The uncertainty and financial instability that has plagued companies and industries in the last decade is one of the root causes behind the development of Supply Chain Finance (SCF), a set of schemes aiming to optimise the management of financial flows at the supply chain level. Recent years have seen a proliferation of different SCF schemes, with different impacts on working capital costs and requirements throughout the supply chain. The practicality of SCF usage indicates that the concurrent adoption of multiple schemes is not only possible, but even likely. However, literature on SCF still focuses on individual SCF schemes, while the concurrent adoption of multiple SCF schemes remains largely unaddressed. Thus, the objective of this paper is to assess the tangible benefits deriving from a multi-scheme SCF strategy. Based on the analytical formulation of the benefits of three relevant SCF schemes (Reverse Factoring, Inventory Financing and Dynamic Discounting), the paper formalises a model that investigates the benefits that a buyer can achieve by onboarding suppliers onto these three schemes. The results show how working capital requirements and the cost of finance represent the key parameters to assessing the benefits of the concurrent adoption of multiple SCF schemes. Moreover, the funding limits of the SCF schemes themselves strongly affect the relevance of such strategies; strict limits will increase the relevance of having 'alternative' schemes available to onboard suppliers. To highlight the managerial relevance of the model, the article provides a numerical example based on a real-world application.

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.

No abstract

No abstract