Why Research in Sustainable Supply Chain Management Should Have No Future by Pagell and Shevchenko - Article Example

Supply chain Principles Name: Course: Tutor: Institution: Date: Article Summary The article ‘Why Research in Sustainable Supply Chain Management Should Have No Future’ developed by Pagell and Shevchenko (2014) addresses the concept of sustainable supply chain management. In this regard, the research study is founded on the grounds that the concept and practice is increasingly gaining momentum in the global market. In this regard, the article offers a background analysis of the unsustainable supply chain management practices. One of the recorded issues and implications in the market is increased economic gains at the expense of environmental pollution as well as social gains in the market. Therefore, the article noted that in recognition to these challenges, the global researchers who initially perceived the practice as a fringe research unworthy of research has gained momentum and recognition in the market. In this case, many studies have been developed on the verge of raising increased sustainability practices in the market on organizational supply chain management (p.45). However, the article highlights on the issue that despite the increased focus, the reviews and developed researches have focused on developing litigation measures and approaches of changing the current systems to make them sustainable. In this connection, the article argues that issue such as harm reduction, limited stakeholder’s involvement, a focus on the familiar, limits of empicarism and measuring supply chain impacts (p.47). Although the article supports increased developments in the research studies conducted in favour and in support of sustainable supply chain, it argues that the changes should be addressed on measures of developing new sustainable systems in the market. Therefore, through this approach, the article recommends the development of alternative practices and procedures to dealing with sustainable supply chain management practices (p.49). Positive Critique Harm Elimination A review of the article analysis establishes that a majority of the existing literature and research studies are focused on the development of practices and processes through which harm and negative implication sin the environment are relatively reduced. This theoretical argument can be supported through the increasing application of supply chain systems benchmarking as well as the application of lean supply chain management. Both of these practices, although milestones towards the development and enhancement of sustainable supply chain practices, they all focus on the development of reducing the un sustainability of the current systems to make them increasingly sustainable instead of developing sustainable systems altogether in the market. On one hand, Soni and Kodali (2010, p.47) agrees with this argument that the development of supply chain benchmarks, involves the processes of evaluating the practices adopted by various organisations and their overall economic gains. In this regard, the benchmark practice evaluates the economic gains organisations face in the event of sustainability practice applications. Therefore, under this strategic approach, the organisations only apply sustainable practices that ensure increased economic gains per unit of environmental and social harm reduced. Similarly, the application of a lean supply chain approach applies the same theoretical concept. In this regard, the development of a lean supply chain process is based on the reduction of operational practices that ensures reduced harm on the environment and society as well as increased economic gains. Despite their merits, the evaluation in agreement with Goldsby, Griffis and Roath (2006, p.57) reveals that the practice only target on harm reduction through improving the existing systems rather than creating new practices for application and adoption by developing and upcoming organisations in their supply chain management. This critique argues that one of the strategic approaches through which this harm reduction and elimination challenge can be eliminated and resolved is through the application of an agile supply chain system. Under such a system there are key features that enhance the development of harm free sustainable supply chain system including market sensitivity, virtual and process integration. On one hand, the presence of market sensitivity criteria allows the process to imperatively reduce and mitigate on changing market needs through the application of the virtual approach that focuses on market information to develop appropriate proactive strategies (p. 60). Therefore, based on the above reviews, this critical evaluation concludes that in order to overcome the challenge of harm reduction rather than elimination by the current practices, researchers should consider evaluating and promoting the application of the agile supply chain management practice as a method of developing new sustainable supply chain systems instead of developing and improving on the existing unsustainable systems in the market today. Profits Primacy Challenge in SSCM An additional identified challenge in the article in the operations and execution of sustainable supply chain management practices is through increased focus on profits. In this regard, the article as well as the study developed by Li, Okoroafo and Gammoh (2014, p.29) in the evaluation of the outsourcing practice argued that a majority of the organisations main focus is on increased economic gains. As such, in a majority of the conducted research studies, the authors focus on the approaches and practices through which sustainable supply chain practices applied are beneficial and earn the organizations increased profit gains. Therefore, as such, the evolutions are all geared towards increasing the overall profit gains. However, this evaluation conducts an evaluation that in order to develop truly sustainable supply chain management systems in the market it is imperative for organisations and research studies to shift and change their focus. In this regard, the process involved the development of practices that seek to support the society rather than earn the organisations increased practices and profit gains in the market. This can be achieved through increased involvement of shareholders in the research reviews and studies. Wolf (2011, p.224) while evaluating the Germany manufacturing industry application of the SSCM practices stated that currently, the research studies conducted on the topic focus on the gains of sustainable supply chain practices on organisations through the incorporation and use of the organizational internal stakeholders as the main study samples and respondents. However, as evidenced in the article this approach is biased and unsatisfactory in ensuring the SSCM practices achieve the desired results in the market. As such, this critique argues on the need to develop research practices incorporating the other stakeholders in supply chain management. This review notes and acknowledges the carious supply chain management stakeholders as the respective organisations, the suppliers, the consumers, the society at large, government and the external business environment. Through the application of the various stakeholders, this practice argues that the researches would acquire increased objectivity. As such, it could not only evaluate the financial gains on organizations but also the implications of such sustainable supply chain practice on other stakeholders. Most importantly, the research studies would establish the ultimate risks and implications of failing to apply sustainable practices on SCM as argued by Wheeler, Rechtman, Fabig and Boele (2001, p.177) in an evaluation of the Nigerian oil industry SCM practices. Consequently, through such risks evaluation and their subsequent implications on the stakeholders would propel the research to develop increased arguments to develop convincing arguments for the establishment of SSCM programs in the market. As such, Palis (2010, p.8) argued that the overall focus would shift from the overall organizational gains to the overall ability of the strategies to reduce and mitigate the absence risks in the market. Therefore, this literature and article critique argues that through increased involvement of the stakeholders in supply chain management practices, there would be reduced focus on profits and rather the focus would shift to the gains to other stakeholders and the ultimate risks and implications of the failure to implement the strategies. Therefore, through this approach, the evaluation will not only be on the gains of implementations but also on the opportunity costs of failing to apply the SSCM practices and programs. Article Weakness The article develops the argument that current research studies focus on the already familiar issues in relation to the SSCM. In this regard, the evaluation argues that a majority of the developed studies are built and developed on the foundation of others. For instance, the article lists reviews such as green practices as building on the traditional practices of supplier certification as well as ethical procurement basing on Deming’s work on procurement principles. In this regard, the article develops the argument that through such an approach, all the developed literature revolves around the already known and established practices. Therefore, the article conclude that in order to develop truly sustainable supply chain management processes, innovation and radical approaches should be developed and be the basis of conducting and developing research studies. In this case, the article develops an argument of increased innovativeness in SSCM research studies. However, this critique faults the argument developed by the study. In this regard, the critique argues that research studies involve the development of fundamental theoretical arguments. Moreover, it is a rationale that research studies emanate from the previous studies and on gaps that exist. As such, the developed reviews and arguments are a sequential process that involves developing and improving on the existing literature. Moreover, the theoretical models and frameworks in existence guide the operations and frameworks of the conducted research. Therefore, this critique concludes in the view of Gunilla and Tingstrom (2008, p.183) argument, concludes that although innovation is imperative when conducting research, such studies should be gradual and based on existing theoretical frameworks and practices. Thus it argues that although the proposal posed by the article for increased innovation is paramount, it is impeccable that the review acknowledges the role of sequential studies and the rationality of building subsequent researches on existing literature gaps to enhance innovation. Therefore, innovation cannot improve SSCM in isolation without the developed studies based on previous practices and existing theoretical orientations. Summary and Recommendations In summary, this analysis offers a critical review of the paper developed by () on sustainable supply chain management practices in the market. In this regard, the evaluation critically focuses and develops argument on the strategic approaches and recommendations developed by the article under the argument that the application of such recommendations would allow increased and truly SSCM programs and practices. As such, this review singles out two of the recommendations and supports them. On one hand is the argument on the need to embrace harm elimination rather than the process of harm reduction. In this case, the article argues that the current systems of supply chain practices benchmarking and lean approaches only reduce harm. As such, this review supports the argument and equivalently advocates for increased research reviews on the application of agile supply chain management practices. On the other hand, the review supports the argument on the need to shift focus from the profit supremacy to overall stakeholders’ gains. In this regard, the review supports the argument that through increased stakeholders’ involvement in SSCM researchers there will be the development of comprehensive and unbiased research studies focusing on other gains such as environmental conservation and social benefits rather than economic gains alone. However, the review criticizes the developed argument on the development of innovative research studies. As such, the evaluation concludes that although innovation is imperative in SSCM research studies they should be based and emanating from existing or forecasted real and practical business and environment practices as well existing theoretical models and frameworks, Nonetheless, the critique conclude that the article is a relevant approach to improving SSCM. References Goldsby, T.J., Griffis, S.E. & Roath, A.S. 2006, "Modeling Lean, Agile, and Leagile Supply Chain Strategies", Journal of Business Logistics, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 57-VII. Gunilla, O.S., & Tingstrom, J. 2008, "Management of radical innovation and environmental challenges", European Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 182-198. Li, S., Okoroafo, S. & Gammoh, B. 2014, "The Role of Sustainability Orientation in Outsourcing: Antecedents, Practices, and Outcomes", Journal of Management and Sustainability, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 27-36. Pagell, M. & Shevchenko, A. 2014, "Why Research in Sustainable Supply Chain Management Should Have No Future", Journal of Supply Chain Management, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 44-55. Palis, F. G., 2010, Research to impact: Case studies for natural resource management for irrigated rice in Asia, International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Philippines. Soni, G. & Kodali, R. 2010, "Internal benchmarking for assessment of supply chain performance", Benchmarking, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 44-76. Wheeler, D., Rechtman, R., Fabig, H. & Boele, R. 2001, "Shell, Nigeria and the Ogoni. A study in unsustainable development: III. Analysis and implications of Royal Dutch/Shell group strategy", Sustainable Development, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 177. Wolf, J. 2011, "Sustainable Supply Chain Management Integration: A Qualitative Analysis of the German Manufacturing Industry", Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 102, no. 2, pp. 221-235. Read More