Journal of Operations Management最新文献

To achieve meaningful progress in carbon neutrality, absolute carbon emissions must be reduced. One possible approach is to decouple firms' growth trajectories from their emissions. Adopting a supply network perspective, this study examines how firms in different network roles decouple their growth from carbon emissions across all scopes. Focusing on the aerospace and defense industry's supply network, we apply an ego-temporal exponential random graph model (ego-TERGM) to empirically infer four previously conceptualized firm roles—negotiator, orchestrator, executor, and compromiser—based on structural and nodal characteristics. The findings of our exploratory analysis reveal significant differences in decoupling performance: the firms in roles characterized by denser ego networks decouple more effectively, while those in roles characterized by central and monopolistic positions tend to perform worse. These differences reflect the influence of power dynamics and network dependencies on firms' decoupling abilities. Central firms must navigate complex demands, while those in denser network roles experience stronger normative pressures to conform to sustainable practices. Beyond these network effects, decoupling can be further supported by setting more ambitious emissions targets, adopting moderate growth strategies, and prioritizing environmental innovation.

The implementation of servitization as a business strategy remains a significant challenge for firms seeking to offer integrated product-service bundles. Despite the growing body of research in the servitization literature, an integrative framework for explaining the recurring failures in servitization efforts has yet to emerge. Through a qualitative meta-analysis of empirical evidence documented in existing case studies, we develop a process theory that examines the tensions between product and service businesses during the service business development process. Our study identifies three common servitization failure modes, highlights the contributing factors across various stages of servitization, and establishes causal links between structural elements and behavioral outcomes to explain the heterogeneity in service business performance. By adopting a process perspective, we provide a more nuanced understanding of servitization dynamics, offering new insights that complement and extend established theories on firm growth and capability development. We conclude by discussing managerial implications for firms pursuing a servitization strategy and outlining future research steps to test and further refine the proposed theory.

A Circular Economy (CE) is a system in which products are collected after customers have used them, remanufactured, and then put back into circulation for further use. This reduces the need for virgin materials to manufacture new units and wastage from used units. However, it is well known that delays in inventory returns often lead managers to make suboptimal ordering decisions. This problem is particularly significant in CE systems, where inadequate inventory management can significantly reduce or even negate the benefits of CE. The existing literature lacks evidence on the magnitude of this issue and its key contributing factors. Addressing this gap is essential for developing operational details and maximizing the benefits of CE systems. Using a novel complexity ordering based on a formal characterization of the reverse flow of goods, we investigate the efficiency of managerial decision-making. In our experimental study, participants made inventory replenishment decisions in various CE systems that differed in the complexity of reverse flow. We found that participants' operating costs were substantially higher than the simple benchmark costs, and as the CE system became more complex in reverse flow, the suboptimality of managerial decision-making worsened. Our experimental results provide prescriptions and guidance for practitioners by identifying: (i) CE configurations for which managerial decision-making tends to be better, and (ii) behavioral nudges to improve the efficiency of decision-making.

Blockchain-based platforms can facilitate data sharing and coordination in interorganizational ecosystems by enabling secure, tamper-evident recordkeeping and streamlined, trust-minimized transactions across organizational boundaries. However, their decentralized architecture may conflict with the centralized control exercised by platform sponsors, giving rise to a centralization–decentralization paradox. This study explores how this paradox unfolds in a large, blockchain-based logistics platform that was ultimately discontinued. Through an in-depth, longitudinal case study, we identify three interrelated governance contradictions—regarding ownership, trust, and growth—that triggered destabilizing oscillations between centralized and decentralized governance modes. We introduce the concept of semirigid limits to capture the bounded flexibility within which governance can be made and adapted under such paradoxical conditions. Our findings show that the centralization–decentralization paradox is especially difficult to navigate when strategic boundary conditions—here, industry competition, fragmented coordination, and high interdependencies—are present. Our study contributes to the paradox and governance literature by theorizing how governance contradictions emerge and persist and by identifying the mechanisms that constrain alignment and adaptation. We also offer guidance for managers in regard to addressing the competing demands of centralization and decentralization in interorganizational platforms.

In today's business environment, firms must manage the intricate interdependencies between their internal operations and a broad network of external entities. Establishing and maintaining robust connections with a diverse array of stakeholders—including suppliers, customers, third-party service providers, regulatory bodies, external research and development (R&D) organizations, and academic institutions such as universities, has become essential. An interorganizational view of operations is fundamental to an accurate understanding of the context in which process development and improvement occurs, and therefore, the potential for operational actions to generate tangible outcomes. By working collaboratively with these external entities, firms can not only optimize operational performance but also foster innovation, adaptability, and sustained competitive advantage. Thus, researching the drivers, processes, and outcomes of interorganizational operations at different levels of organizations is central to the mission of the Journal of Operations Management.

While there is no formal definition of inter-organizational operations (IOO) in the operations and supply chain management literature, several related definitions exist. At JOM, we adopt the perspective provided by Oliver (1990), and akin to that of Dyer and Singh (1998), defining inter-organizational relationships as the transactions, flows, and linkages that underlie the relationships between operations in different organizations that collaborate in networks to achieve shared goals.

The landscape of interorganizational operations thus includes suppliers, customers, ecosystem partners (e.g., third-party service providers), academic entities, and policy stakeholders that often share key human, physical, and knowledge assets with firms. Such organizations exist both in local and global environments. Furthermore, inter-organizational operations (IOO) encompass not only physical, informational, and financial flows but also the movement of talent (people), ideas and knowledge, and legal rights (e.g., franchises), among other things. These flows often occur outside the conventional supplier-customer relationships, such as those involving universities, consulting firms, and other professional service or knowledge providers. In many instances, relationships among these various entities can be little more than arms-length and transactional, if they formally exist at all (i.e., in some cases, firms merely exist in a shared ecosystem). In contrast, in other instances, highly embedded operational co-dependencies are more emblematic. Indeed, operational dynamics are often shaped by both competitive and coopetitive capabilities. A prominent example of coopetition is the relationship between Microsoft and OpenAI—Microsoft is a major investor in OpenAI, yet the two also compete (e.g., Microsoft Copilot vs. ChatGPT).

As a result, key domains of operational activi

This study investigates the implementation and transfer of sustainable agricultural practices (SUSAPs) across a multitier agrifood supply chain (SC) using Brazilian poultry farming as the empirical context. We conduct an interpretive case study of buyer–supplier–subsupplier triads, including those certified under Global Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and noncertified counterparts, using interviews, observations, and secondary data. Adopting a sociomaterial perspective, we investigate how SUSAPs' components—meanings, materials, and competencies—are embedded within specific SC tiers and transferred across the triad. A zoom-in analysis reveals that only animal welfare is a fully adopted practice, whereas waste management, working conditions, and biosecurity remain in development as protopractices. A zoom-out analysis of SUSAPs' components shows limited buyer influence across the triad, while first-tier suppliers facilitate SUSAP transfer. We advance theory by demonstrating how a sociomaterial perspective explains the degree of SUSAPs' implementation and transfer, and introducing the boomerang effect, illustrating how first-tier suppliers enable SUSAP implementation among certified and noncertified subsuppliers to ensure safer and more sustainable products. These insights help managers transfer SUSAPs into their SCs by leveraging first-tier suppliers as boundary spanners.