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.
Just 29% of supply chain organizations have the competitive characteristics they’ll need for future readiness, according to a Gartner survey released Tuesday. The survey focused on how organizations are preparing for future challenges and to keep their supply chains competitive.
Gartner surveyed 579 supply chain practitioners to determine the capabilities needed to manage the “future drivers of influence” on supply chains, which include artificial intelligence (AI) achievement and the ability to navigate new trade policies. According to the survey, the five competitive characteristics are: agility, resilience, regionalization, integrated ecosystems, and integrated enterprise strategy.
The survey analysis identified “leaders” among the respondents as supply chain organizations that have already developed at least three of the five competitive characteristics necessary to address the top five drivers of supply chain’s future.
Less than a third have met that threshold.
“Leaders shared a commitment to preparation through long-term, deliberate strategies, while non-leaders were more often focused on short-term priorities,” Pierfrancesco Manenti, vice president analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice, said in a statement announcing the survey results.
“Most leaders have yet to invest in the most advanced technologies (e.g. real-time visibility, digital supply chain twin), but plan to do so in the next three-to-five years,” Manenti also said in the statement. “Leaders see technology as an enabler to their overall business strategies, while non-leaders more often invest in technology first, without having fully established their foundational capabilities.”
As part of the survey, respondents were asked to identify the future drivers of influence on supply chain performance over the next three to five years. The top five drivers are: achievement capability of AI (74%); the amount of new ESG regulations and trade policies being released (67%); geopolitical fight/transition for power (65%); control over data (62%); and talent scarcity (59%).
The analysis also identified four unique profiles of supply chain organizations, based on what their leaders deem as the most crucial capabilities for empowering their organizations over the next three to five years.
First, 54% of retailers are looking for ways to increase their financial recovery from returns. That’s because the cost to return a purchase averages 27% of the purchase price, which erases as much as 50% of the sales margin. But consumers have their own interests in mind: 76% of shoppers admit they’ve embellished or exaggerated the return reason to avoid a fee, a 39% increase from 2023 to 204.
Second, return experiences matter to consumers. A whopping 80% of shoppers stopped shopping at a retailer because of changes to the return policy—a 34% increase YoY.
Third, returns fraud and abuse is top-of-mind-for retailers, with wardrobing rising 38% in 2024. In fact, over two thirds (69%) of shoppers admit to wardrobing, which is the practice of buying an item for a specific reason or event and returning it after use. Shoppers also practice bracketing, or purchasing an item in a variety of colors or sizes and then returning all the unwanted options.
Fourth, returns come with a steep cost in terms of sustainability, with returns amounting to 8.4 billion pounds of landfill waste in 2023 alone.
“As returns have become an integral part of the shopper experience, retailers must balance meeting sky-high expectations with rising costs, environmental impact, and fraudulent behaviors,” Amena Ali, CEO of Optoro, said in the firm’s “2024 Returns Unwrapped” report. “By understanding shoppers’ behaviors and preferences around returns, retailers can create returns experiences that embrace their needs while driving deeper loyalty and protecting their bottom line.”
Facing an evolving supply chain landscape in 2025, companies are being forced to rethink their distribution strategies to cope with challenges like rising cost pressures, persistent labor shortages, and the complexities of managing SKU proliferation.
1. Optimize labor productivity and costs. Forward-thinking businesses are leveraging technology to get more done with fewer resources through approaches like slotting optimization, automation and robotics, and inventory visibility.
2. Maximize capacity with smart solutions. With e-commerce volumes rising, facilities need to handle more SKUs and orders without expanding their physical footprint. That can be achieved through high-density storage and dynamic throughput.
3. Streamline returns management. Returns are a growing challenge, thanks to the continued growth of e-commerce and the consumer practice of bracketing. Businesses can handle that with smarter reverse logistics processes like automated returns processing and reverse logistics visibility.
4. Accelerate order fulfillment with robotics. Robotic solutions are transforming the way orders are fulfilled, helping businesses meet customer expectations faster and more accurately than ever before by using autonomous mobile robots (AMRs and robotic picking.
5. Enhance end-of-line packaging. The final step in the supply chain is often the most visible to customers. So optimizing packaging processes can reduce costs, improve efficiency, and support sustainability goals through automated packaging systems and sustainability initiatives.
That clash has come as retailers have been hustling to adjust to pandemic swings like a renewed focus on e-commerce, then swiftly reimagining store experiences as foot traffic returned. But even as the dust settles from those changes, retailers are now facing renewed questions about how best to define their omnichannel strategy in a world where customers have increasing power and information.
The answer may come from a five-part strategy using integrated components to fortify omnichannel retail, EY said. The approach can unlock value and customer trust through great experiences, but only when implemented cohesively, not individually, EY warns.
The steps include:
1. Functional integration: Is your operating model and data infrastructure siloed between e-commerce and physical stores, or have you developed a cohesive unit centered around delivering seamless customer experience?
2. Customer insights: With consumer centricity at the heart of operations, are you analyzing all touch points to build a holistic view of preferences, behaviors, and buying patterns?
3. Next-generation inventory: Given the right customer insights, how are you utilizing advanced analytics to ensure inventory is optimized to meet demand precisely where and when it’s needed?
4. Distribution partnerships: Having ensured your customers find what they want where they want it, how are your distribution strategies adapting to deliver these choices to them swiftly and efficiently?
5. Real estate strategy: How is your real estate strategy interconnected with insights, inventory and distribution to enhance experience and maximize your footprint?
When approached cohesively, these efforts all build toward one overarching differentiator for retailers: a better customer experience that reaches from brand engagement and order placement through delivery and return, the EY study said. Amid continued volatility and an economy driven by complex customer demands, the retailers best set up to win are those that are striving to gain real-time visibility into stock levels, offer flexible fulfillment options and modernize merchandising through personalized and dynamic customer experiences.
Geopolitical rivalries, alliances, and aspirations are rewiring the global economy—and the imposition of new tariffs on foreign imports by the U.S. will accelerate that process, according to an analysis by Boston Consulting Group (BCG).
Without a broad increase in tariffs, world trade in goods will keep growing at an average of 2.9% annually for the next eight years, the firm forecasts in its report, “Great Powers, Geopolitics, and the Future of Trade.” But the routes goods travel will change markedly as North America reduces its dependence on China and China builds up its links with the Global South, which is cementing its power in the global trade map.
“Global trade is set to top $29 trillion by 2033, but the routes these goods will travel is changing at a remarkable pace,” Aparna Bharadwaj, managing director and partner at BCG, said in a release. “Trade lanes were already shifting from historical patterns and looming US tariffs will accelerate this. Navigating these new dynamics will be critical for any global business.”
To understand those changes, BCG modeled the direct impact of the 60/25/20 scenario (60% tariff on Chinese goods, a 25% on goods from Canada and Mexico, and a 20% on imports from all other countries). The results show that the tariffs would add $640 billion to the cost of importing goods from the top ten U.S. import nations, based on 2023 levels, unless alternative sources or suppliers are found.
In terms of product categories imported by the U.S., the greatest impact would be on imported auto parts and automotive vehicles, which would primarily affect trade with Mexico, the EU, and Japan. Consumer electronics, electrical machinery, and fashion goods would be most affected by higher tariffs on Chinese goods. Specifically, the report forecasts that a 60% tariff rate would add $61 billion to cost of importing consumer electronics products from China into the U.S.