Transnational Capitalism After Postcolonialism
Bridget Kustin, Juliane Reinecke, and Jimmy Donaghey recently published a powerful article entitled Transnational Capitalism After Postcolonialism: Researching the Interfaces in Global Supply Chains. The authors critically examine the ethical and analytical challenges of researching global supply chains, particularly in contexts shaped by power asymmetries between the Global North and South. Through a case study of the Bangladesh Accord, established after the Rana Plaza disaster, they argue for a better understanding of transnational interfaces where actors from different regions negotiate capitalist relations. Challenging the dominance of postcolonial theory’s discursive focus, the article draws on Vivek Chibber’s Marxian critique to reintroduce class and material power relations into the analysis. It emphasizes that a sole focus on cultural representation can obscure deeper structural inequalities embedded in global capitalism. I believe that integrating postcolonial ethics with Marxism is an innovative way to study SCM phenomena. This article could inspire future research to investigate how global capitalist dynamics shape labor, justice, and representation across complex transnational interfaces.
Kustin, B., Reinecke, J. & Donaghey, J. (2025). Transnational Capitalism After Postcolonialism: Researching the Interfaces in Global Supply Chains. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-025-05985-z
Making a Theoretical Contribution with Qualitative Research
Authors struggling with how to make a strong theoretical contribution is the challenge I see most often in journal submissions. In their recent editorial, Making a Theoretical Contribution with Qualitative Research, Rouse and her coauthors (2025) provide practical guidance for qualitative scholars seeking to meet high standards for theoretical contribution. The authors argue that the “inherent openness and contextual grounding [of qualitative research] can make it challenging to articulate a crisp, generalizable theoretical contribution”. To address this, they outline six key pathways: (1) leveraging the unusual beyond fascinating settings; (2) leveraging inference beyond patterns and regularities; (3) leveraging tensions beyond opening the black box; (4) leveraging visualizations beyond boxes and arrows; (5) leveraging language beyond hyperbole; and (6) leveraging the moment beyond emulating past work. A central theme is that theory must “move from description (patterns) to explanation (mechanisms) to transferrable theoretical account”. The editorial also acknowledges the new role of AI as a “co-theorist” – assisting in pattern recognition and theorization, but not replacing human interpretive depth.
Rouse, E., Reinecke, J., Ravasi, D., Langley, A., Grimes, M., & Gruber, M. (2025). Making a Theoretical Contribution with Qualitative Research. Academy of Management Journal, 68(2), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2025.4002
Taking Academic Ownership of the Supply Chain Emissions Discourse
I am very happy to announce that I have co-authored a new article, Taking Academic Ownership of the Supply Chain Emissions Discourse, with Felix Creutzig. In this editorial, published in the Journal of Supply Chain Management, we emphasize the need for SCM researchers to actively engage with the issue of supply chain emissions, which we define as “the total greenhouse gas emissions generated by the entire network of interconnected and interdependent actors involved in all value-related activities—from upstream to downstream” (p. 3). Our article presents a framework of corporate interventions – categorized as collaborative or authoritative and targeting either behavioral or operational changes – to reduce supply chain emissions and outlines research opportunities using propositional, processual, perspectival, and provocative theorizing. We hope that this work will inspire both academic and practical advancements, particularly by enabling SCM researchers to make meaningful theoretical contributions and assisting SCM practitioners in advancing global efforts to address the climate crisis.
Wieland, A. & Creutzig, F. (2025). Taking Academic Ownership of the Supply Chain Emissions Discourse. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 61(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12338
The Core Building Blocks of a Theoretical Article
In Sense and Structure—The Core Building Blocks of an AMR Article, Lange and Pfarrer (2017) outline five essential steps for crafting effective Academy of Management Review articles. I believe that these five steps are useful for anyone who writes theoretical articles – not just for AMR. As an author you must (1) establish common ground by “[laying] out the basic assumptions, boundary conditions, and prescriptions of the literature, forming an agreeable starting point with your readers.” (2) You then introduce a complication (a problem, puzzle, or twist) by “pointing out to your readers some kind of complication to the common ground that you’ve already established.” (3) You demonstrate concern by providing “a compelling explanation of the complication’s importance.” (4) You present a course of action, describing “how you will be addressing and resolving your paper’s central complication.” (5) Finally, you highlight your contribution by explaining “how your work will shape or change the conversation—how it makes a distinct contribution.”
Lange, D., & Pfarrer, M.D. (2017). Editors’ Comments: Sense and Structure—The Core Building blocks of an AMR Article. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0225
Propositional, Perspectival, and Provocative Styles of Theorizing
It is clear that theorizing in our discipline is primarily aimed at explaining and predicting phenomena in terms of causes and effects related to underlying structures and mechanisms (propositional style). In the recently published article Unlocking the Power of Diversity for Supply Chain Knowledge: Is Pluralism in Theorizing Styles the Key? by Joep Cornelissen, Victoria Stephens, and Lee Matthews in the Journal of Supply Chain Management, the authors argue for a pluralistic approach to theorizing in SCM research. They criticize the dominance of the propositional style of theorizing, which focuses on explaining and predicting phenomena, and propose the inclusion of perspectival and provocative styles. These alternative styles aim to reinterpret and critique existing concepts, respectively. The authors emphasize that the incorporation of multiple theorizing styles can lead to better, more comprehensive knowledge production in SCM by addressing the complex and dynamic nature of the discipline. They call for an inclusive epistemology that values diverse epistemic goals equally and promotes a more reflexive and holistic understanding of supply chain management phenomena.
Cornelissen, J., Stephens, V., & Matthews, L. (2024). Unlocking the Power of Diversity for Supply Chain Knowledge: Is Pluralism in Theorizing Styles the Key? Journal of Supply Chain Management, 60(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12328
Gap-Spotting or Problematization
How should researchers construct research questions for their academic work? One intuitive answer is by spotting a gap in the existing academic literature. This is certainly an effective approach that follows the Popperian scientific method. In addition to gap-spotting, there is a second approach that deserves a little more attention: problematization. Alvesson and Sandberg (2011) describe this approach in their famous article Generating Research Questions Through Problematization (a must read!). They write that “[t]he dominance of gap-spotting is surprising, given it is increasingly recognized that theory is made interesting and influential when it challenges assumptions that underlie existing literature.” This is what problematization does: it is about identifying and challenging assumptions that underlie existing theories and generating research questions that lead to the development of more interesting and influential theories. Of course, we will still need gap-spotting in the future. But I do believe that SCM research could benefit from more problematization.
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating Research Questions Through Problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0188
Four Types of Case Study Research Designs
Academics and students often have very different ideas in mind when they talk about case study research. Indeed, case studies in SCM research are not alike and several different case study research designs can be distinguished. A recent article by Ridder (2017), titled The Theory Contribution of Case Study Research Designs, provides an overview of four common approaches. First, there is the “no theory first” type of case study design, which is closely connected to Eisenhardt’s methodological work. The second type of research design is about “gaps and holes”, following Yin’s guidelines. This type of case study design is what can be seen in SCM journals maybe most often. A third design deals with a “social construction of reality”, which is represented by Stake. Finally, the reason for case study research can also be to identify “anomalies”. A representative scholar of this approach is Burawoy. Each of these four approaches has its areas of application, but it is important to understand their unique ontological and epistomological assumptions. A very similar overview is provided by Welch et al. (2011).
Ridder, H.G. (2017). The Theory Contribution of Case Study Research Designs. Business Research, 10 (2), 281-305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-017-0045-z
How to Do a Systematic Literature Review
There has been a recent trend in several management disciplines, including supply chain management, to create knowledge by systematically reviewing available literature. So far, however, our discipline lacked a “gold standard” that guides researchers in this endeavor. The Journal of Supply Chain Management has now published our new article, Durach, Kembro & Wieland (2017): A New Paradigm for Systematic Literature Reviews in Supply Chain Management. Our systematic literature review process follows six steps: (1) develop an initial theoretical framework; (2) develop criteria for determining whether a publication can provide information regarding this framework; (3) identify literature through structured and rigorous searches; (4) conduct theoretically driven selection of literature and a relevance test; (5) develop two data extraction structures, integrate data to refine the theoretical framework, and develop narrative propositions; and (6) explain the refined framework and compare it to the initial assumptions. We believe that these best-practice guidelines, although developed for the SCM discipline, can be used as a blueprint also for adjacent management disciplines.
Durach, C.F., Kembro, J. & Wieland, A. (2017). A New Paradigm for Systematic Literature Reviews in Supply Chain Management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 53 (4), 67-85. DOI: 10.1111/jscm.12145
The Evolution of Trust
Trust plays an important role in supplier–buyer relationships. One way to approach this important concept is game theory. If you have ever wondered how game theory could be taught in a supply chain management course, I can recommend Nick Case’s The Evolution of Trust – an interactive guide to the game theory of why and how we trust each other. The guide starts by explaining the game of trust (= the prisoner’s dilemma). Then it illustrates what happens if multiple games and multiple tournaments are played with different players. We can learn from this guide that “the game defines the players” but also that “the players define the game”. We can learn that, in order for trust to evolve, we need the knowledge of possible future repeat interactions, we need a win–win situation, and we need a low level of miscommunication. I will definitely use The Evolution of Trust in my future supply chain management courses.
Fisher’s Supply Chain–Product Match/Mismatch Framework
I have been using Fisher’s (1997) supply chain–product match/mismatch framework (What Is the Right Supply Chain for Your Product?) in my teaching for years! Herein, the author argues that functional products require a physically efficient supply chain strategy, whereas innovative products require a market-responsive supply chain strategy. Fisher’s framework finds empirical support: Wagner et al. (2012) demonstrate that “the higher the supply chain fit, the higher the Return on Assets (ROA) of the firm”. Interestingly, a majority of the firms from their sample achieve a negative misfit, i.e. they target high responsiveness for their supply chain although their products are functional. Extensions of the framework exist, for example by Lee (2002), who adds a “supply” dimension, and more recently Gligor (2017), who argues that “benefits generated by perfect supply chain fit might be offset by the resources deployed to achieve that fit”. Research presented by Perez-Franco et al. (2016) helps to “capture, evaluate and re-formulate the supply chain strategy of a business unit”.
Fisher, M.L. (1997). What Is the Right Supply Chain for Your Product? Harvard Business Review, 75 (2), 105-116.
