{"title":"冠状病毒大流行中的供应链管理","authors":"Terry L. Esper","doi":"10.1177/0743915620932150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At the core of supply chain management (SCM) is the conversion of materials and components into finished products as well as the logistics activities to get those products to the market (Srivastava, Shervani, and Fahey 1999). When several supply chains failed to get products to the market during the COVID19 pandemic—specifically, hand sanitizer, cleaning supplies, and toilet paper—many in the consumer market leveraged wide-scale media attention to demand answers. The response highlighted the many processes and people required to move goods through supply chains, the safety and welfare of these workers, and the role of local, state, and federal governments in overseeing the work required to get products to store shelves. This focus also stimulated important research imperatives regarding the consumer welfare and policy impacts of SCM processes, particularly during times of crisis. At the outset of COVID-19, the coronavirus was primarily viewed as a local issue affecting China. However, the SCM impacts were already occurring at the global level, with industry reports suggesting that roughly 95% of Fortune 1000 companies had global supply chain operations in China and were experiencing direct product and inventory flow interruptions. Scholars have long studied such risks of global SCM networks, yet pandemic-related work stoppages brought new SCM risk conversations to the forefront. The SCM risk research focuses primarily on operational risks that threaten inventory investments and supply chain costs (Sodhi, Son, and Tang 2012). However, research is necessary to quantify and investigate the consumer welfare risks of global supply chains, especially in light of COVID-19. Are there certain products and product categories for which such global SCM networks are more risky, in terms of consumer product access? Likewise, are there risk management strategies that should be more prevalent when consumer product access– related risks are more impactful to society? In addition, what government policies, if any, are necessary to oversee exposure to global SCM risks when consumer product access is in the balance? Questions of this type are built on the consideration of consumer welfare as a SCM risk category, something that extant research has yet to explore. In addition to product access, scholars have also shown that consumers often consider the responsible management of upstream SCM activities when making product choices (Kraft, Valdés, and Zheng 2018). The pandemic has stimulated discussions on this matter, as companies such as Amazon and Tyson Foods experienced highly publicized backlash due to poor work conditions in processing plants and distribution centers within their supply chains. More work is needed to investigate consumer responses to such concerns, such as whether more consumers than usual might be inclined to switch brands due to the wide-scale attention given to SCM work conditions during the pandemic. In a broader sense, this issue opens a dialogue regarding the manner in which federal, state, and local governments should oversee frontline SCM worker health safety and intervene when the expressed concerns of SCM workers impede firms’ ability to get products to the market. There is also COVID-related research needed on home delivery logistics services. Online retail growth has driven the popularity of these SCM services over the last decade, with peer-to-peer home delivery models like Door Dash, Instacart, and Amazon Flex proving particularly vital during the pandemic. Home delivery research has not only established these services as vital to consumer satisfaction with online retail experiences (Esper et al. 2003) but also highlighted the factors customers consider when assessing delivery quality, such as timeliness and order condition (Mentzer, Flint, and Hult 2001). Furthermore, when compared with deliveries from a company such as UPS, consumer engagement and identification with drivers are likely more salient when consumers assess deliveries made by peer-to-peer crowdsourcing services (Ta, Esper, and Hofer 2018). In light of the coronavirus, more work is needed to determine whether these consumer service expectations shift in times of crisis—and, if so, to what magnitude. Anecdotal evidence from COVID-related news stories suggests more tolerance for home delivery service shortcomings. The essential work of delivery drivers is often characterized as sacrificial, and highlighted with praise and appreciation, triggering questions regarding delivery service attributions and assessments during such marketplace crises. For example, are","PeriodicalId":51437,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Policy & Marketing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"38","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Supply Chain Management Amid the Coronavirus Pandemic\",\"authors\":\"Terry L. Esper\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0743915620932150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"At the core of supply chain management (SCM) is the conversion of materials and components into finished products as well as the logistics activities to get those products to the market (Srivastava, Shervani, and Fahey 1999). When several supply chains failed to get products to the market during the COVID19 pandemic—specifically, hand sanitizer, cleaning supplies, and toilet paper—many in the consumer market leveraged wide-scale media attention to demand answers. The response highlighted the many processes and people required to move goods through supply chains, the safety and welfare of these workers, and the role of local, state, and federal governments in overseeing the work required to get products to store shelves. This focus also stimulated important research imperatives regarding the consumer welfare and policy impacts of SCM processes, particularly during times of crisis. At the outset of COVID-19, the coronavirus was primarily viewed as a local issue affecting China. However, the SCM impacts were already occurring at the global level, with industry reports suggesting that roughly 95% of Fortune 1000 companies had global supply chain operations in China and were experiencing direct product and inventory flow interruptions. Scholars have long studied such risks of global SCM networks, yet pandemic-related work stoppages brought new SCM risk conversations to the forefront. The SCM risk research focuses primarily on operational risks that threaten inventory investments and supply chain costs (Sodhi, Son, and Tang 2012). However, research is necessary to quantify and investigate the consumer welfare risks of global supply chains, especially in light of COVID-19. Are there certain products and product categories for which such global SCM networks are more risky, in terms of consumer product access? Likewise, are there risk management strategies that should be more prevalent when consumer product access– related risks are more impactful to society? In addition, what government policies, if any, are necessary to oversee exposure to global SCM risks when consumer product access is in the balance? Questions of this type are built on the consideration of consumer welfare as a SCM risk category, something that extant research has yet to explore. In addition to product access, scholars have also shown that consumers often consider the responsible management of upstream SCM activities when making product choices (Kraft, Valdés, and Zheng 2018). The pandemic has stimulated discussions on this matter, as companies such as Amazon and Tyson Foods experienced highly publicized backlash due to poor work conditions in processing plants and distribution centers within their supply chains. More work is needed to investigate consumer responses to such concerns, such as whether more consumers than usual might be inclined to switch brands due to the wide-scale attention given to SCM work conditions during the pandemic. In a broader sense, this issue opens a dialogue regarding the manner in which federal, state, and local governments should oversee frontline SCM worker health safety and intervene when the expressed concerns of SCM workers impede firms’ ability to get products to the market. There is also COVID-related research needed on home delivery logistics services. Online retail growth has driven the popularity of these SCM services over the last decade, with peer-to-peer home delivery models like Door Dash, Instacart, and Amazon Flex proving particularly vital during the pandemic. Home delivery research has not only established these services as vital to consumer satisfaction with online retail experiences (Esper et al. 2003) but also highlighted the factors customers consider when assessing delivery quality, such as timeliness and order condition (Mentzer, Flint, and Hult 2001). Furthermore, when compared with deliveries from a company such as UPS, consumer engagement and identification with drivers are likely more salient when consumers assess deliveries made by peer-to-peer crowdsourcing services (Ta, Esper, and Hofer 2018). In light of the coronavirus, more work is needed to determine whether these consumer service expectations shift in times of crisis—and, if so, to what magnitude. Anecdotal evidence from COVID-related news stories suggests more tolerance for home delivery service shortcomings. The essential work of delivery drivers is often characterized as sacrificial, and highlighted with praise and appreciation, triggering questions regarding delivery service attributions and assessments during such marketplace crises. For example, are\",\"PeriodicalId\":51437,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Public Policy & Marketing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"38\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Public Policy & Marketing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915620932150\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Policy & Marketing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915620932150","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 38
摘要
供应链管理(SCM)的核心是将材料和部件转化为成品以及将这些产品推向市场的物流活动(Srivastava, Shervani, and Fahey 1999)。在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,当一些供应链(特别是洗手液、清洁用品和卫生纸)无法将产品推向市场时,消费者市场中的许多人利用媒体的广泛关注来寻求答案。回应强调了通过供应链运输货物所需的许多流程和人员,这些工人的安全和福利,以及地方,州和联邦政府在监督产品上架所需工作中的作用。这一焦点也刺激了关于消费者福利和供应链管理过程的政策影响的重要研究,特别是在危机时期。新冠肺炎疫情爆发之初,人们主要将其视为影响中国的局部问题。然而,供应链管理的影响已经在全球范围内发生,行业报告显示,大约95%的财富1000强公司在中国拥有全球供应链业务,并且正在经历直接的产品和库存流动中断。学者们长期以来一直在研究全球供应链网络的此类风险,但与大流行相关的停工将新的供应链风险对话带到了最前沿。供应链管理风险研究主要关注威胁库存投资和供应链成本的操作风险(Sodhi, Son, and Tang 2012)。然而,量化和调查全球供应链的消费者福利风险是必要的,特别是在2019冠状病毒病的背景下。就消费者产品访问而言,是否存在这样的全球供应链管理网络风险更大的某些产品和产品类别?同样,当消费者产品准入相关的风险对社会的影响更大时,是否应该有更普遍的风险管理策略?此外,当消费品准入处于平衡状态时,有什么政府政策(如果有的话)需要监督全球供应链风险的暴露?这类问题是建立在考虑消费者福利作为供应链风险类别的基础上的,这是现有研究尚未探索的。除了产品获取之外,学者们还表明,消费者在进行产品选择时通常会考虑上游供应链管理活动的负责任管理(Kraft, vald, and Zheng, 2018)。随着亚马逊和泰森食品等公司因供应链内的加工厂和配送中心工作条件恶劣而受到高度公开的反对,新冠疫情引发了对这一问题的讨论。需要做更多的工作来调查消费者对这些担忧的反应,例如,由于疫情期间供应链工作条件受到广泛关注,是否会有比平时更多的消费者倾向于更换品牌。从更广泛的意义上说,这个问题开启了一场对话,讨论联邦、州和地方政府应该以何种方式监督供应链管理工人的健康安全,并在供应链管理工人表达的担忧阻碍公司将产品推向市场时进行干预。还需要对送货上门的物流服务进行与新冠肺炎相关的研究。在过去十年中,在线零售的增长推动了这些供应链服务的普及,Door Dash、Instacart和Amazon Flex等点对点送货上门模式在疫情期间尤为重要。送货上门的研究不仅确立了这些服务对于消费者对在线零售体验的满意度至关重要(Esper et al. 2003),而且还强调了客户在评估送货质量时考虑的因素,如及时性和订单状况(Mentzer, Flint, and Hult 2001)。此外,与UPS等公司的配送相比,当消费者评估点对点众包服务的配送时,消费者的参与度和对司机的认同可能更为突出(Ta, Esper, and Hofer 2018)。鉴于冠状病毒,需要做更多的工作来确定这些消费者服务期望是否会在危机时期发生变化,如果是的话,变化的程度是什么。来自covid - 19相关新闻报道的轶事证据表明,人们对送货上门服务的缺点更加宽容。送货司机的基本工作通常被描述为牺牲,并以赞扬和赞赏的方式强调,在这种市场危机中引发了有关送货服务归因和评估的问题。例如,是
Supply Chain Management Amid the Coronavirus Pandemic
At the core of supply chain management (SCM) is the conversion of materials and components into finished products as well as the logistics activities to get those products to the market (Srivastava, Shervani, and Fahey 1999). When several supply chains failed to get products to the market during the COVID19 pandemic—specifically, hand sanitizer, cleaning supplies, and toilet paper—many in the consumer market leveraged wide-scale media attention to demand answers. The response highlighted the many processes and people required to move goods through supply chains, the safety and welfare of these workers, and the role of local, state, and federal governments in overseeing the work required to get products to store shelves. This focus also stimulated important research imperatives regarding the consumer welfare and policy impacts of SCM processes, particularly during times of crisis. At the outset of COVID-19, the coronavirus was primarily viewed as a local issue affecting China. However, the SCM impacts were already occurring at the global level, with industry reports suggesting that roughly 95% of Fortune 1000 companies had global supply chain operations in China and were experiencing direct product and inventory flow interruptions. Scholars have long studied such risks of global SCM networks, yet pandemic-related work stoppages brought new SCM risk conversations to the forefront. The SCM risk research focuses primarily on operational risks that threaten inventory investments and supply chain costs (Sodhi, Son, and Tang 2012). However, research is necessary to quantify and investigate the consumer welfare risks of global supply chains, especially in light of COVID-19. Are there certain products and product categories for which such global SCM networks are more risky, in terms of consumer product access? Likewise, are there risk management strategies that should be more prevalent when consumer product access– related risks are more impactful to society? In addition, what government policies, if any, are necessary to oversee exposure to global SCM risks when consumer product access is in the balance? Questions of this type are built on the consideration of consumer welfare as a SCM risk category, something that extant research has yet to explore. In addition to product access, scholars have also shown that consumers often consider the responsible management of upstream SCM activities when making product choices (Kraft, Valdés, and Zheng 2018). The pandemic has stimulated discussions on this matter, as companies such as Amazon and Tyson Foods experienced highly publicized backlash due to poor work conditions in processing plants and distribution centers within their supply chains. More work is needed to investigate consumer responses to such concerns, such as whether more consumers than usual might be inclined to switch brands due to the wide-scale attention given to SCM work conditions during the pandemic. In a broader sense, this issue opens a dialogue regarding the manner in which federal, state, and local governments should oversee frontline SCM worker health safety and intervene when the expressed concerns of SCM workers impede firms’ ability to get products to the market. There is also COVID-related research needed on home delivery logistics services. Online retail growth has driven the popularity of these SCM services over the last decade, with peer-to-peer home delivery models like Door Dash, Instacart, and Amazon Flex proving particularly vital during the pandemic. Home delivery research has not only established these services as vital to consumer satisfaction with online retail experiences (Esper et al. 2003) but also highlighted the factors customers consider when assessing delivery quality, such as timeliness and order condition (Mentzer, Flint, and Hult 2001). Furthermore, when compared with deliveries from a company such as UPS, consumer engagement and identification with drivers are likely more salient when consumers assess deliveries made by peer-to-peer crowdsourcing services (Ta, Esper, and Hofer 2018). In light of the coronavirus, more work is needed to determine whether these consumer service expectations shift in times of crisis—and, if so, to what magnitude. Anecdotal evidence from COVID-related news stories suggests more tolerance for home delivery service shortcomings. The essential work of delivery drivers is often characterized as sacrificial, and highlighted with praise and appreciation, triggering questions regarding delivery service attributions and assessments during such marketplace crises. For example, are
期刊介绍:
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing welcomes manuscripts from diverse disciplines to offer a range of perspectives. We encourage submissions from individuals with varied backgrounds, such as marketing, communications, economics, consumer affairs, law, public policy, sociology, psychology, anthropology, or philosophy. The journal prioritizes well-documented, well-reasoned, balanced, and relevant manuscripts, regardless of the author's field of expertise.