Journal of Supply Chain Management最新文献

Low-income markets have unique constraints that trigger the co-evolution of innovation and disruption in such markets. When disruptions occur in global supply chains, and in particular, in low-income markets, they spur innovations that may be necessary to address both existing and potential future disruptions. However, such innovations in turn create disruptions to existing supply chains, and they may also create new supply chains. Therefore, this study theorizes in support of the mutual causality between innovation and disruption in low-income markets. The focus is on low-income market contexts because of the unique opportunities and constraints that exist in these contexts, resulting in interesting and unique dynamics between innovation and disruption. Further, the mechanisms through which innovation-disruption mutual causality occurs—as well as the boundary conditions for these mechanisms—are identified. This culminates in a theoretical framework surrounding the interrelationship between disruption and innovation in low-income markets. Theoretical and practical implications are explored, and potential areas for future research are delineated.

Existing research provides contrasting perspectives on the implications of product recalls for firms. While some studies find that recalls represent failures that can motivate firms to innovate, others suggest that the resource-intensive nature of recalls may inhibit firms from innovating. This study presents a theoretical framework that reconciles these two perspectives by proposing an inverted U-shaped relationship between a firm's product recall frequency and innovation output. The paper also evaluates the effect of the firm's growth potential on the recall frequency–innovation relationship. Analysis of data on vehicle recalls and recall-related patents in the automotive sector from 1980 to 2019 confirms the inverted U-shaped relationship and shows that the relationship is steepened by the growth potential of the firm. Overall, the study presents a more nuanced understanding of learning from product recalls and bridges the supply chain disruption and innovation literature in the context of product recall.

This article examines the theoretical and practical implications of artificial intelligence (AI) integration in supply chain management (SCM). AI has developed dramatically in recent years, embodied by the newest generation of large language models (LLMs) that exhibit human-like capabilities in various domains. However, SCM as a discipline seems unprepared for this potential revolution, as existing perspectives do not capture the potential for disruption offered by AI tools. Moreover, AI integration in SCM is not only a technical but also a social process, influenced by human sensemaking and interpretation of AI systems. This article offers a novel theoretical lens called the AI Integration (AII) framework, which considers two key dimensions: the level of AI integration across the supply chain and the role of AI in decision-making. It also incorporates human meaning-making as an overlaying factor that shapes AI integration and disruption dynamics. The article demonstrates that different ways of integrating AI will lead to different kinds of disruptions, both in theory and in practice. It also discusses the implications of AI integration for SCM theorizing and practice, highlighting the need for cross-disciplinary collaboration and sociotechnical perspectives.

Supply chains withstand multiple tensions, and some of which are paradoxical. Radical product and process innovations bring such tensions to the forefront by disrupting supply chains. Using two illustrations, this article considers the paradoxical tension between change and stability in upstream supply chains, which becomes particularly salient after radical innovation. Furthermore, the article discusses why and how paradox theory can help firms understand and manage this pressing tension between stability and change. This article then presents future research opportunities for using paradox theory to investigate other persistent post-innovation tensions in upstream supply chains. The aim of this article is to encourage new studies that develop responses to such paradoxical tensions, an area ripe for research.

Deceptive behavior in negotiations has been found to be widespread and to have harmful consequences. This study shifts the current research direction on deceptive negotiation behavior by adopting a target's perspective on deception and by using a configurational theorizing approach. Prior studies in supply chain management (SCM) and in other disciplines have studied deceptive negotiation behavior—as one specific form of opportunism—based on correlational approaches. In doing so, they have focused almost exclusively on the actor's (i.e., deceiver's) perspective—for example, investigating actors' motivations for using deception. As a result, a profound understanding of deceptive negotiation behavior from a target's perspective is lacking. In three studies, this research investigates what factors, on both the firm and individual levels, combine to lead purchasing managers (i.e., targets) to perceive supplier deception. The configurational analysis uncovers considerably more combinations of firm-level and individual-level factors that lead to perceptions of high supplier deception than combinations that lead to perceptions of low supplier deception. Thus, the contribution is twofold: First, the studies shift the perspective from the deception source to the deception target. Second, they uncover the causally complex nature of perceived deception in negotiations. Managerial implications include that purchasing managers, in their efforts to detect supplier deception, should move beyond paying attention to isolated factors, such as body language, and instead should focus on different combinations of power balances, negotiation stakes, and negotiator proficiencies.

Humanity's intrusion into nature—with the objective of selling animals and plants as medicine, food, and tourist attractions—is detrimental not only to biodiversity and the health of ecosystems but also to local communities, global society, and human health. Often, traffickers exploit legal supply chains to secretly move endangered species and protected wildlife to end consumers. Serendipitous discoveries of wildlife trafficking attempts raise concerns that existing efforts to prevent wildlife trafficking and other criminal exploitation of legal supply chains brought about by international laws, regulations, and voluntary initiatives may often fail. Indeed, most supply chains are designed for economic purposes such as efficiency or responsiveness rather than security. Scholarship in supply chain management has thus far dedicated scarce attention to the overarching phenomenon of illegal exploitation of otherwise legal supply chains, referred to as “supply chain infiltration.” Because we were unable to speak with perpetrators directly, we obtained insights from expert stakeholders in order to study the delicate and covert topic of what makes supply chains vulnerable to wildlife trafficking, as well as how this vulnerability can be mitigated. Our data set comprises 37 semi-structured interviews with knowledgeable stakeholders concerning wildlife trafficking, specifically in maritime supply chains. This research develops a model that explains supply-chain-related vulnerabilities to wildlife trafficking and elaborates regarding how respective actors can contribute in addressing this understudied issue. We introduce the concept of “societal supply chain risk” to refer to hazards that emanate from or materialize within supply chains, which primarily affect actors in the supply chain context—and possibly even humanity in its entirety. Our research calls for more supply chain research, exploring situations in which individual firms may not be affected but can contribute to the solution.

Supply chain management (SCM) researchers often conduct research using theoretical approaches and ontological assumptions adopted from other areas of management. These approaches and assumptions are valid for some aspects of SCM but may also neglect or be unsuited to other questions and concerns that are distinctive to the SCM domain. Actor–network theory (ANT) provides an alternative perspective that addresses some of the blind spots of established approaches. We begin by describing the main theoretical assumptions and the dominant ontological position of ANT, in terms of three principles: relationality, heterogeneity, and performativity. We then show how adopting these principles allows an alternative conceptualization of the supply chain and of SCM itself and discuss the methodological implications of adopting these principles for research in SCM. ANT-inspired research can make four major contributions to the development of new SCM theory. First, ANT can provide new theoretical insights into the dynamic and fragile character of supply chains, specifically regarding how SCM systems and devices are implemented, constructed, and transformed in practice. Second, ANT can enable the development of SCM theory that leads to a better understanding of how people in SCM roles really act when managing in the supply chain space. Third, the question of what and who manages the supply chain can be explored in radically new ways. Finally, ANT can provide a complementary perspective on power in the supply chain, serving as a good lens for researchers interested in exploring the politics of representing, interpreting, and stabilizing SCM practices and systems.