What do we really mean by supply chain management?
In this brief excerpt from his book, Future Logistics Challenges , Leif Enarsson of Sweden's Gothenburg University wonders why after all these years we still haven't arrived at a common definition of supply chain management.
Over the years many buzzwords have emerged in the field of logistics, with "supply chain management" (SCM) and all its variants being the most common examples. There is nothing new in these terms. Logistics management is still a developing discipline, and natural development over time does not equate to truly new concepts.
Nevertheless, researchers continue to discuss and debate the meaning of the term supply chain management. Every new book about logistics, it seems, contains another definition of SCM. To me this is an absurd situation, because there is nothing truly new, even if we do give it a new name or definition.
According to the academics Lambert and Stock1 and others, the definition of supply chain management is much broader than that of logistics. This is a common argument. For example, the Council of Logistics Management (CLM) (now the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals) revised the definition of logistics in 1998:
Logistics is that part of the supply chain process that plans, implements, and controls the efficient, effective flow and storage of goods, services, and related information from the point-of-origin to the pointof- consumption in order to meet customers' requirements.
Lambert, Cooper, and Pagh offered the following definition that same year2:
Supply chain management is the integration of key business processes from end user through original suppliers that provide products, services, and information that add value for customers and other stakeholders.
That definition covers most business activities. Christopher's definition3 is more customer-focused:
The management of upstream and downstream relationships with suppliers and customers to deliver superior customer value at less cost to the supply chain as a whole.
The standpoint that logistics management is more internal than supply chain management strikes me as somewhat strange given that integration between different players has always been fundamental to logistics management.
To illustrate how the definition and concept of supply chain management have multiplied, consider that in 1999, 30 papers were presented at a conference, resulting in at least 20 different variations on the SCM theme.4 These included:
Supply chain network
Supply management
Capacity-based supply chain
Supply chain dynamics
Networkwide supply chain
Lean supply chain
Supply network
Web supply chain
Supply demand
Seamless supply chain
Supply integration
Demand chain
Information management
Supply coalitions
Similarly Day, Burnett, and Forrester5 found that the term "supply chain management" was frequently used but the concept had inherited a multiplicity of meanings—in other words, there were disagreements about what definition best describes SCM. They also found that literature surveys create more confusion than general agreement on a definition.
Here are some examples of how fragmented the definitions have been. Olsen and Ellram's definition6 had a broad discussion about the "buyer-supplier relationship." New7 argued that supply chain management crosses boundaries between operations and industrial economics, marketing, economic geography, and industrial sociology. (Under that description, supply chain management includes nearly everything in business—hardly a meaningful definition.)
Another definition was that of Mattsson,8 who said the supply chain consisted of a line of actors who are in a dependent relationship with one other, and through which material, payment, and information flow. But this could also be seen as a traditional defi- nition of logistics.
SCM is what you make of it
All of these variations and the lack of clarity in the definition lead to the conclusion that SCM is what you make of it; in other words, it can involve anything, depending on the situation. In that view, it is hardly a new theory, nor is it a new scientific field.
Leaving aside the discussion of the proper definition of SCM and its relationship to logistics for a moment, let's look more closely at the concept itself and its possible advantages. The supply chain concept extends to include a focus on production and involves both the supply and distribution sides of the company. As the chain expands, the distance between the manufacturer and the end consumer increases, both geographically and from an operational point of view. At the same time, there is a strong trend toward more and more customer-oriented products and production, which requires close relationships between suppliers and customers.
This trend points out the need for a form of supply chain or, more generally, a system for integration and closer relationships. But is the "supply chain" concept the solution to this challenge? A chain of companies is only a part of a whole, complex system. There has to be a focus on all of the relationships and the dependencies, which is a big challenge indeed.
Currently, SCM research is dominated by information technology (IT)-related projects that often involve IT-based modeling and simulation. As a result, SCM consultants and researchers are building models in one limited field, often without a deeper knowledge of established theory, practical usefulness, economic benefits, or the effects of their developments on the system as a whole.
In today's world, businesses are shaped by complexity, fast-changing conditions, and constant development. This causes instability in many respects, but is this situation really new? Have not people in all periods of history thought that their own times were more dynamic and more changeable than any before them? Today, however, we can better predict change than we could in the past. This means that we can control development and that the rate of development is low today compared to previous periods.
Companies are trying to respond to dynamic developments and complexity, striving to achieve stability and to carry out operations more efficiently. The goal of IT development, to a great extent, is to create a better (which often means simpler and easier) way to conduct business.
In this dynamic world, we create new theories and new concepts such as supply chain management. What are the criteria for the new theories, and how are new conceptions related to them? Sometimes it seems that the degree of popularity—how often it is used, mentioned, or referred to—is the determining factor.
What kind of chain?
If we want to keep the "chain" concept, then the most appropriate name might be "value chain." But in some respects, it would be more correct to call the supply chain the "demand chain." One important reason is that demands for more effective support often come from customers. A discussion about supply and demand, moreover, leads to the conclusion that all actors in the supply chain can be seen both as customers and suppliers, depending on the position from which you view the chain. Regardless of the viewpoint, the end of the chain is always the final customer.
If we treat the supply chain as a theory, we can compare it with other theories and draw some conclusions. For instance, the marketing channel theory focuses on the distribution and demand side of a company; it can be argued that this is only part of the chain, but this depends on where the company is situated in the chain. The value chain primarily focuses on internal activities and physical flows, so that support activities are related to external activities. In comparison with supply chains, the value chain pays very little attention to information systems. The network theory considers the whole network, its actors, activities, and relationships. The supply chain is only one part of a network, and therefore it only gives us one part of the entirety. Finally, the business logistics theory includes the whole material flow and the different activities within it. Business logistics does not focus on integration and the information system in the same way that the supply chain concept does. In logistics, information systems are natural and necessary tools for managing the flow in all its aspects; it is not the major management focus that it is in the supply chain theory.
It is quite possible to compare and find differences between the supply chain concept and established concepts. Yet isn't the supply chain concept a result of striving for new ideas—ideas that contain very little in the way of substantial new facts? In fact, we could just as well call supply chain management "cash flow management" or "information management."
It should be obvious to anyone that I have a reserved attitude towards new concepts, and in my logistics research world, I believe that this is a healthy approach.
Endnotes: 1. Douglas M. Lambert and James R. Stock, Fundamentals of Logistics Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993).
2. Douglas M. Lambert, Martha C. Cooper, and Janus D. Pagh, "Supply Chain Management: Implementation Issues and Research Opportunities." The International Journal of Logistics and Management (1998).
3. Martin Christopher, Logistics and Supply Chain Management. (London: Prentice Hall, 1998)
4. Leif Enarsson, "Supply Chain Management: Just a Simple System, or a Determining Solution?" Paper given at the 15th International Conference on Production Research, University of Limerick, Ireland (1999).
5. Marc Day, John Burnett, and Paul Forrester, "Assessing Control Sspects in U.K. Ceramic Tableware Supply Chain." Paper presented at the 15th International Conference on Production Research, University of Limerick, Ireland (1999).
6. Rasmus F. Olsen and Lisa M. Ellram, "Buyer-Supplier Relationships: Alternative Research Approaches," European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management (1997).
7. Steve New, "Supply Chains: Some Doubts." Paper presented at the International Purchasing and Supply Education and Research Association, Cardiff, United Kingdom (1994).
8. Stig-Arne Mattsson, "Effective Material Flow in Supply Chains Through Integration." Paper presented at the Federation of European Production and Industrial Management Societies (FEPIMS) Conference, Helsinki, Finland (1998).
Editor's Note: This article is an edited excerpt from Future Logistics Challenges, (ISBN 9788763001700). The book can be purchased for UK £36, US $64, or EUR 53. For more information, go to International Specialized Book Services (www.isbs.com) or visit the Copenhagen Business School Press web site, www.cbspress.dk. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
ReposiTrak, a global food traceability network operator, will partner with Upshop, a provider of store operations technology for food retailers, to create an end-to-end grocery traceability solution that reaches from the supply chain to the retail store, the firms said today.
The partnership creates a data connection between suppliers and the retail store. It works by integrating Salt Lake City-based ReposiTrak’s network of thousands of suppliers and their traceability shipment data with Austin, Texas-based Upshop’s network of more than 450 retailers and their retail stores.
That accomplishment is important because it will allow food sector trading partners to meet the U.S. FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act Section 204d (FSMA 204) requirements that they must create and store complete traceability records for certain foods.
And according to ReposiTrak and Upshop, the traceability solution may also unlock potential business benefits. It could do that by creating margin and growth opportunities in stores by connecting supply chain data with store data, thus allowing users to optimize inventory, labor, and customer experience management automation.
"Traceability requires data from the supply chain and – importantly – confirmation at the retail store that the proper and accurate lot code data from each shipment has been captured when the product is received. The missing piece for us has been the supply chain data. ReposiTrak is the leader in capturing and managing supply chain data, starting at the suppliers. Together, we can deliver a single, comprehensive traceability solution," Mark Hawthorne, chief innovation and strategy officer at Upshop, said in a release.
"Once the data is flowing the benefits are compounding. Traceability data can be used to improve food safety, reduce invoice discrepancies, and identify ways to reduce waste and improve efficiencies throughout the store,” Hawthorne said.
Under FSMA 204, retailers are required by law to track Key Data Elements (KDEs) to the store-level for every shipment containing high-risk food items from the Food Traceability List (FTL). ReposiTrak and Upshop say that major industry retailers have made public commitments to traceability, announcing programs that require more traceability data for all food product on a faster timeline. The efforts of those retailers have activated the industry, motivating others to institute traceability programs now, ahead of the FDA’s enforcement deadline of January 20, 2026.
Inclusive procurement practices can fuel economic growth and create jobs worldwide through increased partnerships with small and diverse suppliers, according to a study from the Illinois firm Supplier.io.
The firm’s “2024 Supplier Diversity Economic Impact Report” found that $168 billion spent directly with those suppliers generated a total economic impact of $303 billion. That analysis can help supplier diversity managers and chief procurement officers implement programs that grow diversity spend, improve supply chain competitiveness, and increase brand value, the firm said.
The companies featured in Supplier.io’s report collectively supported more than 710,000 direct jobs and contributed $60 billion in direct wages through their investments in small and diverse suppliers. According to the analysis, those purchases created a ripple effect, supporting over 1.4 million jobs and driving $105 billion in total income when factoring in direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts.
“At Supplier.io, we believe that empowering businesses with advanced supplier intelligence not only enhances their operational resilience but also significantly mitigates risks,” Aylin Basom, CEO of Supplier.io, said in a release. “Our platform provides critical insights that drive efficiency and innovation, enabling companies to find and invest in small and diverse suppliers. This approach helps build stronger, more reliable supply chains.”
Logistics industry growth slowed in December due to a seasonal wind-down of inventory and following one of the busiest holiday shopping seasons on record, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index (LMI) report, released this week.
The monthly LMI was 57.3 in December, down more than a percentage point from November’s reading of 58.4. Despite the slowdown, economic activity across the industry continued to expand, as an LMI reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
The LMI researchers said the monthly conditions were largely due to seasonal drawdowns in inventory levels—and the associated costs of holding them—at the retail level. The LMI’s Inventory Levels index registered 50, falling from 56.1 in November. That reduction also affected warehousing capacity, which slowed but remained in expansion mode: The LMI’s warehousing capacity index fell 7 points to a reading of 61.6.
December’s results reflect a continued trend toward more typical industry growth patterns following recent years of volatility—and they point to a successful peak holiday season as well.
“Retailers were clearly correct in their bet to stock [up] on goods ahead of the holiday season,” the LMI researchers wrote in their monthly report. “Holiday sales from November until Christmas Eve were up 3.8% year-over-year according to Mastercard. This was largely driven by a 6.7% increase in e-commerce sales, although in-person spending was up 2.9% as well.”
And those results came during a compressed peak shopping cycle.
“The increase in spending came despite the shorter holiday season due to the late Thanksgiving,” the researchers also wrote, citing National Retail Federation (NRF) estimates that U.S. shoppers spent just short of a trillion dollars in November and December, making it the busiest holiday season of all time.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
As U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face an uncertain business landscape in 2025, a substantial majority (67%) expect positive growth in the new year compared to 2024, according to a survey from DHL.
However, the survey also showed that businesses could face a rocky road to reach that goal, as they navigate a complex environment of regulatory/policy shifts and global market volatility. Both those issues were cited as top challenges by 36% of respondents, followed by staffing/talent retention (11%) and digital threats and cyber attacks (2%).
Against that backdrop, SMEs said that the biggest opportunity for growth in 2025 lies in expanding into new markets (40%), followed by economic improvements (31%) and implementing new technologies (14%).
As the U.S. prepares for a broad shift in political leadership in Washington after a contentious election, the SMEs in DHL’s survey were likely split evenly on their opinion about the impact of regulatory and policy changes. A plurality of 40% were on the fence (uncertain, still evaluating), followed by 24% who believe regulatory changes could negatively impact growth, 20% who see these changes as having a positive impact, and 16% predicting no impact on growth at all.
That uncertainty also triggered a split when respondents were asked how they planned to adjust their strategy in 2025 in response to changes in the policy or regulatory landscape. The largest portion (38%) of SMEs said they remained uncertain or still evaluating, followed by 30% who will make minor adjustments, 19% will maintain their current approach, and 13% who were willing to significantly adjust their approach.
Specifically, the two sides remain at odds over provisions related to the deployment of semi-automated technologies like rail-mounted gantry cranes, according to an analysis by the Kansas-based 3PL Noatum Logistics. The ILA has strongly opposed further automation, arguing it threatens dockworker protections, while the USMX contends that automation enhances productivity and can create long-term opportunities for labor.
In fact, U.S. importers are already taking action to prevent the impact of such a strike, “pulling forward” their container shipments by rushing imports to earlier dates on the calendar, according to analysis by supply chain visibility provider Project44. That strategy can help companies to build enough safety stock to dampen the damage of events like the strike and like the steep tariffs being threatened by the incoming Trump administration.
Likewise, some ocean carriers have already instituted January surcharges in pre-emption of possible labor action, which could support inbound ocean rates if a strike occurs, according to freight market analysts with TD Cowen. In the meantime, the outcome of the new negotiations are seen with “significant uncertainty,” due to the contentious history of the discussion and to the timing of the talks that overlap with a transition between two White House regimes, analysts said.