Search

The study provides a first step towards a taxonomy of global sourcing decision-making (GSDM) process archetypes, by answering the questions 'which archetypes of global sourcing decision-making exist?' and 'how do contextual factors determine these types of global sourcing decision-making?'. We highlight the extent to which differences in decision-making processes are explained by variations in environmental, organizational and decision-specific factors. In order to do so, we employ a multiple case study approach with five in-depth cases drawing on 19 interviews as well as publicly available and internal data from large buying firms headquartered in Austria and Germany. Our findings identify three different GSDM archetypes (i.e., bureaucratic-discursive, pragmatic-impartial and political-unstructured) which are mainly influenced by the three main contextual factors: global sourcing maturity, product complexity and leadership style. These factors determine how companies make decisions on sourcing complex components when global sourcing is considered a viable option. This study contributes to theory development at the intersection of organizational buying behavior and global sourcing literature and answers the call for more rigorous investigation of the influence of contextual factors on GSDM processes and their variance. Further, we enable practitioners to better understand and consequently manage GSDM processes and their outcomes. By identifying which GSDM context sourcing managers and teams face, this study allows to make better decisions by avoiding problems that occur in situations, in which their preferred decision-making type would cause them to act irrationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Buying firms are increasingly confronted with compliance scandals in their upstream supply chain, for which they are held accountable by their stakeholders. Purely symbolic practices, typically referred to as greenwashing, as well as substantive practices, such as green supplier championing, are thus receiving widespread attention in business practices and academia alike. In this study, we reveal the impact of two opposing leadership dimensions following the concepts of ethical and transactional leadership as antecedents for green supplier championing and greenwashing. We particularly address whether these antecedents have a complementary or a counterproductive effect on green supplier championing and greenwashing. Furthermore, we investigate the complementary impact of incentives and the two leadership styles on achieving sustainability behavior. The resulting model is tested using a path analysis based on a data set of 118 firms located in Germany. We find support for the positive impact of ethical leadership on green supplier championing but also a non-significant negative impact on greenwashing. Greenwashing is significantly impacted by leadership styles reflecting obedience to authority, and further moderated by ethical incentives. Interestingly, ethical incentives do not moderate the impact of ethical leadership on green supplier championing. Finally, we discuss implications for theory and business practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores contextual barriers to supplier development for sustainability (SDS) in global supply chains and managerial remedies to mitigate them. A dyadic case study design was adopted with a Western European buyer and six of its Chinese suppliers. The database consists of 41 interviews and 81 documents. Contextual barriers to SDS in global supply chains arise from spatial, language, cultural, and socio-economic difference between buyer and supplier as well as complexity of the sustainability concept. Partial remedies comprise effective joint communications, an open organizational culture, and the fostering of cross-context understanding. The findings contribute to theory development at the intersection of sustainable and global supply chain management research. They help to explain why sustainability-related progress in global supply chains was only modest in recent years. The identified barriers facilitate managerial decision making with respect to SDS in global contexts. By diffusing the knowledge on the available remedies, the study may contribute to improving SDS effectiveness, thereby fostering suppliers' sustainability capabilities and performance. This research highlights the criticality of contextual barriers to SDS. Moreover, it points to sustainability-related dilemmas for buyers and suggests the notion of sustainability paternalism as a valuable amendment to understanding buyer behavior surrounding SDS in global supply chains. Finally, it explores different real-world conceptions of sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]