The impact of counterfeit risk management on healthcare supply chain performance: an empirical analysis

Abstract

PurposeThis study develops and tests a model exploring the relationship between supply chain (SC) counterfeit risk management and performance in the healthcare supply chain (HCSC).Design/methodology/approachIn the proposed theoretical model, HCSC counterfeit risk management is characterized by HCSC counterfeit risk orientation (HCRO), HCSC counterfeit risk mitigation (HCRM) and HCSC risk management integration (HRMI), while performance is represented by healthcare logistics performance (HLP) and healthcare organization overall performance (HOP). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and survey data from 55 HCSC managers are used to test the research hypotheses.FindingsHCRO has a significant positive effect on HCRM, while HCRM has a positive impact on HRMI. With respect to HLP, HCRM has a nonsignificant effect, while HRMI has a significant impact, thus confirming the important mediating role of HRMI. Finally, HLP has a significant positive effect on the overall performance of healthcare organizations.Research limitations/implicationsAll study participants were from the United States, limiting the generalizability of the study findings to different countries or regions. The sample size employed in the study did not allow the authors to distinguish among the different types of healthcare organizations.Originality/valueThis study delineates between a healthcare organization's philosophy toward counterfeiting risks vs actions taken to eliminate or reduce the impact of counterfeiting on the HCSC. By offering firm-level guidance for managers, this study informs healthcare organizations about addressing the challenge of counterfeiting in the HCSC.

Supply chain risk factor assessment of Indian pharmaceutical industry for performance improvement

“…Risk quantification is needed for a good management strategy (Duong et al, 2022), which is required to mitigate risks for better customer service and improved performance of the industry (Falasca et al, 2021). However, due to budgetary constraints, it is not possible for the companies to focus on all the risks.…”

“…The sub-risk, loss of customers due to partners' poor service performance, has a high impact on the overall industry and can be the outcome of the poor service provided to the customers by other SC partners like distributors, pharmacists, etc. It further leads to customer dissatisfaction and disappointment owing to the inadequacies like improper treatment and insufficient knowledge, resulting in customer loss and poor industry performance (Falasca et al, 2021;Miller and Goodman, 2016). Additionally, an insecure money transfer channel with Φ = 3.53 also has high impact and urgency, with moderate frequency and unpredictability, and hence, is another prominent risk which needs to be managed.…”

“…They can have multiple consequences for the supply chain (SC), e.g. product shortage, poor quality, delayed delivery, price fluctuations, lost efficiency and poor cooperation, which result in poor performance (Anwar et al, 2022;Falasca et al, 2021;Tarei et al, 2018). These consequences become grimmer in the case of industries directly dealing with customer health, such as the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry.…”

Risk factors in the assessment of suppliers

“…From the engineering point of view, this study has several implications. Current research points to an increasing need to manage risks associated with supply chain management [ 98 ]. Our research has shown that the perception of risks is not at the same level in companies with regard to the implemented management system.…”

“…Our research has shown that the perception of risks is not at the same level in companies with regard to the implemented management system. A greater emphasis on the types of risks that have been overlooked so far (e.g., Environment risk) would contribute to the growth of supply chain resilience [ 98 ], or, as current research suggests, could help better determine the occurrence of operational risk events [ 99 , 100 ].…”