This study adopts a power perspective to investigate sustainable supply chain relationships and specifically uses resource-dependence theory (RDT) to critically analyze buyer-supplier-supplier relationships. Empirical evidence is provided, extending the RDT model in this context. The concept of power relationships is explored through a qualitative study of a multinational company and agricultural growers in the UK food industry that work together to implement sustainable practices. We look at multiple triadic relationships involving a large buyer and its small suppliers to investigate how relative power affects the implementation of sustainable supply-management practices. The study highlights that power as dependence is relevant to understanding compliance in sustainable supply chains and to identifying appropriate relationship-management strategies to build more sustainable supply chains. We show the influences of power on how players manage their relationships and how it affects organizational responses to the implementation of sustainability initiatives. Power notably influences the sharing of sustainability-related risks and value between supply chain partners. From a managerial perspective, the study contributes to developing a better understanding of how power can become an effective way to achieve sustainability goals. This article offers insights into the way in which a large organization works with small and medium size enterprises to implement sustainable practices and shows how power management-that is, the way in which power is used-can support or hinder effective cooperation around sustainability in the supply chain.

PurposeThis paper attempts to seek answers to four questions. Two of these questions have been borrowed (but adapted) from the work of Defee et al.: RQ1. To what extent is theory used in purchasing and supply chain management (P&SCM) research? RQ2. What are the prevalent theories to be found in P&SCM research? Following on from these questions an additional question is posed: RQ3. Are theory‐based papers more highly cited than papers with no theoretical foundation? Finally, drawing on the work of Harland et al., the authors have added a fourth question: RQ4. To what extent does P&SCM meet the tests of coherence, breadth and depth, and quality necessary to make it a scientific discipline?Design/methodology/approachA systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with the model outlined by Tranfield et al. for three journals within the field of “purchasing and supply chain management”. In total 1,113 articles were reviewed. In addition a citation analysis was completed covering 806 articles in total.FindingsThe headline features from the results suggest that nearly a decade‐and‐a‐half on from its development, the field still lacks coherence. There is the absence of theory in much of the work and although theory‐based articles achieved on average a higher number of citations than non‐theoretical papers, there is no obvious contender as an emergent paradigm for the discipline. Furthermore, it is evident that P&SCM does not meet Fabian's test necessary to make it a scientific discipline and is still some way from being a normal science.Research limitations/implicationsThis study would have benefited from the analysis of further journals, however the analysis of 1,113 articles from three leading journals in the field of P&SCM was deemed sufficient in scope. In addition, a further significant line of enquiry to follow is the rigour vs relevance debate.Practical implicationsThis article is of interest to both an academic and practitioner audience as it highlights the use theories in P&SCM. Furthermore, this article raises a number of important questions. Should research in this area draw more heavily on theory and if so which theories are appropriate?Social implicationsThe broader social implications relate to the discussion of how a scientific discipline develops and builds on the work of Fabian and Amundson.Originality/valueThe data set for this study is significant and builds on a number of previous literature reviews. This review is both greater in scope than previous reviews and is broader in its subject focus. In addition, the citation analysis (not previously conducted in any of the reviews) and statistical test highlights that theory‐based articles are more highly cited than non‐theoretically based papers. This could indicate that researchers are attempting to build on one another's work.

This article provides evidence about the current sourcing strategies for indirect spend from a survey of 124 organizations. The study found that, despite the recent prominence of reverse auctions and outsourcing options, the most frequently cited external sourcing management approach for indirect spend is long-term collaboration with preferred suppliers. There was also evidence that indirect spend suffers from a lack of internal support, maverick purchasing, and fragmentation of spend within the organization.

Purpose – It is important to advance operations management (OM) knowledge while being mindful of the theoretical developments of the discipline. The purpose of this paper is to explore which theoretical perspectives have dominated the OM field. This analysis allows the authors to identify theory trends and gaps in the literature and to identify fruitful areas for future research. A reflection on theory is also practical, given that it guides research toward important questions and enlightens OM practitioners. Design/methodology/approach – The authors provide an analysis of OM theory developments in the last 30 years. The study encompasses three decades of OM publications across three OM journals and contains an analysis of over 3,000 articles so as to identify which theories, over time, have been adopted by authors in order to understand OM topics. Findings – The authors find that the majority of studies are atheoretical, empirical, and focussed upon theory testing rather than on theory development. Some theories, such as the resource-based view and contingency theory, have an enduring relevance within OM. The authors also identify theories from psychology, economics, sociology, and organizational behavior that may, in the future, have salience to explain burgeoning OM research areas such as servitization and sustainability. Research limitations/implications – The study makes a novel contribution by exploring which main theories have been adopted or developed in OM, doing so by systematically analyzing articles from the three main journals in the field (the Journal of Operations Management, Production and Operations Management, and the International Journal of Operations and Production Management), which encompass three decades of OM publications. In order to focus the study, the authors may have missed important OM articles in other journals. Practical implications – A reflection on theories is important because theories inform how a researcher or practicing manager interprets and solves OM problems. This study allows the authors to reflect on the collective OM journey to date, to spot trends and gaps in the literature, and to identify fruitful areas for future research. Originality/value – As far as the authors are aware, there has not been an assessment of the main theoretical perspectives in OM. The research also identifies which topics are published in OM journals, and which theories are adopted to investigate them. The authors also reflect on whether the most cited papers and those winning best paper awards are theoretical. This gives the authors a richer understanding of the current state of OM research.

No abstract