Paradoxical tensions in sustainable supply chain management: insights from the electronics multi-tier supply chain context

Abstract

PurposeManaging supply chains (SCs) for sustainability often results in conflicting demands, which can be conceptualized as sustainability tensions. This paper studies sustainability tensions in electronics SC contexts and the related management responses by applying a paradox perspective.Design/methodology/approachA single case study on the electronics SC is conducted with companies and third-party organizations as embedded units of analysis, using semi-structured interviews that are triangulated with publicly available data.FindingsThe study identifies tension elements (learning, belonging, organizing and economic performing) conflicting with general social–ecological objectives in the electronics SC. The results indicate a hierarchal structure among the sustainability tensions in SC contexts. The management responses of contextualization and resolution are assigned to the identified tensions.Practical implicationsFraming social–ecological objectives with their conflicting elements as paradoxical tensions enables organizations and SCs to develop better strategies for responding to complex sustainability issues in SC contexts.Originality/valueThe study contributes toward filling the gap on paradoxical sustainability tensions in SCs. Empirical insights are gained from different actors in the electronics SC. The level of emergence and interconnectedness of sustainability tensions in a larger SC context is explored through an outside-in perspective.

Paradoxical tensions impacting small-series production implementation in high-cost contexts: insights from the EU apparel industry

“…The lack of managerial awareness found with underlying learning and belonging tensions (Smith and Lewis, 2011) highlights the need to expand perspectives to different systemic levels to identify latent tensions (Schad and Bansal, 2018) that relate to known performing and organizing tensions (e.g. Zehendner et al, 2021). However, as evidenced by indicated responses to process-and goal-process-related tensions, managers have implicit awareness of the need to balance development levels as well as priorities and processes over time when scaling on-demand production.…”

“…Responses include both individual and collective activities (Schad et al, 2016) that can focus on acceptance of tensions or resolution through (temporal/spatial) separation or synthesis (Poole and Van de Ven, 1989). While knowledge specifically related to paradox responses is limited, recent contributions regarding sustainability paradoxes/tensions identify contextualization strategies (Xiao et al, 2019), taking into consideration the larger context to make addressing learning/performing tensions more feasible (Zehendner et al, 2021).…”

“…Management responses to deal with tensions form cycles of cognition and action, which begin with awareness of contractions (e.g. Smith and Lewis, 2011;Schad et al, 2016;Zehendner et al, 2021). Responses include both individual and collective activities (Schad et al, 2016) that can focus on acceptance of tensions or resolution through (temporal/spatial) separation or synthesis (Poole and Van de Ven, 1989).…”

“…Literature suggests, awareness and management of such paradoxes, 'paradoxical sensemaking' (Schad et al, 2016;Xiao et al, 2019), enables practitioner understanding of complex decision-making processes. While previous research has identified paradoxes in similar contexts (Sandberg, 2017;Zehendner et al, 2021;Zhang et al, 2021), the managerial perspective on decision-making and implementation is missing regarding location and configuration for small-series production. Paradox theory can support comprehensive identification of the tensions and paradoxes relevant to the managers within this production context; here with focus on the SNC level (Srai and Gregory, 2008).…”

How managers' cognitive frames affect the use of process improvement approaches in new product development

“…A cognitive lens can help understand the determinants of managerial decisions and responses to various situations, particularly in presence of competing goals (Hahn et al, 2014). Indeed, research on tensions and paradoxes has focused on individuals' cognitive frames to unpack the process of managing divergent and contradictory goals in organizations such as exploration and exploitation or flexibility and standardization, and the simultaneous pursuit of economic, social, and environmental goals (Andriopoulos et al, 2018;Hahn et al, 2014;Zehendner et al, 2021). Studies on paradox management suggest that the achievement of contradictory goals in organizations requires managers to cognitively relate to contradictions in ways that allow them to embrace rather than deny or avoid these tensions (Tarba et al, 2020).…”