{"title":"政策研究呢?","authors":"Robert Glenn Richey Jr, Beth Davis-Sramek","doi":"10.1111/jbl.12324","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Over the past decade, many manuscripts and editorial opinions have been written that worry about academic research is not being relevant to management. This cascading complaint is relevant to research across most business disciplines. As our writings become more theoretically esoteric and our methods become more distant from the manager, authors (Hawkins et al., <span>2022</span>), deans, politicians, and now accreditation agencies (Richey & Davis-Sramek, <span>2022</span>) are increasingly asking for an accounting of the value provided by investing in academic research. The current highly flawed measurement of research impact is adjusting to the demands of our increasingly interested stakeholders. Now more than ever, our research must have an impact beyond our hallowed academic halls.</p><p>At the <i>Journal of Business Logistics</i> (<i>JBL</i>), strong theoretical and methodological rigor are the price of admission, but we are also pleased to publish articles that provide implications for industry (Davis-Sramek & Richey, <span>2022</span>). Submissions without managerial implications are consistently desk rejected, but the papers published in JBL are getting serious attention. We note the rapid growth of executives viewing <i>JBL</i> article summaries that we post on our social media accounts as an important avenue to inform business practice. In fact, the <i>JBL</i> LinkedIn account has grown to nearly 2000 followers in just over a year. Only about a third of the individuals following the <i>JBL</i> LinkedIn account are academics (https://www.linkedin.com/company/journal-of-business-logisticss/). This was a pleasant surprise and provides us with another route to support the work of <i>JBL</i> authors.</p><p>Of course, academia and business represent two of the largest <i>JBL</i> stakeholders, but there is another stakeholder group that is ripe for enhanced prospective and retrospective learning about our research – our government officials and policymakers! Why? Because our discipline has never seen a time of such importance. Supply chain “something” always is in the news. Congress and the EU parliaments often talk about “supply chain problems.” Leader's pontificate about the future of transportation and related technology. Regulators are ready to return from COVID clemency which provided enhanced flexibility and improvisation to supply chains (Richey et al., <span>2022</span>). Government agencies are looking for ways to incentivize companies to reshore or nearshore manufacturing that is regarded as “critical.” As we have watched the public spectacles in real time, we find that most people making laws and implementing policies have something in common regardless of political party affiliation. They are making decisions with extraordinarily little knowledge or experience in logistics and supply chain management (L&SCM). It is time for our research community to address the L&SCM policy gap.</p><p>Over the last 2 years, we have seen many of our colleagues speak to the media about supply chain complications. Our community has commented on restricting travel, transporting vaccines, managing price gougers, finding new alternative sources of supply, dealing with energy issues, empowering electric vehicle adoption, adjusting to packaging disruption, and a myriad of other topics. I (Glenn) even had the opportunity to speak to Congress on L&SCM issues. Despite all these interactions, we have not seen an increase in research submitted to <i>JBL</i> that educates and informs governments and policymakers about supply chains. As researchers, we need to provide expert analysis that informs their decisions. The fact that our governmental leaders continue to discuss “The Supply Chain,” as if there is only one, is troubling because it discounts the massive complexity of managing local, regional, and/or global networks (Wiedmer et al., <span>2021</span>). Simplification of the dynamic processes used to move products and services from creation to consumption and back again cannot be managed by a policy czar and a small committee. Forty-four years of research in <i>JBL</i> support the reality that managing supply chains require the involvement and coordination of all entities and processes.</p><p>It is not surprising that this discussion on policy opportunities opens the door for us to note the breadth of studies published in this issue of <i>JBL</i>. Volume 43, Issue 4 includes 10 outstanding articles that demonstrate our review teams' wiliness to address broad-reaching areas of L&SCM. These articles also shed light on the journal's openness to methods including, archival econometric analysis, case studies, in-depth interviews, lab experiments, quasi-experiments, and surveys. We will now canvas these articles and relate them to future policy-related research.</p><p>In the opening manuscript, “Perceptions of resource scarcity in factor markets: The effect on managerial attention and collaboration,” Wiedmer and Whipple employ a survey of purchasing managers to examine resource scarcity in globalized factor markets. Given current economic volatility, purchasing managers must navigate both resource scarcity and the uncertainty surrounding that scarcity itself. This reality impacts how managers approach supply chain collaboration. The authors note that managerial attention levels increase when resources are expected to be scarce, but managers discount the scarcity issue after building a connection. Continuing the discussion on uncertainty, Bendoly et al. (<span>2022</span>) crafted our second study titled, “Pulled in opposite directions: A joint consideration of supply and demand uncertainty in supply chain decision-making.” In a controlled newspaper routing lab experiment, the authors consider both upstream and downstream uncertainties that complicate inventory management decisions. Results detail downstream uncertainty inducing a pull-to-center bias while upstream uncertainty results in a diversification bias. Results detail important interactions indicating that downstream uncertainty can elicit and influence a diversification bias, despite the absence of supply uncertainty. Supply uncertainty impacts the magnitude of a pull-to-center bias. Consider: Given the substantial number of (government) policy adjustments being made globally, would the uncertainty around scarcity be enhanced or reduced? Will policies being created today positively or negatively impact collaboration as well as the perceptions of scarcity and uncertainty? How will the adjustment in internal polity impact the supply and/or demand side uncertainly relevant to inventory management strategies?</p><p>In the third study, Ellram et al. (<span>2022</span>) take a current policy concern head on. In “A legitimacy theory perspective on scope 3 freight transportation emissions,” the authors question the impact of sustainability programs. Transportation is the fastest growing form of emissions in developing countries, yet sustainability is not a priority in many organizations' overall sustainability agendas. Results indicate that reducing freight emissions is managed within the siloed corporate transportation function. This results in a lack of organizational focus on reducing outsourced freight emissions. The results shed light on a disconnect between western economy and emerging economy policy expectations, resulting in a major gap that needs addressing. Ellram's in-depth interview approach provides a rich understanding of internal decisions that may not align with external polity and economic expectations across partners. Consider: Researchers will need to consider how cross-border policy complicates traditional relationships. Additionally, while sustainability programs have an important long-term goal, will building these policies without including partners external to the government in question result in unintended consequences in the short term and midterm?</p><p>Next, in “The impact of financial institutions on exchanges in the agricultural commodity supply chain: An information economics perspective,” Darby et al. (<span>2022</span>) use time series analytics to examine the role financial institutions play in the execution of supply chain activities … all the way down to the farm. The authors examine how financial markets function as a source of both information and influence of exchange activities in the agricultural commodity supply chain. The study illustrates that information from financial markets influences exchanges between farmers and customers but has asymmetric effects that depend on exchange dynamics and local market conditions. Darby's study also draws from the resource-based view, connecting the importance of SCM resources to markets. Consider: Given growing actions across the globe to control inflation, supply chain managers must monitor markets to help forecast the value of commodities and resources. Consider: How will changes in government policy impact the relationship between financial institutions and supply chains? What happens when policy requires agricultural products to support energy production (e.g. Ethanol)? Can policy be created that calms supply chain exchange dynamics and incorporates local market conditions?</p><p>The fifth and sixth studies examine supply chain fit and integration, two concepts that many supply chains are reexamining post-pandemic. In “The impact of supply chain orientation fit between supply chain members: A triadic perspective,” Gligor, Feizabadi, et al. (<span>2022</span>) dust off the concept to supply chain orientation (SCO). SCO is noted as an enabler of supply chain management and is predicated on supply chain alignment. Unlike individual firm-level studies, this manuscript examines triads. In doing so, the authors introduce the concepts of SCO supplier fit and SCO customer fit. Findings indicate that the SCO alignment across the supply chain appears to be more important than the level of SCO itself. Consider: In terms of policy, researchers might ask what happens when the government enters the triad or dictates the exclusion of specific partners. Additionally, what happens to SCO fit when certain government policies are enacted?</p><p>In a related fashion, Molinaro et al. (<span>2022</span>) take on a social exchange theory integration perspective to study the impact of contingency effects on supply base concentration in “Implementing supplier integration practices to improve performance: The contingency effects of supply base concentration.” The authors examine how supply chain disruptions may be influencing supply base design decisions (also see Hughes et al., <span>2022</span>). The team details how distinct types of supplier integration relate to buyer efficiency and innovation, as well as a contingency effect tied to supply base concentration. Results show that some supplier integration types improve performance, but only under higher levels of supply base concentration. Consider: One might ask if a government policy increases supply base concentration – consequently negatively reducing options across the supplier pool – could also positively impact integration. The results also indicate that developing technologies to share information with suppliers could be counterproductive in driving efficiency. This is quite contrary to ongoing calls for more transparency. Researchers might consider the impact of information technology regulation on the intended positive consequences of supplier integration and due diligence policy. Could future or existing technological policy undermine our best of intentions?</p><p>While the earlier works examined issues within the supply chain, the last two articles in this issue examine the supply chain at the consumer level. This is an area we would like to see develop and hope to develop a special topic forum in the fall of next year (also see: Jin, Murfield, and Bock in <span>2022</span>). In “Good cause, not so good business? Sales and operations performance of cause-related marketing,” Sodero (<span>2022</span>) develops a quasi-experiment to examine cause-related marketing (C-RM). C-RM embodies corporate social responsibility campaigns requiring the firm to donate proceeds from consumer purchases to a specific cause. To date, no study addresses how does C-RMs impact sales and operations performance across retail supply chains. Sodero finds that C-RM has a positive impact on sales during the marketing campaign, but negative effects on forecast bias and service levels upstream in the supply chain, indicating trade-offs in sales and operations performance. Also at the retail level, Kembro et al. (<span>2022</span>) present, “Sorting out the sorting in omnichannel retailing.” Building on recent work by Ishfaq et al. (<span>2022</span>), Kembro's team examines – via case study – the growing complexity of today's omnichannel structures and processes. This complexity leads to challenges with logistics efficiency and customer utility. Retailers address these challenges by sorting goods at multiple points across the logistics network as well as inside each node. The authors employ transvection theory to explain why retailers “prepone” some sorting activities upstream and postpone others to handle trade-offs between customer utility and logistics efficiency. Consider: When it comes to the retail level, government policy is often focused on fostering fair competition and protecting the consumer. How might changes in related policy improve or restrict related marketing efforts? Can preponement be used to navigate unintended manmade disruptions? How will policy impact retail supply chain COGS, inventory turnover, transactions costs, and customer satisfaction?</p><p>Moving upstream from the retail level, Friedrich et al. (<span>2022</span>) examine “Make-or-buy decisions for industrial additive manufacturing.” Industrial additive manufacturing (AM) is one of the most promising technological advances in SCM. AM's potential lies in the digital specification of components that can be transmitted seamlessly and unambiguously to partners. This allows for flexible outsourcing, but the authors observe newly uncovered AM supply chain governance structures resulting from make-or-buy decisions. This creates a propensity to implement AM in-house. Friedrich and her colleagues' case studies identify four decision profiles that demonstrate the spectrum of specific governance structures and develop a framework explaining the underlying rationales. Consider: From a policy position, this study opens the opportunity for researchers to expand analysis to include competing governance structures that are interior (firms' internal polity) and exterior to the supply chain (Governments' external polity). AM as a research context also presents a new list of concerns in the areas of counterfeiting and intellectual property protection that have not been considered our leaders. What policy should be created or avoided?</p><p>Finally, we take a bit of a turn towards critiquing our role as researchers and educators. In “Exploring the impact of logistics and supply chain management scholarship: Why pursue practical relevance and are we successful?” Hawkins et al. (<span>2022</span>) provide a strong Perspectives' study on the pedagogical work we do and its relationship to our research. The study examines the relevance of L&SCM research, probing the underlying motives prompting scholars to value and pursue managerially relevant (v. pure academic) contributions. Results suggest both practitioners and academics agree at differing levels that L&SCM research is relevant, but the pressure to chase indices and rankings has influenced academics' behavior in a way that may not support our educational endeavors. They conclude that the academic peer review process has lost a strong focus on managerial implications. We hope this never becomes the case at <i>JBL</i> and we encourage the community to always ask “Who cares?” when finalizing a submission. If the answer is not management, industry, or policy makers, the authors may want to rethink the study or the outlet. This editorial has only scratched the surface of powerful research questions related to policy making. We hope to see the <i>JBL</i> research will community take on these and/or their own questions being confident that the door will always be open for work on L&SCM policy making and the impact of government interventionism.</p><p>As editors, we are always here to help. We both have experience in the policy arena. We are happy to help you with your study and potential conversations after the study is published. Let us do things that help businesses, government, society, and individuals.</p>","PeriodicalId":48090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business Logistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":11.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jbl.12324","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What about policy research?\",\"authors\":\"Robert Glenn Richey Jr, Beth Davis-Sramek\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jbl.12324\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Over the past decade, many manuscripts and editorial opinions have been written that worry about academic research is not being relevant to management. This cascading complaint is relevant to research across most business disciplines. As our writings become more theoretically esoteric and our methods become more distant from the manager, authors (Hawkins et al., <span>2022</span>), deans, politicians, and now accreditation agencies (Richey & Davis-Sramek, <span>2022</span>) are increasingly asking for an accounting of the value provided by investing in academic research. The current highly flawed measurement of research impact is adjusting to the demands of our increasingly interested stakeholders. Now more than ever, our research must have an impact beyond our hallowed academic halls.</p><p>At the <i>Journal of Business Logistics</i> (<i>JBL</i>), strong theoretical and methodological rigor are the price of admission, but we are also pleased to publish articles that provide implications for industry (Davis-Sramek & Richey, <span>2022</span>). Submissions without managerial implications are consistently desk rejected, but the papers published in JBL are getting serious attention. We note the rapid growth of executives viewing <i>JBL</i> article summaries that we post on our social media accounts as an important avenue to inform business practice. In fact, the <i>JBL</i> LinkedIn account has grown to nearly 2000 followers in just over a year. Only about a third of the individuals following the <i>JBL</i> LinkedIn account are academics (https://www.linkedin.com/company/journal-of-business-logisticss/). This was a pleasant surprise and provides us with another route to support the work of <i>JBL</i> authors.</p><p>Of course, academia and business represent two of the largest <i>JBL</i> stakeholders, but there is another stakeholder group that is ripe for enhanced prospective and retrospective learning about our research – our government officials and policymakers! Why? Because our discipline has never seen a time of such importance. Supply chain “something” always is in the news. Congress and the EU parliaments often talk about “supply chain problems.” Leader's pontificate about the future of transportation and related technology. Regulators are ready to return from COVID clemency which provided enhanced flexibility and improvisation to supply chains (Richey et al., <span>2022</span>). Government agencies are looking for ways to incentivize companies to reshore or nearshore manufacturing that is regarded as “critical.” As we have watched the public spectacles in real time, we find that most people making laws and implementing policies have something in common regardless of political party affiliation. They are making decisions with extraordinarily little knowledge or experience in logistics and supply chain management (L&SCM). It is time for our research community to address the L&SCM policy gap.</p><p>Over the last 2 years, we have seen many of our colleagues speak to the media about supply chain complications. Our community has commented on restricting travel, transporting vaccines, managing price gougers, finding new alternative sources of supply, dealing with energy issues, empowering electric vehicle adoption, adjusting to packaging disruption, and a myriad of other topics. I (Glenn) even had the opportunity to speak to Congress on L&SCM issues. Despite all these interactions, we have not seen an increase in research submitted to <i>JBL</i> that educates and informs governments and policymakers about supply chains. As researchers, we need to provide expert analysis that informs their decisions. The fact that our governmental leaders continue to discuss “The Supply Chain,” as if there is only one, is troubling because it discounts the massive complexity of managing local, regional, and/or global networks (Wiedmer et al., <span>2021</span>). Simplification of the dynamic processes used to move products and services from creation to consumption and back again cannot be managed by a policy czar and a small committee. Forty-four years of research in <i>JBL</i> support the reality that managing supply chains require the involvement and coordination of all entities and processes.</p><p>It is not surprising that this discussion on policy opportunities opens the door for us to note the breadth of studies published in this issue of <i>JBL</i>. Volume 43, Issue 4 includes 10 outstanding articles that demonstrate our review teams' wiliness to address broad-reaching areas of L&SCM. These articles also shed light on the journal's openness to methods including, archival econometric analysis, case studies, in-depth interviews, lab experiments, quasi-experiments, and surveys. We will now canvas these articles and relate them to future policy-related research.</p><p>In the opening manuscript, “Perceptions of resource scarcity in factor markets: The effect on managerial attention and collaboration,” Wiedmer and Whipple employ a survey of purchasing managers to examine resource scarcity in globalized factor markets. Given current economic volatility, purchasing managers must navigate both resource scarcity and the uncertainty surrounding that scarcity itself. This reality impacts how managers approach supply chain collaboration. The authors note that managerial attention levels increase when resources are expected to be scarce, but managers discount the scarcity issue after building a connection. Continuing the discussion on uncertainty, Bendoly et al. (<span>2022</span>) crafted our second study titled, “Pulled in opposite directions: A joint consideration of supply and demand uncertainty in supply chain decision-making.” In a controlled newspaper routing lab experiment, the authors consider both upstream and downstream uncertainties that complicate inventory management decisions. Results detail downstream uncertainty inducing a pull-to-center bias while upstream uncertainty results in a diversification bias. Results detail important interactions indicating that downstream uncertainty can elicit and influence a diversification bias, despite the absence of supply uncertainty. Supply uncertainty impacts the magnitude of a pull-to-center bias. Consider: Given the substantial number of (government) policy adjustments being made globally, would the uncertainty around scarcity be enhanced or reduced? Will policies being created today positively or negatively impact collaboration as well as the perceptions of scarcity and uncertainty? How will the adjustment in internal polity impact the supply and/or demand side uncertainly relevant to inventory management strategies?</p><p>In the third study, Ellram et al. (<span>2022</span>) take a current policy concern head on. In “A legitimacy theory perspective on scope 3 freight transportation emissions,” the authors question the impact of sustainability programs. Transportation is the fastest growing form of emissions in developing countries, yet sustainability is not a priority in many organizations' overall sustainability agendas. Results indicate that reducing freight emissions is managed within the siloed corporate transportation function. This results in a lack of organizational focus on reducing outsourced freight emissions. The results shed light on a disconnect between western economy and emerging economy policy expectations, resulting in a major gap that needs addressing. Ellram's in-depth interview approach provides a rich understanding of internal decisions that may not align with external polity and economic expectations across partners. Consider: Researchers will need to consider how cross-border policy complicates traditional relationships. Additionally, while sustainability programs have an important long-term goal, will building these policies without including partners external to the government in question result in unintended consequences in the short term and midterm?</p><p>Next, in “The impact of financial institutions on exchanges in the agricultural commodity supply chain: An information economics perspective,” Darby et al. (<span>2022</span>) use time series analytics to examine the role financial institutions play in the execution of supply chain activities … all the way down to the farm. The authors examine how financial markets function as a source of both information and influence of exchange activities in the agricultural commodity supply chain. The study illustrates that information from financial markets influences exchanges between farmers and customers but has asymmetric effects that depend on exchange dynamics and local market conditions. Darby's study also draws from the resource-based view, connecting the importance of SCM resources to markets. Consider: Given growing actions across the globe to control inflation, supply chain managers must monitor markets to help forecast the value of commodities and resources. Consider: How will changes in government policy impact the relationship between financial institutions and supply chains? What happens when policy requires agricultural products to support energy production (e.g. Ethanol)? Can policy be created that calms supply chain exchange dynamics and incorporates local market conditions?</p><p>The fifth and sixth studies examine supply chain fit and integration, two concepts that many supply chains are reexamining post-pandemic. In “The impact of supply chain orientation fit between supply chain members: A triadic perspective,” Gligor, Feizabadi, et al. (<span>2022</span>) dust off the concept to supply chain orientation (SCO). SCO is noted as an enabler of supply chain management and is predicated on supply chain alignment. Unlike individual firm-level studies, this manuscript examines triads. In doing so, the authors introduce the concepts of SCO supplier fit and SCO customer fit. Findings indicate that the SCO alignment across the supply chain appears to be more important than the level of SCO itself. Consider: In terms of policy, researchers might ask what happens when the government enters the triad or dictates the exclusion of specific partners. Additionally, what happens to SCO fit when certain government policies are enacted?</p><p>In a related fashion, Molinaro et al. (<span>2022</span>) take on a social exchange theory integration perspective to study the impact of contingency effects on supply base concentration in “Implementing supplier integration practices to improve performance: The contingency effects of supply base concentration.” The authors examine how supply chain disruptions may be influencing supply base design decisions (also see Hughes et al., <span>2022</span>). The team details how distinct types of supplier integration relate to buyer efficiency and innovation, as well as a contingency effect tied to supply base concentration. Results show that some supplier integration types improve performance, but only under higher levels of supply base concentration. Consider: One might ask if a government policy increases supply base concentration – consequently negatively reducing options across the supplier pool – could also positively impact integration. The results also indicate that developing technologies to share information with suppliers could be counterproductive in driving efficiency. This is quite contrary to ongoing calls for more transparency. Researchers might consider the impact of information technology regulation on the intended positive consequences of supplier integration and due diligence policy. Could future or existing technological policy undermine our best of intentions?</p><p>While the earlier works examined issues within the supply chain, the last two articles in this issue examine the supply chain at the consumer level. This is an area we would like to see develop and hope to develop a special topic forum in the fall of next year (also see: Jin, Murfield, and Bock in <span>2022</span>). In “Good cause, not so good business? Sales and operations performance of cause-related marketing,” Sodero (<span>2022</span>) develops a quasi-experiment to examine cause-related marketing (C-RM). C-RM embodies corporate social responsibility campaigns requiring the firm to donate proceeds from consumer purchases to a specific cause. To date, no study addresses how does C-RMs impact sales and operations performance across retail supply chains. Sodero finds that C-RM has a positive impact on sales during the marketing campaign, but negative effects on forecast bias and service levels upstream in the supply chain, indicating trade-offs in sales and operations performance. Also at the retail level, Kembro et al. (<span>2022</span>) present, “Sorting out the sorting in omnichannel retailing.” Building on recent work by Ishfaq et al. (<span>2022</span>), Kembro's team examines – via case study – the growing complexity of today's omnichannel structures and processes. This complexity leads to challenges with logistics efficiency and customer utility. Retailers address these challenges by sorting goods at multiple points across the logistics network as well as inside each node. The authors employ transvection theory to explain why retailers “prepone” some sorting activities upstream and postpone others to handle trade-offs between customer utility and logistics efficiency. Consider: When it comes to the retail level, government policy is often focused on fostering fair competition and protecting the consumer. How might changes in related policy improve or restrict related marketing efforts? Can preponement be used to navigate unintended manmade disruptions? How will policy impact retail supply chain COGS, inventory turnover, transactions costs, and customer satisfaction?</p><p>Moving upstream from the retail level, Friedrich et al. (<span>2022</span>) examine “Make-or-buy decisions for industrial additive manufacturing.” Industrial additive manufacturing (AM) is one of the most promising technological advances in SCM. AM's potential lies in the digital specification of components that can be transmitted seamlessly and unambiguously to partners. This allows for flexible outsourcing, but the authors observe newly uncovered AM supply chain governance structures resulting from make-or-buy decisions. This creates a propensity to implement AM in-house. Friedrich and her colleagues' case studies identify four decision profiles that demonstrate the spectrum of specific governance structures and develop a framework explaining the underlying rationales. Consider: From a policy position, this study opens the opportunity for researchers to expand analysis to include competing governance structures that are interior (firms' internal polity) and exterior to the supply chain (Governments' external polity). AM as a research context also presents a new list of concerns in the areas of counterfeiting and intellectual property protection that have not been considered our leaders. What policy should be created or avoided?</p><p>Finally, we take a bit of a turn towards critiquing our role as researchers and educators. In “Exploring the impact of logistics and supply chain management scholarship: Why pursue practical relevance and are we successful?” Hawkins et al. (<span>2022</span>) provide a strong Perspectives' study on the pedagogical work we do and its relationship to our research. The study examines the relevance of L&SCM research, probing the underlying motives prompting scholars to value and pursue managerially relevant (v. pure academic) contributions. Results suggest both practitioners and academics agree at differing levels that L&SCM research is relevant, but the pressure to chase indices and rankings has influenced academics' behavior in a way that may not support our educational endeavors. They conclude that the academic peer review process has lost a strong focus on managerial implications. We hope this never becomes the case at <i>JBL</i> and we encourage the community to always ask “Who cares?” when finalizing a submission. If the answer is not management, industry, or policy makers, the authors may want to rethink the study or the outlet. This editorial has only scratched the surface of powerful research questions related to policy making. We hope to see the <i>JBL</i> research will community take on these and/or their own questions being confident that the door will always be open for work on L&SCM policy making and the impact of government interventionism.</p><p>As editors, we are always here to help. We both have experience in the policy arena. We are happy to help you with your study and potential conversations after the study is published. Let us do things that help businesses, government, society, and individuals.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48090,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Business Logistics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jbl.12324\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Business Logistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jbl.12324\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business Logistics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jbl.12324","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
摘要
在过去的十年里,许多手稿和编辑意见都担心学术研究与管理无关。这种层叠的抱怨与大多数商业学科的研究相关。随着我们的著作在理论上变得越来越深奥,我们的方法与管理者、作者(Hawkins et al., 2022)、院长、政治家以及现在的认证机构(Richey &Davis-Sramek, 2022)越来越多地要求对学术研究投资所提供的价值进行核算。目前对研究影响的高度有缺陷的测量正在调整,以适应我们日益感兴趣的利益相关者的需求。现在,我们的研究比以往任何时候都更有必要对我们神圣的学术殿堂之外产生影响。在《商业物流杂志》(JBL),强大的理论和方法严谨性是入场费,但我们也很高兴发表对行业有影响的文章(Davis-Sramek &克,2022)。不涉及管理的论文总是被拒绝,但在JBL上发表的论文却受到了严肃的关注。我们注意到,越来越多的高管将我们在社交媒体账户上发布的JBL文章摘要视为了解商业实践的重要途径。事实上,JBL的LinkedIn账户在一年多的时间里已经增长到近2000名粉丝。在关注JBL LinkedIn账户的人中,只有大约三分之一是学者(https://www.linkedin.com/company/journal-of-business-logisticss/)。这是一个惊喜,为我们提供了另一条支持JBL作者工作的途径。当然,学术界和商界是JBL最大的两个利益相关者,但还有另一个利益相关者群体——我们的政府官员和政策制定者——已经成熟,可以加强对我们研究的前瞻性和回顾性学习!为什么?因为我们的纪律从未经历过如此重要的时刻。供应链“某些东西”总是出现在新闻中。美国国会和欧盟议会经常谈论“供应链问题”。领导者对未来交通和相关技术的看法。监管机构已准备好从对COVID的宽容中恢复过来,这为供应链提供了更大的灵活性和即兴性(Richey et al., 2022)。政府机构正在寻找方法,鼓励企业将被视为“关键”的制造业迁回国内或近岸。当我们实时观察这些公共奇观时,我们发现,大多数制定法律和执行政策的人都有一些共同点,而不是政党。他们在物流和供应链管理(L&SCM)方面的知识或经验非常少的情况下做出决策。现在是我们的研究团体解决供应链管理政策差距的时候了。在过去的两年里,我们看到我们的许多同事在媒体上谈论供应链的复杂性。我们的社区对限制旅行、运输疫苗、管理哄骗者、寻找新的替代供应来源、处理能源问题、授权电动汽车采用、调整包装中断以及无数其他主题发表了评论。我(格伦)甚至有机会就供应链问题向国会发表讲话。尽管有这些互动,但我们并没有看到提交给JBL的研究增加,这些研究向政府和政策制定者提供了关于供应链的教育和信息。作为研究人员,我们需要提供专家分析,为他们的决策提供信息。事实上,我们的政府领导人继续讨论“供应链”,就好像只有一条供应链一样,这令人不安,因为它低估了管理本地、区域和/或全球网络的巨大复杂性(Wiedmer等人,2021)。将产品和服务从创造转移到消费,然后再转移回来的动态流程的简化,不可能由一个政策沙皇和一个小委员会来管理。JBL的44年研究支持这样一个现实,即管理供应链需要所有实体和流程的参与和协调。毫不奇怪,关于政策机会的讨论为我们打开了一扇门,让我们注意到本期《JBL》上发表的研究的广度。第43卷,第4期包括10篇杰出的文章,这些文章展示了我们的评审团队处理广泛的供应链管理领域的意愿。这些文章还揭示了该杂志对方法的开放性,包括档案计量经济学分析、案例研究、深度访谈、实验室实验、准实验和调查。我们现在将分析这些文章,并将它们与未来的政策相关研究联系起来。在《要素市场中资源稀缺性的认知:对管理注意力和协作的影响》一文中,Wiedmer和Whipple对采购经理进行了调查,以检验全球化要素市场中的资源稀缺性。 鉴于当前的经济波动,采购经理们必须在资源稀缺和围绕稀缺本身的不确定性之间游弋。这一现实影响了管理者如何处理供应链协作。作者指出,当资源被预期为稀缺时,管理者的注意力水平会提高,但在建立联系后,管理者会忽视稀缺问题。继续对不确定性的讨论,Bendoly等人(2022)制作了我们的第二项研究,题为“反向拉动:供应链决策中供需不确定性的联合考虑”。在一个受控的报纸路由实验室实验中,作者考虑了上游和下游的不确定性,使库存管理决策复杂化。结果详细说明了下游的不确定性导致拉向中心偏差,而上游的不确定性导致多样化偏差。结果详细说明了重要的相互作用,表明下游的不确定性可以引发和影响多样化偏差,尽管缺乏供应的不确定性。供应的不确定性影响拉向中心偏置的大小。考虑一下:鉴于全球范围内(政府)正在进行大量的政策调整,围绕稀缺的不确定性会增强还是减少?今天制定的政策会对协作以及对稀缺性和不确定性的看法产生积极或消极的影响吗?内部政策的调整将如何影响与库存管理策略相关的供应和/或需求方面的不确定性?在第三项研究中,Ellram等人(2022)直面当前的政策问题。在《范围3货运排放的合法性理论视角》一书中,作者质疑了可持续发展项目的影响。交通运输是发展中国家增长最快的排放形式,但可持续性在许多组织的整体可持续性议程中并不是优先考虑的事项。结果表明,减少货运排放是在孤立的企业运输职能中进行管理的。这导致组织缺乏对减少外包货运排放的关注。调查结果揭示了西方经济与新兴经济体政策预期之间的脱节,导致了一个需要解决的重大差距。Ellram的深度访谈方法提供了对内部决策的丰富理解,这些决策可能与外部政策和合作伙伴的经济预期不一致。考虑:研究人员将需要考虑跨境政策如何使传统关系复杂化。此外,虽然可持续发展项目有一个重要的长期目标,但在制定这些政策时,如果不包括政府以外的合作伙伴,会在短期和中期产生意想不到的后果吗?接下来,在“金融机构对农产品供应链中交易所的影响:信息经济学视角”中,Darby等人(2022)使用时间序列分析来检查金融机构在执行供应链活动中所扮演的角色……一直到农场。作者研究了金融市场如何作为农产品供应链中交换活动的信息来源和影响。该研究表明,来自金融市场的信息影响农民和客户之间的交易,但其影响不对称,取决于交易动态和当地市场条件。Darby的研究也借鉴了资源基础观点,将供应链管理资源的重要性与市场联系起来。考虑一下:鉴于全球控制通货膨胀的行动越来越多,供应链经理必须监控市场,以帮助预测商品和资源的价值。思考:政府政策的变化将如何影响金融机构和供应链之间的关系?当政策要求农产品支持能源生产(如乙醇)时,会发生什么?是否可以制定政策来平息供应链交换动态并结合当地市场情况?第五和第六项研究考察了供应链契合度和整合,这是许多供应链在大流行后重新审视的两个概念。在“供应链导向对供应链成员之间契合度的影响:三元视角”一文中,Gligor、Feizabadi等人(2022)重新提出了供应链导向(SCO)的概念。SCO被认为是供应链管理的推动者,并以供应链一致性为基础。与个别公司层面的研究不同,本文考察了三位一体。在此过程中,作者引入了SCO供应商契合度和SCO客户契合度的概念。研究结果表明,上合组织在整个供应链上的一致性似乎比上合组织本身的水平更重要。考虑一下:在政策方面,研究人员可能会问,当政府进入三位一体或规定排除特定合作伙伴时会发生什么。 此外,当某些政府政策颁布时,上合组织会发生什么?与此相关,Molinaro等人(2022)在《实施供应商整合实践以提高绩效:供应基地集中化的偶然性效应》中采用社会交换理论整合视角研究了偶然性效应对供应基地集中化的影响。作者研究了供应链中断如何影响供应基础设计决策(另见Hughes et al., 2022)。该团队详细介绍了不同类型的供应商整合与买方效率和创新的关系,以及与供应基地集中相关的偶然性效应。研究结果表明,某些供应商整合类型可以提高绩效,但仅在供应基地集中度较高的情况下。考虑一下:有人可能会问,政府政策是否增加了供应基地的集中度——从而减少了整个供应商池的选择——也可能对整合产生积极影响。研究结果还表明,开发与供应商共享信息的技术可能会对提高效率产生反作用。这与目前要求提高透明度的呼声完全相反。研究人员可以考虑信息技术监管对供应商整合和尽职调查政策预期的积极后果的影响。未来或现有的技术政策会破坏我们最好的意图吗?虽然早期的作品研究了供应链中的问题,但本期的最后两篇文章研究了消费者层面的供应链。这是一个我们希望看到发展的领域,并希望在明年秋天建立一个专题论坛(参见:Jin, Murfield和Bock在2022年)。在“正当理由,生意不好?”Sodero(2022)开发了一个准实验来检验事业相关营销(C-RM)。C-RM体现了企业社会责任运动,要求公司将消费者购买的收益捐赠给特定的事业。到目前为止,还没有研究涉及c - rm如何影响零售供应链的销售和运营绩效。Sodero发现,C-RM对营销活动期间的销售有积极影响,但对供应链上游的预测偏差和服务水平有负面影响,这表明在销售和运营绩效方面存在权衡。同样在零售层面,Kembro等人(2022)提出,“整理全渠道零售中的分类”。在Ishfaq等人(2022)最近工作的基础上,Kembro的团队通过案例研究考察了当今全渠道结构和流程日益复杂的情况。这种复杂性导致了物流效率和客户效用方面的挑战。零售商通过在物流网络中的多个点以及每个节点内对货物进行分类来应对这些挑战。作者运用横断理论来解释为什么零售商“提前”一些上游分拣活动,而推迟其他分拣活动,以处理客户效用和物流效率之间的权衡。考虑一下:当涉及到零售层面时,政府的政策往往侧重于促进公平竞争和保护消费者。相关政策的变化如何改善或限制相关的营销努力?优势能被用来应对意外的人为干扰吗?政策将如何影响零售供应链销货成本、库存周转率、交易成本和客户满意度?Friedrich等人(2022)从零售层面向上游移动,研究了“工业增材制造的制造或购买决策”。工业增材制造(AM)是供应链管理中最有前途的技术进步之一。增材制造的潜力在于组件的数字规格,这些组件可以无缝且明确地传输给合作伙伴。这允许灵活的外包,但是作者观察到新发现的由制造或购买决策产生的AM供应链治理结构。这就产生了在内部实施增材制造的倾向。Friedrich和她的同事的案例研究确定了四种决策概况,它们展示了特定治理结构的范围,并开发了一个解释其基本原理的框架。考虑:从政策立场来看,这项研究为研究人员提供了扩展分析的机会,以包括内部(公司的内部政策)和供应链外部(政府的外部政策)的竞争性治理结构。AM作为一个研究背景,也提出了一个新的问题清单,在假冒和知识产权保护领域,没有被认为是我们的领导者。应该制定或避免哪些政策?最后,我们稍微转向批评我们作为研究人员和教育者的角色。在“探索物流和供应链管理奖学金的影响:为什么追求实际相关性,我们成功了吗?”Hawkins等人。 (2022)为我们所做的教学工作及其与我们研究的关系提供了强有力的视角研究。本研究考察了供应链管理研究的相关性,探讨了促使学者重视和追求管理相关(或纯学术)贡献的潜在动机。结果表明,从业者和学者在不同程度上都同意供应链管理研究是相关的,但是追求指数和排名的压力已经影响了学者的行为,这可能不利于我们的教育努力。他们的结论是,学术同行评议过程已经失去了对管理意义的强烈关注。我们希望这永远不会成为JBL的情况,我们鼓励社区总是问“谁在乎?”的问题。如果答案不是管理层、行业或政策制定者,作者可能需要重新考虑研究或出路。这篇社论只是触及了与政策制定相关的强大研究问题的表面。我们希望看到JBL研究界对这些和/或他们自己的问题有信心,对供应链管理政策制定和政府干预主义的影响的工作大门将永远敞开。作为编辑,我们总是在这里提供帮助。我们都有从政的经验。我们很乐意为您的研究提供帮助,并在研究发表后进行潜在的对话。让我们做一些帮助企业、政府、社会和个人的事情。
Over the past decade, many manuscripts and editorial opinions have been written that worry about academic research is not being relevant to management. This cascading complaint is relevant to research across most business disciplines. As our writings become more theoretically esoteric and our methods become more distant from the manager, authors (Hawkins et al., 2022), deans, politicians, and now accreditation agencies (Richey & Davis-Sramek, 2022) are increasingly asking for an accounting of the value provided by investing in academic research. The current highly flawed measurement of research impact is adjusting to the demands of our increasingly interested stakeholders. Now more than ever, our research must have an impact beyond our hallowed academic halls.
At the Journal of Business Logistics (JBL), strong theoretical and methodological rigor are the price of admission, but we are also pleased to publish articles that provide implications for industry (Davis-Sramek & Richey, 2022). Submissions without managerial implications are consistently desk rejected, but the papers published in JBL are getting serious attention. We note the rapid growth of executives viewing JBL article summaries that we post on our social media accounts as an important avenue to inform business practice. In fact, the JBL LinkedIn account has grown to nearly 2000 followers in just over a year. Only about a third of the individuals following the JBL LinkedIn account are academics (https://www.linkedin.com/company/journal-of-business-logisticss/). This was a pleasant surprise and provides us with another route to support the work of JBL authors.
Of course, academia and business represent two of the largest JBL stakeholders, but there is another stakeholder group that is ripe for enhanced prospective and retrospective learning about our research – our government officials and policymakers! Why? Because our discipline has never seen a time of such importance. Supply chain “something” always is in the news. Congress and the EU parliaments often talk about “supply chain problems.” Leader's pontificate about the future of transportation and related technology. Regulators are ready to return from COVID clemency which provided enhanced flexibility and improvisation to supply chains (Richey et al., 2022). Government agencies are looking for ways to incentivize companies to reshore or nearshore manufacturing that is regarded as “critical.” As we have watched the public spectacles in real time, we find that most people making laws and implementing policies have something in common regardless of political party affiliation. They are making decisions with extraordinarily little knowledge or experience in logistics and supply chain management (L&SCM). It is time for our research community to address the L&SCM policy gap.
Over the last 2 years, we have seen many of our colleagues speak to the media about supply chain complications. Our community has commented on restricting travel, transporting vaccines, managing price gougers, finding new alternative sources of supply, dealing with energy issues, empowering electric vehicle adoption, adjusting to packaging disruption, and a myriad of other topics. I (Glenn) even had the opportunity to speak to Congress on L&SCM issues. Despite all these interactions, we have not seen an increase in research submitted to JBL that educates and informs governments and policymakers about supply chains. As researchers, we need to provide expert analysis that informs their decisions. The fact that our governmental leaders continue to discuss “The Supply Chain,” as if there is only one, is troubling because it discounts the massive complexity of managing local, regional, and/or global networks (Wiedmer et al., 2021). Simplification of the dynamic processes used to move products and services from creation to consumption and back again cannot be managed by a policy czar and a small committee. Forty-four years of research in JBL support the reality that managing supply chains require the involvement and coordination of all entities and processes.
It is not surprising that this discussion on policy opportunities opens the door for us to note the breadth of studies published in this issue of JBL. Volume 43, Issue 4 includes 10 outstanding articles that demonstrate our review teams' wiliness to address broad-reaching areas of L&SCM. These articles also shed light on the journal's openness to methods including, archival econometric analysis, case studies, in-depth interviews, lab experiments, quasi-experiments, and surveys. We will now canvas these articles and relate them to future policy-related research.
In the opening manuscript, “Perceptions of resource scarcity in factor markets: The effect on managerial attention and collaboration,” Wiedmer and Whipple employ a survey of purchasing managers to examine resource scarcity in globalized factor markets. Given current economic volatility, purchasing managers must navigate both resource scarcity and the uncertainty surrounding that scarcity itself. This reality impacts how managers approach supply chain collaboration. The authors note that managerial attention levels increase when resources are expected to be scarce, but managers discount the scarcity issue after building a connection. Continuing the discussion on uncertainty, Bendoly et al. (2022) crafted our second study titled, “Pulled in opposite directions: A joint consideration of supply and demand uncertainty in supply chain decision-making.” In a controlled newspaper routing lab experiment, the authors consider both upstream and downstream uncertainties that complicate inventory management decisions. Results detail downstream uncertainty inducing a pull-to-center bias while upstream uncertainty results in a diversification bias. Results detail important interactions indicating that downstream uncertainty can elicit and influence a diversification bias, despite the absence of supply uncertainty. Supply uncertainty impacts the magnitude of a pull-to-center bias. Consider: Given the substantial number of (government) policy adjustments being made globally, would the uncertainty around scarcity be enhanced or reduced? Will policies being created today positively or negatively impact collaboration as well as the perceptions of scarcity and uncertainty? How will the adjustment in internal polity impact the supply and/or demand side uncertainly relevant to inventory management strategies?
In the third study, Ellram et al. (2022) take a current policy concern head on. In “A legitimacy theory perspective on scope 3 freight transportation emissions,” the authors question the impact of sustainability programs. Transportation is the fastest growing form of emissions in developing countries, yet sustainability is not a priority in many organizations' overall sustainability agendas. Results indicate that reducing freight emissions is managed within the siloed corporate transportation function. This results in a lack of organizational focus on reducing outsourced freight emissions. The results shed light on a disconnect between western economy and emerging economy policy expectations, resulting in a major gap that needs addressing. Ellram's in-depth interview approach provides a rich understanding of internal decisions that may not align with external polity and economic expectations across partners. Consider: Researchers will need to consider how cross-border policy complicates traditional relationships. Additionally, while sustainability programs have an important long-term goal, will building these policies without including partners external to the government in question result in unintended consequences in the short term and midterm?
Next, in “The impact of financial institutions on exchanges in the agricultural commodity supply chain: An information economics perspective,” Darby et al. (2022) use time series analytics to examine the role financial institutions play in the execution of supply chain activities … all the way down to the farm. The authors examine how financial markets function as a source of both information and influence of exchange activities in the agricultural commodity supply chain. The study illustrates that information from financial markets influences exchanges between farmers and customers but has asymmetric effects that depend on exchange dynamics and local market conditions. Darby's study also draws from the resource-based view, connecting the importance of SCM resources to markets. Consider: Given growing actions across the globe to control inflation, supply chain managers must monitor markets to help forecast the value of commodities and resources. Consider: How will changes in government policy impact the relationship between financial institutions and supply chains? What happens when policy requires agricultural products to support energy production (e.g. Ethanol)? Can policy be created that calms supply chain exchange dynamics and incorporates local market conditions?
The fifth and sixth studies examine supply chain fit and integration, two concepts that many supply chains are reexamining post-pandemic. In “The impact of supply chain orientation fit between supply chain members: A triadic perspective,” Gligor, Feizabadi, et al. (2022) dust off the concept to supply chain orientation (SCO). SCO is noted as an enabler of supply chain management and is predicated on supply chain alignment. Unlike individual firm-level studies, this manuscript examines triads. In doing so, the authors introduce the concepts of SCO supplier fit and SCO customer fit. Findings indicate that the SCO alignment across the supply chain appears to be more important than the level of SCO itself. Consider: In terms of policy, researchers might ask what happens when the government enters the triad or dictates the exclusion of specific partners. Additionally, what happens to SCO fit when certain government policies are enacted?
In a related fashion, Molinaro et al. (2022) take on a social exchange theory integration perspective to study the impact of contingency effects on supply base concentration in “Implementing supplier integration practices to improve performance: The contingency effects of supply base concentration.” The authors examine how supply chain disruptions may be influencing supply base design decisions (also see Hughes et al., 2022). The team details how distinct types of supplier integration relate to buyer efficiency and innovation, as well as a contingency effect tied to supply base concentration. Results show that some supplier integration types improve performance, but only under higher levels of supply base concentration. Consider: One might ask if a government policy increases supply base concentration – consequently negatively reducing options across the supplier pool – could also positively impact integration. The results also indicate that developing technologies to share information with suppliers could be counterproductive in driving efficiency. This is quite contrary to ongoing calls for more transparency. Researchers might consider the impact of information technology regulation on the intended positive consequences of supplier integration and due diligence policy. Could future or existing technological policy undermine our best of intentions?
While the earlier works examined issues within the supply chain, the last two articles in this issue examine the supply chain at the consumer level. This is an area we would like to see develop and hope to develop a special topic forum in the fall of next year (also see: Jin, Murfield, and Bock in 2022). In “Good cause, not so good business? Sales and operations performance of cause-related marketing,” Sodero (2022) develops a quasi-experiment to examine cause-related marketing (C-RM). C-RM embodies corporate social responsibility campaigns requiring the firm to donate proceeds from consumer purchases to a specific cause. To date, no study addresses how does C-RMs impact sales and operations performance across retail supply chains. Sodero finds that C-RM has a positive impact on sales during the marketing campaign, but negative effects on forecast bias and service levels upstream in the supply chain, indicating trade-offs in sales and operations performance. Also at the retail level, Kembro et al. (2022) present, “Sorting out the sorting in omnichannel retailing.” Building on recent work by Ishfaq et al. (2022), Kembro's team examines – via case study – the growing complexity of today's omnichannel structures and processes. This complexity leads to challenges with logistics efficiency and customer utility. Retailers address these challenges by sorting goods at multiple points across the logistics network as well as inside each node. The authors employ transvection theory to explain why retailers “prepone” some sorting activities upstream and postpone others to handle trade-offs between customer utility and logistics efficiency. Consider: When it comes to the retail level, government policy is often focused on fostering fair competition and protecting the consumer. How might changes in related policy improve or restrict related marketing efforts? Can preponement be used to navigate unintended manmade disruptions? How will policy impact retail supply chain COGS, inventory turnover, transactions costs, and customer satisfaction?
Moving upstream from the retail level, Friedrich et al. (2022) examine “Make-or-buy decisions for industrial additive manufacturing.” Industrial additive manufacturing (AM) is one of the most promising technological advances in SCM. AM's potential lies in the digital specification of components that can be transmitted seamlessly and unambiguously to partners. This allows for flexible outsourcing, but the authors observe newly uncovered AM supply chain governance structures resulting from make-or-buy decisions. This creates a propensity to implement AM in-house. Friedrich and her colleagues' case studies identify four decision profiles that demonstrate the spectrum of specific governance structures and develop a framework explaining the underlying rationales. Consider: From a policy position, this study opens the opportunity for researchers to expand analysis to include competing governance structures that are interior (firms' internal polity) and exterior to the supply chain (Governments' external polity). AM as a research context also presents a new list of concerns in the areas of counterfeiting and intellectual property protection that have not been considered our leaders. What policy should be created or avoided?
Finally, we take a bit of a turn towards critiquing our role as researchers and educators. In “Exploring the impact of logistics and supply chain management scholarship: Why pursue practical relevance and are we successful?” Hawkins et al. (2022) provide a strong Perspectives' study on the pedagogical work we do and its relationship to our research. The study examines the relevance of L&SCM research, probing the underlying motives prompting scholars to value and pursue managerially relevant (v. pure academic) contributions. Results suggest both practitioners and academics agree at differing levels that L&SCM research is relevant, but the pressure to chase indices and rankings has influenced academics' behavior in a way that may not support our educational endeavors. They conclude that the academic peer review process has lost a strong focus on managerial implications. We hope this never becomes the case at JBL and we encourage the community to always ask “Who cares?” when finalizing a submission. If the answer is not management, industry, or policy makers, the authors may want to rethink the study or the outlet. This editorial has only scratched the surface of powerful research questions related to policy making. We hope to see the JBL research will community take on these and/or their own questions being confident that the door will always be open for work on L&SCM policy making and the impact of government interventionism.
As editors, we are always here to help. We both have experience in the policy arena. We are happy to help you with your study and potential conversations after the study is published. Let us do things that help businesses, government, society, and individuals.
期刊介绍:
Supply chain management and logistics processes play a crucial role in the success of businesses, both in terms of operations, strategy, and finances. To gain a deep understanding of these processes, it is essential to explore academic literature such as The Journal of Business Logistics. This journal serves as a scholarly platform for sharing original ideas, research findings, and effective strategies in the field of logistics and supply chain management. By providing innovative insights and research-driven knowledge, it equips organizations with the necessary tools to navigate the ever-changing business environment.