In light of the growing complexity of globally dispersed, multi-tier supply chains, the involvement of first-tier suppliers has become instrumental in the quest for achieving sustainability compliance along the supply chain. We describe this new responsibility as the double agency role. We employ agency and institutional theory arguments to explore the conditions under which first-tier suppliers will act as agents who fulfill the lead firm's sustainability requirements (i.e., the primary agency role) and implement these requirements in their suppliers' operations (i.e., the secondary agency role). The findings from three in-depth case studies embedded in different institutional contexts highlight the importance for lead firms to incentivize each agency role separately and to reduce information asymmetries, particularly at the second-tier level. In addition, our inductive analysis reveals several contingency factors that influence the coupling of the secondary agency role of the first-tier supplier. These factors include resource availability at the first-tier supplier's firm, the lead firm's focus on the triple-bottomline dimension (i.e., environmental or social), the lead firm's use of power, and the lead firm's internal alignment of the sustainability and purchasing function. We integrate our findings in a conceptual framework that advances the research agenda on multi-tier sustainable supply chains, and we subsequently outline the practical implications of assigning the double agency role to first tier suppliers.

No abstract

Please cite this article in press as: Bhakoo, V., Choi, T., The iron cage exposed: Institutional pressures and heterogeneity across the healthcare supply chain. J. Operations Manage. (2013), http://dx. a b s t r a c tThe healthcare industry has been known to operate in a strong institutional environment (i.e. government regulations), and the implementation of inter-organizational systems (IOS) has followed an institutional process. Extending this perspective across different tiers in the healthcare supply chain, we investigate how organizations in different tiers in the supply chain (i.e. hospitals, distributors and manufacturers) respond to institutional pressures when implementing IOS. How institutional dynamics unfold across multiple tiers of a supply chain is an uncharted area of research, and we take the theory-building case study approach using data collected from ten organizations. Because organizations are embedded in their respective tiers, our within-tier analyses are equivalent to cross-organization analyses. In this regard, the cross-case analyses occur at two different levels: at each tier level (i.e. across multiple hospitals, multiple distributors and multiple manufacturers) and across the supply chain (i.e. across all three tiers). The study shows how different institutional pressures such as coercive, mimetic, and normative manifest across the tiers. It also demonstrates how a differential mix of endogenous and institutional pressures lead to mixed organizational responses across the tiers. The propositions developed from the study enrich institutional theory arguments within the information systems and supply chain management disciplines. They highlight how the IOS implementation dynamics within and across different tiers in a supply chain result in heterogeneous rather than isomorphic consequences, thereby exposing the "iron cage" of institutionalization.Published by Elsevier B.V.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to develop an understanding of the nature of collaborative arrangements that partners in Australian hospital supply chains use to manage inventories.Design/methodology/approachA case study involving a supply chain network of ten healthcare organisations (three pharmaceutical manufacturers, two wholesalers/distributors and five public hospitals) was studied. Data included 40 semi‐structured interviews, site visits and examination of documents.FindingsThis study highlights the existence of a variety of collaborative arrangements amongst supply chain partners such as the “Ward Box” system (a variant of the vender managed inventory system) between wholesalers/distributors and hospitals. The materials management departments were more willing than their pharmacy counterparts to participate in a variety of partial and complete outsourcing arrangements with wholesalers/distributors and other hospitals. Several contingent factors were identified that influenced development of collaborative arrangements.Research limitations/implicationsThis study is limited to the Australian healthcare sector. To improve generalisability, this study could be replicated in other industry sectors and countries.Practical implicationsApplication of collaborative arrangements between manufacturers and wholesalers/distributors would improve inventory management practices across the supply chains. Also, learning from materials management departments could be transferable to pharmacy departments.Originality/valueSeveral contingent variables for the implementation of collaborative inventory management arrangements between healthcare supply chain partners have been identified. Methodologically, data across three echelons in the supply chains (manufacturers, wholesalers/distributors and hospitals) were collected and analysed.

In this feature topic, we explore the burgeoning trend to employ templates in qualitative research. To understand authors’ motivations to use templates and perceptions regarding template use in the scholarly community, we conducted an interview study with 21 interviewees who had published qualitative research in one of nine premier management journals between 2014 and 2018. Our analysis identified four key tensions in template use: structure versus restriction, convention versus innovativeness, legitimization versus obscuration, and instrumentality versus craft. We discuss these tensions and their implications for the practice and evaluation of qualitative research. We then introduce the eight empirical papers included in this feature topic. Each of them addresses and explores specific aspects of the origins and limitations of template use, whilst providing insights and guidance for future qualitative research. We envisage this feature topic to be a catalyst for discourse amongst scholars, engaging with contemporary trends and tensions to pave new pathways that embrace the diversity and plurality of qualitative approaches.