Exploring Relationship Power in Supply Chain Sustainability Practices: A Case Study of a South African Hospital Group

Abstract

Buyers and suppliers of healthcare products and services are more dependent on each other than ever before for the provision of scarce and unique resources, which highlights the need to implement supply chain sustainability practices. Firms controlling these resources hold excessive power over others. This study adopted resource dependence theory as a theoretical lens to explore the role of relationship power in supply chain sustainability practices between a South African private healthcare provider and its suppliers. The study employed a generic qualitative single-case study design. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data from 12 participants at various levels of the case organisation’s hierarchy. The main findings revealed several types of environmental and social practice used in the supply chain of the private healthcare provider. Some of the environmental practices were effective waste management and recycling, while the social practices included supplier selection and periodic reviews. The healthcare provider exercised extensive power over its suppliers to implement these practices. By exploring the advantages and disadvantages of sustainability practices, the findings showed that relationship power acted as a driver of supply chain sustainability. Mutual commitment, continuous communication, and training support these practices. Healthcare managers must be aware of the importance of relationship power for supply chain sustainability practices implementation, and are advised to invest time and effort in building buyer—supplier relationships to aid sustainability. This study expands the literature on relationship power in supply chain sustainability practices in an underexplored developing country healthcare context.

Promoting sustainable development through strategies, environmental management accounting and environmental performance

“…Due to the limited investments and barriers of the sample companies, suppliers may not proactively participate in the active integration for fear of losing the demand on the cheaper products in the market, which impacts EMA use. Moreover, most collaborative efforts tend to fail to meet the expectations as the rationale behind the joint initiatives is misguided (Botes et al, 2017; Tumpa et al, 2019). Collaborating with external (supplier and customers) partners to reduce negative environmental impacts is complicated despite the integration benefiting both parties, such as reducing inventory levels; hence, the supply chain capabilities should be improved, such as creating new knowledge and improving the demand planning (Botes et al, 2017).…”

“…Moreover, most collaborative efforts tend to fail to meet the expectations as the rationale behind the joint initiatives is misguided (Botes et al, 2017; Tumpa et al, 2019). Collaborating with external (supplier and customers) partners to reduce negative environmental impacts is complicated despite the integration benefiting both parties, such as reducing inventory levels; hence, the supply chain capabilities should be improved, such as creating new knowledge and improving the demand planning (Botes et al, 2017). Thus, the EMA does not support the supply chain integration due to the complexity of applying the SMEs based on organisational characteristics, such as weaker financial resources and technology than larger companies.…”

“…Scholars are repeatedly urged to view beyond the organisation boundaries (Botes et al, 2017; Gibassier & Alcouffe, 2018; Tumpa et al, 2019) and examine how a business organisation utilises control to achieve sustainability by encouraging customers and suppliers to collaborate. The collaboration is termed environmental collaboration discussed in environmental management literature, where its success is rare (Dubey, et al, 2015; Eltayeb et al, 2011; Grekova et al, 2016).…”

Practices Pursuing the Sustainability of A Healthcare Organization: A Systematic Review

“…In this context, it should be mentioned that supply chain management can be analyzed from two different perspectives: internal and external. The external chain includes producers, distributors, purchasing groups, providers, and consumers, whereas the external chain consists of supply and inventory management, replenishment, and utilization activities [122][123][124][125]. Thus, environmental supply chain management activities focus on reducing transportation costs and, as a result, harmful emissions, encouraging environmentally oriented suppliers and a shift towards eco-products, recyclable goods, and materials, avoiding packaging, etc., to ensure a higher level of economic performance and sustainability in general [118,[126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136].…”

Evaluating barriers and strategies to sustainable supply chain risk management in the context of an emerging economy

“…Managerial and organizational barriers Unwillingness to share risks (Faisal et al, 2007) Lack of trust among SC members (Sinha et al, 2004) (Christopher & Lee, 2004) (Finch, 2004) Arm's-length or adversarial relationships (Sinha et al, 2004) (Christopher & Lee, 2004) (Finch, 2004) Lack of strategic risk planning (Sinha et al, 2004) (Christopher & Lee, 2004) (Finch, 2004) Inadequate ERM training (Bashir & Long, 2015) (Moshesh et al, 2018) Lack of ERM understanding (Chileshe & Kikwasi, 2013) (Rostami et al, 2015) (Moshesh et al, 2018) Complex structure of SC (Isik, 2011) (Moshesh et al, 2018) Organizational complexity (H. Liu et al, 2015) (Moshesh et al, 2018) Rigid ERM framework (Rosman, 2011) (Moshesh et al, 2018) Lack of management buy-in for ERM (Schlak, 2015) (Moshesh et al, 2018) Non-effective change management (Kallenberg, 2009) (Moshesh et al, 2018) Goal misalignment (Avelar-Sosa et al, 2014) (Moshesh et al, 2018) Managers cannot agree on quantification of uncertainty/subjective probability assessment (Tummala et al, 1997) Lack of top managers/supervisors' support (Sharma & Bhat, 2014) (Zhao et al, 2015) (Renault et al, 2016) (Moshesh et al, 2018) T A B L E 3 List of barriers to SSCRM under the category of information-related barriers…”