Journal of Supply Chain Management最新文献

In their pursuit of greater performance, firms invariably compete with their rivals for customer demand or scarce resources in factor markets. Firms' competitive behavior—the series of competitive actions taken to create or maintain competitive advantage—thus, is a key predictor of profitability and has received much attention in the strategic management literature. The central tenet of this article is that supply networks and the relationships among firms in these networks fundamentally shape the nature of interfirm competition and, ultimately, firm performance. Although prior research has amply studied the competitive dynamics among (horizontal) rival firms as well as the linkages between supply network characteristics and firm performance, there remain important opportunities to examine how supply networks enable and shape firms' competitive behavior and the effectiveness of their rivalrous activity. The goal of this article, therefore, is to take stock of the advances made in prior literature and to outline topics for future study at the intersection of competition and supply chain management. Collectively, we lay out a comprehensive perspective on the role that supply networks can play in affecting competition that, we hope, will inform and guide efforts to enhance our understanding of firm-level competitive behavior and associated performance outcomes.

In buyer–supplier negotiations, both parties shape the relational and contractual dimensions of their collaboration. Being able to influence the other party during negotiations is therefore vital to improve performance outcomes. This research takes a configurational approach to investigate how buyers can use narratives in different power situations to influence suppliers and improve their relational and economic negotiation results. In our first study, we conduct narrative writing workshops to identify typical design elements of such narratives. In our second study, we employ fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis to determine how different configurations of these design elements influence narratives' effectiveness in different power situations. Our theoretical contributions are twofold. First, we expand narrative transportation theory, showing that narratives consist of interlinked design elements and that narrative effectiveness is a causally complex phenomenon. Second, for the field of supply chain management, we develop theory by introducing narratives as an additional means of influence in buyer–supplier negotiations and by examining the interplay between narrative design elements, structural power, and negotiation outcomes that are specific to the buyer–supplier relationship. Based on the configurations of narratives that we found were effective and ineffective in different power situations, we derive propositions to advance theory on buyer–supplier negotiations.

Consumers tend to hold a focal firm responsible for its suppliers' unsustainable practices (chain liability), suggesting that firms need effective responses that can mitigate negative consumer reactions. In applying psychological contract theory to investigate recovery efforts related to such chain liability, the current study addresses three broad focal firm responses: Do nothing, choose a nonsubstantive response that verbally clarifies its own and the supplier's roles in the incident, or substantively rectify the supplier's wrongdoing with sustainability-focused responses, such as termination, monitoring or development. With a vignette-based experiment, we examine consumer perceptions and behaviors in three stages: before the unsustainable supplier incident (pre-incident), after the incident (post-incident) and after the focal firm has responded (post-response). A nonsubstantive, clarification response decreases consumers' purchase intentions; substantive focal firm activities increase purchase intentions, though not fully back to pre-incident levels. For consumers, termination, monitoring and development seem like equally adequate responses. Although combining several substantive responses offers even greater effectiveness for recovering purchase intentions, it still falls short of reaching pre-incident levels. Thus, our findings demonstrate the focal firm's capacity to address suppliers' unsustainable practices substantively and recover, at least partially, its damaged relationship with consumers.

Horizontal logistics collaboration can increase environmental sustainability and reduce shipping costs. Given these benefits—and the fact that few shippers actually opt to collaborate—public sector agencies and industry associations have attempted to sponsor and support the facilitation of horizontal logistics collaboration projects over the past 20 years. The literature, however, has yet to reveal the fact that these efforts have largely failed. Here, we introduce systematic horizontal logistics collaboration and apply Ostrom's theory of the commons and agency theory to extract antecedents on why these projects failed. We present a multiple-case study on unsuccessful horizontal logistics collaboration projects in Great Britain, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark. We address a gap in supply chain literature with regard to systematic collaboration; we also demonstrate the utility of commons theory in the supply chain domain and contribute to the literature on supply chain collaboration with facilitators. Finally, we discuss managerial implications, both for the practitioners attempting systematic horizontal logistics collaboration and for the policymakers seeking to promote it.

This editorial encourages supply chain management researchers to conduct and submit replication research for publication consideration to the Journal of Supply Chain Management. The Journal is particularly interested in efforts to replicate both recently published papers that have the potential to change the direction of the discipline and highly influential or “seminal” papers in the supply chain management discipline, regardless of where they were initially published. The Journal will be using the registered report process for these submissions to create strong incentives for researchers to conduct replication studies.

In introducing the 2020 Emerging Discourse Incubator, Flynn et al. (2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12227) urged supply chain scholars to leverage fresh approaches in order to develop supply chain-specific theory, including approaches that are underutilized within the discipline. In response, we explain how more examination of configurations—meaningful sets of observations within a sample—can enhance theory development and, in particular, fuel the construction of supply chain-specific theory. First, we describe the value of configurational theorizing while contrasting it with two more popular approaches: one that centers on linear relationships and one that spotlights the unique features of individual observations. Second, we explain the main configurational approaches available to scholars. Here, we pay special attention to qualitative comparative analysis (QCA)—an approach to configurational theorizing that is relatively new to organizational research. Third, we offer examples of how configurational theorizing via the use of QCA can be used to develop supply chain management theory. Although QCA is employed regularly in neighboring fields, QCA remains something of a conceptual curiosity within supply chain management research. This state of affairs represents an important opportunity because QCA's emphasis on causal complexity fits well with the fact that supply chain outcomes usually arise from an array of variables—often at different levels of analysis—and the interplay among them. Thus, better leveraging configurational theory development can facilitate the creation of novel conceptualizations and useful advice for practice.

Previous research demonstrates numerous benefits of mutual commitments between parties. However, less is understood about the effect of unilateral commitments, when one party (the committer) makes a relationship-specific investment without an established current or forthcoming reciprocal commitment by the other party (the recipient). This problem is particularly relevant in the supply chain management domain, where organizations often make investments in their supply chain partners, and frequently assume great risks in doing so. To help organizations understand how they can initiate unilateral commitments to their benefit, we develop theory regarding the outcomes of unilateral commitments based on their temporal duration. We evaluate our hypothesis using data collected from three distinct studies, each using different methodologies and samples: a laboratory experiment of graduate students, a vignette experiment of operations management practitioners, and a secondary data analysis of baseball contracts. We find compelling support that unilateral commitments of shorter duration successfully drive recipient cooperative behavior; however, a significant decrease in recipient cooperation results from longer term unilateral commitments. Our research contributes broadly to the literature on unilateral commitments, and in particular its manifestation within supply chain management, where this research stands to make substantial impact due to the prevalence of unilateral commitments.

Buying organizations collaborate with their suppliers to innovate, and increasingly seek to tap into the innovation potential of technologically adept small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who are new to them. Engagement with technology-based SMEs as possible suppliers can be constrained by institutions (e.g., rules, regulations, and norms of conduct) embodied in the buying organization's procurement and supply chain strategy, processes, and practices. Although prior research has examined how institutional forces influence supplier-enabled innovation, little is known about institutional failures that are particularly germane to innovative SMEs and impede collaboration between these SMEs and buying organizations. Consistent with the focus of the second emerging discourse incubator (EDI) on researching the effects of institutions (e.g., regulations) and public policies on supply chains, we investigate how enacted innovation policies address SME-specific institutional failures in a public sector context, that of the English National Health Service (NHS). Our qualitative research reveals that public agencies responsible for policy enactment seek to promote SME supplier-enabled innovation in the supply chain through institutional change and mitigation, SME connectivity to supply chain actors, and SME supplier development support. We synthesize our findings into a research model and set of propositions which theorize on the specific mechanisms underpinning the interventions of policy-enacting agencies and their effects. Our study contributes to the literature on supplier-enabled innovation and to research focusing on collaboration between buyers and innovative small suppliers. More broadly, we generate theoretical insights regarding the role of public agencies enacting policy as a class of non-firm actors whose interventions influence the supply chain. The findings also add to our understanding of the interplay between supply chains and institutions.

While the extant literature has examined causes for buyer–supplier relationship dissolution, the restoration of severed buyer–supplier relationships has been overlooked. Drawing on organizational justice theory, our research develops and tests a model of relationship restoration. We examine how the supplier's restoration tactics—acknowledgment, compensation, and operational transparency, influence the interactional, distributive, and procedural fairness perception, respectively, of the buyer, resulting in relationship restoration. The results are based on a 2 (Acknowledgment – Yes/No) × 2 (Compensation – Yes/No) × 2 (Operational Transparency – Yes/No) vignette-based study with 390 experienced practitioners. The analysis shows that compensating the buyer and providing transparent procedures for dealing with similar situations in the future, lead to higher distributive fairness and procedural fairness, respectively, resulting in restored relationships. Compensation makes up for past supplier malperformance, whereas operational transparency mitigates future concerns. We also find that restoration tactics based on interactional justice are less effective than those based on procedural and distributive justice. There is only marginal support for the indirect positive effect of acknowledgment on restoration intentions (p < 0.10). These results point to the importance of knowing how to approach a buyer to initiate relationship restoration. Managers must understand and evaluate the specific needs of each buyer when proposing a compensatory design that appeals to the buyer. Additionally, establishing procedures that are appealing to all buyers can be a challenge for a supplier, due to the differing benefits to the supplier provided by each buyer.