EMERGING DISCOURSE INCUBATOR: The Roles of Institutional Complexity and Hybridity in Social Impact Supply Chain Management

Abstract

Supply chain research and practice has moved beyond green or environmental issues to include social issues. But much of the focus still remains on attempts of large companies to reduce social harm along their supply chains rather than creating social good. At the same time, research investigating the role of NGOs in supply chains or humanitarian logistics often emphasizes temporary initiatives and overlooks long‐term viability. This conceptual paper seeks to expand the playing field by looking at how social enterprises manage their supply chains to generate social benefit while maintaining or improving their financial viability in the long term. Our contribution is to consider those socially motivated organizations that lie on the continuum between purely social and purely commercial enterprises. We consider how these organizations manage their supply chains for social impact and define this area as social impact supply chain management (SISCM). In this work, we view these organizations and managerial issues through the lens of institutional complexity, that is, the presence of multiple and possibly conflicting institutional logics in the focal organization. We propose that, for these organizations, supply chain strategy, stakeholder identification and engagement, and relationship management might differentiate SISCM from traditional supply chain management. And as a result, we offer future research directions that might add clarity to effective SISCM.

From the Editors: Introduction to the Emerging Discourse Incubator on the Topic of Research where the Focal Actor in the Network is not a for‐profit Firm

“…Pullman, Longoni and Luzzini () address a different focal actor, the social enterprise, to explore how they manage their supply chains in the face of competing social welfare and economic logics. Much of their emphasis is on how having competing logics would influence supply chain strategy, stakeholder identification, and relationship management.…”

“…And as Pullman et al. () note, the responses to this context can create even more complexity and uncertainty. For instance, some social enterprises deal with competing logics by effectively creating two supply chains: one that exists to create profits and a second that uses the profits from the first to help make social change.…”

“…() would suggest they need different resources in the guise of social capital, while Pullman et al. () and Gualndris and Klassen () posit that they need to choose and configure their networks differently.…”

“…First, complexity and uncertainty in these networks arise from many sources not addressed in the for-profit literature, including the heterogeneity of the stakeholders and the rigidity of resources. And as Pullman et al (2018) note, the responses to this context can create even more complexity and uncertainty. For instance, some social enterprises deal with competing logics by effectively creating two supply chains: one that exists to create profits and a second that uses the profits from the first to help make social change.…”

“…But the focal actors being addressed in the EDI are often relatively small and under-resourced, when resources are defined as money or scale. Johnson et al (2018) would suggest they need different resources in the guise of social capital, while Pullman et al (2018) and Gualndris and Klassen (2018) posit that they need to choose and configure their networks differently.…”