So Many Recalls, So Little Research: A Review of the Literature and Road map for Future Research

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12079
• Author: Christopher A. Boone,Kaitlin D. Wowak
• Published date: 01 October 2015
• Date: 01 October 2015

SO MANY RECALLS, SO LITTLE RESEARCH: A REVIEW OF

THE LITERATURE AND ROAD MAP FOR FUTURE

RESEARCH

KAITLIN D. WOWAK

University of Notre Dame

CHRISTOPHER A. BOONE

Georgia Southern University

Although the literature on product recalls is informative, our understand-

ing of these events is still in its infancy. To promote and guide future

research in this nascent area, we engaged in a two-step process that

included a systematic review and categorization of product recall-related

literature and interviews with executives from along the entire supply

chain. By oscillating between findings in the literature and themes that

emerged during our interactions with executives, we discovered several

research opportunities that have yet to be systematically examined by

scholars. We also highlight four underutilized theories in supply chain

management research—upper echelons theory, punctuated equilibrium

theory, enactment theory, and justice theory—that could help guide future

research in this area. For managers, this study reveals insights related to

four key aspects of product recalls: (1) recall precursors (factors that may

lead to recalls); (2) the recall process; (3) the impact of recalls; and (4)

mitigation approaches (mechanisms firms can employ to reduce the

impact of recalls). For scholars, our study identifies several emergent

research opportunities and theoretical lenses in the same four areas and

thus serves as a road map for future product recall research.

Keywords: product recall; product quality failure; product safety; reverse logistics;

empirical research; research agenda; literature review

INTRODUCTION

Welcome to the Decade of the Recall...major crises

overtook the spinach, toy, and pet food indus-

tries...[there is a] seemingly interminable progres-

sion of one recall after another on a regular

basis.—Forbes (Levick, 2011).

The operational and financial impacts of disruptions

to today’s complex global supply chains are one of

the most pressing concerns for supply chain managers

(Blackhurst, Dunn & Craighead, 2011). One especially

damaging and increasingly frequent type of disruption

occurs when tainted products are discovered and need

to be removed from circulation—this process is for-

mally known as a product recall

1

(Roth, Tsay, Pullman

& Gray, 2008). The consequences of product recalls

can be considerable. In a recent survey, 81 percent of

participating firms deemed the financial risk of recalls

as “significant” to “catastrophic” (GMA, 2011). How-

ever, the financial repercussions of product recalls pale

in comparison with the life-threatening risk tainted or

defective products pose to consumers. The defective

Acknowledgments: We gratefully acknowledge the valuable

comments and suggestions offered by Christopher Craighead,

David J. Ketchen, Jr., and Rodney Thomas on an earlier version

of this note. Like all invited manuscripts, this note underwent a

double-blind peer review.

1

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines recalls as

“actions taken by a firm to remove a product from the market”

(FDA, 2009) and uses three classes to denote the level of severity

of a particular recall situation. Recalls can also be voluntary

(a firm recalls a product) or involuntary (a firm is mandated to

recall a product by governmental agencies). In this study, we

consider all three classes of product recalls as well as voluntary

and involuntary recalls.

Volume 51, Number 454

cars recently recalled by General Motors (GM), for

example, resulted in 13 consumer deaths and roughly

31 crashes (Macdonald, Lynch & Burden, 2014).

Given the profound impacts of product recalls, it is

important that we, as a field, improve our understand-

ing of these potentially devastating events.

Although past scholarship on product recalls is

informative, our understanding of these events

remains fragmented. As such, the objective of this

research is to examine the state of product recall-

related research and provide a road map for future

research. Our research offers important implications

for both managers and academics alike. For managers,

we highlight insights related to four key aspects of

recalls: (1) recall precursors (i.e., factors that may lead

to recalls); (2) the recall process; (3) the impact of

recalls; and (4) mitigation approaches (i.e., mecha-

nisms firms can employ to reduce the impact of

recalls). For scholars, we identify important research

opportunities in the same four areas to promote and

guide future research in this area.

ENGAGING INDUSTRY EXPERTS AND

REVIEWING THE LITERATURE

For this research, we followed a two-step process.

First, we leveraged insights from industry. Specifi-

cally, we drew on the expertise of executives along

the entire supply chain—from source to consumer—

which provided a unique and rare insight into

product recalls. We gained initial access to execu-

tives through a supply chain center at a major uni-

versity. From there, we asked participants to put us

in contact with other employees from their firm or

in other firms who would provide valuable insights

into product recalls. In total, we conducted 55 inter-

views with executives from several different entities

including suppliers, manufacturers, distribution cen-

ters/retail locations, nonprofit organizations focused

on product safety, logistics providers, federal govern-

mental agencies responsible for overseeing product

recalls, and various subject matter experts. We also

captured key insights from several focus groups

composed of supply chain managers responsible for

participating in some aspect of their company’s

product recall process. Together, the interviews and

focus groups included participants representing a

diverse set of industries (e.g., food, pharmaceutical,

consumer product, and medical device) and job

titles including Senior Director of Customer Service

and Logistics, Director of Supply Chain Strategy,

Recall Coordinator, Vice President of Quality Assur-

ance, Foodborne Illness Investigator, and Vice Presi-

dent of Distribution. The primary objective of the

interviews and focus groups was not to conduct a

rigorous scientific investigation. Instead, the objective

was to gain less formal, but still important, back-

ground insights about product recalls.

Next, we synthesized the extant product recall

literature to identify potentially important gaps in

our understanding. We identified relevant articles by

conducting a keyword search for “product recall,”

“product recalls,” “recall,” “recalls,” and “traceability“

2

in top supply chain, operations management, and

logistics journals, management journals, and market-

ing journals

3

(see Appendix A for a complete list of

journals). This process revealed 34 relevant articles

(see Appendix S1 for a summary of the articles and

Appendix S2 for an itemized listing of the proposi-

tions or hypotheses in the articles). Two researchers

independently coded the articles based on (1) focus

(e.g., precursor, process, impact, or mitigation

approach); (2) unit of analysis (e.g., firm, dyad, or

network); and (3) methodology (e.g., empirical,

4

modeling, descriptive, or conceptual). The process

began by randomly selecting and coding ten articles;

following this, we discussed discrepancies and

repeated the process until all the articles were coded

5

(see Table 1).

By oscillating between findings in the literature and

insights from the interviews and focus groups, we

were able to identify important research opportunities

for supply chain management (SCM) scholars. This

process also allowed us to identify several valuable,

but underutilized theories in SCM research that can

help guide future research on product recalls. In the

sections that follow, we discuss the literature on the

four main aspects of product recalls—precursors, pro-

cesses, impacts, and mitigation approaches—identify

research opportunities in each of the areas and suggest

promising underutilized theories that can help guide

future research.

2

Traceability plays an intricate role in a firm’s ability to identify

and remove tainted products from the chain. We therefore

included articles that considered traceability in regard to product

safety. Articles that examined traceability, but were tangentially

related to recalls fell outside the scope of this research and thus

were not included.

3

We searched each of the journal’s online archives as well as the

ABI/Inform database. Also, similar to Newbert (2007), we only

considered published journal articles; dissertations/theses and

working papers were not included.

4

To capture a more nuanced perspective of past scholarship, we

partitioned empirical research into three categories: (1) qualita-

tive; (2) secondary data; and (3) survey.

5

The crude intercoder agreement (percentage agreement) was .90

for article focus, .97 for unit of analysis, and 1.00 for methodol-

ogy; Neuendorf (2002: 166) classifies all three percentages as

“acceptable to all.” We also calculated intercoder reliability via

Cohen’s Kappa (Cohen, 1960), which accounts for the probabil-

ity of chance agreement. The intercoder reliabilities were .75 for

article focus, .93 for unit of analysis, and 1.00 for methodology;

Landis and Koch (1977: 165) refer to all three as “almost

perfect.”

October 2015

So Many Recalls, So Little Research

55