Hennart and Park (1993) state that when a multinational makes an acquisition, one of the challenges it faces is how to coordinate and manage the relationships involved, considering that the subsidiaries have knowledge about their own internal and external relationships and the way they function. These relationships create a challenge for the buyer, who must understand them and make them fit for the development of their own strategies.

There is often a great degree of uncertainty in international environments, which present international operations with significant challenges, and these can be minimized by improving relationships between players in the supply chain. (KLASSEN, WHYBARK, 1994). In the competitive context of international markets the execution of operations drives multinational companies towards greater involvement with local players, with the objective of becoming more effective in their activities and achieving greater global synergy (PRASAD & BABBAR, 2000).

In studies on the formation of joint ventures, the literature presents the concept of partner cooperation as being the opposite of the concept of opportunism (PARK & UNGSON, 2001). We can extend this approach to include the discussion about multinational companies. In this case, when those involved cooperate they avoid the opportunistic behavior of their partners and create the potential for effective gains (ARIÑO, 2003; LUO & PARK, 2004).

Meyer and Estrin (2001) also point out to the capacity that purchasing companies have for appropriating the knowledge that the acquired organizations possess of the local market. This implies maintaining the resources and competences that are necessary for the new management model, which may or may not replicate the strategy of the parent company. The capacity the subsidiary has for absorbing new knowledge is also important, since new strategies are drawn up following completion of the acquisition process (Fang & Zou, 2010). Resistance to change, the existing culture and the local economic situation may also have an influence on the results of any new international operation.

Burgess, Singh and Koroglu (2006) emphasize that there are five main aspects in relationships: information sharing, their long-term nature, collaboration, logistical integration, and the sharing of risks and returns. We identify these aspects following the analysis of 43 empirical studies that were published between 1996 and 2007 in the main journals in the field of operations management.

According to Mentzer et al. (2001), relationships in supply chains can generally be analyzed from the viewpoint of the direct chain, in other words, the vertical relationships that exist between the focal company and its suppliers and distributors. When relationships involve partners of the same size they are usually more collaborative, while they tend to be more coercive when there are differences in size and bargaining power in the relationship. (Capó-Vicedo, Mula & Capó, 2011; Huang, Yen & Liu, 2014). Collaborative relationships involve trust, commitment, cultural aspects, and the availability of human capital for the development of this type of relationship.

The institutional and transaction cost approaches deal with trust as a rational or cognitive choice (McALLISTER, 1995). A reduction in trust, however, can generate conflicts, leading to demotivated participants and the non-development of collaborative activities (MADHOK, 1995). This author believes there is a structural component in trust that refers to the complementary nature of the resources involved. On the other hand, the social component of trust is related to the quality of the relationship, influenced by the perception of continued equity between those involved.

Trust grows over time (GAO & BROWN, 1998) and each one involved has their own characteristics and qualities that allow them to act and trust in a unique way (HOFSTEDE & BOND, 1988). In the individual context, we find the term affective trust when there is an individual who has characteristics that are trustworthy (LINDGREEN, 2003). In organizational terms, trust between buyer and seller is defined as a conviction, an expectation or a feeling about a partner, resulting from their knowledge, reliability and intentions.

Some authors analyze the role of trust in relationships between companies from a sociological perspective. They point out that there are at least two parties/parts involved: those who trust and the basis for that trust, which may be a company, an institution or a product (Zucker, 1986, VIEIRA & TRAILL, 2008). For Dyer and Chu (2011), when the lack of trust is due to specific aspects of the partner's regional context, the company should identify other mechanisms aimed at compensating for this gap, such as monitoring and risk control systems.

By adopting a broader focus, market demands put pressure on companies' ability to respond, which justifies the search for cooperative activities in supply chains (SIMATUPANG & SRIDHARAN, 2002). Cantwell, Dunning and Lundan (2010) also stress the importance of the environment in existing relationships. For these authors, internal and external variables, such as political, economic and social aspects, can influence businesses' strategy, learning and innovation, which tends to act in a cooperative way according to the context.

For Wilding and Humphries (2006), co-operation, coordination, and collaboration are important for reducing opportunistic behavior in relationships. According to studies by Whipple and Russel (2007), there are various types of cooperation, it is up to managers to understand and adapt these types according to their own particular business and reality. The environment is more complex for multinational companies because of the multiplicity of variables involved. At the same time, simple actions that do not require large financial investments can often strengthen cooperation between companies (SINGH & POWER, 2009). Because of the different forms of cooperation and collaboration that exist, McDuffie (2011) suggests that there are different types of trust in relationships, including: collaborative trust, which is linked to the reputation, competence and involvement of individuals; traditional trust, which is found in existing social relations; charismatic trust, which is linked to positive personal characteristics; and contractual trust, which is based on systems and institutions that reinforce expectations of reliability.

In order to achieve common organizational goals organizations need to involve different players. In the literature, this is termed as alignment and can occur at both the strategic and information levels, especially in more comprehensive relationships, such as in a supply chain (CHEN & PAULRAJ, 2004).

The discussion about alignment also focuses on the relationship between buyer and supplier. Wu and Cavusgil (2005) understand that for many organizations it is important to develop a "relationship map", which in a broader perspective helps align commercial relations. This alignment is drawing together information in the search for consensus between those involved. Even in situations in which relationships align, we cannot assure the absence of conflicts. This may also occur because of the limited rationality of the participants and the presence of opportunistic behavior. Juttner, Godsell, and Christopher (2006) cite the importance of alignment along the whole chain, which comprises everything from production to demand, with the objective being of delivering products to market that efficiently create value for the customer.

For Paiva, Carvalho Jr. and Fensterseifer (2009), a supply chain strategy should ideally generate gains for all those involved. In this sense, relationships between buyer and supplier become a strategic issue, since the success of a company may be related to the strategy it adopts for managing its suppliers. The authors also emphasized that in order to understand the influence of the strategic positioning of the company on the performance of the supply chain, the following are relevant: the level of the relationship with suppliers; the level of the supplier's involvement with product development; the supplier's selection criteria; and how the size of the supplier base is established.

In addition to the importance of observing the alignment that exists between members in the supply chain, what we need to understand is the alignment that exists between subsidiary units and the parent company, since the former may sometimes become dependent on corporate resources, such as capital, technology and knowledge (CRILLY, 2011). When a multinational company increases its knowledge of the production and commercial activities of its subsidiary, it will possibly seek to promote greater information exchange between those involved. Therefore, these actions will help increase alignment between the parties.

The subsidiary in Uruguay has a degree of autonomy, but follows the goals planned by the headquarters. In line with this orientation, the unit seeks to organize and cooperate when new demands exist, and to maintain its routine activities in the market. The maintenance of the required international quality standards leads to the need of working together, especially with producers; thereby, creating conditions for raw material to arrive in accordance with the requirements that exist.

"The company arranges technical talks with producers. The aim is also to encourage communication between them." (I - Uruguay)

With this objective in mind, there are collaborative relationships that benefit both parties. The development of these types of relationship, however, is difficult and aggravated due to the company's headquarters being outside Uruguay. Thus, there are areas for improvement in relationships within the chain. The existing gaps are similar to those found in the studies by Dyer and Chu (2000 and 2011), which state that supplier/buyer relationships should go beyond contracts and involve loyalty.

"Communication does not reach all producers ... there is a lack of information about the sector."(P1 - Uruguay)

"The company doesn't pass on information that allows the producer to make new investments." (P2 - Uruguay)

This information differs from some previous studies, according to which time has a positive influence on the bonds of trust. In the case of the relationships studied here, the years of working together did not always lead to greater closeness. This period also created a distancing and led to a breakdown in relationships, as in the case of some of the consignees with the company. They were discouraged as they did not identify positive changes for themselves and moved away from both the activity and their trade partners.

"The industry draws together some of the consignees. (But) there's a lot of competition between them and many have already closed down ..." (C - Uruguay)

According to Sohn (1994), knowledge can be the basis for trust in long-term relationships, drawing the production and intermediary links closer together to work in a more collaborative and integrating way. However, given this knowledge is not passed on, since information about the market is centralized in the company, what we perceived was a certain level of aversion on the part of those involved in the chain to developing activities for a company that has great bargaining power.

We found that even with a traceability and certification system operating in the chain (this is a legal requirement in Uruguay), it is clear that many producers are not satisfied with the way of working. While this also includes processes, it has mainly to do with the relationships and policies adopted along the chain. At various times, the expressions "there's no cooperation" and "there's no chain" were noticeably emphasized, providing evidence that action needs to be taken in favor of quality in these relations.

"The industry has no sales or production plan with suppliers." (I - Uruguay)

"There's no organization in procurement." (P - Uruguay)

We can say, therefore, that the company unit located in Uruguay focuses on its relationship with large producers and large consignees, and that there is a gap when it comes to small and medium-sized producers and consignees. The need to expand management and coordination processes at the chain level was also mentioned by all the links participating in this study.

"Small and medium-sized producers are not always involved (in technical talks)." (P1 - Uruguay)

"(Face-to-face meetings) ... are not for everyone." (P2 - Uruguay)

The parent company exercises much greater control over its unit in Brazil. We identified a gap in trust between the parties, but local players downplayed this aspect. There was still space in the Brazilian unit for developing actions with the other players that interact with the chain (suppliers, consumers, the labor market and the regional political system), in order to show the potential of the company and strengthen the role of each one in the chain. As the company had taken over a local company, an effort was needed to reduce the negative perception that the former had set up in the region with the objective of being a "large exploratory business". From this viewpoint, therefore, it lacked the social and structural trust of the population and of some of the suppliers and employees (GRANOVETTER, 1985; MACDUFFIE, 2011; and HANDFIELD & BECHTEL, 2002).

We find social trust when we analyze the P-I relationship in individual local players. This type of trust, then, was stronger than the structural trust.

"Mr. L. G. does everything around here. He's a trustworthy guy. At first, the company was L .. Now it's changed." (C-Brazil)

"We trust the consignee. Without a contract. There's a packing list." (I - Brazil).

Activities in the chain are poorly coordinated by actions and contacts with the regional central office in another nearby municipality, and so there is no specific planning. This places a degree of pressure on the people who work in the company and who are in direct contact with producers and who need raw materials to be supplied in an agile manner.

There was a significant amount of involvement between consignees and company management (C-I). The former acted as intermediaries in the process between suppliers and the industry. The consignees thus help reduce direct contact between small suppliers and the company. There was also a reduction in logistical costs as a result of consolidating livestock loads. This is how barriers are created between the players that comprise the chain we analyzed.

"The industry does not pass on information that allows the producer to make new investments." (P - Brazil)

In the company's view, there was no progress in terms of cooperation. What existed was purely a buying and selling market relationship, in which producers will only be satisfied when they clearly perceive their gain. Cooperation was more obviously related to the activity of consignees that fetch the raw material from small producers and consolidate this raw material for the company. There was no competition in the supply, because since raw material was scarce, all deliveries and quantities were important to the company. Even with lower quality standards, when demand was high and accelerated by the regional central office, the search was constant and, at certain times of the year, the industry faced supply shortages.

When questioned about what it had learned from these relationships, the company responded that by getting closer to producers an effort was being made to qualify the producers by way of a program called Animal Welfare, and with regard to the industrial process, when there was an opportunity to monitor the slaughter of the loads being delivered by the producer.

The limited qualifications of many producers (most of them small and medium-sized, delivering in small batches) has been identified by the company as a problem when it comes to obtaining the new certifications demanded by the industry. Throughout the certification process, audits may take place that include interviews with producers to check their adoption of good practices.

The Argentinian unit cooperates with the parent company and its production processes and seeks to meet its demands and quality and standardization requirements. It discloses its processes to the company's headquarters and to other units. According to the company, there is trust in the relationship between this unit and the headquarters. Even with some changes, we can say that the parent company values the tradition and strengths of the Argentinian unit in both the local and international market. The Argentinian unit has invested significantly in its social environment and promoted its brand among various stakeholders over and above its direct chain (MENTZER ET AL., 2001), such as the consuming public, schools, events and technical institutions. Therefore, we seek a vision of the future that would work with the various relationships to provide continuity in delivery and maintenance of the quality of its products.

Constant activities were developed between the unit and its suppliers for technically qualifying the latter. The producers assessed different forms of communication with producers as being excellent. There was more information and greater knowledge, with opportunities for discussion and the consequent growth of those involved (producers and consignees).

In this unit in the post-acquisition period, despite the new way in which decision-making was organized, which included a Brazilian manager, there was still a need to deepen social ties. As the period when the acquisition took place was recent at the time of the research, the parent company and local community needed to accept the changes and recognize them. The unit was prominent regionally and intended to continue being so. Trust in the relationship between the Argentinian unit and the Brazilian headquarters was growing, but there was a continued need for attention to value the implicit knowledge, processes, tradition and the people.

There was involvement with other industrial units in horizontal relationships, but this was still incipient, as it only occurred in meetings promoted by the headquarters. However, we identified no clear policies that aimed to increase the involvement of this unit with the company's other industrial units. Involvement with the headquarters, on the other hand, was constantly being developed.

In analyzing the P-I relationship, we found that the industry was looking to increase the involvement of producers, as shown by the importance given to the various programs being developed. The explanation for the search for valuing producers was found in the unit's objectives and mission and in the way it maintained and developed existing relationships. Constant communication with producers was identifiable, as were programs aimed at bringing together and stimulating producers' opinions and suggestions. There were also technical lectures, aimed at improving producers' knowledge.

"We have various programs by which we try and involve suppliers and get closer to them." (I-Argentina)

From the point of view of the producer, these programs were considered important and would benefit the quality of the activities and draw this link closer to the industry. They emphasized the trust that already existed in the relationship between industry and producers, as they jointly faced up to the challenges posed by the state of affairs in Argentina, thus confirming some of the aspects that facilitate cooperation.

"There is approach and involvement through various programs with producers, advice, personal contacts ..." (P-Argentina)

However, there were still gaps in coordination along the chain. This was not an integrated model that would allow production to be adjusted according to demand, just as it had not been in the other units that were studied. This always introduced a margin of insecurity and this was perhaps the main motivation behind the relationship (and attempt at loyalty-building) programs with suppliers.

"It's understood as a chain, but not as an organization that deals with chain management" (I-Argentina)

"... it's not easy in the short term, but there are attempts to balance production in terms of quantity and quality." (P-Argentina)

Trust in the relationship between industry and producer is designed mainly in the structural typology (MADHOK, 1995), since the strength of the company and the brand and explicit work done in the different programs the company terms as tools are present.

As far as the suppliers issue is concerned, horizontal relations (ZYLBERSZTAJN & LAZZARINI, 2005) were the highlight in the case of Argentina. Producers realize the benefits of cooperating with each other, learning, sharing experiences and helping each other when necessary, and the need to do so. We understand this type of action as a way of maturing and qualifying producers and for them to become more committed to their activity and to the industry.

"We help and support each other. And we also have the necessary support from the industry." (P - Argentina)