Purpose -Supply chain security (SCS), as a component of an organization's overall supply chain risk management strategy, has become a critical factor for businesses and government agencies since September 11, 2001, yet little empirical research supports policy or practice for the field. Therefore, this paper develops and presents a categorization of SCS based on existing research. This categorization of supply chain literature can help academics and practitioners to better understand SCS and also helps to identify a research agenda. Setting a research agenda for SCS will help academic and practitioner research focus on critical issues surrounding SCS. Design/methodology/approach -The researchers thoroughly reviewed the literature on SCS, including academic publications, white papers, and practitioner periodicals. The literature was then categorized according to the approach to SCS and the practical implications of this categorization are presented. In addition, this categorization was used to identify research gaps. Findings -This analysis found that SCS needs more attention from the academic community. Like earlier assessments of this literature, this analysis found it to be mainly normative, with little research based on primary data. This paper categorizes the literature into four approaches to SCS: intraorganizational, interorganizational, a combination of intraorganizational and interorganizational, and ignore. This study develops a focused agenda for future, primary, empirical research on SCS.Research limitations/implications -The sources of data for this literature review are secondary. The review sets a research agenda and calls for future empirical testing. Practical implications -Practitioners will benefit from the framework presented here by better understanding approaches to SCS. This comprehensive review discusses the characteristics of SCS in great depth. As other researchers follow the research agenda, practitioners will benefit from the empirical findings and theory building. Originality/value -This paper summarizes the literature on SCS to date, a topic that has grown in importance, yet received little attention from academics. This is the first comprehensive literature review of SCS. It includes a categorization of four possible approaches to SCS. It also distinguishes SCS from supply chain risk, while also recognizing their relationship. It identifies key issues in SCS research and calls for future research.
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to gather the current definitions of supply chain management in practical and analytical usage, to develop standards for assessing definitions and to apply these standards to the most readily available definitions of the term. Design/methodology/approach In this research, the authors gathered the current definitions of supply chain management in practical and analytical usage from journals, textbooks, universities, and industry associations and online. Findings The research ends with proposed definitions for consideration. Discussion and areas for future research are included. Research limitations/implications Involved organizations, supply chain management programs in higher education, and professional and certifying organizations in the field need to meet and work together to research consensus on the final definition of the field, realizing that definitions can evolve, but also recognizing that a starting point is needed in this rapidly growing area. Practical implications The authors argue, quite simply, that a consensus definition of supply chain management is unlikely as long as we continue offering and accepting definitions that are technically unsound. Many of the current definitions violate several principles of good definitions. For these reasons, they are either empty, too restrictive, or too expansive. Until we come across or develop a definition that overcomes these limitations and agree on it, then we will still search for “the” definition without finding it. The field will become more crowded with definitions, but less certain, and progress will be restricted. Originality/value Theoreticians, researchers, and practitioners in a discipline require key terms in a field to share a nominal definition and prefer to have a shared real or essential definition. Yet in supply chain management, we find no such shared definition, real or nominal. Even the Council of Supply Chain Management Professional offers its definition with the caveat: “The supply chain management (SCM) profession has continued to change and evolve to fit the needs of the growing global supply chain. With the supply chain covering a broad range of disciplines, the definition of what is a supply chain can be unclear” (CSCMP, 2016).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.