Christopher W. Craighead

The ongoing debate about tariffs is characterized by a lack of understanding of the effect of tariffs on supply chains. The tariff impact is often described with contradicting effects. In this research, the authors examined the opposing perspectives arising between resource dependency and social–ecological resiliency views in the context of tariffs and inventory leanness, a well‐established indicator of operational efficiency. Depending on the view, tariffs may induce a positive or negative effect on inventory efficiency—evidence of a tension ripe for examination. To investigate these opposing views, the authors created a novel database of firms operating in industries that imported 2018 tariff‐affected products and compared tariff‐affected versus non‐tariff‐affected firms using a difference‐in‐differences analysis. In doing so, the findings revealed that, perhaps surprisingly, firms that operated in tariff‐affected industries became leaner and more efficient with regard to inventory. The authors then discuss the resulting theoretical, managerial, and societal implications and lay the foundation for future research, including on the 2025 tariff announcements and increases.

Supplier‐induced disruptions can severely damage buyers' trust. While research underscores the importance of both procedural justice (PJ) and distributive justice (DJ) in trust repair, these approaches are often studied in isolation despite their combined use in practice. This research examines under what conditions using one justice tactic versus both can lead to successful repair. Two theoretical lenses offer alternative predictions: Fairness heuristics theory suggests a single justice tactic may suffice, whereas motivation‐hygiene theory posits that the combined use of both PJ and DJ may be more effective. Juxtaposing the two theoretical lenses and taking a configurational approach, we (a) propose uncertainty as a key construct dictating each lens' applicability and (b) identify a set of uncertainty‐driven boundary conditions—related to both individual buyers' traits and the focal disruption—to form configurations. We collected our data from two vignette‐based experiments with 553 purchasing managers and supplemented the experiment data with qualitative insights gathered from 105 additional managers. In doing so, we uncover three configurations leading to successful trust repair and four resulting in failed repair. Our findings offer guidance for supplier managers in devising portfolios of disruption resolution tactics.

A literature review chronicles conceptual and empirical achievements within a research stream. An excellent literature review accomplishes much more. Excellent literature reviews not only explain advances within a research stream (“summarize and synthesize”) but also provide a conceptual framework that captures the key elements of the research (“conceptualize”) and lay a foundation for future inquiry that can accelerate progress in advancing knowledge (“energize”). We accomplish two main tasks in this editorial. First, we offer details about what constitutes an excellent literature review. Second, we summarize the four literature reviews contained in this special topic forum and explain their excellent features.

Problem definition: We study sourcing behavior in severe conditions where supply disruptions are rare but carry the potential of wiping out several rounds worth of a firm’s profit. Academic/practical relevance: The tradeoff between scale economies from supplier consolidation and risk mitigation from supplier diversification is at the core of firms’ sourcing strategy and one that is empirically understudied. Methodology: We study supplier diversification through a behavioral lens and test theoretically derived predictions under controlled laboratory conditions. Results: Our data provide strong evidence for under-diversification. We posit that this pattern is partly because of the fact that investing in supplier diversification involves an upfront cost to achieve a delayed, and rarely encountered, benefit. Managerial implications: Under-diversification bias is costly, and its causes are difficult to overcome, presenting firms with the daunting task of devising debiasing mechanisms that reinforce a supplier diversification strategy when the rarity of disruptions almost always render supplier consolidation the ex post preferred strategy.

The daunting effects of COVID‐19 have motivated large firms to rethink supply chain designs and practices. As a potential contribution to such change, we introduce the concept of supply chain entrepreneurial embeddedness (SCEE), which we define as the degree to which a large firm integrates small entrepreneurial business capabilities (e.g., creativity, ingenuity, resourcefulness, rapid decision‐making, and swift execution) within its supply chain. We theorize that SCEE can be realized via at least three mechanisms—acquiring (i.e., purchasing one or more small entrepreneurial firms), allying (i.e., building cooperative alliances with such firms), and assimilating (i.e., mimicking how such firms behave). We suggest that SCEE is valuable under normal conditions, but its value increases under duress. Grounded in the concepts of structural inertia, requisite variety, mutualism, and real options, our core premise is that SCEE enables large firms to better navigate multiple and multidirectional concurrent changes in supply and demand, which in turn enhances firm performance. We contextualize this core premise by theorizing that greater end‐user proximity (wherein SCEE is located close to the final customer) and service centricity (wherein competition is primarily based on the service dimension of product–service bundles) enhance SCEE’s positive effects.

The COVID‐19 pandemic paralyzed the world and revealed the critical importance of supply chain management—perhaps more so than any other event in modern history—in navigating crises. The extensive scope of disruption, massive spillover of effects across countries and industries, and extreme shifts in demand and supply that occurred during the COVID‐19 pandemic illustrate that pandemics are qualitatively different from typical disruptions. As such, pandemics require scholars to take a fresh look at what lenses offer understanding of supply chain phenomena in order to help supply chain managers better prepare for the next pandemic and foster transiliency (i.e., the ability to simultaneously restore some processes and change—often radically—others). To help scholars and managers achieve these aims, we offer an agenda for supply chain management research on pandemics by considering how the key tenets of well‐known and emergent theories can illuminate challenges and potential solutions. Specifically, we consider how resource dependence theory, institutional theory, resource orchestration theory, structural inertia, game theory, real options theory, event systems theory, awareness–motivation–capability framework, prospect theory, and tournament theory offer ideas that can help scholars build knowledge about pandemics’ effects on supply chains as well as help managers formulate responses.

Following supplier‐induced disruptions, suppliers may undertake recovery actions in hopes of reducing damage to the focal exchange with buyers. While research shows that the absence of suppliers’ recovery actions almost always leads to a deteriorated relationship, it is less clear if—or more likely when—the presence of suppliers’ recovery actions restores a relationship. Accordingly, we examine a specific set of suppliers’ recovery actions in light of important considerations—that is, disruption severity, suppliers’ dependence, and buyers’ supply chain risk uncertainty. Through the lens of signaling theory, we frame supplier‐induced disruptions as negative signals from suppliers (signalers) to buyers (receivers) and suppliers’ recovery actions as positive signals. We theorize that these mixed signals unfold in different buyers’ perceptions due to the aforementioned contextual considerations. Using the critical incident technique to capture disruption events, we find that the messages of suppliers conveyed through their recovery actions may or may not be “loud and clear,” depending on the context. In doing so, our results reveal substantive guidance for suppliers’ use of recovery actions to combat the negative perception of supplier‐induced disruptions. Likewise, the results are also promising for buying companies seeking to develop (i.e., improve) supplier performance.

Ongoing debate surrounds the relative importance of theory and practice within supply chain research. Some contend that strong theory is central to knowledge advancement and its application to practice should be a secondary concern. Others argue that emphasizing theory moves the field away from its applied roots and the concerns of managers. We transcend this debate by proposing that theory and practice are separate dimensions rather than opposing concerns. Research projects can thus be strong in terms of both theory and practice, weak on both, or strong on one and weak on the other. We propose that placement within the first category requires scholars to devise research that is AIM—actionable (i.e., it provides a basis for making changes), insightful (it provides new ideas on important issues), and measurable (its effects can be quantitatively assessed). The impact of such research is magnified or dampened by the degree to which scholars achieve theoretical contextualization (i.e., adjusting the theory to reflect the setting under investigation) and theoretical calibration (i.e., alignment between theory and methods). Because “AIMing high” can deliver strong value for both scholars and managers, we encourage scholars, editors, and reviewers to embrace it in the development and evaluation of research.

La recherche concernant la chaîne d’approvisionnement est de plus en plus basée sur la théorie, les plans de recherche sont de plus en plus rigoureux et les méthodes d’analyse se sont approfondies et élargies. Compte tenu de cette progression importante et positive, nous pensons qu’il est temps pour les chercheurs d’abandonner la méthode de collecte des données classique, à savoir les enquêtes mono-source, en raison de ses limitations inhérentes. Dans le passé, les enquêtes mono-source ont permis de réaliser des avancées significatives dans le développement des connaissances, mais ce domaine a tellement progressé que des plans plus solides sont désormais nécessaires. Au lieu d’attaquer les précédents travaux de recherche réalisés au moyen d’enquêtes mono-source (y compris les nôtres), et au lieu de donner des conseils « rustines » (par ex. obtenir plus de répondants), nous proposons de suivre une trajectoire plus constructive, selon laquelle les chercheurs devraient laisser leur théorie conduire leurs plans de recherche. Plus précisément, nous proposons le concept d’étalonnage théorique (le niveau auquel les préceptes clés de la théorie d’une étude sont capturés au sein de son plan de recherche) et nous décrivons quatre approches que les chercheurs peuvent adopter pour améliorer l’étalonnage théorique. Nous espérons que, à l’avenir, les enquêtes resteront un moyen important de renforcer les connaissances et d’informer les dirigeants, mais que les gardiens des revues spécialisées jugeront insuffisants les plans de recherche uniquement basés sur des enquêtes mono-source.