Suchergebnisse

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to develop taxonomy of sourcing decision-making (SDM) archetypes and explore how different contextual factors influence these archetypes when global sourcing of complex components is considered a viable option.Design/methodology/approachA multiple case study approach with five in-depth cases is employed. In total, 19 interviews as well as publicly available and internal data from large buying firms headquartered in Austria and Germany were collected and analyzed.FindingsThe results reveal three different SDM archetypes which are described in detail (i.e. "consensus," "argumentation" and "cabal"). Furthermore, it is found that these archetypes are mainly influenced by three contextual factors: sourcing maturity, product complexity and leadership style. The final model comprises six propositions which illustrate how these contextual factors determine companies' SDM archetypes.Research limitations/implicationsThe study contributes to theory development at the intersection of organizational buying behavior and the (global) SDM literature. Thereby, it answers the call for more rigorous investigation of the influence of contextual factors on SDM processes.Practical implicationsThe findings enable practitioners to better understand and consequently manage SDM processes and their outcomes. By supporting decision-makers in identifying SDM archetypes, this study allows sourcing managers and teams to make better decisions by avoiding problems that occur in situations in which the preferred decision-making type would result in suboptimal decisions.Originality/valueThe study provides a first step toward taxonomy of SDM archetypes and is among the first that explores their underlying contextual factors.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate how buying firms manage their lower tier sustainability management (LTSM) in their supply networks and what contextual factors influence the choice of approaches. As most of the environmental and social burden is caused in lower tiers, the authors use the iceberg analogy.Design/methodology/approachFindings from 12 case studies and 53 interviews, publicly available and internal firm data are presented. In an abductive research approach, transaction cost economics (TCE) conceptually guides the analytical iteration processes between theory and data.FindingsThis study provides eight LTSM approaches grouped into three categories: direct (holistic, product-, region-, and event-specific) indirect (multiplier-, alliance- and compliance-based) and neglect (tier-1-based). Focal firms choose between these approaches depending on the strength of observed contextual factors (stakeholder salience, structural supply network complexity, product and industry salience, past supply network incidents, socio-economic and cultural distance and lower tier supplier dependency), leading to perceived sustainability risk (PSR).Research limitations/implicationsBy depicting TCE's theoretical boundaries in predicting LTSM governance modes, the theory is elevated to the supply network level of analysis. Future research should investigate LTSM at the purchasing category level of analysis to compare and contrast PSR profiles for different purchase tasks and to validate and extend the framework.Practical implicationsThis study serves as a blueprint for the development of firms' LTSM capabilities that suit their unique PSR profiles. It offers knowledge regarding what factors influence these profiles and presents a model that links the effectiveness of different LTSM approaches to resource intensity.Originality/valueThis study extends the application of TCE and adds empirically to the literature on multi-tier and sustainable supply chain management.

PurposeThe purpose of this article is to discuss how the mastery of resilience in operations and supply chains plays a significant role in the transition to a more sustainable future. Furthermore, it is supposed to propose avenues for future research on operational and supply chain resilience, interacting with the sustainability literature in our field.Design/methodology/approachA conceptual review of resilience and sustainability themes within operations and supply chain management research is conducted. Reflections on the topic are informed by relevant literature published over the last decade.FindingsThe major conceptual contributions are threefold: (1) This article elaborates on the understanding of operational resilience and supply chain resilience concepts and reviews their respective primary research streams. (2) It proposes resilience as the missing element in the pursuit of excellence in organizations that want to contribute to a more sustainable future. (3) The article offers a research framework that provides a future research agenda at the intersection of resilience and sustainability in operations and supply chain management research.Originality/valueThe article highlights gaps in current research and illustrates further areas of research that need to be addressed to maximize the contribution of operations and supply chain management research in supporting practitioners to achieve a more sustainable future.

PurposeThe purpose of this article is to discuss the theme of managing operations and supply chains in the so-called "new normal". It reflects the themes emerging from recent research and how these might be conceptualized.Design/methodology/approachThe article reviews research presented at the EurOMA 2021 conference and eight papers subsequently developed into full journal papers. It considers conceptual themes contained in these papers and how they reflect recent turbulent events in the external business environment.FindingsThe article notes the themes of resilience in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic, environmental sustainability, especially climate change and the Sustainable Development Goals, and the significance of digital technologies. Additional themes relating to inter-organizational relationships, complexity and manager cognition are also considered. In order to provide useful insights for future disruptions, general concepts on epistemology and responsiveness are described.Originality/valueThe article discusses general principles across cutting-edge research in operations and supply chain management, to support improved performance to add economic and social value.

PurposeWhile various supply chain (SC) sustainability investigations exist, their connection to supply chain resilience (SCRes) remains largely unexplored. To fill this gap, the authors answer the question: "How do firms' sustainability actions affect their SCs' resilience and sustainability trajectories in turbulent environments?" by exploring the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted 10 case studies in five industries located in six European countries. A total of 19 semi-structured interviews and relevant secondary data were collected and analyzed in reference to SC sustainability learning and the literature on SCRes approaches (i.e. engineering, ecological and social-ecological).Findings31 SC actions referring to different sustainability dimensions were identified to map SCRes learning through a temporal, spatial and functional scale analysis. While five cases are related to an engineering approach focused on "bouncing back" to pre-pandemic goals, three cases were focused on "bouncing forward" as part of an ecological approach. Moreover, the authors identified the existence of two social-ecological resilience cases which developed long-term actions, updating functional set-ups transcending the SC level. The results furthermore illustrate an influence of the SCRes approaches on SC sustainability learning, generating three different paths: flat, flat ascending and ascending SC sustainability trajectories.Research limitations/implicationsThe study develops an overview of the adoption of SCRes approaches due to temporal, spatial and functional scales, and their effect on SC sustainability trajectories through exploitation and exploration capabilities. Future research should elaborate on potential moderators in the proposed relationships.Practical implicationsA better understanding of the link between SC sustainability actions and SCRes will help practitioners to make better informed decisions in turbulent environments.Originality/valueUnlike previous research, this paper provides empirical evidence on engineering, ecological and social-ecological SCRes approaches, as well as SC sustainability trajectories.

PurposeThis Impact Pathways paper aims to provide a timely and structured discussion of real-world problems at Marks and Spencer and in retail in general, evoked through the current COVID-19 pandemic.Design/methodology/approachThe article presents collaborative research based on more than five hours of interviews and several iterative paper writing steps between management scholars and Marks & Spencer's Head of Procurement - Logistics and Supply Chain. Continuous discussions for more than ten months among the research team assure the timeliness and relevance of the findings. The exceptional position of the executive and his career biography allowed the integration of a variety of intra-organisational and inter-organisational stakeholders.FindingsThis paper highlights the impacts of the current COVID-19 pandemic on operations and supply chain management (OSCM) in the retail industry, structured in upstream, internal and operational, and downstream and customer perspectives. The paper concludes with a practice-infused research agenda, which aims to trigger relevant research about the current and potential future crises.Research limitations/implicationsAlthough the research agenda is directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the retail industry, the future research pathways are expected to inform business responses to potential future external shocks other than pandemics and in different industries as well.Originality/valueDespite a plethora of studies already published on COVID-19 and OSCM, little is known on how the outbreak affects specific firms and industries. This paper offers an overview of COVID-19 related change as it happens at the retailer and in the retailing industry in general. This article is among the first to provide a practice-infused call for research on urgent issues being faced by business leaders directly relevant to our domain.

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to investigate how buying firms facing low supply chain visibility can utilize their stakeholder network to identify salient supply chain sustainability risks (SCSR).


Design/methodology/approach
The study employs a design science approach to develop a procedural model for identifying SCSR as a new artifact. A small-scale field-testing study in a food supply chain of a Swiss retail firm demonstrates its applicability and pragmatic validity.


Findings
When stakeholder knowledge external to the supply chain is regarded as a valuable resource, a generic understanding of a buying firm's supply chain suffices to identify SCSR hotspots without creating complexity for the SCSR management.


Research limitations/implications
The paper contributes to the study of SCSR by identifying mechanisms buying firms can employ to identify SCSR hotspots and fostering the nascent understanding of responsibility attribution by stakeholders. Moreover, the emerging theory of the supply chain is enriched by paving a way to extend the supply chain visibility boundary. The procedural model is presumably most useful in contexts of elevated stakeholder pressure and low supply chain visibility. Future research should seek to validate and improve the effectiveness of the newly designed artifact.


Practical implications
The procedural model is directly applicable in corporate practice to the identification of SCSR. Moreover, its application fosters the understanding of a firm's supply chain and its stakeholder network.


Originality/value
SCSR is an increasingly important phenomenon in corporate practice that has received only scarce research attention. The design science approach represents a valuable means for generating theoretical insights and emergent solutions to the real-world problem of SCSR identification.

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to explore contextual barriers to supplier development for sustainability (SDS) in global supply chains and managerial remedies to mitigate such barriers.Design/methodology/approach– A dyadic case study design was adopted with a Western European buyer and six of its Chinese suppliers. The database consists of 41 interviews and 81 documents.Findings– Contextual barriers to SDS in global supply chains derive from complexities in the sustainability concept, socio-economic differences, spatial and linguistic distance, as well as cultural differences between buyers and suppliers. Partial remedies include effective joint communications, an open organizational culture, and the fostering of cross-contextual understanding.Research limitations/implications– The findings contribute to theory development at the intersection of sustainable and global supply chain management research. They help to explain why scarce sustainability-related progress in global supply chains has occurred in recent years.Practical implications– The identified barriers facilitate managerial decision making that will expedite SDS progress in global contexts.Social implications– By diffusing knowledge regarding available remedies, the study contributes to improving SDS effectiveness, thereby fostering sustainability capabilities and performance of suppliers.Originality/value– This research highlights the criticality of contextual barriers to SDS. The barrier effects that stem from differing real-world conceptions of sustainability may inform future sustainable supply chain management research within and beyond SDS.

Modern slavery and conflict minerals are often treated as two separate grand challenges governed by different legislation, yet conflict mineral settings commonly involve and inflict slavery in supply chains – hence these two wicked problems are deeply interconnected. This paper focuses on due diligence in the context of conflict mineral supply chains, and in doing so provides important insights for modern slavery in general. Using more than 38 hours of recordings from exploratory interviews with 46 experts from 43 organizations, our study investigates: a) how due diligence costs and benefits are actually distributed in supply chains in practice; and b) the means through which due diligence costs and benefits can be (more appropriately) shared. We find that there is a lack of contextualization of cost-sharing mechanisms to conflict mineral supply chains, with most mechanisms being imported from the standard business literature where the producer must pay the production costs before reaping the benefits that offset these costs. But in conflict mineral supply chains, these benefits often do not materialize for the producer and, consequently, cost-sharing mechanisms lead to unintended consequences. The findings question the usefulness of due diligence, call for alternative financing mechanisms, and for contextualized solutions designed from the bottom up. This in turn has important implications for enhancing legislation on modern slavery.

PurposeThe research is based on a critically analyzed literature review focused on the unanticipated outcomes, trade-offs and tensions of sustainable operations and supply chain management (OSCM), including the articles selected for this special issue.Design/methodology/approachThe authors introduce the key concepts, issues and theoretical foundations of this special issue on "The hidden side of sustainable operations and supply chain management (OSCM): Unanticipated outcomes, trade-offs and tensions". The authors explore these issues within this context, and how they may hinder the authors' transition to more sustainable practices.FindingsThe authors present an overview of unanticipated outcomes, trade-offs, tensions and influencing factors from the literature, and identify how such problems may emerge. The model addresses these problems by highlighting the crucial effect of the underlying state of knowledge on sustainable OSCM decision-making.Research limitations/implicationsThe authors limited the literature review to journals that ranked 2 and above as defined by the Chartered Association of Business Schools Academic Journal Guide. The main implication for research is a call to focus attention on unanticipated outcomes as a starting point rather than only an afterthought. For practitioners, good intentions such as sustainability initiatives need careful consideration for potential unanticipated outcomes.Originality/valueThe study provides the first critical review of unanticipated outcomes, trade-offs and tensions in the sustainable OSCM discourse. While the literature review (including papers in this special issue) significantly contributes toward describing these issues, it is still unclear how such problems emerge. The model developed in this paper addresses this gap by highlighting the crucial effect of the underlying state of knowledge concerned with sustainable OSCM decision-making.