Search results

The purpose of this paper is to update the work of Carter and Easton (2011), by conducting a systematic review of the sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) literature in the primary logistics and supply chain management journals, during the 2010–2018 timeframe.

The authors use a systematic literature review (SLR) methodology which follows the methodology employed by Carter and Easton (2011). An evaluation of this methodology, using the Modified AMSTAR criteria, demonstrates a high level of empirical validity.

The field of SSCM continues to evolve with changes in substantive focus, theoretical lenses, unit of analysis, methodology and type of analysis. However, there are still abundant future research opportunities, including investigating under-researched topics such as diversity and human rights/working conditions, employing the group as the unit of analysis and better addressing empirical validity and social desirability bias.

The findings result in prescriptions and a broad agenda to guide future research in the SSCM arena. The final section of the paper provides additional avenues for future research surrounding theory development and decision making.

This SLR provides a rigorous, methodologically valid review of the continuing evolution of empirical SSCM research over a 28-year time period.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a theorization of the unintended consequences of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM).

The authors integrate extant theory of unintended consequences, sustainable supply chain management and paradox theory to develop a typology of the unintended consequences of SSCM initiatives and a conceptual model of the antecedents of these unintended consequences.

The authors advance a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive typology of the unintended consequences of SSCM initiatives. These unintended consequences include trade-offs as well as synergies in the form of positive spillover. The authors’ conceptual model identifies multiple levels of stakeholders, multiple performance dimensions, multiple time horizons and the interplay with social construction as antecedents to the unintended consequences of SSCM initiatives.

The authors’ typology suggests that managers must move beyond simply assessing whether the intended consequences of an SSCM initiative have been achieved. Managers must also, to the extent they can, assess the potential for unintended consequences to arise. The authors’ typology provides an initial roadmap for managers to continue, discontinue or further consider an SSCM initiative, based on the resulting unintended consequences. The authors’ theorization also provides guidance about how managers can more successfully bring SSCM initiatives to fruition and start cycles of learning.

There largely has been a focus in the operations and supply chain management literature on trade-offs between economic performance on the one hand and social or environmental performance on the other. The authors advocate that this focus needs to shift to interactions within and between social and environmental performance. Further, trade-offs are only one type of unintended consequence. By developing a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive typology, the authors introduce a much clearer conceptualization of the unintended consequences of an SSCM initiative and a much better understanding of how to manage SSCM initiatives, both prior to and postimplementation.

This study aims to examine publications of supply chain management (SCM) researchers from across the world and maps the leadership role of authors and institutions based on how prolific they are in publishing and on network measures of centrality while accounting for the quality of the outlets that they publish in. It aims to inform stakeholders on who the leading SCM scholars are, their primary areas of SCM research, their publication profiles and the nature of their networks. It also identifies and informs on the leading SCM research institutions of the world and where leadership in specific areas of SCM research is emerging from.

Based on SCM papers appearing in a set of seven leading journals over the 15-year period of 2001-2015, publication scores and social network analysis measures of total degree centrality and Bonacich power centrality are used to identify the highest ranked agents in SCM research overall, as well as in some specific areas of SCM research. Social network analysis is also used to examine the nature and scope of the networks of the ranked agents and where leadership in SCM research is emerging from.

Authors and institutions from the USA and UK are found to dominate much of the rankings in SCM research both by publication score and social network analysis measures of centrality. In examining the networks of the very top authors and institutions of the world, their networks are found to be more inward-looking (country-centric) than outward-looking (globally dispersed). Further, researchers in Europe and Asia alike are found to exhibit significant continental inclinations in their network formations with researchers in Europe displaying greater propensity to collaborate with their European-based counterparts and researchers in Asia with their Asian-based counterparts. Also, from among the journals, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal is found to exhibit a far more expansive global reach than any of the other journals.

The journal set used in this study, though representative of high-quality SCM research outlets, is not exhaustive of all potential outlets that publish SCM research. Further, the measure of quality that this study assigns to the various publications is based solely on a publication score that accounts for the quality of the journals, as rated by Association of Business Schools that the papers appear in and nothing else.

By informing the community of stakeholders of SCM research about the top-ranked SCM authors, institutions and countries of the world, the nature of their networks, as well as what the primary areas of SCM research of the leading authors in the world are, this research provides stakeholders, including managers, researchers and students, information that is helpful to them not only because of the insights it provides but also for the gauging of potential for embedding themselves in specific networks, engaging in collaborative research with the leading agents or pursuing educational opportunities with them.

This research is the first of its kind to identify and rank the top SCM authors and institutions from across the world using a representative set of seven leading SCM and primary OM journals based on publication scores and social network measures of centrality. The research is also the first of its kind to identify and rank the top authors and institutions within specific areas of SCM research and to identify future research opportunities relating to aspects of collaboration and networking in research endeavors.

The purpose of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of the sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) literature in the principal logistics and supply chain management journals, across a 20‐year time frame.

The authors use a systematic literature review methodology. This methodology allows for the minimization of researcher bias and the maximization of reliability and replicability. The study's empirical validity is further enhanced by demonstrating high levels of inter‐coder reliability across families of codes.

The field of SSCM has evolved from a perspective and investigation of standalone research in social and environmental areas; through a corporate social responsibility perspective; to the beginnings of the convergence of perspectives of sustainability as the triple bottom line and the emergence of SSCM as a theoretical framework. While the SSCM research has become more theoretically rich and methodologically rigorous, there are numerous opportunities for further advancing theory, methodology, and the managerial relevance of future inquiries.

The trends and gaps identified through our analysis allow us to develop a cogent agenda to guide future SSCM research.

The current perspectives of SSCM hold important implications for managers, by directing limited resources toward projects which intersect environmental and/or social performance, and economic performance.

The paper provides a systematic, rigorous, and methodologically valid review of the evolution of empirical SSCM research across a 20‐year time period.

While most researchers would generally agree that the field of logistics has been maturing over recent decades, this maturation has not yet been empirically established. The purpose of this paper is to assess the maturity of research in the field by measuring author concentration in logistics journals over a sixteen‐year period.

Research propositions of logistics author concentration are first developed from the extant literature. The propositions are then tested by assessing author concentration across 1,796 articles from five scholarly, peer‐reviewed logistics journals from 1992‐2007. The results are compared to similar studies of other academic business disciplines, including accounting, finance, management, and marketing. We also apply regression analysis to the time series data to verify changing author concentration trends.

The results indicate that logistics publications generally have higher author concentration than other business disciplines, suggesting that logistics research is less expansive and still maturing compared to these other disciplines. However, logistics author concentration has continued to decrease since 1992 relative to schools, countries, degree‐granting schools, and individual authors. This suggests that the field has been expanding and will continue to do so at a consistent pace in the near future.

This paper allows logistics researchers to better understand the recent research history of the field as well as its future research prospects. Additionally, The implication for is presented the international expansion of the field as well as the increasing acceptance of logistics journals by other academic disciplines. In addition, concerns about increased author competition and research proliferation are voiced.

The authors perform a large‐scale literature review and use conceptual theory building to introduce the concept of sustainability to the field of supply chain management and demonstrate the relationships among environmental, social, and economic performance within a supply chain management context.

Conceptual theory building is used to develop a framework and propositions representing a middle theory of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM).

The authors introduce the concept of sustainability – the integration of environmental, social, and economic criteria that allow an organization to achieve long‐term economic viability – to the logistics literature, and position sustainability within the broader rubric of SSCM. They then present a framework of SSCM and develop research propositions based on resource dependence theory, transaction cost economics, population ecology, and the resource‐based view of the firm. The authors conclude by discussing managerial implications and future research directions, including the further development and testing of the framework's propositions.

This paper provides a comprehensive review of the sustainability literature, introduces sustainability to the field of supply chain management, and expands the conceptualization of sustainability beyond the triple bottom line to consider key supporting facets which are posited to be requisites to implementing SSCM practices. The use of conceptual theory building to develop theoretically based propositions moves the concept of sustainability from a relatively a‐theoretical treatment toward new theory in supply chain management.

The authors perform a large‐scale review of debiasing literature with the purpose of deriving a mutually exclusive and exhaustive debiasing taxonomy. This taxonomy is used to conceptualize debiasing activities in the supplier selection process. For each supplier selection‐debiasing construct, scale items are proposed.

A systematic classification approach was used to build a debiasing taxonomy, combined with a Q‐methodology.

Based on the developed and externally validated debiasing taxonomy, five debiasing activities for the supplier selection context are derived. The conceptual investigation of these supplier selection‐oriented debiasing measures helps both researchers and supply managers to gain a better understanding of debiasing mechanisms and to effectively further improve the supplier selection process by integrating behavioral aspects.

This research extends the taxonomy of decision biases developed by Carter, Kaufmann, and Michel, by systematically analyzing strategies to debias the decision‐making process. The highly fragmented research landscape on debiasing was inventoried and structured. As a result, a debiasing taxonomy was created that extracted five main debiasing categories. These were then conceptualized within the context of the supplier selection process. In doing so, debiasing literature from different research streams such as economics, psychology, and behavioral and strategic decision making was systematically integrated into the field of supply management. Proposed scale items allow for empirical investigation as a next step in the development of the nascent field of behavioral supply management.

This paper aims to examine how socially responsible supply management activities, a term labeled purchasing social responsibility (PSR) in the extant literature, affect a firm's costs. There has been much debate, and mixed empirical findings, regarding whether socially responsible behavior on the part of companies improves or reduces firm performance.

A survey methodology and structural equation modeling are used to assess the relationship between PSR and supplier performance, including the mediating role of organizational learning. The theoretical scope is developed through an integration of literature from logistics, corporate social responsibility, the resource‐based view of the firm, and organizational learning.

No direct relationship is found between PSR and costs; however, organizational learning and supplier performance act as key, mediating variables between PSR and costs, with PSR leading to organizational learning, improved supplier performance, and ultimately reduced costs.

The significant mediating roles of organizational learning and supplier performance provide one possible explanation for the past, conflicting findings of studies that have investigated the direct relationship between corporate social responsibility and firm performance.

The findings suggest that PSR not only is the “right thing to do”, but also can lead to significant improvements in supplier performance and costs.

This is the first study to suggest and test the possibility of mediation between social responsibility and firm performance. The research also extends the integration of organizational learning and supply chain management.

The purpose of this study is to extend a series of studies dating back to 1967 that evaluates faculty publication productivity in refereed supply chain management and logistics journals.

Publication output and rankings of academic institutions are based on publication data from six supply chain management and logistics journals from 2008 through 2010. The results are compared to prior studies to identify trends and changes in the rankings. The authors also assess author collaboration influences as well as authorship diversity. Finally, the authors examine further changes to the core set of journals considered for future iterations of this study.

The results indicate that supply chain management and logistics authorship continues to be dynamic. Several schools entered the top 25 ranking for the first time and others substantially improved their rankings. While higher‐ranked schools engage in more collaboration within their own institutions, they practice less external and international collaboration. Additionally, the diversity of both individual authors and schools continues to expand, though evidence also suggests some level of emerging stability in sources of authorship.

As limitations, the selected journal set may present bias against some authors and institutions, particularly those from outside North America and those choosing to publish in other journals in the field or in related fields.

This research stream enables authors and universities to judge their relative productivity of academic scholarship in the supply chain management and logistics field. Moreover, the longitudinal analysis provides insight into the evolving maturity of the field itself.

This study aims to examine the quality of the extant supply chain management (SCM) research which has utilized a grounded theory (GT) approach. The purpose of this research is to better understand the current state of the field, by introducing and highlighting the distinctions between the Glaserian and Straussian schools of thought and examining the extent to which existing SCM research has either complied with or diverged from the six dimensions which distinguish the two schools of thought. By doing so, it aims to provide guidelines to both reviewers and researchers who might use GT in future studies, with the goal of improving the validity and rigor of GT research.

The method underlying this paper followed the steps of a systematic literature review process. GT works within leading SCM journals were examined to determine the extent to which they complied with the methodological tenets of GT.

The systematic literature review shows that, while the use of GT in the field of SCM appears to be increasing over time, over half of the investigated studies deviate from the chosen school of thought by not adhering to the six dimensions distinct to Glaser's or Strauss's approach to GT.

This study calls for researchers to revisit the methodological roots of GT in order to improve the validity of such studies and ultimately the acceptance of the GT methodology by the broader community of SCM researchers. Transparency must be increased with regard to the chosen school of thought and the research process itself. GT is an appropriate methodology for investigating behavioral and social aspects of organizations and inter‐organizational relationships, and thus should be utilized more frequently in future SCM research.

The paper aids researchers in understanding the methodological tenets of grounded theory and the divergence of schools of thought within this methodology.