Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Research article Special Issues

From trust and dependence commitment to B2B engagement: An empirical analysis of inter-organizational cooperation in FMCG

  • This research paper aims to demonstrate that relationships play a pivotal role in fostering inter-organizational cooperation, both at the corporate and individual levels, within the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) distribution industry. Despite the extensive body of literature on relationship management, its impact on such a unique and important channel as FMCG remains undetermined. To achieve this objective, we designed a questionnaire for a survey targeting Spanish FMCG distributors, from which we collected 204 responses. We analyzed this data using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), an emerging methodology in business research that enables us to assess the model's explanatory power and predictive capacity in understanding the relationships between various constructs. Our findings indicate the efficacy of governing inter-organizational relationships to facilitate cooperation. Additionally, we uncover links between corporate and individual relationships that contribute significantly to cooperation. In terms of practical implications for businesses, our results emphasize the importance for managers to prioritize relationships as an integral aspect of efficient channel management. This pertains to relationships within the distribution channel among partners and also individual relationships among business managers. Notably, the existing academic literature has not yet established the effectiveness of relationships in governing channels within the FMCG marketing channel, nor has it established a direct connection between inter-organizational and individual relationships among business managers.

    Citation: Fernando Gimeno-Arias, José Manuel Santos-Jaén, María del Carmen Valls Martínez, Manuel Sánchez-Pérez. From trust and dependence commitment to B2B engagement: An empirical analysis of inter-organizational cooperation in FMCG[J]. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(12): 7511-7543. doi: 10.3934/era.2023379

    Related Papers:

    [1] Weihua Li, Chengcheng Fang, Wei Cao . On the number of irreducible polynomials of special kinds in finite fields. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(4): 2877-2887. doi: 10.3934/math.2020185
    [2] Shakir Ali, Amal S. Alali, Atif Ahmad Khan, Indah Emilia Wijayanti, Kok Bin Wong . XOR count and block circulant MDS matrices over finite commutative rings. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(11): 30529-30547. doi: 10.3934/math.20241474
    [3] Phitthayathon Phetnun, Narakorn R. Kanasri . Further irreducibility criteria for polynomials associated with the complete residue systems in any imaginary quadratic field. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(10): 18925-18947. doi: 10.3934/math.20221042
    [4] Qian Liu, Jianrui Xie, Ximeng Liu, Jian Zou . Further results on permutation polynomials and complete permutation polynomials over finite fields. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(12): 13503-13514. doi: 10.3934/math.2021783
    [5] Kaimin Cheng . Permutational behavior of reversed Dickson polynomials over finite fields. AIMS Mathematics, 2017, 2(2): 244-259. doi: 10.3934/Math.2017.2.244
    [6] Jovanny Ibarguen, Daniel S. Moran, Carlos E. Valencia, Rafael H. Villarreal . The signature of a monomial ideal. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 27955-27978. doi: 10.3934/math.20241357
    [7] Xiaofan Xu, Yongchao Xu, Shaofang Hong . Some results on ordinary words of standard Reed-Solomon codes. AIMS Mathematics, 2019, 4(5): 1336-1347. doi: 10.3934/math.2019.5.1336
    [8] Varsha Jarali, Prasanna Poojary, G. R. Vadiraja Bhatta . A recent survey of permutation trinomials over finite fields. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(12): 29182-29220. doi: 10.3934/math.20231495
    [9] Shitian Liu . Finite groups for which all proper subgroups have consecutive character degrees. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 5745-5762. doi: 10.3934/math.2023289
    [10] Xiaoer Qin, Li Yan . Some specific classes of permutation polynomials over Fq3. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(10): 17815-17828. doi: 10.3934/math.2022981
  • This research paper aims to demonstrate that relationships play a pivotal role in fostering inter-organizational cooperation, both at the corporate and individual levels, within the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) distribution industry. Despite the extensive body of literature on relationship management, its impact on such a unique and important channel as FMCG remains undetermined. To achieve this objective, we designed a questionnaire for a survey targeting Spanish FMCG distributors, from which we collected 204 responses. We analyzed this data using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), an emerging methodology in business research that enables us to assess the model's explanatory power and predictive capacity in understanding the relationships between various constructs. Our findings indicate the efficacy of governing inter-organizational relationships to facilitate cooperation. Additionally, we uncover links between corporate and individual relationships that contribute significantly to cooperation. In terms of practical implications for businesses, our results emphasize the importance for managers to prioritize relationships as an integral aspect of efficient channel management. This pertains to relationships within the distribution channel among partners and also individual relationships among business managers. Notably, the existing academic literature has not yet established the effectiveness of relationships in governing channels within the FMCG marketing channel, nor has it established a direct connection between inter-organizational and individual relationships among business managers.



    The study of Diophantine equations plays a very important role in number theory, and the integer solutions of Diophantine equations are widely used in cryptography and coding theory. Silverman [1] studied the parametric solution of equation

    X3+Y3=A,

    Li and Yuan [2] proved that the simultaneous Pell equations possess at most one positive integer solution under certain conditions.

    A Diophantine equation of the form

    a1x1+a2x2++atxt=s (1.1)

    is called a multivariate linear Diophantine equation, where s,a1,a2,,at are nonzero integers and t2. It is well known that for any given nonzero integers a and b, there are two integers u and v such that

    ua+vb=(a,b),

    where (a,b) represents the greatest common divisor of a and b. Now we introduce some symbols associated with Eq (1.1) as follows:

    (a1,a2)=d2,(d2,a3)=d3,,(dt1,at)=dt.

    That is, there exist integers u1,u2,,ut and v2,v3,,vt1 such that

    {a1u1+a2u2=d2,d2v2+a3u3=d3,dt1vt1+atut=dt. (1.2)

    Li [3] gave the structure of the general solution of the multivariate linear Diophantine equation.

    Theorem 1.1. ([3]) The multivariate linear Diophantine Eq (1.1) has solutions if and only if dt|s. Furthermore, if dt|s and t4, then the general solutions of Diophantine Eq (1.1) are

    {x1=u1(δ2it1vi+4jtˉaj2ij2visj1+ˉa3s2)+ˉa2s1,x2=u2(δ2it1vi+4jtˉaj2ij2visj1+ˉa3s2)a1d12s1,x3=u3(δ3it1vi+5jtˉaj3ij2visj1+ˉa4s3)d2d13s2,xt1=ut1(δvt1+ˉatst1)dt2d1t1st2,xt=utδdt1d1tst1, (1.3)

    where si(1it1) are arbitrary integers and δ=sd1t,ˉaj=ajd1j for 2jt.

    Let Fq be a finite field of q elements with characteristic p, and Fqn be its extension of degree n, where p is a prime number and n 2 is an integer. Zhu et al. [4] obtained an explicit formula for the number of solutions to the equation

    f(x1)++f(xn)=a

    over Fq. Zhao et al. [5] found an explicit formula for the number of solutions of the two-variable diagonal quartic equation

    x41+x42=c

    over Fq.

    A basis of Fqn over Fq of the form {α,αq,,αqn1} is called a normal basis of Fqn over Fq, and α is called a normal element of Fqn over Fq. An irreducible polynomial f(x) Fq[x] is called a normal polynomial if all the roots of f(x) are normal elements of Fqn over Fq. The trace of α is defined as

    Tr(α)=α+αq++αqn1

    and the trace of f(x) is defined to be the coefficient of xn1. Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 below give a simple criterion to check when an irreducible polynomial is a normal polynomial.

    Theorem 1.2. ([6]) Let n=pe with e1. Then an irreducible polynomial

    f(x)=xn+a1xn1++anFq[x]

    is a normal polynomial if and only if a10.

    Theorem 1.3. ([7]) Let n be a prime different from p, and let q be a primitive root modulo n. Then an irreducible polynomial

    f(x)=xn+a1xn1++anFq[x]

    is a normal polynomial if and only if a10.

    In 2001, Chang([8]) et al. furthermore proved that the conditions in Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 are also necessary.

    Theorem 1.4. ([8]) If every irreducible polynomial

    f(x)=xn+a1xn1++anFq[x]

    with a10 is a normal polynomial, then n is either a power of p or a prime different from p, and q is a primitive root modulo n.

    In 2018, Huang et al. [9] presented a unified proof of Theorems 1.1–1.3 by comparing the number of normal polynomials and that of irreducible polynomials over Fq.

    The factorization of xn1 and its irreducible factors are closely related to the normal elements in Fqn over Fq (see [10, Section 2]). Denote by F(xn1) the set of all distinct monic irreducible factors of xn1 in a given finite field, Φr(x) a r-th cyclotomic polynomial, and φ() the Euler function. Write

    n=mpe,

    where e0 is an integer, p is the characteristic of Fq, and pm. Below are the known results for

    |F(xn1)|=1,2.

    Theorem 1.5. ([11]) The following statements are equivalent:

    (a) |F(xn1)|=1.

    (b) F(xn1) = {x1}.

    (c) n=pe.

    Theorem 1.6. ([11]) The following statements are equivalent:

    (a) |F(xn1)|=2.

    (b) F(xn1) = {x1,1+x++xm1}.

    (c) m is a prime different from p, and q is a primitive root modulo m.

    We summarize the five theorems above into the theorem below:

    Theorem 1.7. The following statements are equivalent:

    (a) Every irreducible polynomial of degree n over Fq with a nonzero trace is a normal polynomial.

    (b) F(xn1){x1,1+x++xn1}.

    (c) (c1) n=pe, or

    (c2) n is a prime different from p, with q being a primitive root modulo n.

    Cao [11] presented a new and unified proof of Theorem 1.6 and also extended Theorem 1.6. In this paper, we give the necessary and sufficient condition for the polynomial xn1 to have s different irreducible factors for a given positive integer s.

    Lemma 2.1 indicates that factorization of xn1 in finite fields is closely related to the cyclotomic polynomials.

    Lemma 2.1. ([12]) Let Fq be a finite field of characteristic p, and let n be a positive integer not divisible by p. Then

    xn1=d|nΦd(x).

    Lemma 2.2. ([13]) Let l be the order of a modulo m, an1 (mod m), then ln.

    Lemma 2.3. ([12]) Let Fq be a finite field and n a positive integer with (q,n)=1. Then the cyclotomic polynomial Φn(x) factors into φ(n)d distinct monic irreducible polynomials in Fq[x] of the same degree d, where d is the order of q modulo n.

    Lemma 2.4 is the well-known theorem about the existence of primitive roots.

    Lemma 2.4. ([14]) Let n be a positive integer. Then n possesses primitive roots if and only if n is of the form 2, 4, pα, or 2pα, where p is an odd prime and α is a positive integer.

    By Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4, we have the following lemma:

    Lemma 2.5. The cyclotomic polynomial Φn(x) is irreducible over Fq if and only if n=2,4,pα,2pα, and q is a primitive root modulo n.

    We define vp(x) to be the greatest power in which a prime p divides x, that is, if vp(x)=α, then pα|x but pα+1x. The following lemma is called the lifting the exponent lemma (LTE):

    Lemma 2.6. ([15]) Let x and y be (not necessarily positive) integers, n be a positive integer, and p be an odd prime such that p|xy and none of x and y is divisible by p. We have

    vp(xnyn)=vp(xy)+vp(n).

    Lemma 2.7. Let p be an odd prime and g be a primitive root modulo p2, with (g,p)=1. Then g is a primitive root modulo pl(l1).

    Proof. We first prove that g is a primitive root modulo pl(l2) by induction on l. Let g be a primitive root modulo pl. The order of g modulo pl+1 is d. We have

    φ(pl)|d,d|φ(pl+1),

    which shows that

    d=pl1(p1)

    or

    d=pl(p1).

    We next prove that

    dpl1(p1).

    According to Euler's theorem, we have

    gpl2(p1)1(mod pl1),

    there exists an integer k such that

    gpl2(p1)=1+kpl1,

    since g is a primitive root modulo pl, we have

    gpl2(p1)1(mod pl),plkpl1,(k,p)=1.

    Obviously, for l2, we have

    2l1l+1

    and

    3(l1)l+1,

    which shows that

    gpl1(p1)=(1+kpl1)p=1+kpl+k2p(p1)2p2(l1)+tp3(l1)+1+kpl(modpl+1),

    where t is an integer and (k,p)=1. It follows that

    gpl1(p1)1+kpl1(mod pl+1).

    Therefore

    dpl1(p1),d=pl(p1),

    and g is a primitive root modulo pl+1.

    We next use the LTE to prove that g is a primitive root modulo p. The Euler's theorem shows that

    gφ(p)1(modp),

    since g is a primitive root modulo p2, we have

    vp(gφ(p)1)=1.

    Let h be the order of g modulo p, then h|φ(p). Similarly, we can obtain

    vp(gh1)=1.

    Let x=gh, y=1, then (p,gh)=1, p|gh1. By the LTE, we have

    vp(gph1)=vp(gh1)+vp(p)=1+1=2,

    which shows that

    p2|gph1,gph1(mod p2),

    if h<φ(p), then ph<φ(p2), a contradiction. Thus h=φ(p), g is a primitive root modulo p.

    Lemma 2.8. Let g be a primitive root modulo pl. Then g is a primitive root modulo 2pl, where g is odd and p and l are the same as mentioned above.

    Proof. Let s be the order of g modulo 2pl. Then

    gs1(mod 2pl),s|φ(2pl).

    So we have

    gs1(mod pl).

    Since g is a primitive root modulo pl, we have φ(pl)|s and hence φ(2pl)|s. So

    s=φ(2pl)

    and g is a primitive root modulo 2pl.

    Combining Lemmas 2.1 and 2.3, we can calculate the number of different irreducible factors for xn1 over Fq. Let m be a positive integer,

    m=pα11pα22pαll

    be its prime decomposition. If

    n=mpe,

    where e0 is an integer, and p is the characteristic of Fq with pm. Then we can calculate that

    |F(xn1)|=mmφ(m)dm,

    where dm denotes the order of q modulo m. Note that there are lk=1(αk+1) items in the summation, where lk=1(αk+1) is the number of factors of m.

    Now assume that s and m are given positive integers, m1,,mt are the t factors of m. Thus, we have

    xn1=ti=1Φmi(x)pe.

    If xn1 factors into s distinct irreducible polynomials in Fq[x], then

    |F(xn1)|=ti=1φ(mi)dmi=s, (3.1)

    there are t items in the summation, the necessary and sufficient condition for

    |F(xn1)|=s

    is determined as follows:

    Observe φ(mi)dmi (i=1,2,,t), and φ(mi) are known; with the difference of q, the values of dmi will also change, that is, the values of φ(mi)dmi will change in the different Fq. Therefore, the t items in (3.1) can be regarded as t variables, and (3.1) can be regarded as the Diophantine equation with t variables

    x1+x2++xt=s. (3.2)

    Remark 3.1. Combining Lemma 2.2 and Euler's theorem, we know that φ(mi)dmi (i=1,2,,t) are positive integers. So we only need to consider the positive integer solutions of (3.2).

    Remark 3.2. The positive integers s and t satisfy ts. Otherwise, if t>s, then it follows from Lemmas 2.1 and 2.3 that

    |F(xn1)|>s.

    Remark 3.3. As we all know

    Φ1(x)=x1

    is a factor of xn1, and x1 is irreducible over Fq; the order of q modulo 1 is d1=1. Thus, at least one positive integer solution of (3.2) whose value is 1.

    We can find the positive integer solutions of (3.2). Without loss of generality, we suppose that

    xi=φ(mi)dmi=ki (i=1,2,,t) (3.3)

    is the positive integer solution of (3.2), thus we have

    dmi=φ(mi)ki (i=1,2,,t). (3.4)

    If there exists q such that the order of q modulo mi is

    dmi=φ(mi)ki  (i=1,2,,t),

    then it follows from Lemma 2.3 that Φmi(x) factors into

    φ(mi)φ(mi)ki=ki

    distinct monic irreducible polynomials over Fq of the same degree

    dmi=φ(mi)ki.

    Therefore, we have

    |F(xn1)|=k1+k2++kt=s,

    that is, xn1 factors into s distinct irreducible polynomials over Fq.

    In conclusion, we have the following result:

    Theorem 3.4. (Main result) Let Fq denote the finite field of q elements with characteristic p. Let p be a prime. Let

    n=mpe

    with e0, pm. Let s be a positive integer. The t factors of m are m1,m2,,mt and dmi denotes the order of q modulo mi. Then

    |F(xn1)|=s,

    if and only if

    xi=φ(mi)dmi  (i=1,2,,t)

    is a solution to the Diophantine equation

    x1+x2++xt=s.

    Proof. We first assume that

    xi=φ(mi)dmi=ki  (i=1,2,,t)

    is the solution of the Diophantine equation

    x1+x2++xt=s.

    By Lemmas 2.1 and 2.3, we have

    xn1=ti=1Φmi(x)pe

    and Φmi(x) factors into

    φ(mi)φ(mi)ki=ki

    distinct monic irreducible polynomials in Fq[x] of the same degree

    dmi=φ(mi)ki  (i=1,2,,t).

    Hence, we obtain

    |F(xn1)|=ti=1ki=s.

    Suppose

    |F(xn1)|=s.

    According to Lemma 2.3, we have

    |F(xn1)|=ti=1φ(mi)dmi=s.

    So

    xi=φ(mi)dmi  (i=1,2,,t)

    is the solution of the Diophantine equation

    x1+x2++xt=s.

    We apply Theorem 3.4 to deduce Theorem 1.6. Note that Theorem 1.5 is trivial. Recall that

    n=mpe,

    where e0 is an integer and p is the characteristic of Fq with pm.

    For Theorem 1.6

    |F(xn1)|=2,

    we know that m has two factors; thus, m is a prime different from p,

    xn1=(Φ1(x)Φm(x))pe.

    The unique positive integer solution of the Diophantine equation

    x1+x2=2

    is

    x1=x2=1.

    Since

    φ(1)d1=1,

    and by Theorem 3.4, we have

    φ(m)dm=1,

    that is, dm=φ(m), q is a primitive root modulo m. It follows from Lemma 2.5 that the cyclotomic polynomial Φm(x) is irreducible over Fq. Thus

    |F(xn1)|=2.

    The necessary and sufficient conditions for

    |F(xn1)|=3,4,5

    are given, respectively, below: for

    |F(xn1)|=3,

    we know that t3, where t is the number of factors of m.

    Case 1. If m has three factors, then m=r2, where r is a prime different from p.

    xn1=(Φ1(x)Φr(x)Φr2(x))pe.

    The unique positive integer solution of the Diophantine equation

    x1+x2+x3=3

    is

    x1=x2=x3=1.

    By Theorem 3.4, we have

    φ(r)dr=1,  φ(r2)dr2=1,

    that is,

    dr=φ(r),  dr2=φ(r2),

    q is a primitive root modulo r and r2. Recall Lemma 2.7: If q is a primitive root modulo r2, then q is a primitive root modulo r. Cyclotomic polynomials Φr(x) and Φr2(x) are irreducible over Fq. Thus

    |F(xn1)|=3.

    Case 2. If m has two factors, then m=r,

    xn1=(Φ1(x)Φr(x))pe.

    The positive integer solution of the Diophantine equation

    x1+x2=3

    is x1=1, x2=2. Hence, we obtain

    φ(r)dr=2,

    that is,

    dr=φ(r)2,

    the order of q modulo r is φ(r)2. According to Lemma 2.3, the cyclotomic polynomial Φr(x) factors into

    φ(r)φ(r)2=2

    distinct monic irreducible polynomials in Fq[x] of the same degree

    dr=φ(r)2.

    Thus

    |F(xn1)|=3.

    In conclusion, we have the following result:

    Theorem 4.1. The following statements are equivalent:

    (a) |F(xn1)|=3.

    (b) (b1) F(xn1) = {x1,f1(x),f2(x)}, where m=r,

    f1(x)f2(x)=Φr(x),degf1=degf2=φ(r)2.

    (b2) F(xn1) = {x1,Φr(x),Φr2(x)}, where m=r2.

    (c) (c1) m=r, and the order of q modulo r is φ(r)2.

    (c2) m=r2, and q is a primitive root modulo r2.

    For

    |F(xn1)|=4,

    we know that t4, where t is the number of factors of m. In the remaining part of this paper, we always assume that r is an odd prime different from p.

    If m has four factors, then the possible values of m are r3, 2r, p1p2 or 8, where p1 and p2 are odd primes different from p. The unique positive integer solution of the Diophantine equation

    x1+x2+x3+x4=4

    is

    x1=x2=x3=x4=1.

    Case 1. If m=r3, then

    xn1=(Φ1(x)Φr(x)Φr2(x)Φr3(x))pe,

    and we have

    φ(r)dr=φ(r2)dr2=φ(r3)dr3=1,

    that is, q is a primitive root modulo rl,l=1,2,3, which requires that q is a primitive root modulo r2. The cyclotomic polynomials Φr(x), Φr2(x), and Φr3(x) are irreducible over Fq. Thus

    |F(xn1)|=4.

    Case 2. If m=2r, then

    xn1=(Φ1(x)Φ2(x)Φr(x)Φ2r(x))pe,

    and we have

    φ(2)d2=φ(r)dr=φ(2r)d2r=1,

    that is, q is a primitive root modulo r and 2r. Recall Lemma 2.8: If q is a primitive root modulo r, then q is a primitive root modulo 2r. The cyclotomic polynomials Φr(x) and Φ2r(x) are irreducible over Fq. Obviously, the order of q modulo 2 is d2=1, and

    Φ2(x)=x+1

    is irreducible over Fq. Thus

    |F(xn1)|=4.

    Case 3. If m=p1p2, then

    xn1=(Φ1(x)Φp1(x)Φp2(x)Φp1p2(x))pe,

    and we have

    φ(p1)dp1=φ(p2)dp2=φ(p1p2)dp1p2=1.

    It follows from Lemma 2.4 that p1p2 has no primitive root, which contradicts

    dp1p2=φ(p1p2).

    The cyclotomic polynomial Φp1p2(x) is reducible over Fq. Thus

    |F(xn1)|>4.

    Case 4. If m=8, then

    xn1=(Φ1(x)Φ2(x)Φ4(x)Φ8(x))pe.

    Since 8 has no primitive root, Φ8(x) is reducible over Fq. Thus

    |F(xn1)|>4.

    If m has three factors, then the possible values of m are r2 or 4. The positive integer solution of the equation

    x1+x2+x3=4

    is

    x1=x2=1,x3=2.

    Case 1. If m=r2, then

    xn1=(Φ1(x)Φr(x)Φr2(x))pe,

    and we have

    φ(r)dr=2,  φ(r2)dr2=1

    or

    φ(r)dr=1,  φ(r2)dr2=2.

    For the former, the order of q modulo r is

    dr=φ(r)2,

    and q is a primitive root modulo r2, which is impossible by Lemma 2.7. For the latter, q is a primitive root modulo r, and the order of q modulo r2 is φ(r2)2. It follows that

    qφ(r)1(mod r),  qφ(r2)2=qrφ(r)21(mod r2),  qrφ(r)21(mod r).

    Thus φ(r)|rφ(r)2. Since r is an odd prime, r2 is not an integer, and the divisibility is not valid.

    Case 2. If m=4, then

    xn1=(Φ1(x)Φ2(x)Φ4(x))pe,

    and we have

    φ(4)d4=2,

    that is, the order of q modulo 4 is

    d4=φ(4)2=1.

    The cyclotomic polynomial

    Φ4(x)=1+x2

    factors into

    φ(4)φ(4)2=2

    distinct monic irreducible polynomials in Fq[x] of the same degree, d4=1. Thus

    |F(xn1)|=4.

    If m has two factors, then m=r,

    xn1=(Φ1(x)Φr(x))pe.

    The positive integer solution of the Diophantine equation

    x1+x2=4

    is x1=1, x2=3. Hence, we have

    φ(r)dr=3,

    that is, the order of q modulo r is φ(r)3. The cyclotomic polynomial Φr(x) factors into three distinct monic irreducible polynomials in Fq[x] of the same degree φ(r)3. Thus

    |F(xn1)|=4.

    In conclusion, we have the following result:

    Theorem 4.2. The following statements are equivalent:

    (a) |F(xn1)|=4.

    (b) (b1) F(xn1) = {x1,f1(x),f2(x),f3(x)}, where m=r,

    f1(x)f2(x)f3(x)=Φr(x),degf1=degf2=degf3=φ(r)3.

    (b2) F(xn1) = {x1,Φr(x),Φr2(x),Φr3(x)}, where m=r3.

    (b3) F(xn1) = {x1,x+1,Φr(x),Φ2r(x)}, where m=2r.

    (b4) F(xn1) = {x1,x+1,x+e1,x+e2}, where m=4, e1 and e2 are integers.

    (c) (c1) m=r, and the order of q modulo r is φ(r)3.

    (c2) m=r3, and q is a primitive root modulo r2.

    (c3) m=2r, and q is a primitive root modulo r.

    (c4) m=4, and the order of q modulo 4 is 1.

    For

    |F(xn1)|=5,

    we know that t5, where t is the number of factors of m.

    If m has five factors, then the possible values of m are r4 or 16. The unique positive integer solution of the equation

    x1+x2+x3+x4+x5=5

    is

    x1=x2=x3=x4=x5=1.

    Case 1. If m=r4, then

    xn1=(Φ1(x)Φr(x)Φr2(x)Φr3(x)Φr4(x))pe,

    and we have

    φ(r)dr=φ(r2)dr2=φ(r3)dr3=φ(r4)dr4=1,

    that is, q is a primitive root modulo rl,l=1,2,3,4, which requires that q is a primitive root modulo r2. The cyclotomic polynomials Φr(x),Φr2(x),Φr3(x), and Φr4(x) are irreducible over Fq. Thus

    |F(xn1)|=5.

    Case 2. If m=16, then

    xn1=(Φ1(x)Φ2(x)Φ4(x)Φ8(x)Φ16(x))pe.

    Since 8 and 16 have no primitive root, we know that Φ8(x) and Φ16(x) are reducible over Fq. Thus

    |F(xn1)|>5.

    If m has four factors, then the possible values of m are r3,8,2r or p1p2. The positive integer solution of the equation

    x1+x2+x3+x4=5

    is

    x1=x2=x3=1,x4=2.

    Case 1. If m=r3, then

    xn1=(Φ1(x)Φr(x)Φr2(x)Φr3(x))pe.

    It follows from Lemma 2.7 that

    φ(r2)dr2=2

    and

    φ(r)dr=φ(r3)dr3=1,

    that is, q is a primitive root modulo r3, the order of q modulo r2 is φ(r2)2. It follows that

    qφ(r3)1(mod r3),  qφ(r2)21(mod r2),  qφ(r2)21(mod r).

    Since q is a primitive root modulo r3, we have

    vr(qφ(r2)21)=2.

    By Lemma 2.6, we have

    vr(qrφ(r2)21)=vr(qφ(r2)21)+vr(r)=2+1=3,
    qφ(r3)21(modr3),

    which is a contradiction. Thus, if m=r3, then

    |F(xn1)|5.

    Case 2. If m=8, then

    xn1=(Φ1(x)Φ2(x)Φ4(x)Φ8(x))pe,

    and we have

    φ(4)d4=1,  φ(8)d8=2,

    that is, q is a primitive root modulo 4, which means q is congruent to 3 modulo 4, therefore the order of q modulo 8 is

    φ(8)2=2.

    Φ4(x) is irreducible over Fq, and Φ8(x) factors into

    φ(8)φ(8)2=2

    distinct monic irreducible polynomials in Fq[x] of the same degree 2. Thus

    |F(xn1)|=5.

    Case 3. If m=2r, then

    xn1=(Φ1(x)Φ2(x)Φr(x)Φ2r(x))pe.

    It follows from Lemma 2.8 that

    φ(r)dr=2,  φ(2r)d2r=1,

    that is, q is a primitive root modulo 2r, and the order of q modulo r is φ(r)2, Φ2r(x) is irreducible over Fq and Φr(x) factors into

    φ(r)φ(r)2=2

    distinct monic irreducible polynomials in Fq[x] of the same degree φ(r)2. Thus

    |F(xn1)|=5.

    Case 4. If m=p1p2, then

    xn1=(Φ1(x)Φp1(x)Φp2(x)Φp1p2(x))pe.

    Since p1p2 has no primitive root, we have

    φ(p1)dp1=φ(p2)dp2=1,  φ(p1p2)dp1p2=2,

    that is, q is a primitive root modulo p1 and p2, and the order of q modulo p1p2 is φ(p1p2)2, Φp1(x) and Φp2(x) are irreducible over Fq, and Φp1p2(x) factors into

    φ(p1p2)φ(p1p2)2=2

    distinct monic irreducible polynomials in Fq[x] of the same degree φ(p1p2)2. Thus

    |F(xn1)|=5.

    If m has three factors, then the possible values of m are 4 or r2. If m=4, there are at most four distinct irreducible factors for xn1. Thus

    |F(xn1)|<5.

    If m=r2, then

    xn1=(Φ1(x)Φr(x)Φr2(x))pe.

    The positive integer solutions of the equation

    x1+x2+x3=5

    are

    x1=1,  x2=x3=2,orx1=x2=1,  x3=3.

    For the former, we have

    φ(r)dr=φ(r2)dr2=2,

    that is, the order of q modulo r is φ(r)2 and the order of q modulo r2 is φ(r2)2, Φr(x), and Φr2(x) factor into 2 distinct monic irreducible polynomials in Fq[x]. Thus

    |F(xn1)|=5.

    For the latter, it follows from Lemma 2.7 that

    φ(r)dr=1andφ(r2)dr2=3,

    that is, q is a primitive root modulo r, and the order of q modulo r2 is φ(r2)3, Φr(x) is irreducible over Fq and Φr2(x) factors into 3 distinct monic irreducible polynomials in Fq[x]. Thus

    |F(xn1)|=5.

    If m has two factors, then

    m=r,  xn1=(Φ1(x)Φr(x))pe.

    The positive integer solution of the equation x1+x2=5 is x1=1,x2=4. Hence, we have

    φ(r)dr=4,

    that is, the order of q modulo r is φ(r)4. The cyclotomic polynomial Φr(x) factors into four distinct monic irreducible polynomials in Fq[x]. Thus

    |F(xn1)|=5.

    In conclusion, we obtain the following result:

    Theorem 4.3. The following statements are equivalent:

    (a) |F(xn1)|=5.

    (b) (b1) F(xn1) = {x1,Φr(x),Φr2(x),Φr3(x),Φr4(x)}, where m=r4.

    (b2) F(xn1) = {x1,x+1,Φ4(x),f1(x),f2(x)}, where m=8,

    f1(x)f2(x)=Φ8(x),degf1=degf2=2.

    (b3) F(xn1) = {x1,x+1,g1(x),g2(x),Φ2r(x)}, where m=2r,

    g1(x)g2(x)=Φr(x),degg1=degg2=φ(r)2.

    (b4) F(xn1) = {x1,Φp1(x),Φp2(x),h1(x),h2(x)}, where m=p1p2,

    h1(x)h2(x)=Φp1p2(x),degh1=degh2=φ(p1p2)2.

    (b5) F(xn1) = {x1,k1(x),k2(x),r1(x),r2(x)}, where m=r2,

    k1(x)k2(x)=Φr(x),degk1=degk2=φ(r)2andr1(x)r2(x)=Φr2(x),degr1=degr2=φ(r2)2.

    Or F(xn1) = {x1,Φr(x),u1(x),u2(x),u3(x)}, where m=r2,

    u1(x)u2(x)u3(x)=Φr2(x),degu1=degu2=degu3=φ(r2)3.

    (b6) F(xn1) = {x1,v1(x),v2(x),v3(x),v4(x)}, where m=r,

    v1(x)v2(x)v3(x)v4(x)=Φr(x),degv1=degv2=degv3=degv4=φ(r)4.

    (c) (c1) m=r4, and q is a primitive root modulo r2.

    (c2) m=8, q is a primitive root modulo 4, and the order of q modulo 8 is 2.

    (c3) m=2r, the order of q modulo r is φ(r)2 and q is a primitive root modulo 2r.

    (c4) m=p1p2, the order of q modulo p1p2 is φ(p1p2)2, and q is a primitive root modulo p1 and p2.

    (c5) m=r2, the order of q modulo r is φ(r)2 and the order of q modulo r2 is φ(r2)2; or q is a primitive root modulo r and the order of q modulo r2 is φ(r2)3.

    (c6) m=r, and the order of q modulo r is φ(r)4.

    In this final section, we provide two examples.

    Example 5.1. Let Fq denote the finite field of q elements with characteristic p. Let p be a prime, let r be a prime different from p, and let n=rlpe, with l1, e0. Denote by F(xn1) the set of all distinct monic irreducible factors of xn1 in a given finite field. Given a positive integer s, we consider the special case for

    |F(xn1)|=s=l+1.

    Since n=rlpe,

    xn1=(Φ1(x)Φr(x)Φr2(x)Φrl(x))pe.

    The unique positive integer solution of the equation

    x0+x1+x2++xl=l+1

    is

    xi=φ(ri)dri=1  (i=0,1,,l),

    where dri denotes the order of q modulo ri (i=0,1,,l). That is, q is a primitive root modulo rj (j=1,2,,l). Recall Lemma 2.7 that if q is a primitive root modulo r2, then q is a primitive root modulo rj (j=1,2,,l). Cyclotomic polynomials Φrj(x) (j=1,2,,l) are irreducible over Fq.

    In conclusion, if q is a primitive root modulo r2, then

    |F(xrlpe1)|=l+1.

    Example 5.2. We factor polynomial x251 into distinct monic irreducible polynomials over F7. Since 25=52,

    x251=x521=Φ1(x)Φ5(x)Φ25(x).

    We first calculate

    72(mod5),  7241(mod5),  741(mod5),

    where 7 is a primitive root modulo 5, thus

    Φ5(x)=1+x+x2+x3+x4

    is irreducible over F7.

    We next calculate

    77(mod25),  72241(mod25),  741(mod25),

    the order of  7 modulo 25 is 4, thus

    Φ25(x)=1+x5+x10+x15+x20

    factors into

    φ(25)4=5

    distinct monic irreducible polynomials over F7 of the same degree 4,

    f1(x)=1+2x+4x2+2x3+x4,f2(x)=1+4x+4x3+x4,f3(x)=1+4x+3x2+4x3+x4,f4(x)=1+5x+5x2+5x3+x4,f5(x)=1+6x+5x2+6x3+x4,

    respectively.

    Thus

    x251=((x1)(1+x+x2+x3+x4)(1+2x+4x2+2x3+x4)(1+4x+4x3+x4)(1+4x+3x2+4x3+x4)(1+5x+5x2+5x3+x4)(1+6x+5x2+6x3+x4))

    and

    |F(x251)|=7.

    {Let Fq be the finite field of q elements, and Fqn be its extension of degree n. Denote by F(xn1) the set of all distinct monic irreducible factors of the polynomial xn1 in the finite field Fq. Given a positive integer s, we use the properties of cyclotomic polynomials in finite fields and results from the Diophantine equations to provide the sufficient and necessary condition for

    |F(xn1)|=s.

    As an application, we also obtain the sufficient and necessary conditions for

    |F(xn1)|=3,4,5.

    Weitao Xie: the first draft of the manuscript; Jiayu Zhang: preliminaries collection and analysis; Wei Cao: originally raised the problem and commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the study conception and design. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

    The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

    The authors thank the anonymous referees for their helpful comments that improved the quality of the manuscript. This work was jointly supported by the Fujian Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 2022J02046), and Fujian Key Laboratory of Granular Computing and Applications (Minnan Normal University).

    All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.



    [1] R. S. Achrol, Changes in the theory of interorganizational relations in marketing: Toward a Network Paradigm, J. Acad. Mark. Sci., 25 (1996), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070397251006 doi: 10.1177/0092070397251006
    [2] R. S. Achrol, P. Kotler, Marketing in the network economy, J. Mark., 63 (1999), 146–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429990634s114 doi: 10.1177/00222429990634s114
    [3] E. Anderson, B. Weitz, The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channels, J. Mark. Res., 29 (1992), 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379202900103 doi: 10.1177/002224379202900103
    [4] A. Kumar, J. B. Heide, K. H. Wathne, Performance implications of mismatched governance regimes across external and internal relationships, J. Mark., 75 (2011), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.75.2.1 doi: 10.1509/jm.75.2.1
    [5] R. M. Morgan, S. D. Hunt, The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing, J. Mark., 58 (1994), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800302 doi: 10.1177/002224299405800302
    [6] R. W. Palmatier, Interfirm relational drivers of customer value, J. Mark., 72 (2008), 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.72.4.076 doi: 10.1509/jmkg.72.4.076
    [7] G. F. Watson, S. Worm, R. W. Palmatier, S. Ganesan, The evolution of marketing channels: Trends and research directions, J. Retail., 91 (2015), 546–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.04.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2015.04.002
    [8] J. R. Brown, J. L. Crosno, P. Y. Tong, Is the theory of trust and commitment in marketing relationships incomplete?, Ind. Mark. Manag., 77 (2019), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.10.005 doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.10.005
    [9] I. V. Kozlenkova, G. T. M. Hult, D. J. Lund, J. A. Mena, P. Kekec, The role of marketing channels in supply chain management, J. Retail., 91 (2015), 586–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.03.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2015.03.003
    [10] G. L. Frazier, Organizing and managing channels of distribution, J. Acad. Mark. Sci., 27 (1999), 226–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070399272007 doi: 10.1177/0092070399272007
    [11] F. Gimeno-Arias, J. M. Santos-Jaén, Using PLS-SEM for assessing negative impact and cooperation as antecedents of gray market in FMCG supply chains: An analysis on Spanish wholesale distributors, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag., 53 (2023), 718–742. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-02-2022-0038 doi: 10.1108/IJPDLM-02-2022-0038
    [12] S. S. Andaleeb, An experimental investigation of satisfaction and commitment in marketing channels: The role of trust and dependence, J. Retail., 72 (1996), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(96)90006-8 doi: 10.1016/S0022-4359(96)90006-8
    [13] N. Sharma, L. C. Young, I. Wilkinson, The nature and role of different types of commitment in inter-firm relationship cooperation, J. Bus. Ind. Mark., 30 (2015), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-11-2012-0202 doi: 10.1108/JBIM-11-2012-0202
    [14] T. Suh, J. C. Jung, G. M. Zank, R. J. Arend, Twofold relationship dynamics of supplier's knowledge sharing, J. Bus. Ind. Mark., 34 (2019), 862–874. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-10-2017-0241 doi: 10.1108/JBIM-10-2017-0241
    [15] A. S. Vinhas, R. Gibbs, Exclusive dealing without territory exclusivity in multichannel systems: Managing channel conflict and driving commitment, Mark. Lett., 29 (2018), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-018-9462-9 doi: 10.1007/s11002-018-9462-9
    [16] L. Wang, C. Zhang, J. Li, D. Huo, X. Fan, The influence of unilateral supplier transaction-specific investments on international buyer opportunism: empirical findings from local suppliers in China, Int. Mark. Rev., 37 (2020), 213–239. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-05-2018-0177 doi: 10.1108/IMR-05-2018-0177
    [17] M. Du, J. Zhang, Encouraging customer participation by leveraging interdependence structure and relationship commitments: empirical evidence from chinese industrial firms, Int. J. Bus. Inf., 12 (2017), 433–477.
    [18] F. R. Dwyer, P. H. Schurr, S. Oh, Developing buyer-seller relationships, J. Mark., 51 (1987), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298705100202 doi: 10.1177/002224298705100202
    [19] C. Ferro, C. Padin, G. Svensson, J. Payan, Trust and commitment as mediators between economic and non-economic satisfaction in manufacturer-supplier relationships, J. Bus. Ind. Mark., 31 (2016), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-07-2013-0154 doi: 10.1108/JBIM-07-2013-0154
    [20] I. Geyskens, J. B. Steenkamp, L. K. Scheer, N. Kumar, The effects of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment: A trans-Atlantic study, Int. J. Res. Mark., 13 (1996), 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(96)00006-7 doi: 10.1016/S0167-8116(96)00006-7
    [21] D. I. Gilliland, D. C. Bello, Two sides to attitudinal commitment: The effect of calculative and loyalty commitment on enforcement mechanisms in distribution channels, J. Acad. Mark. Sci., 30 (2002), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/03079450094306 doi: 10.1177/03079450094306
    [22] N. Kumar, L. K. Scheer, J. B. Steenkamp, The effects of perceived interdependence on dealer attitudes, J. Mark. Res., 32 (1995), 348–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379503200309 doi: 10.1177/002224379503200309
    [23] M. Mpinganjira, M. Roberts-Lombard, G. Svensson, Validating the relationship between trust, commitment, economic and non-economic satisfaction in South African buyer-supplier relationships, J. Bus. Ind. Mark., 32 (2017), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-04-2015-0073 doi: 10.1108/JBIM-04-2015-0073
    [24] N. Ponder, B. B. Holloway, J. D. Hansen, The mediating effects of customers' intimacy perceptions on the trust-commitment relationship, J. Serv. Mark., 30 (2016), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-04-2014-0117 doi: 10.1108/JSM-04-2014-0117
    [25] W. J. Johnston, A. N. H. Le, J. M. S. Cheng, A meta-analytic review of influence strategies in marketing channel relationships, J. Acad. Mark. Sci., 46 (2018), 674–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0564-3 doi: 10.1007/s11747-017-0564-3
    [26] W. J. Reinartz, M. Berkmann, From customer to partner engagement: a conceptualization and typology of engagement in B2B, Customer Engagement Mark., (2018), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61985-9_11 doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-61985-9_11
    [27] V. Kumar, A. Pansari, Competitive advantage through engagement, J. Mark. Res., 53 (2016), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0044 doi: 10.1509/jmr.15.0044
    [28] S. Sands, C. Campbell, C. Ferraro, K. Plangger, Buffering B2B service failure: The role of customer engagement, Ind. Mark. Manag., 103 (2022), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.03.007 doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.03.007
    [29] S. D. Vivek, V. Dalela, M. S. Ahmed, A framework for partner engagement: Episodes in the life of interorganizational partnerships, J. Mark. Theory Pract., 30 (2022), 476–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2021.191639898 doi: 10.1080/10696679.2021.1916398
    [30] M. W. Nyadzayo, R. Casidy, P. Thaichon, B2B purchase engagement: Examining the key drivers and outcomes in professional services, Ind. Mark. Manag., 85 (2020), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.11.007 doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.11.007
    [31] M. Kleinaltenkamp, I. O. Karpen, C. Plewa, E. Jaakkola, J. Conduit, Collective engagement in organizational settings, Ind. Mark. Manag., 80 (2019), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.02.009 doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.02.009
    [32] J. F. Hair, M. Sarstedt, L. Hopkins, V. G. Kuppelwieser, Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research, Eur. Bus. Rev., 26 (2014), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128 doi: 10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
    [33] J. M. Santos-Jaén, A. León-Gómez, M. del C. Valls Martínez, F. Gimeno-Arias, The effect of public healthcare expenditure on the reduction in mortality rates caused by unhealthy habits among the population, Healthcare, 10 (2022), 2253. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10112253 doi: 10.3390/healthcare10112253
    [34] M. Martínez Ávila, E. Fierro Moreno, Aplicación de la técnica PLS-SEM en la gestión del conocimiento: un enfoque técnico práctico / application of the PLS-SEM technique in knowledge management: A practical technical approach, RIDE Rev. Iberoam. para la Investig. y el Desarro. Educ., 8 (2018), 130–164. https://doi.org/10.23913/ride.v8i16.336 doi: 10.23913/ride.v8i16.336
    [35] P. B. Lowry, J. Gaskin, Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it, IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., 57 (2014), 123–146. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2014.2312452 doi: 10.1109/TPC.2014.2312452
    [36] R. W. Palmatier, R. P. Dant, D. Grewal, K. R. Evans, Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis, J. Mark., 70 (2006), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.4.136 doi: 10.1509/jmkg.70.4.136
    [37] A. I. Rokkan, J. B. Heide, K. H. Wathne, Specific investments in marketing relationships: expropriation and bonding effects, J. Mark. Res., 40 (2003), 210–224. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.40.2.210.19223 doi: 10.1509/jmkr.40.2.210.19223
    [38] L. W. Stern, T. Reve, Distribution channels as political economies: A framework for comparative analysis, J. Mark., 44 (1980), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298004400306 doi: 10.1177/002224298004400306
    [39] J. C. Anderson, J. A. Narus, A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships, J. Mark., 54 (1990), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400103 doi: 10.1177/002224299005400103
    [40] E. Garbarino, M. S. Johnson, The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships, J. Mark., 63 (1999), 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299906300205 doi: 10.1177/002224299906300205
    [41] I. Geyskens, J. B. Steenkamp, N. Kumar, A meta-analysis of satisfaction in marketing channel relationships, J. Mark. Res., 36 (1999), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379903600207 doi: 10.1177/002224379903600207
    [42] I. R. Macneil, Contracts: Adjustment of long-term economic relations under classical, neoclassical, and relational contract law, Nw. UL Rev., 72 (1977), 854.
    [43] D. Narayandas, V. K. Rangan, Building and sustaining buyer–seller relationships in mature industrial markets, J. Mark., 68 (2004), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.3.63.34772 doi: 10.1509/jmkg.68.3.63.34772
    [44] N. M. Høgevold, G. Svensson, C. Otero-Neira, Validating action and social alignment constituents of collaboration in business relationships, Mark. Intell. Plan., 37 (2019), 721–740. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-12-2018-0577 doi: 10.1108/MIP-12-2018-0577
    [45] J. Xue, S. Lu, B. Shi, H. Zheng, Trust, guanxi, and cooperation: A study on partner opportunism in Chinese joint-venture manufacturing, J. Bus. Ind. Mark., 33 (2018), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-07-2016-0159 doi: 10.1108/JBIM-07-2016-0159
    [46] Y. Zhou, X. Zhang, G. Zhuang, N. Zhou, Relational norms and collaborative activities: Roles in reducing opportunism in marketing channels, Ind. Mark. Manag., 46 (2015), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.01.014 doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.01.014
    [47] J. F. Gaski, N. M. Ray, Alienation in the distribution channel, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag., 34 (2004), 158–200. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030410526941 doi: 10.1108/09600030410526941
    [48] J. Crosno, R. Dahlstrom, Y. Liu, P. Y. Tong, Effectiveness of contracts in marketing exchange relationships: A meta-analytic review, Ind. Mark. Manag., 92 (2021), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.11.007 doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.11.007
    [49] R. Vázquez-Casielles, V. Iglesias, C. Varela-Neira, Manufacturer–distributor relationships: Role of relationship-specific investment and dependence types, J. Bus. Ind. Mark., 32 (2017), 1245–1260. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-10-2016-0244 doi: 10.1108/JBIM-10-2016-0244
    [50] N. Sharma, An examination of customer relationship value in high vs low technology industries, Acad. Mark. Stud. J., 24 (2020), 1–24.
    [51] J. C. Anderson, J. A. Narus, A model of the distributor's perspective of distributor-manufacturer working relationships, J. Mark., 48 (1984), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298404800407 doi: 10.1177/002224298404800407
    [52] K. H. Wathne, J. B. Heide, Opportunism in interfirm relationships: Forms, outcomes, and solutions, J. Mark., 64 (2000), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.4.36.18070 doi: 10.1509/jmkg.64.4.36.18070
    [53] J. B. Heide, G. John, The role of dependence balancing in safeguarding transaction-specific assets in conventional channels, J. Mark., 52 (1988), 20-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200103 doi: 10.1177/002224298805200103
    [54] S. Ganesan, S. P. Brown, B. J. Mariadoss, H. Ho, Buffering and amplifying effects of relationship commitment in business-to-business relationships, J. Mark. Res., 47 (2010), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.2.361 doi: 10.1509/jmkr.47.2.361
    [55] J. R. Brown, R. F. Lusch, C. Y. Nicholson, Power and relationship commitment: their impact on marketing channel member performance, J. Retail., 71 (1995), 363–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4359(95)90019-5 doi: 10.1016/0022-4359(95)90019-5
    [56] A. T. Coughlan, E. Anderson, L. W. Stern, A. El-Ansary, Marketing Channels, Prentice Hall, 2006.
    [57] R. Grewal, G. L. Lilien, S. Bharadwaj, P. Jindal, U. Kayande, R. F. Lusch, et al., Business-to-business buying: Challenges and opportunities, Cust. Needs Solut., 2 (2015), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-015-0040-5 doi: 10.1007/s40547-015-0040-5
    [58] S. D. Vivek, V. Dalela, S. E. Beatty, Partner engagement: A perspective on B2B engagement, Customer Engagement, Routledge (2015), 53–66.
    [59] R. W. Palmatier, R. P. Dant, D. Grewal, A comparative longitudinal analysis of theoretical perspectives of interorganizational relationship performance, J. Mark., 71 (2007), 172–194. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.4.172 doi: 10.1509/jmkg.71.4.172
    [60] A. Pansari, V. Kumar, Customer engagement: the construct, antecedents, and consequences, J. Acad. Mark. Sci., 45 (2017), 294–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0485-6 doi: 10.1007/s11747-016-0485-6
    [61] S. Vatavwala, B. Kumar, A. Sharma, A. Billore, A. Sadh, Customer disengagement in business-to-business markets: A framework for analysis, Ind. Mark. Manag., 105 (2022), 114–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.05.018 doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.05.018
    [62] J. Barnes, Y. Liao, The effect of individual, network, and collaborative competencies on the supply chain management system, Int. J Prod. Econ., 140 (2012), 888–899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.07.010 doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.07.010
    [63] E. W. Choi, Ö. Özer, Y. Zheng, Network trust and trust behaviors among executives in supply chain interactions, Manag. Sci., 66 (2020), 5823–5849. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3499 doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2019.3499
    [64] S. Ambulkar, J. V. Blackhurst, D. E. Cantor, Supply chain risk mitigation competency: An individual-level knowledge-based perspective, Int. J Prod. Res., 54 (2016), 1398–1411. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1070972 doi: 10.1080/00207543.2015.1070972
    [65] D. M. Hardesty, W. O. Bearden, The use of expert judges in scale development: Implications for improving face validity of measures of unobservable constructs, J. Bus. Res., 57 (2004), 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00295-8 doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00295-8
    [66] P. M. Podsakoff, S. B. MacKenzie, J. Y. Lee, N. P. Podsakoff, Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, J. Appl. Psychol., 88 (2003), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
    [67] J. S. Armstrong, T. S. Overton, Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys, J. Mark. Res., 14 (1977), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377701400320 doi: 10.1177/002224377701400320
    [68] S. Cai, M. Jun, Z. Yang, The effects of boundary Spanners' personal relationships on interfirm collaboration and conflict: A study of the role of Guanxi in China, J. Supply Chain Manag., 53 (2017), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12132 doi: 10.1111/jscm.12132
    [69] M. Sarstedt, J. F. Hair, C. M. Ringle, K. O. Thiele, S. P. Gudergan, Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the bias lies!, J. Bus. Res., 69 (2016), 3998–4010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.007 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.007
    [70] A. Leguina, A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 38 (2015), 220–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2015.1005806 doi: 10.1080/1743727X.2015.1005806
    [71] J. F. Hair, C. M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet, J. Mark. Theory Pract., 19 (2011), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202 doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
    [72] A. C. Davison, D. V. Hinkley, Bootstrap Methods And Their Application, Cambridge University Press, UK, 1977.
    [73] B. Efron, R. Tibshirani, Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy, Stat. Sci., 1 (1986), 54–75. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177013815 doi: 10.1214/ss/1177013815
    [74] D. Kushary, Bootstrap methods and their application, Technometrics, 42 (2000), 216–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.2000.10486018 doi: 10.1080/00401706.2000.10486018
    [75] J. F. Hair Jr, M. Sarstedt, Factors versus composites: Guidelines for choosing the right structural equation modeling method, Proj. Manag. J., 50 (2019), 619–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819882132 doi: 10.1177/8756972819882132
    [76] D. Ruiz-Palomo, J. Diéguez-Soto, A. Duréndez, J. A. C Santos, Family management and firm performance in family SMEs: The mediating roles of management control systems and technological innovation, Sustainability, 11 (2019), 3805. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143805 doi: 10.3390/su11143805
    [77] M. Sarstedt, C. M. Ringle, J. H. Cheah, H. Ting, O. I. Moisescu, L. Radomir, Structural model robustness checks in PLS-SEM, Tour. Econ., 26 (2020), 531–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816618823921 doi: 10.1177/1354816618823921
    [78] C. M. Ringle, S. Wende, J. M. Baker, Smart-Pls, SmartPLS 4. Oststeinbek: SmartPLS, (2022). Available from: https://www.smartpls.com.
    [79] S. Streukens, S. Leroi-Werelds, Bootstrapping and PLS-SEM: A step-by-step guide to get more out of your bootstrap results, Eur. Manag. J., 34 (2016), 618–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.06.003 doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2016.06.003
    [80] S. Mayr, E. Erdfelder, A. Buchner, F. Faul, A short tutorial of GPower, Tutor. Quant. Methods Psychol., 3 (2007), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.03.2.p051 doi: 10.20982/tqmp.03.2.p051
    [81] J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Erbaum Press, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 2013. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.03.2.p051
    [82] M. Sarstedt, C. M. Ringle, J. F. Hair, Partial least squares structural equation modeling, in Handbook of Market Research, Cham, Springer (2022), 587–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57413-4_15
    [83] J. Henseler, G. Hubona, P. A. Ray, Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines, Ind. Manag. Data Syst., 116 (2016), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382 doi: 10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382
    [84] J. Henseler, On the convergence of the partial least squares path modeling algorithm, Comput. Stat., 25 (2010), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-009-0164-x doi: 10.1007/s00180-009-0164-x
    [85] T. K. Dijkstra, J. Henseler, Consistent partial least squares path modeling, MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst., 39 (2015), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.2.02 doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.2.02
    [86] J. Henseler, C. M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling, J. Acad. Mark. Sci., 43 (2015), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
    [87] J. F. Hair, J. J. Risher, M. Sarstedt, C. M. Ringle, When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM, Eur. Bus. Rev., 31 (2019), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203 doi: 10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
    [88] C. Fornell, D. F. Larcker, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, J. Mark. Res., 18 (1981), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104 doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104
    [89] J. Henseler, Some inconvenient truths about PLS path modeling, 9th Int. Conf. PLS Relat. Methods, (2016), 74–76.
    [90] L. T. Hu, P. M. Bentler, Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification, Psychol. Methods, 3 (1998), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424 doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
    [91] W. W. Chin, How to write up and report pls analyses, in Handbook of Partial Least Squares, Springer, (2010), 655–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8_29
    [92] G. Shmueli, To explain or to predict?, Stat. Sci., 25 (2010), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1214/10-STS330 doi: 10.1214/10-STS330
    [93] D. Straub, D. Gefen, Validation guidelines for is positivist research, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst., 13 (2004), 380–427. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01324 doi: 10.17705/1CAIS.01324
    [94] J. Evermann, M. Tate, Assessing the predictive performance of structural equation model estimators, J. Bus. Res., 69 (2016), 4565–4582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.050 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.050
    [95] G. Shmueli, M. Sarstedt, J. F. Hair, J. Cheah, H. Ting, S. Vaithilingam, et al., Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using PLSpredict, Eur. J. Mark., 53 (2019), 2322–2347. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189 doi: 10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189
    [96] J. F. Hair, M. C. Howard, C. Nitzl, Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis, J. Bus. Res., 109 (2020), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069
    [97] A. Calvo-Mora, A. Blanco-Oliver, J. L. Roldán, R. Periáñez-Cristóbal, TQM factors and organisational results in the EFQM excellence model framework: an explanatory and predictive analysis, Ind. Manag. Data Syst., 120 (2020), 2297–2317. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-12-2019-0701 doi: 10.1108/IMDS-12-2019-0701
    [98] C. M. Felipe, J. L. Roldán, A. L. Leal-Rodríguez, Impact of organizational culture values on organizational agility, Sustainability, 9 (2017), 2354. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122354 doi: 10.3390/su9122354
    [99] A. G. Woodside, Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory, J. Bus. Res., 66 (2013), 463–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.021 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.021
    [100] A. Martín-Navarro, F. Velicia-Martín, J. A. Medina-Garrido, R. G. Rodrigues, Causal propensity as an antecedent of entrepreneurial intentions, Int. Entrep. Manag. J., 19 (2023), 501–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-022-00826-1 doi: 10.1007/s11365-022-00826-1
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Jinle Liu, Hongfeng Wu, A Note on Factorization and the Number of Irreducible Factors of xn − λ over Finite Fields, 2025, 13, 2227-7390, 473, 10.3390/math13030473
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(2354) PDF downloads(113) Cited by(2)

Figures and Tables

Figures(2)  /  Tables(11)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog