Volume 54, Issue 2 of Journal of Supply Chain Management
April brings a glimpse of sun but more importantly Volume 54 Issue 2 of JSCM.
This issue showcase our first Emerging Discourse Incubator. The topic for the EDI is research where the focal actor in a supply network is not a for-profit firm. The goal is to incubate a discourse where organizations such as NGOs, regulators, and the like are viewed as managers of their own supply networks, rather than as non-traditional members of other firms’ networks. While these networks may contain for-profit firms, the focus is on managing them from the perspective of organizations whose main motivation is not profit maximization (Carter, et al., 2015; Pagell & Wu, 2009).
With the exception of humanitarian logistics, SCM research is almost always based on a for-profit firm as the focal actor in the network, typically with the explicit aim of increasing its profits. This is a major oversight, since actors such as NGOs also manage supply chains, thus, perspectives other than maximizing one actor’s profits may be more relevant (Pagell & Shevchenko, 2014). For example, Rodríguez et al., (2016) describe how NGOs use traditional supply chain management practices to alleviate poverty. NGOs and the like are expected to develop unique practices, due to their motivation and resources (Rodriguez, et al., 2016). Research needs to explore this, in order to both improve management of these actors’ networks and enable for-profit firms to better achieve their sustainability goals. Thus, the goal of this EDI is to expand our knowledge so that the SCM field is of value to all organisations involved in managing a supply network.
The Roles of Institutional Complexity and Hybridity in Social Impact Supply Chain Management
Madeleine Pullman, Annachiara Longoni and Davide Luzzini
Supply chain research and practice has moved beyond green or environmental issues to include social issues. But much of the focus still remains on attempts of large companies to reduce social harm along their supply chains rather than creating social good. At the same time, research investigating the role of NGOs in supply chains or humanitarian logistics often emphasizes temporary initiatives and overlooks long‐term viability. This conceptual paper seeks to expand the playing field by looking at how social enterprises manage their supply chains to generate social benefit while maintaining or improving their financial viability in the long term. Our contribution is to consider those socially motivated organizations that lie on the continuum between purely social and purely commercial enterprises. We consider how these organizations manage their supply chains for social impact and define this area as social impact supply chain management (SISCM). In this work, we view these organizations and managerial issues through the lens of institutional complexity, that is, the presence of multiple and possibly conflicting institutional logics in the focal organization. We propose that, for these organizations, supply chain strategy, stakeholder identification and engagement, and relationship management might differentiate SISCM from traditional supply chain management. And as a result, we offer future research directions that might add clarity to effective SISCM.
Cross-Sector Relations in Global Supply Chains: A Social Capital Perspective
Jonathan L. Johnson, Kevin J. Dooley, David G. Hyatt and Andrew M. Hutson
View a short video from the authors here
Virtually unheard of 30 years ago, collaborations involving environmental NGOs and businesses are now common and are increasingly being used to address sustainability issues in supply chains. We argue that a supply chain perspective is instrumental for collaborative NGOs in helping them to understand environmental impacts, interorganizational dynamics, and optimal collaborative partners and tactics. We apply a framework that integrates three predominant social capital theories to cross‐sector partnerships to explain how three dimensions of social capital, individually and in interaction, may create strategic value for NGOs who seek to improve the environmental performance of companies through collaboration. Finally, we survey the nature of the progress that has (and has not) been made through cross‐sector partnerships and offer suggestions for how social capital may be deployed to accelerate change.
Delivering Transformational Change: Aligning Supply Chains and Stakeholders in Non-Governmental Organizations
Jury Gualandris and Robert D. Klassen
Governments and global corporations increasingly both confront and rely on international non‐governmental organizations (INGOs) to identify, design, and deliver interventions that prompt transformational change in societies, industries, and supply chains. For INGOs, transformational change is defined as a fundamental, long‐lasting reframing of a social or industrial system through synergistically altering the knowledge, practices, and relationships of multiple stakeholder groups. With each intervention, the focal INGO assembles its own complex supply chain of nonprofit organizations and for‐profit firms to provide the necessary resources and skills. While prior supply chain management literature provides a good starting point, with some generalizability to the nonprofit sector, this study begins with several key differences to explore how interventions are delivered, and then, how INGOs’ supply chains must be aligned. In doing so, at least three critical factors must be taken into account to improve alignment: stakeholder‐induced uncertainty; supply chain configuration; and supply chain dynamism. By synthesizing these factors with prior literature and emerging anecdotal evidence, tentative frameworks and research questions emerge about how INGOs can better leverage their supply chains, thereby offering a basis for scholars in supply chain management to build a much richer and more nuanced research understanding of INGOs.
Bluffs, Lies, and Consequences: A Reconceptualization of Bluffing in Buyer–Supplier Negotiations
Lutz Kaufmann, Joerg Rottenburger, Craig R. Carter and Christian Schlereth
Business negotiations constitute a key element of supply chain interactions that can create additional value for both the buyer and supplier. However, negotiations can also render the parties vulnerable to deception. While a large body of knowledge on buyer–supplier relationships exists, research on deception and bounded ethicality in supply chain relationships is still nascent. We advance this new research stream in behavioral supply chain management by first conceptualizing two types of deception—bluffs and lies. Departing from previous content‐dependent conceptualizations/definitions, we define both as convention‐dependent, norms‐based constructs: Bluffs (lies) are deceptions that are palatable (unpalatable) to both parties in a buyer–supplier negotiation. Second, studies 1 and 2 of our article employ Q methodology and best–worst scaling to operationalize bluffs while refining the construct of a lie. Third, a correlational study (study 3) examines the psychological properties/cognition of a negotiator who lies, bluffs, or does neither (i.e., communicates honestly). Fourth, a behavioral experiment (study 4) investigates the psychological consequences of bluffs, lies, and honesty for the targets. Bluffers (liars) show low (high) degrees of moral disengagement. Targets of bluffs experience high degrees of self‐directed anger but are willing to engage in further negotiations with the bluffer, while targets of lies experience high degrees of anger directed at the liar and show a low willingness to further negotiate with the liar. Taken together, these findings provide new insights into the dynamics of bluffing and lying in buyer–supplier negotiations.
Discovery-to-Recall in the Automotive Industry: A Problem-Solving Perspective on Investigation of Quality Failures
John Ni and Xiaowen Huang
Several recent high‐profile product recalls raise the question of why companies take so long to recall defective products from the market. The recall timing decision is not a simple task, as companies constantly face multiple, often competing goals during the recall process. In this research, we examine variations in large automakers’ recall timing decisions after an initial report of a suspected quality failures. Drawing upon problem‐solving theory, we theorize about how five recall attributes impact discovery‐to‐recall, defined as the time between a defective product's initial discovery and its officially announced recall. To test our hypotheses, we assembled a vehicle recall investigation dataset from recall reports filed by the six largest automakers that sold passenger cars in the United States from 2000 to 2012. Results from event history analysis reveal that discovery‐to‐recall is longer for: (1) recalls that are triggered by external initial reports, rather than internal initial reports; (2) recalls that are attributed to suppliers, rather than automakers; (3) recalls that are associated with design flaws, as opposed to manufacturing flaws; and (4) recalls with more models involved. We also find that cumulative recall experience, measured as the total number of previous recalls, shortens discovery‐to‐recall. These findings improve our understanding of why the timing of vehicle recalls varies considerably at the individual recall level. They also highlight the value of problem‐solving theory in vehicle recall research, as well as quality management research.