In the present-day business environment, buyer-supplier relationships are an essential source of competitive advantages. Therefore, the management of such relationships should be regarded as a priority. The large transactional enterprises, such as Toyota and General Motors (GM), are characterized by the increased specialization and outsourcing activities that make buyer-supplier relationships “a focal point of organizational competitiveness, performance and long-term success” (Rašković and Brenčič 16). Consideration of different relationship management principles and the quality of buyer-supplier interactions is thus imperative. Buyer-supplier relationships can be tailored according to the specific organizational needs, goals, and characteristics. Based on these differences, three major types of relationships are distinguished. They are the zero-sum game (transactional relationships), cooperative partnerships, and business networks (Enright 1). Transactional Relationships In the case study, the zero-sum game type of interactions can be observed in GM’s manner of conduct. The adversarial (arms-length) manner of interactions between sellers and buyers means that the parties do not attempt to generate mutual benefits and are concerned primarily with own well-being. The focus in adversarial buyer-supplier relationships is made on the fulfillment of short-term goals such as price advantage. Such relationships are mainly developed on the contractual terms and are associated with both parties’ strategic adjustment (instead of flexibility) (Yusoon and Choi 62). Arms-length relationships do not include continual communication. Buyers and suppliers do not need to share information about costs and forecasts. The given model does not imply collaboration and mutual learning although it might be present to some extent. It is possible to say that the focus on the price advantages without consideration of interests of another party is not always the best solution because while one side gains benefits, the other one loses them. The example of GM makes it clear that adversarial seller-buyer relationships are characterized by the lack of buyer/customer or supplier values and low trust. As Enright observes, by following the principles of arms-length relationships, GM managed to achieve significant cost efficiency because it frequently switched to the lowest bidders (3). However, a negative consequence of this kind of conduct is that buyers become more likely to choose those companies that value collaboration and partnerships, and share their ideas with those companies. Collaborative Relationships Cooperation as the form of buyer-supplier relationships qualitatively differs from adversarial interactions. Its main distinctive feature is the awareness of the parties of the interdependence between them. “In this relationship type, annual agreements are formed and the supplier becomes more involved in the quality control process” (Bemelmans et al. 164). It means that collaborative partnerships are based on the mutual commitment and shared goals, as well as the maximization of operational efficiency and effectiveness of each participant’s performance. The major principles of cooperati