Uses focus group for delineating relevant theories to supply chain finance.• Evidence for network theory, transaction cost economics and social exchange theory.• Evidence on agency theory includes reverse principal-agent relationships.• Theory for collaborative networks less appropriate, except game theory.• Intra-firm collaboration with financial departments needs to be bolstered.

PurposeReverse factoring (RF) is one of the most prevalent supply chain finance (SCF) solutions. This study challenges the view that suppliers accept financially attractive reverse factoring offers (RFOs) and reject financially unattractive ones. Specifically, it focuses on small and medium enterprise (SME) suppliers and how transaction cost economics (TCE) factors affect their decision.Design/methodology/approachThe authors study eight cases of RFOs, interviewing suppliers, buyers and financial service providers (FSPs) and using several sources of private and publicly available secondary data.FindingsIn five out of eight RFOs, suppliers either accepted unattractive offers or rejected attractive ones. Bounded rationality and opportunism seem to explain such misalignment, while asset specificity and frequency play a minor role in decisions.Research limitations/implicationsThe study shows the need for further investigation linking analytical assessment of SCF benefits with qualitative factors.Practical implicationsSME suppliers cannot assume an RFO will benefit them. They must critically evaluate their buyers' offers, ideally with self-awareness towards how the abovementioned factors might affect their decisions. For buyers and banks, this study gives clear insights on how to approach SME suppliers to avoid rejection of financially attractive RFOs.Originality/valueThis contribution analyses financial attractiveness of RFOs in conjunction with qualitative factors, including rejected RFOs and without assuming that RFOs are financially attractive for suppliers. This is original and relevant for both research and practice, since it extends the understanding of the supplier response to RFOs, thanks to the consideration of TCE factors.

PurposeLogistics service providers (LSPs) have unique resources and capabilities that position them to deliver supply chain finance (SCF) solutions. The study aims to discuss and illustrate the necessary resources and process of value creation and capture of LSPs, potentially offering SCF solutions.Design/methodology/approachRelying on a theoretical framework, combining a resource-based view (RBV) with the literature on SCF, the authors apply an abductive case study methodology, including 11 interviews with representatives from four LSPs.FindingsThe main findings are as follow: (1) although an LSP has sufficient resources for value-added SCF solutions, it may not capture enough value to motivate realising them; (2) an LSP considering offering SCF should account for the interaction between its resources and cargo transit times, risk and regulatory restrictions and (3) future studies should distinguish between financing the logistics services and the moved products.Research limitations/implicationsThe authors contribute to the growing field of SCF research by analysing motives and barriers for LSPs to offer SCF service to their customers. Because none of our case companies decided to move beyond experimentation further research is needed on the resources and capabilities needed for LSPs to successfully venture into SCF.Practical implicationsThe study provides LSPs with clear indications of the difficulties involved when contemplating a move into SCF solutions and discusses the potential value of offering such services.Originality/valueDespite evidence of LSPs engaging in SCF in various industries, academic contributions do not go beyond operational conditions or quantification of benefits. The authors add evidence on how LSPs are currently evaluating the prominence of adding SCF to their value offerings, including a new perspective on resources, value generation and capture mechanisms.

No abstract