Power and culture in supply chains: contributions of the strategic action fields approach

Abstract

Important research efforts have been developed to account for power in the analysis of supply chains. This paper argues that further gains may arise by considering organizations as social constructions mediated not only by power relations, but also by cultural representations intrinsically intertwined to it. Its purpose is to discuss the dynamics of stability and change in supply chains based on the Strategic Action Fields (SAFs) approach. A theoretical essay was elaborated discussing some of the main implications of this perspective to the study of supply chains and presenting propositions to enable the construction of research objects and guide empirical studies in the area. Propositions emphasize how ongoing cultural-political relations circumscribed to different fields, including the organization, with its internal disputes.

Transformations in female representations in beer advertisements: a Strategic Actions Fields perspective

“…Within the field of art, for example, are the subfields of music and theater. The field idea is relational and proposes that even though these social spheres are distinct, they have similar dynamics, historically constituted from cultural and power relations (Candido et al, 2017). The cultural order that stabilizes and gives meaning to social relations is biased by legitimate power relations, which makes dominant actors able to shape the agenda of others according to their perspectives and interests.…”

“…This dynamic has a negative aspect, as it makes it possible to reproduce the domination of some groups over others. The positive side is the construction of shared meanings that stabilizes competition and enables the functional division of labor (Candido et al, 2017;Biazzin et al, 2020).…”

How Social Inequalities Shape Markets: Lessons From the Configuration of PET Recycling Practices in Brazil

“…These interactions entail power relations, which may make the connection more hierarchical or reciprocal, depending on diverse factors, such as status and legitimacy, resource dependences, mutual beneficial interactions, sharing of power, and information flows (Fligstein & McAdam, 2012). In networks of interdependent fields, one arena may influence another directly or indirectly (Candido et al, 2017; Fligstein & McAdam, 2012).…”

The Emergence of “Solidarity Recycling” in Brazil: Structural Convergences and Strategic Actions in Interconnected Fields

“…In the first case, fields may keep more or less hierarchical relations, depending on the existing asymmetries of power. A production or a supply chain, for example, involves the interconnection of multiple fields, sectors or companies, through market or alliance relations (Candido, Soulé, & Sacomano Neto, 2017). Besides the qualities of the relations between fields, the number of ties with other spaces matters as well, whereby these connections operate as conductors of instability.…”