Being Proactive to Increasing Supply Chain Security Challenges: A Quantitative and Qualitative Approach

Supply chain security has become relevant to both practitioners and academics for years, yet the understanding of this topic is still incomplete. The literature produces relatively few explanatory and confirmatory studies, offers ambiguous definitions and terminology and the theoretical development is inconsistent.

In this dissertation, I review relevant research streams and employ four in-depth case studies to conceptualize supply chain security (SCS). I also utilize the principles of human immunology to propose a taxonomy of supply chain security management (SCSM) mechanisms. Building on institutional theory and the taxonomy, I further examine the antecedents as well as the consequences of SCSM mechanisms via a large empirical data set collected during 2011-2013. The sample includes responses from 462 firms.

Specifically, in my first model I draw on the institutional theory and posit that five institutional isomorphism pressures (i.e., government, customer, peer, normative, and performance pressure) impact four classes of SCSM mechanisms (i.e., prevention, detection, reaction, and restoration). In addition, shared SCS perception (SSP) and top management commitment (TMC) are hypothesized to moderate (strengthen) the relationships between institutional pressures and SCSM mechanisms. In my second model, I propose that the four classes of mechanisms explain five different supply chain performance dimensions (i.e., security performance, cost performance, supply chain responsiveness, supply chain resilience, and supply chain visibility). I also specify differential effects for both models; some effects are more salient than others.

The results suggest that not all institutional pressures motivate the implementation of SCSM mechanisms. While normative pressure and performance pressure act as predominantly powerful predictors of SCSM mechanisms, other pressures appear to have negligible or even adverse effects. Surprisingly, data analysis suggests that coercive institutional pressures (i.e., government pressure and customer pressure) do not exhibit the strongest effects on SCSM mechanisms as the literature would suggest. As far as the moderation effect is concerned, the results illustrate that neither SSP nor TMC interact with all institutional pressures to affect the employment of SCSM mechanisms. In addition, TMC can even impede the implementation of reaction- and restoration-oriented SCSM mechanisms when interacting with government pressure. Regarding supply chain performance, the results demonstrate that SCSM mechanisms have strong effects on multiple supply chain performance measures. Further assessments reveal that the effect of SCSM mechanisms on supply chain security performance is stronger than its effects on other performance dimensions.