Search results

This chapter addresses one of the most crucial areas for critical thinking: the morality of turbulent markets around the world. All of us are overwhelmed by such turbulent markets. Following Nassim Nicholas Taleb (2004, 2010), we distinguish between nonscalable industries (ordinary professions where income grows linearly, piecemeal or by marginal jumps) and scalable industries (extraordinary risk-prone professions where income grows in a nonlinear fashion, and by exponential jumps and fractures). Nonscalable industries generate tame and predictable markets of goods and services, while scalable industries regularly explode into behemoth virulent markets where rewards are disproportionately large compared to effort, and they are the major causes of turbulent financial markets that rock our world causing ever-widening inequities and inequalities. Part I describes both scalable and nonscalable markets in sufficient detail, including propensity of scalable industries to randomness, and the turbulent markets they create. Part II seeks understanding of moral responsibility of turbulent markets and discusses who should appropriate moral responsibility for turbulent markets and under what conditions. Part III synthesizes various theories of necessary and sufficient conditions for accepting or assigning moral responsibility. We also analyze the necessary and sufficient conditions for attribution of moral responsibility such as rationality, intentionality, autonomy or freedom, causality, accountability, and avoidability of various actors as moral agents or as moral persons. By grouping these conditions, we then derive some useful models for assigning moral responsibility to various entities such as individual executives, corporations, or joint bodies. We discuss the challenges and limitations of such models.

While, supply chain resilience (SCRES) continues to be a dominant topic in both academic and business literature and has gained more attention recently, there is limited knowledge on SCRES capabilities specific to business functions. The purpose of this paper is to identify and investigate capabilities shared between supply, operations and logistics that are most important for SCRES.

To address this gap, the authors followed a multi-method research approach. First, the authors used the grounded theory method to generate a theoretical framework based on interviews with 51 managers from five companies in automotive SCs. Next, the authors empirically validated the framework using a survey of 340 SC professionals from the manufacturing industry.

Five significant capabilities emerged from the qualitative study; all were significant in empirical validation. This research advances the knowledge of SCRES as it informs managerial decision-making by identifying capabilities common to supply, logistics and operations that impact SCRES.

This research advances the knowledge of SCRES as it informs managerial decision-making by identifying capabilities common to supply, logistics and operations that impact SCRES. In addition, the findings of this research help managers better allocate resources among significant capabilities.

This study investigates paradox-responding strategies and enabling mechanisms in humanitarian temporary supply networks (TSNs). Given the high stakes involved in life-saving supply networks, understanding how diverse, often under-resourced, organisations jointly tackle paradoxical tensions under time pressure is crucial.

A qualitative single case study approach is adopted and a TSN deployed to meet shelter needs following the 2015 Nepal earthquake is selected as the case. The authors use diverse secondary data sources to establish how the TSN responded to paradoxical tensions.

Results show that paradox-responding in humanitarian TSNs is ongoing, dynamic and a collective effort. Most strategies entail tackling the paradoxical tensions at the same time, using the same TSN structure, but there are differences in the treatment of the paradoxical elements. Additionally, the authors find that the execution of the responding strategies is enabled by the appropriate types of network-level mechanisms which can vary in novelty, complexity, depth and reach.

This study provides rich explanations of paradox-responding and develops insights into collective action within TSNs. However, further research is needed to extend and refine insights given the single-case setting design.

This study develops a framework of paradox-responding strategies and a corresponding mix of enabling mechanisms that can guide decision-makers in the humanitarian sector when deploying TSNs.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study that investigates paradox-responding strategies in humanitarian TSNs in particular and enabling mechanisms in general.

Global supply chains are increasingly becoming more prone to high-impact disruptions, which has been fairly evident with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The capacity to address disruptions is essential for the survival of any organization. Coping with increasing complexity and uncertainties requires a systemic view of supply chains. Furthermore, a comprehensive understanding of the governance structure and timely decision-making are critical in times of disruptions. Although several aspects of supply chain resilience (SCRES) are broadly studied in the literature, the relationship between supply chain orientation (SCO), decentralization in decision-making and SCRES is an understudied area.

This study takes a longitudinal approach to address this research gap with a comprehensive meta-analytic review to explore the relationships between the constructs of interest through the lenses of contingency and dynamic capability theories. Furthermore, 2 surveys with sample sizes of 250 and 200 were conducted with supply chain professionals to test the research framework before and after the pandemic to compare the findings.

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis indicates a positive relationship between SCO and decentralization and between decentralization and SCRES. The post-COVID-19 analysis further validates the influence of agility, collaboration and situational awareness related to decentralization and resilience. More importantly, capabilities have a higher impact on resilience during the pandemic than before.

The results entreat organizations to attain decentralized decision-making vis-à-vis dedicated functional teams charged with reacting timely to disruptions. The teams should be empowered to leverage their knowledge and experiences regardless of their position in the hierarchy.

Although SCRES is an active research stream, the structural aspects of SCRES and its relationship with SCO are understudied. Therefore, this research puts forth a research framework and empirically tests hypotheses that frame the relationship between SCO, decentralization and resilience outcomes in pre- and post-COVID environments.

This study aims to investigate supply network (SN) resilience capabilities across the organizational, supply chain (SC) and industry levels by drawing on the complex adaptive systems (CASs) theory and the social–ecological perspective of resilience. An empirically grounded framework operationalizes the concept of social–ecological resilience by expounding resilience capabilities across phases of the CAS adaptive cycle.

This research uses a qualitative multiple case study approach. It draws on the case of the Australian Defence Manufacturing SN (ADM SN) during COVID-19 disruptions. A total of 28 interviews with senior decision makers from 17 companies, complemented by 5 interviews with the Australian Defence SC organizations and secondary data analysis, support the findings.

Individual organizations’ SC visibility and flexibility enabled by effective risk management and collaboration enhance the ability of the SN to anticipate and prepare for disruption. At the same time, the strength of SC relationships reduces resilience. SN disruption response velocity is enabled by inventory redundancy, process flexibility at the organizational level and visibility and collaboration at the SC level. Institutional support at the national industry level, development of value-adding capabilities and manufacturing process flexibility at the organizational level enhances the SN’s ability to re-organize. The transition from hierarchical to decentralized collaborative governance enhances SN resilience.

From a practitioner’s perspective, the findings highlight the need to embrace a broader view of SC beyond immediate tiers. Decision-makers in multinational companies must recognize the long-term impact of their procurement decisions on the supplier ecosystem. Developing local supplier capabilities rather than relying on established global SCs will pay off with future resilience. It, however, demands substantial investment and radical changes across all SC tiers. The lesson for smaller firms is not to over-rely on the existing relationships with supply partners. Although trust-based relationships and collaboration are essential, over-commitment can be counterproductive during global disruptions. With a lack of visibility and control over the SC, operational flexibility is critical for small firms to adapt to shifts in supply and demand.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this empirical research is one of the first attempts to operationalize the social–ecological perspective of SN resilience. Evidence-based theoretical propositions contribute to the emerging conversation about the CAS nature of resilience by demonstrating the multi-level effects of resilience capabilities.

Librarianship’s dominant conception of the freedom to read is governed by a liberal principle of noninterference, wherein free readers are those who face no intentional intervention in their choice of materials. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how this account fails to adequately capture systemic threats that impoverish people’s reading lives.

This conceptual paper deploys informal argumentation to expose a flaw in the dominant account of the freedom to read. The author uses a case study of comparative titles or comps, an editorial decision-making and justificatory convention that reproduces racial inequality in Anglophone trade publishing.

Comps present one example of how everyday norms and practices of literary production render people’s reading lives pervasively unfree, even absent some intent to interfere in them. The going account of the freedom to read calls, at best, for a greater diversity of book-commodities from which consumers may choose. However, the comp case suggests that this distributive remedy will be insufficient without relevant changes to the institutional arrangements that condition readers' choices in the first place.

This paper draws together insights from Library and Information Science, political philosophy and print culture studies to illuminate limitations in librarianship’s standard conception of the freedom to read. This reveals the need for an alternative, structural account of that freedom with significant implications for practice.

Research shows that the physical locations of correctional facilities often contribute to environmental hazards. Research also shows that correctional facilities are often sited near hazardous or undesirable land(s). In combination, incarcerated individuals may be at increased risk of experiencing negative health consequences because of exposure to various environmental harms. This is especially alarming as incarcerated individuals lack the capacity to decide where they are detained. In these cases, health issues that may have developed while detained may extend beyond incarceration. Furthermore, incarcerated individuals are not protected by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Justice policies.

Using a case study approach, the authors examine two specific correctional facilities in the USA to not only demonstrate the various environmental harms that incarcerated individuals encounter but also highlight carceral spaces as sites of environmental violations.

Additionally, the authors address the negative health consequences incarcerated individuals report because of exposure to these harms. They also argue that creating safer communities requires more than reducing crime and preventing criminal victimization. Creating safer communities also includes promoting environmental safety and protection from hazards that cause sickness and disease.

This work contributes to an emerging and growing body of literature that examines the intersection of carceral studies and environmental justice.