JSCM research review 2019

With Volume 56 Issue 1 coming soon, we take a look back at the research published within JSCM during 2019.

 With such a variety of quality research published in the last 12 months we offer you this opportunity to review the below eligible papers and provide feedback on which one(s) you believe should be in the running for our best paper award for 2019. Please note that, while equally excellent,  invited papers and notes are not eligible for the best paper award. 

 The judging starts soon and the prizes will be announced at AOM in Vancouver during August 2020.

 Please provide any feedback to jacqueline.jago-stafford@ucd.ie 

We look forward to hearing from you.

We talked to Dr. Chengyong Xiao, Lecturer in the Faculty of Economics and Business,  University of Groningen. about the paper he recently co-authored with Professor Dirk Pieter van Donk,  Associate Professor Miriam Wilhelm and Professor Taco van der Vaart is titled "Inside the buying firm: Exploring responses to paradoxical tensions in sustainable Supply Chain Management"

An instrumental perspective still dominates research on sustainable supply chain management (SSCM). As an alternative, this study presents a paradox perspective and argues that sustainability and other business aims are not always compatible, particularly in an emerging market context. Often, paradoxical tensions originate in conflicts between the socioeconomic environment of emerging market suppliers and their Western customers’ demands for both cost competitiveness and sustainability. We argue that Western buying firms can play a key role in moderating such tensions, as experienced by emerging market suppliers. Specifically, we explore how purchasing and sustainability managers within buying firms make sense of and respond to paradoxical tensions in SSCM. We conduct an in‐depth case study of a Western multinational company that sources substantially from Chinese suppliers. While we found strong evidence for a persisting instrumental perspective in the sensemaking and practices of purchasing and sustainability managers, we also observed an alternative response, primarily by sustainability managers that we labeled as “contextualizing.” Contextualizing can alleviate the tensions otherwise present in SSCM by making sustainability standards more workable in an emerging market context, and it can help individual managers to move toward paradoxical sensemaking. We outline the value of paradoxical sensemaking in bringing about changes toward “true sustainability” in SSCM.

We talked to Dr. Marco Bastl about the paper he recently co-authored with Dr. Mark Johnson and Dr. Max Finne titled “A Mid‐range theory of control and coordination in service triads”

The increased frequency of the adoption of service‐based business models by manufacturers, such as solution provision, has given rise to service triads. While there is consensus that actors in service triads are relationally and performatively interdependent, less is understood about how service triads are controlled and coordinated. In this study, we use an inductive case‐based approach to build an understanding about the roles, approaches, and contextual factors that influence how service triads are controlled and coordinated. We collected and analyzed data from nine companies forming three service triads, each comprising a customer, a manufacturer of an asset, and a service supplier. We synthesized our findings in a theoretical framework, where we show that first, both, control and coordination, are present in service triads rather than just control as previously posited. Second, controlling and coordinating service triads is not a single actor's responsibility but rather a collective effort shared by two or three actors. Third, we uncovered four contingent factors that influence the dynamics of how service triads are controlled and coordinated: the customer's risk exposure due to the offering's failure, the substitutability of the offering, the contractual safeguards, and the relationship closeness.

We talked to Danny Lanier, an Assistant Professor at Elon University about his research with William Wempe and Morgan Swink about his paper entitled ”Supply Chain Power and Real Earnings Management: Stock Market Perceptions, Financial Performance Effects, and Implications for Suppliers”

This study examines supply chain power in the context of real earnings management (REM), instances in which executives execute (or forego) operations transactions for the sole purpose of meeting or beating earnings targets. We examine whether powerful major customers in supply chains exploit their positions to engage in REM to a greater degree than less powerful firms. We also examine (1) whether the stock market reacts differently to major customers’ and nonmajor customers’ REM, (2) whether any difference exists between major customers’ and nonmajor customers’ post‐REM financial performance, and (3) how suppliers are impacted by their major customers’ REM behavior. Results suggest that major customers exploit their supply chain power to engage in more REM. In contrast to the skeptical stock market reaction when other firms engage in REM, we find no evidence that major customers’ earnings are discounted when there is evidence of REM. Instead, the market appears to interpret major customers’ behavior as “legitimate” uses of power in supply chain management, rather than REM typically considered to be value‐destroying. Further, we find that in post‐REM periods, major customers that engage in REM exhibit better operating cash flow performance than nonmajor customers who do so. These findings suggest that the consequential costs of REM are lower for major customers than for nonmajor customers. Finally, we report evidence that the particular form of major customers’ REM appears to determine the impact on their suppliers. Suppliers’ financial performance deteriorates when major customers’ REM entails discretionary expense cuts. These findings offer new insights into the benefits and uses of power in supply chain relationships, in a previously unexplored context. We discuss the implications of the findings for future research.

We talked to Dr. Seongtae Kim about his recent paper co-authored with Dr. Stephan Wagner and Dr. Claudia Colicchia. The paper is titled “The impact of supplier sustainability risk on shareholder value” and discusses the impact of scandals on a company’s shareholder value.

Business scandals like sweatshop labor have received growing attention in the field of supply management. Yet little is known about how detrimental such scandals are to buying firms. This study aims to fill this gap by examining the magnitude of the consequences of what are termed as supplier sustainability risks (SSRs). To this end, we conduct an event study analysis followed by regression modeling based on a sample of 196 U.S. publicly traded firms’ SSRs. The results reveal that SSRs are associated with a 1.00 percent reduction in shareholder wealth. The market reacts negatively but not differently to the two types of SSR: process‐related risks and product‐related risks. Finally, a firm's moral capital does play a mitigating role for SSRs and process‐related risks; however, it does not provide insurance‐like protection for product‐related risks.

We talked to Professor Chris Voss and Professor Henk Akkermans about the paper they recently co-authored with Roeland van Oers titled “Ramp‐up and ramp‐down dynamics in digital services”

Volume ramp ups are notoriously difficult in digital services, where market pressures can lead to ramping up too soon and too rapidly which in turn can lead to the need to ramp down. This paper addresses the challenge of taking innovation to scale in an established firm by enhancing our understanding of the nature of service ramp ups and ramp downs. Digital service ramp ups differ substantially from production ramp ups as the speed is much greater, and problems are visible to customers. However there are similarities between service ramp downs and product recalls and an important contribution is exploring the nature of ramp downs their processes and possible causes. Using an engaged research approach, longitudinal data from three consecutive ramp ups in a European telecom operator were collected. Through analyses of cases, qualitative and quantitative case data, and using a system dynamics model, we identified a set of issues that affect service ramp ups and ramp downs. These include the need to ramp up the service supply chain, biases leading to unrealistic assumptions about scalability and problem‐solving, decision biases in various functions, launching digital services in beta form, a lack of transparency of capacity and lack of learning from previous ramp ups. We show that if these problems are not addressed or resolution is delayed, this can lead to cycles of delay, backlogs and productivity problems and the inevitability of a ramp down. We explore reasons and importance for such delays that lead to service ramp downs.

We talked to Thomas Kull about the paper he co-authored with Frank Wiengarten, Damien Power and Piyush Shah entitled “Acting as Expected: Global Leadership Preferences and the Pursuit of an Integrated Supply Chain”

While research has extensively explored the potential benefits companies gain with integrated supply chains, the topic of why some companies are better at pursuing supply chain integration (SCI) is relatively under‐examined. We take the perspective that SCI is associated with preferred forms of leadership using leadership preference derived from path–goal logic. By combining global data sources, we examine the relationships among leadership style preferences, internal integration (i.e., between sales and purchasing) programs, and external integration (i.e., supplier side) programs. Our country‐level results challenge the assumption that the choice to pursue internal and external integration has similar origins. Specifically, while collaborative‐style leadership preferences relate to internal integration programs, societies preferring individualistic‐style leaders will be predisposed toward external integration programs. Our study’s contribution is in the novel use of theories on leadership to explain variations in approaches toward supply chain integration.

We talked to Kai Hoberg about the paper he co-authored with Florian Badorf, Stephan M. Wagner  and Felix Papier entitled “How Supplier Economies of Scale Drive Supplier Selection Decisions”

Supplier selections are complex but nonetheless strategically important decisions that are influenced by numerous factors. Drawing on the resource‐based and relational view of the firm, we investigate how suppliers’ economies of scale influence the buyer's selection decision, and we illustrate how the influence of scale is contingent upon important economic, buyer, and relationship characteristics. We test the model with a large secondary dataset of actual supplier selection decisions from the automotive industry and show that economies of scale have a strongly positive but diminishing effect on the buying firm's supplier selection decision. These effects are reinforced or extenuated by economic, buyer, and relationship characteristics, with characteristics that are more specific to the buyer‐supplier situation (e.g., relationship duration and power balance) having a stronger moderating effect than do characteristics that are more global (e.g., economic cycle). Our research helps suppliers to better understand how to manage selection probabilities with buyers and provides buying firms with a better understanding of how contextual factors affect the benefit of supplier‐provided economies of scale.

We talked to Sebastian J. Garcia Dastugue a Clinical Assistant Professor  at University of Arkansas and Cuneyt Eroglu an Associate Professor at Northeastern University about their research.

Resource allocation decisions in the areas of service quality and environmental sustainability can be challenging because ex ante it is difficult to assess the potential performance benefits of such investments. This paper investigates the operating performance implications of service quality and environmental sustainability in the context of logistics. Specifically, using the resource‐based view of the firm as the theoretical framework, we examine future operating performance of firms that won service quality and environmental sustainability awards in logistics between 2004 and 2013. Awardees include firms that are logistics service providers and firms that operate in other industries; in all cases, these awards recognize firms’ logistics capabilities. Our results reveal that firms’ service quality and environmental sustainability capabilities, as recognized by winning awards in the respective categories, are associated with improved operating performance during the three‐year post‐award period. Additionally, the performance benefits associated with service quality awards are greater than those associated with environmental sustainability awards. Our analysis further shows that whereas environmental sustainability relates to better future operating performance by enhancing only sales growth, service quality is positively associated with enhanced sales growth as well as cost efficiency. Finally, our results also indicate that positive operating performance implications of these awards are not contingent on the industry competitive intensity or innovative intensity. Implications for research and practice are discussed

We talked to Thomas Clauss about the paper he co-authored with Chanchai Tangpong entitled “Perception‐based supplier attributes and performance implications: a multimethod exploratory study”

Attributes of suppliers such as capabilities are considered important aspects of successful buyer–supplier relationships. Previous research relates supplier attributes largely to intraorganizational supply chain practices, such as supplier selection and evaluation, and assumes that supplier attributes can be objectively assessed independently of the relationships with suppliers. This study expands on this literature by (1) exploring supplier attributes as perceived by purchasing managers in ongoing buyer–supplier relationships and (2) examining how these perception‐based supplier attributes are associated with performance‐influencing practices, which can in turn shape relational outcomes of the relationships. In doing so, we combine two exploratory qualitative studies. We conduct 60 repertory grid interviews with purchasing managers in Study 1 and 25 semi‐structured interviews with another set of purchasing managers in Study 2. The findings of this study are finally theorized through the supply chain practice view and are summarized into an integrative theoretical model. This study thus provides a more nuanced understanding of perception‐based supplier attributes and their implications on performance‐influencing practices and relational outcomes in buyer–supplier relationships.

We talked to Stéphane Timmer about the paper he co-authored with Lutz Kaufman entitled “Do managers’ dark personality traits help firms in coping with adverse supply chain events?“

This research investigates purchasing managers’ responses to adverse supply chain events. We build on attribution theory to examine how individual‐level factors—managerial personality traits, cognitive modes, and attribution of supplier responsibility—combine with firm‐level factors—buffering and bridging—to affect coping success. We combine an inductive process‐tracing approach with the neo‐configurational method of fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). Findings suggest that dark personality traits—traits that are generally regarded as socially aversive—are useful in coping with adverse supply chain events in combination with cross‐functionally integrated bridging, while the absence of dark personality traits is useful in combination with cross‐functionally integrated buffering. Our study contributes to the extant supply chain management literature in three ways: First, it highlights the role of dark personality traits in how purchasing managers react to supply chain risks. Second, it advances behavioral SCM literature by presenting nuanced findings on the effect of rational vs. intuitive cognitive processes in coping with such adverse events. Third, it contributes to attribution theory by providing a differentiated view on behavioral reactions following responsibility attributions. For managers, we find that high coping success might be achieved by seeking a fit between dark personality traits and firm actions. In addition, the results of the fsQCA demonstrate that supply chain research using configurational studies serves as a productive complement to traditional net effect analyses.

We talked to Jens Esslinger about the paper he co-authored with Stephanie Eckerd, Lutz Kaufmann and Craig Carter entitled “Who Cares? Supplier Reactions to Buyer Claims after Psychological Contract Over‐Fulfillments”

Buyer–supplier engagement leads to numerous opportunities for unexpected positive benefits to occur. How these events come about and are managed (i.e., what entities are responsible for the outcomes and how the benefits are shared) remains an under‐investigated phenomenon in the supply chain literature. This research uses attribution theory and a systems thinking perspective to investigate a supplier's experience of psychological contract over‐fulfillment followed by a buyer claim. We hypothesize that a supplier's reaction to a buyer's claim depends on whether the type of claim (economic versus social) fits with the locus of causality the over‐fulfillment is attributed to: (1) the buying organization (buyer‐only attributions), (2) the buyer and the supplier jointly (dyad attributions), or (3) a third party in the buyer's innovation network (buyer‐network attributions). Results from a multi‐stage scenario‐based experiment suggest that following the supplier's experience of psychological contract over‐fulfillment, the supplier's trust toward the buyer is highest for dyad attributions, while the supplier's appreciation for the buyer's network is highest with dyad and buyer‐network attributions. Once the buyer claims value, however, the influence of attributions diminishes. While social reward claims had almost no impact on relational outcomes, economic reward claims significantly harm the supplier's perceptions of the buyer. Regardless of the type of claim, the locus of causality was largely irrelevant for the supplier's reaction to the buyer's reward claim. Our study contributes to the supply chain psychological contract literature by investigating positive over‐fulfillments of the psychological contract, as opposed to previous literature that has focused on negative breaches. We also extend attribution theory by introducing a novel supply chain‐specific attribution for the locus of causality, and we establish boundary conditions of attribution theory in the face of supply chain‐typical claiming mechanisms. For managers, locus of causality for a positive event seems to be irrelevant once claiming sets in.