario than under the distributive scenario Trust (H2) Trust is defined as the willingness of partners to regard each other as credible or the reliance that exchange partners have on each other (Moorman et al., 1992). There is a diversity of approaches to understanding trust such as an institutional phenomenon in economics, property of relationships in sociology, and personality in psychology (Hernandez & dos Santos, 2010). While the trust concept on the face value seems to be simple, literature is littered with disparities in the conceptualisation and operationalisation of this construct (Hernandez & dos Santos, 2010). Previous research drawing from both the procurement and marketing discipline revealed that trust leads to higher levels of purchase intention (Doney & Cannon, 1997), reduction in supply chain uncertainties and supply chain conflicts reduction in opportunistic and rent seeking behaviours, enhancement of relationship satisfaction (Anderson & Nurus, 1990), establishment of sustainable relationships (Zhao & Cavusgil, 2006). Previous research has established that trust leads to sustainable supplier relationships (e.g., Farrelly & Quester, 2003; Zhao & Cavusgil, 2006). Thus, higher levels of trust are associated with the integrative approach, while lower levels of trust are associated with distributive approach. Therefore, it is hereby suggested that; H2: Negotiation approaches yield significantly different supplier trust levels with the levels of trust expected to be higher under the integrative scenario than under the distributive scenario Communication (H3) Communication is defined as the act of information sharing (Chen & Paulraj, 2004). Communication acts as necessary condition for creating commitment (Cai, Yang & Hu, 2009), and it promotes coordination of activities between partners (Wang, Wang, Jiang, Yang & Cui, 2016). The level of communication in buyer- supplier relationships is manifested through the magnitude of information exchange. Information exchange is defined by Cannon and Perreault (1999) as open sharing of vital information of proprietary nature such as cost, product development, and demand forecasts. However, open information sharing may create conditions necessary for opportunistic behaviours. Trust, then acts as a mitigating factor for rent-seeking behaviours. Distributive approach normally uses secretive communication, while open communication is one of the key features in integrative negotiation approach (O’Brien, 2013). The type of communication in distributive negotiations are characterised by manipulation, aggression, intimidation and threats (Lysons & Farrington, 2020). It is most likely that the distributive negotiation strategy with its crudeness may not lead into higher levels of proper communication, while integrative negotiation approaches with their free flow of information are likely to lead into higher levels of communication. It is therefore predicted that; Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges Vol. 15, iss. 2., December 2024 doi: 10.2478/jlst-2024-0004 14 H3: Negotiation approaches yield significantly different supplier communication levels with the levels of supplier communication expected to be higher under the integrative scenario than under the distributive scenario Adaptation (H4) Adaptation refers to modifications one by trading partners in order to meet each other’s requirements (Markherji & Francis, 2008). Adaptation in a transaction can cover a broad spectrum of issues such as total cost of ownership, quality levels, delivery schedules, and payment terms (Lysons & Farrington, 2016). It may entail willingness to vary contract terms in order to accommodate both negative and positive developments in the supply chain (Heide & Milner, 1992). Since distributive negotiations are self-centred, it is most likely that such approach is inherently unable to lead to any adaptation of business processes in order to accommodate an exchange partner, while integrative approaches are more amenable to adaptation. It therefore anticipated that; H4: Negotiation approaches yield significantly different supplier adaptation levels with the levels of adaptation expected to be higher under the integrative scenario than under the distributive scenario Satisfaction (H5) Supplier satisfaction is defined as the sense of fulfilment a supplier hold with regards to the buyer’s conduct in a series of transactions (Essig & Amann, 2009). Supplier satisfaction is also regarded as a buyer’ ability to meet a supplier’s expectations (Schiele, 2012). Traditionally, it has always been suppliers who made effort to present an attractive image in order to woo buyers (Huttinger, Shiele & Schroer, 2014). However, with the rise of the reverse marketing phenomenon, it is now the buyers who are favourably conducting themselves in order to provide supplier satisfaction (Schiele, 2012). The provision of supplier satisfaction has led buyers into gaining access to new technology (Ellis, Hence & Knull, 2012), better price deals, shorter order cycle times (Olga, 2003), better information exchange, and effective inventory management (Christianssen & Maltz, 2002). In a recent study by Sarin-Iborrra and Cubillo (2019) the levels of supplier satisfaction were shown not to be affected by either of the negotiation approaches. This contrasted a study by Fleming and Howes (2017) that showed a significant influence of negotiation approaches on the levels of supplier satisfaction. The distributive negotiation strategy’s emphasis on a win-lose outcome is likely to lead the losing party into getting dissatisfied, while a win-win situation inherent in integrative negotiations tend to generate some form of satisfaction by both of the exchange partners. It is therefore prudent to suggest that; H5: Negotiation approaches yield significantly different supplier satisfaction levels with the levels of supplier satisfaction expected to be higher under the integrative scenario than under the distributive scenario This study therefore proposes a conceptual model shown in Figure 1, below. The insights drawn from both the NT, TCE and the SET lead to the conclusion that supplier relationship management’s success depends on higher levels of commitment, mutual trust, frequency of communication, and dynamic adaptation, and satisfaction (Rajagopal & Rajagopal, 2009; Liu, Luo, & Liu, 2009; Chen & Paulraj, 2004). Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges Vol. 15, iss. 2., December 2024 doi: 10.2478/jlst-2024-0004 15 Figure 1: Proposed conceptual model The reviewed literature revealed the possible association between negotiation approaches and supplier relationship management. However, deficient in the extant literature is the empirical evidence from samples in emerging markets to validate and evaluate the postulated hypotheses. It has already been opinionated by Burgess and Steenkamp (2006) that models and theories developed from evidence collected in developed markets’ samples must be validated in emerging markets. Therefore, the sections below present the methodology adopted in collecting and analysing data, and presentations and discussions of the research findings. III. METHODOLOGY This section presents the procedures for population and sampling, instrument development, data collection, and data analysis. A. Population and sampling The population in this study were suppliers of strategic items in the fast-food restaurant industry in Zimbabwe. The fast-food restaurant industry was chosen since it is one of the most resilient industries that has witnessed exponential growth over the last decade (Mukucha, 2022; Mukucha & Jaravaza, 2021; Mukucha, Rootman & Mazibuko, 2019), and has been resilient to most of the supply chain disruption such as the COVID 19 pandemic (Mukucha & Chari, 2022). The sample was made up of 150 suppliers who were conveniently sampled. Convenience sampling though not perfect for quantitative studies whose findings are meant to be generalisable, is nevertheless more appropriate where a complete sampling frame could not be established (Zikmund & Babin, 2007). Due to the shambolic and fragmented nature of public records in most third world countries like Zimbabwe, it is always difficult to establish a complete sampling frame for most study populations. This is particularly true for the restaurant industry where official records are rarely available (Mukucha, 2021). B. Measures Negotiation approach was measured in a binary format as either distributive or integrative in a categorical format. Measures for the latent variables in this study were adopted from existing measurement scales in the extant procurement literature such as commitment (Anderson & Weitz, 1992), trust (Moorman, Deshpande & Zaltman, 1993), communication (Sin, Tse, Chow, Lee & Lau, 2005), adaptation (Markherji & Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges Vol. 15, iss. 2., December 2024 doi: 10.2478/jlst-2024-0004 16 Francis, 2008), and satisfaction (Pulles, Schiele, Veldman & Huttinger, 2006). The responses were measured using a 7-point Likert scale anchored between (1) strongly disagree and (7) strongly agree. C. Data collection procedures A self-administered questionnaire made up of the measures identified on the preceding section was distributed to the respondents. Data collected using both electronic and handy delivery method for a period of 2 weeks, and the response rate was pleasantly 100%. The high response rate was attained as a result of questionnaire administration getting conducted to consenting respondents. D. Data analysis procedures Data analysis was conducted in three stages using the Statistical Package for Social Scientist (SPSS) v 23. The first stage simply used descriptive statistics to analyse and present results on the demographic profiles of respondents. The second stage consisted of validating measurement scales for latent variables using confirmatory factory analysis (CFA). The general purpose of CFA is to determine the extent to which measurement scale items reflect the underlying hypothetical constructs (Brown, 2006). The third and last stage comprised hypotheses testing using Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). MANOVA is applicable to scenarios where the explanatory variable is binary and the outcome variables are continuous, more than one and are related (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2018). IV. RESULTS This section presents results from data analysis in three sections namely demographic profile of the respondents, measurement scales validation, and hypotheses testing. A. Demographic profile of respondents The demographic profile of respondents who participated in this study is shown in Table 1. Table 1: Demographic profile of respondents Attribute N % Position Marketing/Sales Director 17 11 Marketing/Sales Manager 63 42 Sales Representative 70 47 Gender Male 100 67 Female 50 33 Experience 0-5 yrs 30 20 6-10yrs 57 38 10-15yrs 41 27 15-20yrs 18 12 20yrs+ 5 3 Total 150 100 Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges Vol. 15, iss. 2., December 2024 doi: 10.2478/jlst-2024-0004 17 The demographic profile of respondents shown in Table 1 indicates that most of the respondents were sales reps (47%), followed by Sales/Marketing Managers (42%), and lastly Marketing/Sales directors (11%). Ideally, marketing/Sales directors were supposed to form the bulk of most of the respondents since they are the pacesetters for most strategic issues like buyer-seller relationships. However, due to the time constraints associated with their jobs they had to delegate the responding to this survey to their juniors who were either managers or sales/representatives. Males (67%) dominated the respondents, with females constituting only 33%. This is reflective of the current job market in developing countries. Lastly, the work experience for most of the respondents was in the duration category of 6-10 years (38%), while those in the 20+ years were only 3%. B. Construct validity and composite reliability The validation process was conducted using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The results are shown in Figure 2 and Table 2. Figure 2: Measurement model Table 2: Factor loadings, AVE and Shared Variance Construct Item Estimate P Value AVE CR Shared variance 1 2 3 4 5 1. Commitment CT5 0.924 *** 0.796 0.913 1 0.90 0.08 0.40 0.32 CT4 0.789 *** Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges Vol. 15, iss. 2., December 2024 doi: 10.2478/jlst-2024-0004 18 Table 2: Factor loadings, AVE and Shared Variance Construct Item Estimate P Value AVE CR Shared variance 1 2 3 4 5 CT3 0.794 *** CT2 0.854 *** CT1 0.993 *** 2. Adaptation A1 0.987 *** 0.897 0.944 1 0.28 0.41 0.90 A2 0.951 *** A3 0.899 *** A4 0.888 *** A5 0.954 *** 3.Trust T1 0.999 *** 0.630 0.866 1 0.22 0.24 T2 0.626 *** T3 0.646 *** T4 0.754 *** 4.Communication CN1 0.940 *** 0.709 0.906 1 0.36 CN2 0.752 *** CN3 0.776 *** CN4 0.886 *** 5.Satisfaction S4 0.927 *** 0.827 0.950 1 S3 0.857 *** S2 0.868 *** S1 0.980 *** A five-factor structure comprising of commitment (CO), trust (TR), communication (CN), adaptability (AD), and satisfaction (SA), had acceptable model fit, X 2 /df = 3.04, CFI=9.078, GFI=9.654, NFI=9.143. Convergent validity was assessed through checking whether items loaded significantly to their respective constricts, and had an average variance extractyed (AVE) above the threshold of .5. Discriminant validity was assessed through comparing the AVE with the shared variance. All the constructs had their individual AVE being greater than the shared variance for each pair of constructs except for adaptation which shared a higher proportion of variance with commitment and satisfaction constructs. Despite adaptation having poor discriminant validity adaptation was maintained as a separate construct on the basis of how it was conceptualised in the extant literature. The reliability of the measurement scales shown in Table 2 were indicated by the composite reliability coefficients of above 0.7 for all the constructs. 0.7 is the threshold for reliable constructs (Nunally, 1978). C. Hypotheses testing In this study five hypotheses were formulated based on theory and empirical findings in the relevant extant literature. The hypotheses were tested using one-way MANOVA. Prior to hypotheses testing MANOVA assumptions were assessed. The assumptions of MANOVA such as multivariate normality, and equality of covariance were side-lined on the basis that the departures from multivariate normality is inconsequential when the sample sizes are larger (Hair et al., 2013) and equality of covariance and homoscedasticity is not an issue where there are equal cases in each group of the dependent variables (Field, 2018). A Pillai’s Trace which is robust to most of the violations of MANOVA assumptions was used interpret the results (Field, 2018). Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges Vol. 15, iss. 2., December 2024 doi: 10.2478/jlst-2024-0004 19 Table 3: Descriptive Statistics Table 4: Multivariate analysis Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig Partial Eta Squared Observed Power Intercept Pillai's Trace 0.981 1488.177 5.000 144.000 0.000 0.981 1.000 Wilks' Lambda 0.019 1488.177 5.000 144.000 0.000 0.981 1.000 Hotelling's Trace 51.673 1488.177 5.000 144.000 0.000 0.981 1.000 Roy's Largest Root 51.673 1488.177 5.000 144.000 0.000 0.981 1.000 Negotiation approach Pillai's Trace 0.846 158.514 5.000 144.000 0.000 0.846 1.000 Wilks' Lambda 0.154 158.514 5.000 144.000 0.000 0.846 1.000 Hotelling's Trace 5.504 158.514 5.000 144.000 0.000 0.846 1.000 Roy's Largest Root 5.504 158.514 5.000 144.000 0.000 0.846 1.000 The results from a One-way MANOVA test revealed that there are statistically significant differences between the negotiation approaches, on the combined dependent variables of commitment, trust, communication, adaptation, and satisfaction, Pillai’s Trace V=.981, F (5, 144) =1488.177, p<.001, partial η 2 =.981, observed power=1.000. Based on these results evidence was sufficient to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that at least one of the variables studied differed based on the type of negotiation approaches. The effect size was large. The observed power was 1.000 indicating that there was a 100% chance that the result could have come out significant. Since the global multivariate test is significant, we can conclude that the corresponding effect (treatment) is significant. Therefore, the next step is to determine which dependent variables are affected by the treatment affects. Thus, the next step identifies the specific dependent Negotiation approaches Mean Standard Deviation N Commitment Distributive 2.05 0.695 75 Integrative 3.67 0.844 75 Total 2.86 1.117 150 Trust Distributive 2.31 0.677 75 Integrative 3.48 0.860 75 Total 2.89 0.970 150 Communication Distributive 1.77 0.628 75 Integrative 3.67 1.143 75 Total 2.72 1.322 150 Adaptation Distributive 1.73 0.644 75 Integrative 4.80 1.053 75 Satisfaction Total Distributive Integrative Total 3.27 1.97 4.80 3.39 1.767 0.986 1.053 1.745 150 75 75 150 Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges Vol. 15, iss. 2., December 2024 doi: 10.2478/jlst-2024-0004 20 variables that contributed to the significant global effect. This was achieved through one-way ANOVA which examines each dependent variable separately. The p values are supposed to take into account the additional ANOVAs carried out in order to maintain Type 1 error. Hence, each ANOVA was adjusted using the Bonferroni’s procedure that divides the .05 alpha levels with the number of ANOVAs conducted. Using the Bonferroni method, each ANOVA was tested at a .002(.05/5) alpha level. The results of each ANOVA are shown in Table 5. In SPSS there is a default reporting of 2 tailed level of significance. For a one directional hypothesis testing the p values were further divided by half. Table 5: Analysis of variance Source Dependent variable Df F Sig Partial Eta Squared Observed Power Negotiation approach Commitment 1 163.315 0.000 0.525 1.000 Trust 1 86.174 0.000 0.368 1.000 Communication 1 158.132 0.000 0.517 1.000 Adaptation 1 463.266 0.000 0.758 1.000 Satisfaction 1 288.053 0.000 0.661 1.000 The results demonstrated that there was sufficient evidence to reject commitment, trust, communication, adaptation, and satisfaction null hypotheses, F (1, 148) = 163.315, p<.001, partial η 2 =.633, observed power = 1.000, F (1, 148) = 86.174, p<.001, partial η 2 =.633, observed power = 1.000, F (1, 148) = 158.132, p<.001, partial η 2 =.633, observed power = 1.000, F (1, 148) = 463.266, p<.001, partial η 2 =.633, observed power = 1.000,and F (1, 98) = 288.053, p<.001, partial η 2 =.512, observed power = 1.000 respectively. For all the dimensions of supplier relationship management the average levels were higher under the integrative approach than the distributive approach as shown in Table 3. The effect size was large for all the ANOVAs. The observed power of 100 indicated that there was a 100% chance that the results could have come out significant for both analyses. A summary of tie results are shown in Table 6. Table 6: Summary of hypothesis testing Hypotheses Decision H1 Negotiation approaches have significantly different commitment levels Supported H2 Negotiation approaches have significantly different trust levels Supported H3 Negotiation approaches have significantly different communication levels Supported H4 Negotiation approaches have significantly different adaptation levels Supported H5 Negotiation approaches have significantly different satisfaction levels Supported V. DISCUSSION There is a view that buyer-supplier relationships are costly (Cannon & Perrault, 1999). Perhaps it is from that perspective that the public sector has always been hesitant to make reforms that embrace the cultivating of strong buyer-supplier relationships. It should be appreciated that negotiations by their very nature are time consuming, and thus are reserved for complex procurement processes where products are highly technical (Leenders, Johnson, Flynn & Fearson, 2006). This study proved that integrative negotiation approach leads to sustainable supplier relationship management. Buyer-seller relationship is an important source of a firm’s competitive advantage (Oduro, Nyarku and Gbadeyan, 2020; Kaufman, Wood & Theyel, 2000). This stems from the fact that buyer-seller relationships are resources that fit in Barney (1991)’s Resource Based View (RBV) theory. Barney (1991)’s theory espouses that resources are a source of competitive advantage if they have value, rare, unique, heterogeneous. Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges Vol. 15, iss. 2., December 2024 doi: 10.2478/jlst-2024-0004 21 Supplier relationship management is leveraged on commitment, trust, communication, adaptation, and satisfaction (Mohanty & Gahan, 2012). This study has empirically proved that all these five dimensions of SRM are strong when buyers employ an integrative negotiation approach than a distributive approach. However, caution should be taken through identifying the conditions conducive for applying successful integrative negotiation skills. An integrative negotiation process is unattainable where the parties are negotiating on a sole dimension (Chopra et al., 2016). Negotiating on a single dimension such as price invariably leads to one party gaining at the expense of the other party (O’Brien, 2013). It then becomes imperative for the parties to find multiple issues to negotiate for (Lysons & Farrington, 2016). For instance, if one party is interested in price reduction, then the other party can give in provided he/she is granted an opportunity to do a downward product quality adjustment. Due to the manipulative nature of distributive negotiation approach (Thomas, Thomas, Manrodt & Rutner, 2013), it is not surprising that empirically it was found in this study that it is associated with a weak supplier relationship management. On key issues such as price, quality, and distribution that normally lead to a negotiation table (Thomas et al., 2013), practitioners of distributive negotiation tend to push the other party to the limit (Bottom, Holloway, Miller, Mislin & Whiteford, 2006). For instance, when it comes to the issue of price, distributive strategy pushes the settlement figure closer to the reservation price or move the other party’s reservation price to a lower figure. The main purpose of negotiation is to reach a compromise position than a mere business engagement (Ng, 2012). Negotiation act as a platform for clarifying issues regarding a procurement transaction with the aim of reaching a mutual agreement (Simchi-Levi., Kaminski & Simchi-Levi, 2009). However, in this study mutual agreements that lead to sustained buyer-seller relationships were shown to be a product of integrative negotiation strategies. Distributive strategies proved to elicit only discrete transactions. Negotiations help in bringing out the expectations of both parties in a procurement process and they are the best way of reaching an agreement that translate into a valid contract (Alafi, 2014; Gulbro & Herbig, 1995). The expectations of both sides in terms of commitment, trust, communication, adaptability, and satisfaction can come out clearly is an integrative negotiation. This is the underlying reason why in this study the levels of supplier relationship management attributes were higher in the integrative category than in the distributive category. VI. THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL CONTRIBUTIONS The study made some theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, the study demonstrated that negotiation approaches can be regarded as the antecedents of buyer-supplier relationships despite the averments from other scholars who believe that the nature of the relationship may act as an antecedent to the negotiation approaches. Practically, the study supported the view that as supply chain management leverages of buyer-seller relationships it is of paramount importance for negotiation participants to lean on the integrative negotiation approach. This may mean gradually doing away with the toxic distributive negotiation approach. VII. CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE STUDIES The study concluded that positive supplier relationships as represented by commitment, trust, communication, adaptation, and satisfaction can be cultivated through practising integrative negotiation approach. The distributive approach was shown to be an antithesis of the integrative negotiation approach as is associated with poor buyer seller relationships. However, this study is associated with a number of limitations which future studies must take care of. For instance, future studies related to negotiation in the fast-food industry must also focus on the determinants of negotiation styles. Although previous research has empirically proven that negotiation styles are a function of demographic factors such as gender, culture, and personality (e.g., Dobriejevic, 2009), more industry specific studies are still need to validate those findings. For instance, for years, personality has been regarded as having no impact on negotiation outcomes Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges Vol. 15, iss. 2., December 2024 doi: 10.2478/jlst-2024-0004 22 (Bezrman, Curhan, Moore & Valley, 2000), but recent studies have proved otherwise (e.g., Wilson, Matta, Conlon, DeRue & Howe, 2016). REFERENCES Alafi, K. 2014. The effect of purchasing strategies on manufacturing performance: the case of qualifying industrial zones in Jordan. Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 6(2):337-361. Albin, C. 2019. Negotiating Complex Conflicts. Global Policy. Volume 10. Issue Supplement 2. Amanatullah, E. T., Morris, M. W. & Curhan, J. R. 2008. Negotiators who give too much: Unmitigated communion, relational anxieties, and economic costs in distributive and integrative bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(3):723-738. Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action. A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Barthelmess, P. Y., Enzmann, P., Settelen, M. & Scharmeli, N. 2018. Navigating ambiguity: distributive and integrative negotiation tactics in China. Central European Business Review, 7(2):21-43. Bartlett, M. S. 1954. A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. Journal of Royal Statistical Society, 16 (Series B), 296- 298. Bazerman, M. H. & Moore, D. A. 2008. Judgement in managerial decision making. Bottom, W. P., Holloway, J., Miller, G. J., Mislin, A. & Whiteford, A. 2006. Building pathway to cooperation: negotiation and social exchange between principal and agent. Administrative Quarterly Review, 51:29-58. Brouthers, K. D. & Hennart, J. F. 2007. Boundaries of the firm: insights from the international entry mode research. Journal of Management, 33(3):395- 425. Burgess, S. M., & Steenkamp, J. -B. E. M. 2006. Marketing renaissance: How research in emerging markets advances marketing science and practice. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(4), 337–356 Cai, S., Yang, Z. & Hu, Z. 2009. Exploring the governance mechanisms of quasi-integration in buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Business Research, 62(6):660-666. Caniels, M. C. J. & Gelderman, C. J. 2005. Purchasing strategies in the Kraljic matrix-A power and dependence perspective. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 11:141-155. Cannon, J. P. & Prreault, W. D. 1999. Buyer-seller relationships in business markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 36:430-460. Chen, I. J. & Paulraj, A. 2004. Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs and measurements. Journal of Operations Management, 22:119-150. Chopra, S., Meindl, D. & Kalra, D. V. 2018. Supply Chain Management. Strategy, Planning, and Operation. 6 th edition. Pearson India Education services Pvt Ltd. Claro, D. P., Zylbersztajn, D. & Omta, O. S. W. F. 2004. Impact on network information on long term buyer-relationships in the Dutch potted plant and flower industry. Chin and network science. Manuscript submitted for publication. Comrey, L. A. & Lee, H. B. 1992. A first course of factor analysis. 3 rd edition. New York, NY. Continuum International Publishing Group. Cordon, C. & Vollmann, T. 2008. The power of two: how smart companies create win-win customer-supplier partnerships that outperform the competition. Palgrave Macmillan. Costello, A. B. & Osborne, J. W. 2005. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10(7):1-9. De Dreu, C. K., Weingart, L. R. & Known, S. 2000. Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: a meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5):889. Evanschitzky, H., Iyer, G. R., Plassmann, H., Niessing, J. & Meffert, H. 2016. The relative strength of affective commitment in securing loyalty in service relationships. Journal of Business Research, 59(12):1207-1213. Fabrigar, L., Wegener, D., MacCallum, R. & Strahan, E. 1999. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272- 299. Falcao, P. F. 2013. Todos podemos negociar bem! Conceitos, estrategias e exmplos praticas de gestores de sucesso. Top books. Fleming, D. E. & Howes, J. M. 2017. The negotiation scoreboard: a planning tool in business and industrial marketing. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 32(4):519-524. Ghijsen, P. W. T., Semeijin, J. & Ernston, S. 2009. Supplier satisfaction and commitment: the role of influence strategies and supplier development. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 16:17-26. Grant D. B. 2005. The Transaction - Relationship Dichotomy in Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, 6:2, 38-48, DOI: 10.1080/16258312.2005.11517146 Gyampah, K. A., Boakye, K. G., Adaku, E. & Famiyeh, S. 2019. Supplier relationship management and firm performance in developing economies: A moderated mediation analysis of flexibility capability and ownership structure. International Journal of Production Economics, 208:160-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.11.021. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, J. B. & Anderson, R. E. 2014. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7 th ed. Essex, England: Pearson. Heide, J. & Miner, A. 1992. The shadow of the future: Effects of anticipated interaction and frequency of contact in buyer-seller cooperation. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2):265-291. Henderson J. E. & Cool K. O. 2010. Experience and Learning in Wine Supply Chain Negotiations, Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, 11:1, 42-55, DOI: 10.1080/16258312.2010.11517224 Hoejmose, S. U., Grosvold, J. & Millington, A. 2013. Socially responsible supply chains: power asymmetries and joint dependence. Supply Chain management: An International Journal, 18(3):277-291. Hsiao, C., Shen, G. C. & Chao, P. 2015. How does brand misconduct affect the brand-consumer relationship? Journal of Business Research, 68(4):862- 866. Huttinger, l., Shiele, H. & Schroer, D. 2014. Exploring the anticedents of preferential customer treatment by suppliers: a mixed method approach. Supply Chain Management, 44(1):697-721. Kaiser, H. F. 1974. An index of factoral simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1):31-36. Kimes, S. E. 2008. The role of technology in restaurant revenue management. Cornell hospitality quarterly, 49(3):297-309. Kraljic, P. 1983. Purchasing must become supply management. Harvard Business Review, 61(5):109-117. Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges Vol. 15, iss. 2., December 2024 doi: 10.2478/jlst-2024-0004 23 Krause, D. R., Terpend, R. & Peterson, K. J. 2006. Bargaining stances and outcomes in buyer-seller negotiations: experimental results. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 42(3):4-15. Kumar, N., Hibbard, J. D. & Stern, L. W. 1994. The nature and consequences of marketing channel intermediary commitment. Marketing Science Institute, 94-115. Lambert, D. M. & Schwietrman, M. A. 2012. Supplier relationship management as a macro business process. Supply chain management: An International Journal, 7(3):337-352. Leenders, M. R. & Blenkhorn, D. L. 1988. Reverse marketing: The new buyer-supplier relationship. London. Free Press. Leenders, M., Johhnson, F., Flynn, A. & Fearson, H. 2006. Purchasing and supply management: with 50 supply chain cases. McGraw-Hill: Singapore. Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M. & Barry, E, 2011. Essentials of Negotiation, 5 th edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill International. Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M. & Barry, E, 2015. Negotiation, Boston: McGraw-Hill Education. Liu, Y., Luo, Y. D. & Liu, T. 2009. Governing buyer-seller relationships through transactional and relational mechanisms: evidence from China. Journal of Operations Management, 27(4):294-309. Luo, Y., Liu, Y., Yang, Q., Maksimov, Y. & Hou, S. 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. Lysons, K. & Farrington, B. 2016. Procurement and supply chain management. 9 th edition. Pearson Education ltd, London. Mohanty, M. K. & Gahan, P, 2012. Buyer-supplier relationship in manufacturing industry-findings from Indian manufacturing sector. Business Intelligence Journal, 5(2):319-333. Moorman, C., Deshpande, R. & Zaltan, G. 1993. Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 57:81-101. Mukucha, P. & Chari, F. 2022. Supply chain resilience: the role of supplier development in the form of contract farming in fast-food outlets in Zimbabwe. Continuity & Resilience Review, 4(3):280-299. https://doi.org/10.1108/CRR-03-2022-0006. Mukucha, P. & Jaravaza, D. C. 2021. Global fast foods Brands: The role of consumer ethnocentrism in frontier markets. Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business, 12(6):7-21. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.13106/jidb.2021.vol12.no6.7. Mukucha, P. 2022. An evaluation of the operational efficiency of pizza restaurants in Zimbabwe. Southern Africa Journal of Science and Technology, 5(ii). https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/sajest.v5i2.39827. Mukucha, P., Rootman C. & Mazibuko, N. E. 2019. Service encounter experience antecedents and outcomes in the Zimbabwean restaurant industry. Journal of Contemporary Management, 16(2):513-537. Ng, E. 2012. An empirical study on the success factors of supplier-distributor relationships. Contemporary Management Research, 8(2):161-180. O’Brien, J. 2013. Negotiation for purchasing professionals. London: Kogan page Limited. Oduro, S., Nyarku, K.M. & Gbadeyan, R.A. 2020. Supplier relationship management and organizational performance of hospitals in an emerging economy context: A comparative study. Journal of Modelling in Management, 15(4):1451-1478. https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-03-2019-0072. Olga, W. 2003. Capturing value creation in business relationships: A customer perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(8):677-693. Park J., Rahman H. A., Suh J. & Hussin H. 2019. A Study of Integrative Bargaining Model with Argumentation-Based Negotiation. Sustainability. 11, 6832; doi:10.3390/su11236832 Pruitt, D. G. & Cornevale, P. J. 1993. Negotiation in social conflict. Thomson Brooks/Cole. Pruitt, D. G. 1981. Negotiation behaviour. Volume, 47. Academic Press. New York. Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act [Chapter 4:23]. Sarmento, R. & Costa, V. 2017. Comparative approaches to using R and Python for statistical data analysis. Information Science Reference. http://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-68318-016-6. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. 2016. Research Methods for Business Students. 7 th edition. Pearson Education Limited, Essex: England. Schiele, H., Calvi, R. & Gibbert, M. 2012. Customer attractiveness, supplier satisfaction, and preferred customer status: introductions, definitions and an overarching framework. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(8):1178-1185. Schiele, H., Scott, E. C., Essig, M., Henke, J. & Knull, T. 2015. Managing supplier satisfaction: Social capital and resource dependence frameworks. Australasian Marketing Journal, 23(2):132-138. Sebenius, J. K. & Sebenius, J. K. 1986. The manager as negotiator: Bargain for cooperative and competitive gain. Free Press, New York. Simchi-Levi, D., Kaminski, P. & Simchi-Levi, E. 2009. Designing and managing the supply chain: Concepts, Strategies and Case studies. 3 rd edition. McGraw-Hill/Irwin Tabachnick, B. C. & Fidell, L. S. 2012. Multivariate Statistics. 6 th edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Thibaut, J. W. & Kelly, H. H. 1959. The social psychology of groups. NY: John Wiley & Sons. Thomas, S. P. 2013. Competitive vs collaborative: Exploring the negotiation strategy impact on relational outcomes in on-going buyer-supplier relationships-Electronic Theses Dissertations. Paper 59. Thomas, S. P., Thomas, R. W., Manrodt, K. B. & Rutner, S. M. 2013. An experimental test of negotiation strategy effects of knowledge sharing intentions in buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(2):96-113. Vos, F., Schiele, H. & Huttinger, L. 2016. Supplier satisfaction: Explanation and out-of-sample prediction for direct and indirect procurement. Journal of Business Research, 1-45. Wagner, S. M., Coley, L. S. & Lindermann, E. 2011. Effects of suppliers’ reputation on the future of buyer-supplier relationships: the mediating roles of outcome fairness and trust. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47(2):29-48. Wang, Y., Wang, N., Jiang, L., Yang, Z. & Cui, V. 2016. Managing relationships with power advantage buyers: the role of supplier initiated bonding tactics in the long-term buyer-supplier collaborations. Journal of Business Research, 69(12):5587-5596. Watkins, M. W. 2018. Exploratory factor analysis: A guide to best practice. Journal of Black Psychology, 44(3):219-246. Wilson, K. S., Matta, F. K., Conlon, D. E., DeRue, D. S. & Howe, M. 2016. Personality similarity in negotiations: Testing the dyadic effects of similarity in interpersonal traits and the use of emotional displays on negotiation outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(10):1405-1421. Wong, C. W., Lai, K. H., Lun, Y. & Cheng, T. C. E. 2012. A study on the antecedents of supplier commitment in support of logistics operations. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 4(1):5-16. Zikmund, W. G. & Babin, B. J. 2007. Essentials of Marketing Research.3 rd edition. South-Western Cengage learning. Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges Vol. 15, iss. 2., December 2024 doi: 10.2478/jlst-2024-0004 24 AUTHORS A. P. Mukucha is with Bindura University of Science Education, P. Bag 1020, Bindura, Zimbabwe (e-mail: paulmukucha@gmail.com ). ORCID: 0000-0002-6264-6574 B. F. Chari is with Bindura University of Science Education, P. Bag 1020, Bindura, Zimbabwe (e-mail: charifelix93@gmail.com ). ORCID: 0000-0001-8878-410X C. D. C. Jaravaza is with Bindura University of Science Education, P. Bag 1020, Bindura, Zimbabwe (e-mail: divariescjaravaza@gmail.com). ORCID: 0000-0002-8930-1242 D. V. Shumba is with Lupane State University, P.O. Box AC255 Ascot, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe (e-mail: vshumba@lsu.ac.zw) ORCID: 0009-0004-5576-1840 Manuscript received by 02 February 2024. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article. Vpliv pogajalskih pristopov na upravljanje odnosov z dobavitelji hitre prehrane v Zimbabveju Povzetek – Upravljanje odnosov z dobavitelji (UOD) je postalo temelj poslovnega uspeha od preoblikovanja nabavne funkcije v upravljanje oskrbovalne verige. Obstoječa literatura je dokumentirala različne napovedovalce odnosov z dobavitelji. Vendar pa v obstoječi literaturi manjka potencial pogajalskih pristopov za ustvarjanje zdravih odnosov z dobavitelji. S to študijo smo želeli ugotoviti vpliv pogajalskih pristopov na UOD. Pri tem smo uporabili vzorec 150 diadnih transakcij v industriji restavracij s hitro prehrano. Nadalje smo uporabili široko dihotomno kategorizacijo pogajalskih metod v distributivnih in integrativnih pristopih. UOD je bil operacionaliziran z uporabo dimenzij, kot so zavezanost, zaupanje, komunikacija, prilagoditev in zadovoljstvo. Po izvedbi multivariatne analize variance (MANOVA) so rezultati razkrili, da je bila distributivna strategija šibko povezana z odnosi z dobavitelji, medtem ko je bila pri uporabi integrativne pogajalske strategije opažena močna povezava z dobavitelji. Zato je bilo priporočeno, da morajo nabavni strokovnjaki uporabljati integrativne pogajalske strategije in taktike, da bi ustvarili trajnostno upravljanje odnosov z dobavitelji. Ključne besede – distributivna pogajanja, integrativna pogajanja, upravljanje odnosov z dobavitelji, industrija hitre prehrane