Social issues and relationship development in scm group

social issues and relationship development in scm group

aiming to refl ect on the development of the fi eld are thereby taking a wider perspective. . impact of cooperative supply chain environmental management ( Vachon in person) or panel groups, which is typical for a Delphi study (Flynn et al., ). Ethical issues in international buyer–supplier relationships: a dyadic. This paper identifies four distinctive groups of cumulative This is why the management of environmental and social issues in the supply Such relationships can be an important element of sustainable SCM strategy. . to develop social and environmental capabilities of the supply chain in several ways. Understanding supply chain issues is, in most cases, quite complex. Indeed, in . GROUP 1: The social risks of companies in these industries are to be found . development of a long-term collaborative relationship between.

The perspective emphasized in these frameworks considers sustainability as a moderator in the relations of the supply chain, leaving no clear contribution and better alignment between the topics. From this view, against the current configuration, it is understood that the discussion should create a deepen perspective, because the processes are rarely considered.

Currently the most widespread concept on SSCM is: Main frameworks on SSCM Authors Frameworks Outline Carter and Rogers Have the dimensions of sustainability possible paths to follow, however so widely that it is not known at what time the rapprochement between the themes can be practiced or even encouraged in other chains that are not sustainable.

Pagell and Wu It is highlighted as possible features for a more sustainable supply chain: Despite this perspective, there seems to be a greater focus on discussion of the environmental dimension of sustainability in the definition.

Wolf Presents a possibility to observe as tangible the internal sustainable aspects of focal firm and its interaction with the other participants in the supply chain, a framework that is quite a direct and clear vision of what can be studied. As shown in the academic literature, other authors studying supply chain management has understood sustainability from the concept of the Triple Bottom Line ASHBY et al. Nevertheless, the issues are still not completing fully; it still needs deeper literature on the subject.

This is clear and receives greater emphasis mainly with regard to the social dimension, which is forgotten at the beginning of the discussions. Focusing in this essay the social issues, we understand social sustainability as a set of 'human' elements geared towards total sustainability.

Therefore, Vallence et al. Development sustainability addressing basic needs, the creation of social capital, justice and so on ; Bridge sustainability Concerning changes in behavior so as to achieve the bio-physical environmental goals ; Sustainability and Maintenance referring to the preservation, or what can be sustained, of socio-cultural characteristics in the face of change.

The discussion considers even beyond the individual actions, but in the supply chain as a whole. These authors work with the perspective of the TBL as well as the interaction of different actors multi-stakeholder as influencing the structure of the supply chain. There are other authors who intend to study with the theme, but that make confusion between concepts and research in reverse logistics, environmental management and green supply chain management as synonyms of SSCM, which is not possible.

This perspective was evident in the research by Silva et al. Moreover, according to these authors should be major concerns with translation and adjustments made, which can potentially affect the continuation of studies on the subject. Despite these limitations, it is clear that the issue has gradually been deepening in Brazil in order to understand the motivators for the inclusion of sustainable strategies along the supply chains.

According to these points of view, it is noticed that a great part of the research focuses on the second approach, and only a few on the first Figure 1and it was still not possible to observe the third.

Therefore, as the social issues must be well studied, it gets highlighted. For a clearer discussion on the theoretical proposal, in relation to the study about SSCM, with a bigger focus on the social dimension of sustainability and its interaction with other dimensions, we did an overview on what has been published and discussed on the theme.

There was not our focus a literature review, but it is necessary to know about social sustainability in relation to its integration with the supply chain management studies. Among the many themes, we identified some aspects that can contribute to have equilibrium in the concept: These are the main topics discussed in the literature.

social issues and relationship development in scm group

The majority of them have a focus in social issues only in the business, but it is clear that societal issues should to be practiced to have a great contribution for the sustainability. As can be seen in these themes, when social dimension of sustainability are discussed, few studies are focusing in sustainable supply chain. This occurs mostly because the focus has been on the changes of social practices and process in individual businesses.

According to Leire and Montsocial issues studied in this form have high internal legitimacy in organizations, which is related to routines and everyday decisions, though it is necessary to observe such questions in the supply chain as a whole. This occurs as discussed by Cliftabout sustainability, since what is internal in the organizations is not normally observed in all the supply chain.

A tendency for corporate social responsibility is observed is these studies, which is not equivalent to sustainability concept. However, it is necessary to expand the impact of the social dimension and its interaction with other basic dimensions. As pointed out by Hutchins and Sutherlandthis is an issue that until recently has not been well defined. For these authors, the companies seek initially in their practices to remedy basic needs of employees and sometimes of community; however macro actions must also be considered.

This idea differs from the sustainable practices in developing countries MONT et al. In the same way, Sharma and Ruud indicate that one should observe the aspect of social problems with poverty reduction and the minimization of environmental impacts, as in building networks and sustainable communities in developing countries, to consider the adequacy of country conditions, such as the set of small and medium enterprises SMEs that may be involved in the procurement process.

Such a type of company needs a different view. For Ciliberti et al. As an example, Ehrgott et al. As one seeks to change the interaction with another context, one should also modify their actions. According to the authors, the suppliers' selection was carried out in developing countries, leaving dubious understanding of the intentions of this process, if it has the approach of seeking to develop the best suppliers to provide a dynamic on sustainability in SCM, or if the idea is just reducing costs so in relation to what is known about the locality.

The impacts of these practices are questionable, both in relation to the supply chain and for the development of the locality. According to Ketchen and Hultdiscussing social capital within a traditional view of supply chains is to seek to understand the conflicting loyalties between the company and the relationship.

For Min et al. With this view, we discuss a transposition of aspects that are individual to the business context as possible, seeking to consider other elements. According to Colemancapital can be understood as a resource available to facilitate the construction of a social structure conducive to the joint market proposed by Granovetter For Colemansocial capital has a focus on individual contribution to the relationship between social actors.

In other words it is directed for social relations.

Relationships for supply chain success – Strategy – CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly

There are many definitions on this topic, whether internal or external to the organizations, but as Adler and Kwon present, there are a number of issues that confront these fields. For Putnamthe ability of cooperation between groups and organizations is referred. Under the supply chain perspective, one may consider the concept as a set of features that not only focuses on the relationship, but the interactions between the actors in such a relationship MIN et al.

It is noteworthy that for the discussion made here, this development goes beyond the economic, influencing in the process of local change. Therefore, it is understood that there necessarily be an interaction of relationships and social structures considered with an institutionalization process of practices for sustainability, which can be well observed with respect to corporate social responsibility and the development of actions and practices that influence the community in different areas such as education, for example CILIBERTI et al.

Thus, according to Hutchins and Sutherlandone should consider the identification of the borders surrounding social impact assessment resulting from the interaction between companies and their suppliers, among other actions.

It would help if there was a narrowing between social relations, facilitating the sustainability. There are different ways of dealing with this approach.

For Ketchen and Hultthis can be facilitated by the inclusion of discussions of organizational theories in the field of operations and supply chains. According to the authors, there are many discussions that may be performed even if the use of these theories is still at an early stage. For Gold et al. Thus, the Institutional Theory IT stands out.

social issues and relationship development in scm group

According to Zsidisin et al. According to Moxham and Kauppiusing IT is possible to achieve the social issues in sustainable supply chain. For them, the way for that can be to use the fair trade perspective seeking to legitimate the use of social dimension in the topic. In relation to social issues, it is also possible to apply institutional theory to study CSR and Social Capital.

From the discussion conducted, it is clear that the social issues can be the core of the strategies and contribute directly for sustainable supply chain in different perspective. Next section highlights the Brazilian context.

This is a necessity around world, but mostly in emerging economic, since the social issues require more attention in the society. We bring the Brazilian perspective to discuss about a demand that is clear in our daily operations, but this debate is also necessary considering the last cases of slave labor that some company are presenting. Moreover, child labor and lack of human right are latent aspects that are observed as result of a low concern of companies in their practices and in certificate or auditee its suppliers.

Therefore, Griesse argues that the Brazil is considered as a multifaceted country, in which it should consider to create a better set of interactions between organizations in the market: From this reflection, it is necessary to thought about an inquiry conducted by Sharma and Ruudwould sustainability in supply chains be conditioned to groups or networks of organizations in the same geographic region, therefore fragmenting the global chains?

Considering this point of view, as shown by Griesseamong other aspects geographical diversity has great influence on the process of building strategies. According to our arguments, if more social issues are introduced in the company strategy i. This perspective opens a research field which can demonstrate, from a critical point of view, their own point of view coming from their specificities.

Thus, it is clear that the current setting on the topic is interesting in the sense of being stimulated by research throughout the world, but there are many advances needed on the global research agenda. Moreover, a new agenda should to emerge in the Brazilian context since to demonstrate that the social issues are an important topic to contribute for the sustainability. This is important in these economies, mainly because different necessities emerge as relevant toward to a transformation for sustainability.

Considering this perspective, this view creates a logic of greater integration between the dimensions of sustainability, being that if the social is highlighted by local needs, this creates a direct influence on the environment and consequently in the dynamic business of the country. We should rethink what is the supply chain, whether it is a linear sequence of boxes that influence in a certain way, or the relationship between a set of actors that interact, relate and meet a desired collective goal.

Using the idea of alternative ways of looking at this social structure, demonstrates the possibility of new features. Therefore, we can also rethink the role received for the sustainability incorporated into organizations. Its discussion goes beyond the competitive advantage and concern to the environment; it is assumed a change in values. Thus, emerge the following propositions in this context: To create a research field in sustainable supply chain in Brazil, scholars need to introduce more social aspects to analyze companies and develop studies on the topic.

From these discussions, it is clear that it is possible that from the empirical phase new aspects can be raised and different contributions will be introduced to adapt the concept to the context of the locality.

Relationships in the Supply Chain The term "relationships" covers a lot of ground in supply chain management. There are strategic relationships, tactical relationships, transactional relationships, internal relationships, and possibly more. There are also relationships among members of the supply chain community. Let's look at those first.

Our supply chain universe can be seen as clustered around three "estates," roughly comparable to the social divisions in pre-revolutionary France. We might, without stretching too far, term them the First Estate—the academic community or the "clergy" ; the Second Estate—the consultants and software developers or the "nobility" ; and the Third Estate—the working practitioners or the "commoners"led then as now by the bourgeoisie of visible, leadingedge advocates.

There is also a kind of Fourth Estate or the "press" in supply chain management, but the trade press generally does not play the same watchdog role as its counterpart in the outside world. For the moment, it's important to realize that relationships among the supply chain estates must be maintained for balance. Too much power and influence in any one camp and you risk undermining the effectiveness of your supply chain.

The personal networks built among leaders in the three estates at these groups' annual gatherings continue to harness the synergistic potential of their collaborative strengths. The governmental dichotomy Relationships among businesses and all levels of government—federal, state and local—are important as well.

Governmental and regulatory bodies can provide restrictions and incentives, regulations and freedom, and roadblocks and opportunities for individual companies. They also provide venues for teaching and research, and they can help create the environments that incubate consultancies and technology development.

social issues and relationship development in scm group

Programs and actions at all levels of government can exert powerful influences on where supply chain operations are located, how successful they are, and how committed they become to maintaining a physical presence and investment in localities, regions, and countries. These help to explain the phenomenon of "brain drain," headquarters relocations, some sourcing decisions, business flight from certain states, and continuing economic malaise in countries that should by all rights be prospering.

At the level where most of us work every day, there are vital relationships to build and nurture: This relationship business keeps getting more and more complicated.

Let's touch on a few key issues that are a little closer to ground level. Within the supply chain Let's start with the working relationships between suppliers and customers, which some like to call "partnerships.

Furthermore, there are limits to how many partnerships any company can effectively maintain. Certainly, you can't have partnerships with everyone in your supply chain, unless the chain consists only of you and two others. Still, it is important to maintain high-trust, highcommunication, mutually beneficial relationships with key suppliers and customers, whether they're called partnerships or not.

Granted, there are some very successful mega-merchants that are able to dictate prices, terms, and processes to their suppliers by threatening to pull their business. But the fact is that very few of us are in the position of being able to tell our suppliers, "My way or the highway.

In an ideal supply chain relationship, both customers and suppliers get connected in ways that allow them to easily exchange information, demand data, and the visibility of status. What does this mean? For openers, it means communicating demand events and the direction of strategic plans.

It also means linking information systems and jointly leveraging the potential for Internet and other electronic communications. It means working together to reduce costs and improve quality, and understanding capacities and capabilities.

social issues and relationship development in scm group

And don't overlook your responsibility to teach your partners the techniques needed to be successful in the 21st century. On the customer side, it means many of the same things, only working in another direction. You need to know about their strategies and directions, their event plans, and their needs for flexibility and resilience. The collaborative planning, forecasting, and replenishment CPFR process works both ways. Your customers need to know about your capacities and capabilities, just as you need to know about theirs.

And remember, it's your responsibility to educate them about ways in which you can help them succeed in their markets. Wherever you sit in the supply chain flow, you can improve your positioning by understanding both the upstream and downstream business issues—and what the ultimate user or consumer wants and needs. All of this takes fundamental talent, a positive attitude, and an overall culture of strong relationships.

Relationships for supply chain success

And it's got to be for real. As someone once observed, "You can only fake sincerity for so long. Within the company Before a company attempts to build good external relationships, it must first put its own house in order. You can't really develop open communications with others if your organization is partitioned itself.

Within the friendly confines of your own four walls, manufacturing and distribution need to do more than communicate—they need to march in lockstep. Both functions need to be plugged into what's going on with sales and marketing. Sourcing and procurement can't operate independently of other supply chain functions. Senior management must include the supply chain organization in the strategic information loop, while the supply chain organization must let the C-level officers know what it can do to support strategies.

This means joint planning and joint problem solving. It means cross-functional teams with a purpose other than political correctness. It means that everyone has, if not a voice, at least a hearing in product development and discussions about stock-keeping unit SKU extensions. If all that seems alarming, you're not ready to manage external relationships. They can't possibly succeed until your company is master of its own domain.

LSPs, consultants, and worse Once issues within the company and within the greater supply chain have been satisfactorily addressed, don't forget relationships with service providers.

This need is particularly acute when logistics service providers LSP are involved. Building a successful LSP relationship is absolutely essential to their successful use. Open and full communications are vital from the outset, beginning with the evaluation and selection processes. Multilevel working relationships throughout both organizations provide the key to making processes work and to effectively solving the problems that inevitably crop up.

And the work doesn't end there. LSP relationships, like marriages, require constant effort and continued attention. The LSP also needs to know about upcoming events, changes in strategy, and new products and customers— things that many companies used to keep "secret.

You and your LSPs need to engage in regular dialogue about where and how they can add value to what you are doing.

It's more difficult to have a relationship with consultants that spans functions and managerial generations. But the quality of relationships with consultants can have a profound effect on the quality and extent of outcomes.

For best results, mutual trust and open communication are required. The more your consultants know about what's really going on and the more you can tell them, the better their chances of getting to the heart of the issues and devising on-target solutions.

As for software providers, they are often portrayed as salespeople without scruple or inhibition. When it comes to evaluating vendors, your job is to look for and assess the qualities that can make for a positive mutual relationship all the way through a successful implementation. Like all other aspects of the supply chain, this is about more than simply making a purchase. It is about having a sustainable relationship with someone who can play a key role in your long-term supply chain success.

The Role of Consultants Logistics service providers LSPs are not the only third parties lurking in the underbrush of supply chain management. The weeds are also full of management consultants. They're at every conference, seminar, and convention. They're on the Internet with web sites, e-newsletters, webinars, and spam. They're in all the trade publications.

They're speaking; they're writing; they're selling endlessly. What do they do? Do they help—or hinder? Do they really offer a value proposition?

Some perspectives At its best, management consulting can be a noble calling. It's a high-minded endeavor, requiring enormous amounts of both talent and integrity as well as a strong sense of mission and urgency.

At its worst, it is an embarrassment and a scandal. To be honest, there have been some spectacular failures in consulting projects. Whatever your view, the emergence of supply chain management as the business focus of the new century has attracted consultants of every imaginable variety. Some have been at it for years, evolving along with the field. Others are new to the game, and they seem to think that adding supply chain management to their list of service offerings is enough to get onto the playing field.

The difference between consultants and advisers There was a time when great care was taken to distinguish management consulting services from management advisory services. The distinction has faded with time. But the implication is that advisers provide feedback and informed opinion, and that consultants take a more active role.

Consultants make decisions, acting on behalf of the client. They design and implement processes, facilities, and systems—in short, they do the hands-on work. Consultancies offer a diverse collection of different business models as well as approaches to problem solving.

Let's begin by trying to sort out some of the fundamental types. The mega-firms This category is made up of huge organizations with thousands of people. They may be partnerships; they may be corporations. They are increasingly multinational.

Many of the mega-consultants have their origins in the giant public accounting firms. Several years ago, each of the so-called "Big Eight" U. They generally attempted to be all things to all clients, and they would undertake consulting in any channel that held the promise of growth or profit. As they created multinational accounting conglomerates, their consultancies likewise added the appearance of international capability, which tended to be more promise than practice.

Today, after mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures, their former consulting entities are barely recognizable. Accenture spun off from Arthur Andersen, which itself disappeared, thanks to Enron. Deloitte Consulting, product of yet another merger and acquisition, retains its corporate identity but is legally a separate LLC entity. The overall business model consists of a hierarchical, pyramidal organization, dependent on sales generation by a relatively small number of rainmakers to provide billable hours for large numbers of analysts and managers.

Thorough methodology and process development is supposed to allow relatively inexperienced consultants to tackle complex problems in consistent ways. This model has been likened to bringing in busloads of bright kids, who have been both indoctrinated into the corporate culture and provided with workbooks full of process descriptions and solutions.

They must then hope to come across a client who is asking the right questions. Few of these firms were willing to bring in more seasoned, more experienced, more independent-minded, and more expensive old pros.

It's not so much an age issue as a business model issue, abetted by a cultural conformity. Some independent consultancies have become mega-firms. Some of the early leaders, such as Booz Allen Hamilton, continue to prosper, while some others have fallen on hard times or have been sold off.

Big and important, but not huge A handful of consulting firms concentrated on strategy but took differing directions. Some tried their hands at tactical implementations, and they remain successful in addressing operational issues with strategic implications. Others focused on taking equity positions and managing corporate operations. Several entities focused on performance standards, productivity, and cost reduction. A few pioneers survive, but just barely.

Their business model tended to be based on the engagement of contractors, who are off the payroll as soon as they've completed their assignments. The permanent cadre comprises successful salespeople along with a handful of top executives. There were dozens of such firms, the majority of which have disap peared. One of the biggest was United Research, which has dropped off the map.

But a few have survived. For example, the engineered standards and method ology-based consultancy H.