From the Editors: Introduction to the Emerging Discourse Incubator on the Topic of Research where the Focal Actor in the Network is not a for‐profit Firm

Date01 April 2018
AuthorMark Pagell,Barbara Flynn,Brian Fugate
Published date01 April 2018
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12165
EDITORIAL
FROM THE EDITORS: INTRODUCTION TO THE
EMERGING DISCOURSE INCUBATOR ON THE TOPIC OF
RESEARCH WHERE THE FOCAL ACTOR IN THE
NETWORK IS NOT A FOR-PROFIT FIRM
MARK PAGELL, BRIAN FUGATE, AND BARBARA FLYNN
This issue of JSCM contains three stimulating invited
papers to launch our first Emerging Discourse Incuba-
tor (EDI). The topic for the first EDI is research, where
the focal actor in the network is not a for-profit firm.
This discourse focuses on NGOs, social enterprises,
regulators, and the like as managers of their own sup-
ply networks, rather than as “nontraditional” mem-
bers of the networks of for-profits. These invited
papers provide a foundation for a year-long discussion
that should lead to contributions that might not be
possible with a typical special topic forum.
As per the call for papers, we will continue accepting
submissions to the EDI until December 31, 2018.
There are already submissions under review, and we
look forward to many more.
The invited papers are clear on why we need to
explore the management of supply chains from this
perspective. They also ask many more questions than
they can answer, indicating that a great deal of future
research will be needed.
Both Johnson, Dooley, Hyatt and Hutson (2018)
and Gualandris and Klassen (2018) examine networks
with an NGO as the focal actor, but from different
perspectives. Johnson et al. (2018) explore how
NGOs’ social capital might influence their effective-
ness in achieving change via cross-sector partnerships
between NGOs and for-profit firms. They also note
that, while social capital is usually viewed positively,
it is possible that maintaining social capital could put
an NGO at risk of not achieving its goals. For
instance, “the trust and obligations necessary for the
maintenance of strong ties may constrain collaborating
NGOs from publicly pressuring their partners to
change.” This is one of many issues they raise that
future research needs to address.
Gualandris and Klassen (2018) also examine NGOs
and their effectiveness, but from the perspective of
the way they configure and leverage their network to
(try to) make transformational change. They argue
that these networks are typically highly complex and
difficult to manage, for multiple reasons including
the uncertainty that a heterogeneous set of stakehold-
ers induces, as well as limited and rigid funding.
Hence, to be effective in these settings necessitates
rethinking the seemingly familiar topics of which
stakeholders to engage with and how to configure
the network.
Pullman, Longoni and Luzzini (2018) address a dif-
ferent focal actor, the social enterprise, to explore how
they manage their supply chains in the face of com-
peting social welfare and economic logics. Much of
their emphasis is on how having competing logics
would influence supply chain strategy, stakeholder
identification, and relationship management. Once
more, these are familiar supply chain management
topics. And certainly the literature has explored how
to manage competing priorities, such as cost and
quality. But Pullman et al. (2018) argue this context
is fundamentally more complex because cost and
quality are both commercial objectives pursued to
maximize profits, while social welfare can come at a
cost to profits. To understand the supply chains of
social enterprises “will require future research to
understand how to effectively design supply chain
strategies that prioritize social objectives, or at least
combine social and commercial objectives.”
Three overarching themes emerge from these very
different manuscripts. First, complexity and uncer-
tainty in these networks arise from many sources not
addressed in the for-profit literature, including the
heterogeneity of the stakeholders and the rigidity of
resources. And as Pullman et al. (2018) note, the
responses to this context can create even more com-
plexity and uncertainty. For instance, some social
enterprises deal with competing logics by effectively
creating two supply chains: one that exists to create
profits and a second that uses the profits from the first
to help make social change. These different sources of
complexity and uncertainty will likely require new
responses.
April 2018 1
Journal of Supply Chain Management
2018, 54(2), 1–2
©2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT