Acknowledgments: I thank Amanda Bille, Anna Land, Attila Marton, Britta Gammelgaard, Carl Marcus Wallenburg, Christian Durach, Christian Hendriksen, Christian Huber, Dane Pflueger, Elise Berlinski, Florian Kock, Frank Fürstenberg, Helen Peck, Ida Schrøder, Ingo Zettler, Jan Mouritsen, Jane Lister, Jennifer Rogan, Johan Lundin, Kamilla Barat, Lisa Paulsen, Lorraine van Halewijn, Marin Jovanovic, Michael Herburger, Paola Trevisan, Philip Beske-Janssen, Regina Brogna, Stefano Ponte, and Thomas Johnsen for their helpful suggestions and comments. I also thank Journal of Supply Chain Management’s editorial team, especially Mark Pagell and the anonymous associate editor, for their exceptionally constructive and thoughtful guidance. In particular, I thank Günther Metzger and Jean François Bianco, who have been very inspirational throughout my thought process. This research resulted from a collaboration between Copenhagen Business School and Nordakademie.
This paper describes the challenges of the maritime supply chain compared to land transport and discusses the new digital initiatives to simplify the processes and enable a better plan for the entire supply chain. First, the background is outlined with an example of the extensive admin processes in maritime transport compared to road transport, followed by a case example presenting the processes of a booking. The case study concludes that the lack of integration is costly in terms of both admin resources, as well as lost capacity on some ships and missing capacity on others. Finally, the evolution of new digital initiatives are discussed, both in general and in terms of competing “alliances” as seen in the airline industry. The paper concludes that the information exchange in the maritime industry has moved drastically in the last 3 years and that one initiative, TradeLens, seems to have gained a position as maritime standard despite a problematic start with many competing initiatives.
This article analyses contractual governance practices within the value chains of large companies based in the USA and Europe between 2012 and 2017 with focus on human and labour rights. In line with the existing scholarship, we find that the use of contractual governance for safeguarding human and labour rights is best practice among large American and European businesses. The results show that value chain contractual governance should be studied in an interdisciplinary environment taking both legal and non-legal aspects into consideration. Moreover, we detect a general positive impact of the business and human rights regulatory wave of 2010–2011 on sustainable contractual governance practices.
Supply chain researchers are confronted with a dizzying array of research questions, many of which are not mutually independent. This research was motivated by the need to map the landscape of research themes, identify potential overlapping areas and interactions, and provide guidelines on areas of focus for researchers to pursue. We conducted a three-phase research study, beginning with an open-ended collection of opinions on research themes collected from 102 supply chain management (SCM) researchers, followed by an evaluation of a consolidated list of themes by 141 SCM researchers. These results were then reviewed by 10 SCM scholars. Potential interactions and areas of overlap were identified, classified, and integrated into a compelling set of ideas for future research in the field of SCM. We believe these ideas provide a forward-looking view on those themes that will become important, as well as those that researchers believe should be focused on. While areas of research deemed to become most important include big data and analytics, the most under-researched areas include efforts that target the “people dimension” of SCM, ethical issues and internal integration. The themes are discussed in the context of current developments that the authors believe will provide a valuable foundation for future research.
The value chains for offshore oil and gas and offshore wind are both basically driven by the demand for energy. This is heavily dependent on a number of factors including the price of various energy sources and the policy making of the states which influence legislation, indirect subsidies and direct investments. At the center of both value chains are the energy companies. The energy companies have a number of suppliers and sub suppliers which provide a range of equipment and services to the offshore operations. The supply industry is characterized by horizontal cooperation (between suppliers at the same level) and vertical cooperation (between suppliers in different layers). Finally the suppliers and the energy companies are supported by a number of companies which are usually not considered as part of the offshore sector but are important none the less. These companies provide a number of services including includes legal advice, financing, insurance etc. The two value chains have a number of activities in common. Both include (1) a tender and concession phase where the energy company obtains the right to explore and produce energy from the authorities. (2) An exploration phase where the physical location is examined and the installation is planned. (3) An installation phase where the equipment is produced and transported to the site where it is installed. (4) An operation phase where the energy is produced or the energy source is extracted and (5) a decommissioning phase where the field is abandoned. Most suppliers are positioned in several links of one or both value chains, at various levels (direct supplier, sub supplier, 3rd tier supplier etc.) and providing a variety of services. A supplier can move to new positions within the value chain. The increased servitization is a good example. Traditional manufacturers are often 2nd or 3rd tier suppliers in the installation phase. But by providing after sales services these companies also become direct suppliers to the energy company in the operations phase. Finally a supplier can have different positions in different geographical markets. A supplier can thus be a direct (1st tier) supplier in one market but needs to go through a local contractor (as a 2nd tier supplier) in another market – even if the provided service is exactly the same in both cases.