Journal of Supply Chain Management最新文献

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.

Social enterprises seek solutions for some of society's most pressing problems through the development of commercially viable businesses. However, pursuing social impact is often at odds with financial viability, and social enterprises need to engage with a wide range of stakeholders to access tangible and intangible resources to overcome this tension. Although the current literature emphasizes the need for social capital within social enterprises' supply chain relationships, it does not consider the costs associated with the development of such capital. This article examines how social enterprises develop social capital in their supply chain relationships and how this social capital affects their ability to pursue impact and viability. Using data from in-depth interviews with nine social enterprises, the findings indicate that the roles and positions of beneficiaries in supply chains determine the appropriate forms of social capital needed to sustain simultaneous impact and viability. The empirical insights highlight that structural and relational capital are most valuable within core supply chain relationships, whereas cognitive capital is most beneficial within peripheral relationships aimed at enhancing competitiveness. Further, social enterprises sometimes relinquish power in their supply chain relationships to prioritize impact but develop relational capital to mitigate threats of opportunism. This study advances a contingent view of social capital in cross-sectoral supply chain relationships and provides valuable implications for managers pursuing impact.

This article outlines the main methodological implications of using Bloomberg SPLC, FactSet Supply Chain Relationships, and Mergent Supply Chain for academic purposes. These databases provide secondary data on buyer–supplier relationships that have been publicly disclosed. Despite the growing use of these databases in supply chain management (SCM) research, several potential validity and reliability issues have not been systematically and openly addressed. This article thus expounds on challenges of using these databases that are caused by (1) inconsistency between data, SCM constructs, and research questions (data fit); (2) errors caused by the databases' classifications and assumptions (data accuracy); and (3) limitations due to the inclusion of only publicly disclosed buyer–supplier relationships involving specific focal firms (data representativeness). The analysis is based on a review of previous studies using Bloomberg SPLC, FactSet Supply Chain Relationships, and Mergent Supply Chain, publicly available materials, interviews with information service providers, and the direct experience of the authors. Some solutions draw upon established methodological literature on the use of secondary data. The article concludes by providing summary guidelines and urging SCM researchers toward greater methodological transparency when using these databases.

As a means of acquiring trade credit, delaying supplier payments by extending payables (days to payment) offer financial benefits for buyers. However, such extensions may also engender costly supplier retaliation that results in operational disruptions and financial loss. Terms of payment between buyers and suppliers often affect the relationships established between trade partners; thus, changes to these terms should be evaluated within a social context. Social exchange theory (SET) is applied to analyze the benefits and costs of abrupt payable extensions on buyers' operational outcomes and profitability. The findings indicate that buyers who delay supplier payables by abruptly lengthening payables tend to subsequently increase investments in accounts receivable, inventory, and capital expenditures. Contrary to popular expectations, however, these buyers financially underperform when compared with similar (matched) firms that do not raise payables. Further analysis indicates that these buyers also experience greater supplier turnover and increases in indirect costs. These results are consistent with the expectation of retaliatory supplier responses to payable extensions. It is also revealed that the detrimental effects of delaying supplier payments by payable extensions are significantly smaller for more powerful and financially stronger firms. However, the relationships between payable extensions and capital-based benefits do not appear to be contingent on buyer power or financial strength. This study extends SET by applying it as a lens through which researchers can examine shifts in trade credit terms. The findings suggest a broadened scope of factors to be considered in social exchange and offer new operationalizations of power and trust factors often addressed in SET studies. The study ends with a discussion of the implications of these findings for practice and future research.

This article contributes to the Emerging Discourse Incubator initiative by presenting how supply chain management scholars can contribute to theory development by means of necessity theories. These are unique theories that inform what level of a concept must be present to achieve a desired level of the outcome. Necessity theories consist of concepts that are necessary but not sufficient conditions for an outcome, where the absence of a single causal concept ensures the absence of the outcome. The theoretical features of necessary conditions have important implications for understanding supply chain management phenomena and providing practical applications. In 2016, Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA) became available for building and testing necessity theories with empirical data. However, NCA has not yet been used for the development of supply chain management theories. Therefore, we explain how necessity theories can be built and tested in a supply chain management context using necessity logic and the empirical methodology of NCA. We intend to inspire scholars to develop novel necessity theories that deepen or renew our understanding of supply chain management phenomena.