The theoretical foundations of Supply Chain Management: A critical analysis

http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 599 The theoretical foundations of Supply Chain Management: A critical analysis Théories et fondements du supply chain management : Une analyse critique Dr EL GOMRI Rabii Centre de Recherche en Transport et Logistique. Institut Supérieur de Transport et de la Logistique (ISTL) Maroc. Abstract: Supply Chain Management (SCM) is an integrated and cross-functional approach to inter-organizational management. Current logistical trends require companies to enhance their ability to manage complex and evolving supply networks. Accordingly, SCM provides a managerial framework for flow coordination through complementary paradigms. For several years, the theoretical approach underlying this multi-level management model has been narrowly confined to a limited number of distinctive theories. This study aims to provide a critical examination of the theoretical foundations underpinning the SCM paradigm by offering an updated and analytical perspective. The findings highlight the need to complement traditional explanatory theories of SCM with new, dynamic, and integrative approaches. Keywords: Supply Chain Management, logistics, theoretical foundations of SCM, SCM theory, critical approach. Digital Object Identifier (DOI): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17335960 International Journal of Economic Studies and Management (IJESM) ISSN 2789-049X Int. J. Econ. Stud. Manag. 5, No.4 (OCTOBER-2025) http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 600 Introduction In today’s competitive landscape, markets are becoming increasingly international, dynamic, and customer-oriented. Consumers now demand greater variety, higher reliability, improved quality, and superior service. In addition to heightened competition across most industries, several emerging trends have reshaped consumption patterns and customer behavior. First, customer expectations have significantly increased (Rahimi & Kozak, 2017). Modern consumers are more value-conscious, demand faster delivery, and incorporate ethical and environmental considerations into their purchasing decisions (Hmioui et al., 2019). They are also better informed, highly connected, and possess a deeper understanding of market dynamics and product value. Furthermore, consumers increasingly expect highvalue offerings tailored to their specific needs and a wide array of options. Simultaneously, organizational and societal realities are undergoing rapid and profound transformations, resulting in continuous and accelerated socio-economic change. Technological advances are giving rise to product innovations and improvements across manufacturing processes (Kahn, 2018). The resulting competitive environment demands low-cost, high-quality products with a broad and adaptable range of features. These developments have led to significant shifts in industrial and commercial strategies (Bentalha et al., 2019). The current context requires firms to master the management of multiple types of flows (Roques, 2015), prompting strategic and managerial adaptations. To meet current and future demands, organizations must break down internal silos at two complementary levels (Vedel & Kokshagina, 2021). Internally, they must adopt more transversal and flexible structures. Externally, they must cultivate cross-functional relationships with suppliers and customers. This has led to the emergence of a new managerial vision aimed at integrating the collective interests of all entities within the supply chain (Gereffi, 2019), marking a shift away from the traditional paradigm of fragmented, individual improvements toward a more coordinated and systemic decision-making model. Globalization has further intensified the challenges associated with market internationalization. Several factors contribute to this evolution, including innovation, environmental imperatives, and the extended lifespan of goods and services. Moreover, in connection with strategies of organizational refocusing, the rise of outsourcing practices requires continuous control of flows involving multiple interconnected actors with divergent interests. This context calls for deep and structured reflection on the governance of material and informational flows (Fabbe-Costes et al., 2018). Contemporary management increasingly depends on organizations’ ability to sustainably minimize waste while maintaining adequate levels of flexibility and productivity (Duarte & Cruz-Machado, 2018). As a result, companies must integrate flow management by analyzing key parameters such as lead times, inventory levels, and information systems within different managerial paradigms (Ayadi (2009). Supply Chain Management (SCM) represents a managerial vision encompassing the coordination of material, informational, and financial flows to deliver value to the various stakeholders connected to the focal firm. It is an intertwined and interrelated set of strategic, financial, and operational decisions, http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 601 involving activities that span from input flows to output flows (Geunes & Chang, 2008; Egret, 2013). SCM embodies a managerial framework for inter-organizational competition, aiming for overall performance optimization across the entire value chain (Livolsi, 2009). The theoretical evaluation of SCM's foundations has been a relatively neglected task by researchers. Indeed, many contributions rely on relatively basic theoretical frameworks to explain the conceptual underpinnings of SCM. The most commonly mobilized theories include agency theory, transaction cost economics, the resource-based view (RBV), and network theory. This raises the following questions: What are the theoretical foundations of Supply Chain Management, and how can one introduce a critical approach to their evaluation? In this research, we explore the theoretical and conceptual foundations of Supply Chain Management, its origins, various forms, and objectives. The adopted methodological approach will involve an analysis of the foundations of critical theory and managerial critique. Ultimately, both traditional and critical theoretical frameworks will be examined through the lens of prevailing managerial and theoretical perspectives. 1. Theoretical Framework: Conceptual and Theoretical Boundaries of SCM 1.1 Concepts and Approaches in SCM The conceptual origins of Supply Chain Management (SCM) remain unclear and contested (Croom et al., 2000). Its development appears to have originated in the domains of physical distribution and transportation. Cooper et al. (1997) note that SCM emerged around 1982 when Keith and Webber highlighted the inefficiencies of functionally siloed organizations. Since then, the concept has gained substantial interest, largely due to its ability to reconcile operations related to procurement, transportation, and warehousing (La Londe & Masters, 1994). Concurrently, an abundance of studies and literature reviews has contributed to shaping a common understanding of SCM, clarifying its scope, functions, and defining relationships (Gibson et al., 2005). In the early 21st century, SCM experienced a significant surge in academic and practical attention. However, a consensus among scholars on its definition has yet to be reached. For instance, Bechtel and Jayaram (1997) identified over 50 different interpretations of SCM. Cooper et al. (1997) categorized SCM into 10 distinct groups and identified 13 major approaches. Burgess et al. (2006) proposed 22 possible definitions based on the analysis of over one hundred articles. Finally, Stock and Boyer (2009), in what Hoa Vo and Bironneau (2011) describe as a “race to escalation,” consolidated 166 different approaches based on an examination of 173 potential definitions of SCM. http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 602 The International Center for Competitive Excellence (ICCE) defines Supply Chain Management (SCM) as “the integration of key business processes from end users through original suppliers that provides products, services, and information to customers” (Cooper et al., 1997). The definition proposed by Mentzer et al. (2001) has served as a foundational reference for numerous subsequent managerial studies. They define SCM as “the systemic, strategic coordination of the traditional business functions and tactics across these business functions within a particular company and across businesses within the supply chain” (see Figure 1). Figure 1: A Model of Supply Chain Management (SCM) Source : Mentzer et al., 2001, p. 19 The term Supply Chain Management (SCM) has been described by various authors as a management philosophy, the implementation of a management philosophy, or a set of management processes. As a philosophy, SCM extends the concept of partnership into a multi-organizational effort to manage the entire flow of goods. As the implementation of a management philosophy, it requires the execution of various logistical activities. It involves an internal managerial vision complemented by continuous coordination with external stakeholders (Beaulieu et al., 2018; Torset, 2018). Finally, as a process, SCM manages relationships, information, and the flow of materials with the aim of enhancing customer service and creating value. Accordingly, six core approaches can be identified, each emphasizing different aspects found in the various definitions of SCM: (a) The existence of a chain that integrates the flow of materials and information from the origin of the process to the final consumer (Croom et al., 2000); http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 603 (b) An "integrated logistics" approach, highlighting the interconnection of physical distribution processes (Bechtel & Jayaram, 1997); (c) An integration-based view that redefines the organizational structure and leads to the formation of "virtual organizations"; (d) An emphasis on information to underscore the critical role of information flows; (e) A focus on procurement and purchasing (Tan, 2001). (f) A focus on logistics and transportation (Tan, 2001). To manage the supply chain effectively and efficiently, a conceptual framework was proposed by Lambert and Cooper (2000), comprising three interdependent components. This model can be analyzed through its components (Morana, 2003). The relational structure comprises three levels of relationships: first, the identification of supply chain members; second, the evaluation of network-specific organizational dimensions; and finally, the determination of the organization’s level of integration. The second component addresses the management processes of the supply chain. There exists both unilateral and multilateral dynamics in how each member firm engages in supply chain processes within a coherent and comprehensive framework (Hmioui & Bentalha, 2021). The final component encompasses various supply chain management activities. Focusing specifically on activity coordination, Stadtler (2000) conceptualizes SCM as the integration of activities aimed at enhancing competitiveness and satisfying demand (see Figure 3). This represents an intermediate position between organizational independence and full vertical integration (El Ouardighi, 2008). Figure 2: The Supply Chain Management House Source: Stadtler (2000, p. 10) http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 604 Thus, the coordination of this 'SCM House' requires several decisions of various types . The SCM encompasses several centralized activities coordinated by a single decision-making center due to the overall nature of the operational process. It requires, simultaneously and continuously, the management of operations with partners and the execution of several logistical activities: • Procurement: In certain sectors, materials account for nearly two-thirds of the costs of manufactured products. • Production: Manufacturing and transforming inputs into outputs. • Storage: Requires the management of space, transfers, and risks (Szostak, 2018). • Transportation: Distinguishing between the transportation of materials, supplies, and finished products. • Sales: The final stage of delivering products and services to customers. 1.2. Objectives and stakes of SCM Supply Chain finds its legitimacy in satisfying the interests of several partners. The SCM's stakes (Baglin et al., 2001) are: ❖ Costs: SCM aims to optimize an integrated cost encompassing coordination and control costs; ❖ Quality: This is a prerequisite for being competitive. This quality is broken down into two perspectives (Hines, 2004): product quality (value level) and process quality (process reliability). ❖ Lead time: This is the time interval between a customer's request and the delivery of the product. This time includes the supplier's operations, the company's internal tasks, and even coordination tasks between chain members. It is a critical variable in supply chains because, regardless of the company's performance in terms of quality or flexibility, it is bound to disappear if it ignores the lead time factor (Houssaini, 2009); ❖ Flexibility: Represents the company's ability to respond quickly and effectively to demand fluctuations. It presents itself in two forms: volume (quantitative variation in demand) and product mix (qualitative modification of the production schedule). There are four levels of flexibility in SCM (Stevenson and Spring, 2009): flexibility related to external elements of the company, flexibility related to supply chain design; flexibility achieved through relationships within the supply chain, and flexibility gained through information sharing; ❖ Delivery: Delivery performance depends on its speed. It is a key competitiveness criterion, especially for services (Muilerman et al., 2005), and must be complemented by the regularity of deliveries. Realtime knowledge of sales status could lead to improved supplier relationship planning (Fulconis and Paché, 2011); ❖ Reverse logistics control: This involves issues related to product returns, material reuse, and recycling. Mastery of reverse logistics is currently considered a means of preserving market share and a source of competitive advantage (Brach and Brusset, 2014). Thus, there is an important conceptual foundation of SCM. Regarding the theoretical aspect, several works view SCM as a cross-cutting model involving the mobilization of multiple complementary theoretical contributions." 2. Research Methodology Critical theory is a relatively old school of philosophical thought. Its creation can be traced back to the tradition of the Enlightenment and the Age of Enlightenment. Its focus is on analyzing social conditions, http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 605 critiquing the use of power, and changing established traditions and institutions. Thus, and unlike traditional approaches to social theory, which aim to explain and understand social status, critical theory is more oriented towards the development of a more humane, rational, and just society. This critical theory is based on an interrogative view of social phenomena, analyzing normative values (Habermas, 1987). Actors are guided by their own visions in a subjective and partial approach. In this sense, social theory should not be limited to reporting reality but should go beyond the obvious and subjective judgments towards a deep understanding of established social situations and organizational realities. Thus, several schools and currents of thought adopting a post-positivist vision have claimed a normative insufficiency in traditional approaches, especially positivist ones. These criticisms mainly concern the adoption of explanatory tools from the natural sciences. Indeed, these authors present social and organizational reality as an intrinsically complex and contagious element and consider management sciences as particular and specific elements. For this reason, management sciences are seen as having idiosyncratic and normative dominants in social manifestations. This leads to the rejection of a direct transposition of tools from the exact sciences and also to a particular consideration of the tools and methods adopted. In management sciences, critical developments and approaches have propelled more interpretive and controversial work on social conditions (Scherer, 2008). These critical management studies (Critical Management Studies) can be dated alongside the publication by Alvesson and Willmott (1992). They encompass research analyzing contradictions and power conflicts with a process-oriented rather than structural perspective (Chanlat, 2013). They encourage the argumentative analysis of organizational structures and cultures and the links between these structures and organizational control mechanisms (Willmott, 1993). Following this path, critical authors consider organizations as components produced by human perception, which is why it is important to change established structures and normative and traditional thinking mechanisms in order to liberate thinking and adopt an action-oriented and voluntaristic view of organizations. By resorting to critical theory, our objective is to provide a contemporary theoretical foundation for SCM, ranging from standard theories to new contemporary approaches to SCM. 3. Results and Discussion: Critical Theoretical Foundations of SCM 3.1. Traditional Theoretical Foundations of SCM For many years, it was assumed that the field of SCM lacked sufficient theoretical foundations. This led to a simplified conceptualization of supply chains. Indeed, theory could be useful in updating some of the complexity that characterizes supply chains and SCM (Bentalha, 2022). Without a base of effective organizational relationships, any effort to manage the flow of information or material or financial flows throughout the chain is likely to be fruitless (Pohja, 2019). Thus, there are fundamentally two traditional questions related to the theoretical foundations of SCM: first, how to structure a supply chain when it is perceived as a collaboration between institutions? (Agency theory and transaction cost theory). Secondly, what is needed to manage such a unique structure? (Resource theory and network perspective). 3.1.1. Agency Theory The agency relationship is a contract linking a person (the principal) who engages an agent to perform an operation. It is a form of delegation of decision-making power from the principal to the agent. http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 606 In this perspective, the company is a contract node between the providers of production factors and the clients (Brun, 2006). Given the separation of ownership and control of economic activities between the agent and the principal, various agency problems can arise, such as information asymmetry, goal divergence, differences in risk aversion, uncertainty of outcomes, self-interested behavior, and bounded rationality. Information asymmetry is likely to alter the contractual relationship between the actors and promote the emergence of opportunistic behavior (Boissinot, 2010). Thus, by creating contracts with supply chain partners that balance rewards and penalties, the potential misalignment between the actors can be mitigated (Narayanan and Raman, 2004). Stock (1997) argues that agency theory can also help managers understand the behavior of supply chains by highlighting the following issues: • The development of interand intra-organizational relationships; • The maintenance of complex relationships between suppliers and customers; • The dynamics of risk sharing, capital expenditures, power, and conflicts between intermediaries in the channels; • The identification of the costs and benefits of supply chain integration. The literature on SCM using agency theory has focused on the existence of substantial goal conflicts between principals and agents, uncertainty regarding the triggering of a risk, or when evaluating behaviors is difficult (Eisenhardt, 1989). The agency theory's view of the relationship between a faultless principal and an imperfect agent is also debatable. As Perrow (1986) pointed out, agency problems (adverse selection and moral hazard) are not limited to the agency side of the relationship but also exist on the principal's side. The increased complexity of extended networks of principals and agents is another issue not well articulated in classical agency theory. The 'Hydra factor,' as Adams (1996) called it, is a feature of the multiple agency relationship and has ultimately dominated many environments and discussions surrounding SCM. The existence of many principals and agents makes balancing information and controlling behavior more difficult. The measurement tools used by agency theory also need to be considered. The explanatory power of agency theory, particularly regarding the dynamics of relationships, still provides a consistent foundation for understanding behavior surrounding contractual relationships, whether implicit, legal, or not within the supply chain. 3.1.2. Transaction Cost Theory Agents appear to have limited rationality accompanied by decision-making opportunism. Transaction cost theory relates to the institutional arrangement preferred by economic agents as one that minimizes transaction and production costs (Williamson1994). SCM relationships are thus represented as a hybrid governance mode between markets and hierarchies (Rindfleisch and Heide, 1997). It analyzes intraand inter-organizational conventions, their associated costs, and the appropriate governance mode. Thus, as shown by Guillouzo and Thépaut (2004), the hybrid form allows for the establishment of a lasting partnership with specific assets. The aim of this approach is to minimize uncertainty and costs. This explanation is widely used in decisions related to manufacturing or purchasing in supply chains. Furthermore, this theory encompasses both prior costs, such as establishing the logistics network, and subsequent costs, such as control costs. Several studies on logistics have mobilized this theory. Examples include the outsourcing of logistics activities (Clarke, 1995), buyer-supplier relationships (Mikkola, 2003), and the restructuring of supply http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 607 chains (Croom, 2001). It is applicable for analyzing partnerships, such as the relationship between equipment suppliers and automobile manufacturers (Ait El Kadi, 2018), outsourcing decisions based on several constraints (Bouchriha and Ladet, 2002), or more broadly, between logistics partners handling various materials within a systemic and global approach (Williamson, 2008). 3.1.3. Resource-Based Theory It addresses the competitive advantages related to a company's possession of heterogeneous resources and capabilities. 'Core competencies are collective learning within the organization, particularly the way to coordinate various production skills and integrate multiple technology flows' (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990). Most research in SCM has focused on procurement, Logistics and supply chain management operations. The primary objective was to study how resources can be effectively utilized to improve supply chain performance (Esper and Crook, 2014). Most SCM research that has emphasized the resource concept has focused on procurement, logistics, operations, and overall supply chain management as key performance factors. While resource-based theory focuses on resource allocation, its use in SCM is more oriented towards describing how a company distributes and combines its resources effectively to achieve superior organizational performance (Hansen et al., 2004). It is the study of resource allocation and deployment that is more important than a simple summation or juxtaposition of these resources. The way resources are managed and deployed can create different results and performance levels for organizations that possess comparable resources. Essentially, interorganizational relationships create flows that utilize resources and are also a potential source of greater competition. The effective and efficient application of resources to processes, procedures, and capabilities is just as important as the resources themselves (Sirmon et al., 2007). Moreover, resource theory particularly exploits informational resources in supply chain management (Barratt and Oke, 2007). This relationship is specifically oriented towards the dissemination of information between different partners in the logistics network. This is crucial in the context of interorganizational and integrated management. Thus, it carries an implicit assumption in many decisions related to the supply chain. The global expansion of the company's resources requires the trust and commitment of partners, whose establishment and maintenance are supported by means of information dissemination and communication. 3.1.4. Network Perspective The network perspective is widely discussed in the context of logistics network analysis (Paché and Paraponaris, 2006). For many authors, it is within the very definition of SCM that the network of organizations constituting it is embedded (Carbone and Meunier, 2006). The network is a mythical form of organization (Pesqueux, 2004) that offers an alternative to traditional forms such as markets or hierarchies. It is thus conceived as a challenge to the integrated firm (Barbant and Chanut, 1989). This structure is characterized by its own logic (Powell, 1990) and its cooperative mode of operation. Networks are debated in several works as having a descriptive nature and have mainly been applied in SCM to map activities, actors, and resources within a chain. Several researchers focus on long-term trust relationships between chain members. This trust forms the foundation of the chain’s agility and flexibility (Scott et al., 2003).A stable network is characterized by the existence of a 'central firm connected upstream and downstream to a carefully selected number of partners,' while a dynamic network is composed 'of components along the value chain assembled contractually, to be a unique http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 614 40) Haouari M., Balambo M.A. & Yao Y. (2010). La pertinence d’une réflexion sur la résilience des supply chains dans un contexte de risques: perspectives pour les supply chains globales. La logistique : clef de la compétitivité des entreprises. Etats des lieux et perspectives, Maroc. 41) Hines T. (2004). Supply Chain Strategies: Customer Driven and Customer Focused, Oxford: Elsevier. 408 p. 42) Hmioui, A., & Bentalha, B. (2021). Service supply chain management: a literature review.International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 40(3), 332-353. 43) Hmioui, A., Bentalha, B., & Alla, L. (2020). Service supply chain: A prospective analysis of sustainable management for global performance. In 2020 IEEE 13th International Colloquium of Logistics and Supply Chain Management (LOGISTIQUA) (pp. 1-7). IEEE. 44) Hoa Vo T.L. et Bironneau L., (2011), Systèmes d'information et gestion globale de la chaîne logistique : un état de l'art. 2ème journée thématique SILOGIN - Système d'information, logistique, innovation, Nov 2011, Nantes, France. 45) Houssaini A. (2009). Supply Chain Management et Globalisation des Chaînes de Valeurs : La place du Maroc, Colloque, Logistiqua 2009, Université Qadi Ayyad, EST, Asfi. 46) Jones T. et Riley D. (1985), Using inventory for competitive advantage through Supply Chain Management. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Material Management, 15(5), 16-26. 47) Kahn K.B. (2018), Understanding innovation, Business Horizons, 61(3), 453-460, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.01.011. 48) La Londe, B. J., & Masters, J. M. (1994). Emerging Logistics Strategies. International Journal of Physical Distribution&LogisticsManagement,24(7), 35–47. doi:10.1108/09600039410070975 49) Lambert, D. M., & Cooper, M. C. (2000). Issues in Supply Chain Management. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(1), 65–83. 50) Lambert, D. M., Cooper, M. C., & Pagh, J. D. (1998). Supply Chain Management: Implementation Issues and Research Opportunities. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 9(2), 1–20. doi:10.1108/09574099810805807 51) Livolsi, L. (2009), Le Supply Chain Management : synthèse et propositions, Actes de la XVIIIème Conférence Internationale de Management Stratégique de l’AIMS, 2 au 5 juin 2009, Grenoble 52) Meurier, B. et Paché, G. (2018). Capacités dynamiques au sein des chaînes logistiques :Proposition d’une grille de lecture. Les Actes des RIRL 2018. Colloque AIRLSCM. 53) Mikkola, J.H. (2003). Modularity, component outsourcing, and inter-firm learning. RD Management, 33(4), 439-454. http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 615 54) Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1992). Causes of Failure in Network Organizations. California Management Review, 34(4), 53–72. doi:10.2307/41166703 55) Morana J., (2003). De la logistique au supply chain management, E-thèque. 56) Muilerman G.-J., van der Hoorn, T., & van der Heijden, R. (2005). Determining the impacts of timebased logistics strategies in the Dutch food industry. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 8(3), 237–247. doi:10.1080/13675560500238894 57) Narayanan, V. G., & Raman, A. (2004). Aligning incentives in supply chains. Harvard business review, 82(11), 94-103. 58) Ouabouch L. (2016). Etat de la recherche sur les concepts et les approches méthodologiques de la gestion des risques lies a la supply chain. Revue économie, Gestion et société, 6(1). 59) Paché G. & Paraponaris C. (2006). L’entreprise en réseau : approches inter et intraorganisationnelles. Les éditions de l’ADREG. 60) Perrow, C. (1986), “Economic theories of organization”, Theory and Society, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp.11-45. 61) Pesqueux Y. (2004). Un ”modèle” de l’organisation réseau ?. in Les réseaux : dimensions stratégiques et organisationnelles, Colette Voisin & Sihem Ben Mahmoud Jouini & Serge Edouard (Eds.), Economica, Paris, 27-43. 62) Pohja T.-L. (2019). Some theoretical foundations of Supply Chain Management and Supply Networks: the role of social networks in selecting partners. 20th IMP Group Conference Copenhagen2-4.9.2004. https://www.impgroup.org/uploads/papers/4572.pdf consulté le 02/12/2019. 63) Powell W. (1990). Neither Market Nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 12(1), 295-336. 64) Prahalad, C. K. & Hamel G. (1990). The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-91. 65) Rahimi R. et Kozak M. (2017) Impact of Customer Relationship Management on Customer Satisfaction: The Case of a Budget Hotel Chain, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 34(1), 40-51, DOI: 10.1080/10548408.2015.1130108 66) Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: Past, present, and future applications. Journal of marketing, 61(4), 30-54. 67) Roques T. (2015). Optimisez votre chaîne Logistique : prévoir la demande, gérer les approvisionnements et les stocks, La Plaine St Denis : Afnor Éditions (Gestion Futée), 100 p. http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 616 68) Ruel S. (2018). Gestion et mise à jour des connaissances en supply chain management : étude de trois facteurs de contingence structurelle. 12èmes Rencontres Internationales de Recherche en Logistique et Supply Chain Management (RIRL), May 2018, Paris, France. 69) Ruel, S. (2019). Du passage d’une contingence structurelle à une contingence comportementale ou de l’intérêt des pratiques de gestion et d’actualisation des connaissances en supply chain. Logistique & Management, 1–14. doi:10.1080/12507970.2019.1580620 70) Sakhuja, S., & Jain, V. (2012). Service Supply Chain: An Integrated Conceptual Framework. CIE42 Proceedings. 71) Salaun V., Fabbe-Costes N. & Fulconis F. (2018). Des logistiques temporaires à “la” logistique temporaire : décloisonner sans dénaturer. Rencontres Internationales de la Recherche en Logistique et Supply Chain Management (RIRL-SCM) les 22-23 mai 2018, Paris, organisé par l'AIRL-SCM à la Cité internationale universitaire de Paris, France. Actes des RIRL-SCM 2018. 72) Scherer, A. G. (2008). Critical theory and its contribution to critical management studies. 73) Scott B., Burt D.N., Copacino W., Gopal C., Lee H.L., Lynch R.P. & Morris S. (2003). Le défi du Supply Chain Management : Construire des relations, Logistique & Management, 11(1), 35-43, DOI: 10.1080/12507970.2003.11516780 74) Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic Environments to Create Value: Looking Inside the Black Box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273–292. doi:10.5465/amr.2007.23466005 75) Solano-Cayama, R.A. (2008). Service supply chain management: A hierarchical decision modeling approach. Thèse. New Jersey Institute of Technology. Disponible sur https://digitalcommons.njit.edu/dissertations/873, consulté le 11/02/2020. 76) Stadtler, H., (2000). Basics of supply chain management. In:Stadtler, H., Kilger, C. (Eds.), Supply Chain Managementand Advanced Planning––Concepts, Models, Software andCase Studies, Berlin, 7–28. 77) Stapleton, Drew; Hanna, Joe B.; Ross, Jonathan R. (2006). Enhancing supply chain solutions with the application of chaos theory. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 11(2), 108–114. doi:10.1108/13598540610652483 78) Stevenson M., & Spring M. (2009). Supply chain flexibility: an inter-firm empirical study. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 29(9), 946-971. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570910986238 79) Stock, J. (1997), “Applying theories from other disciplines to logistics”, International Journal ofPhysical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 27 Nos 9/10, pp. 515-39 80) Stock, J. R., & Boyer, S. L. (2009). Developing a consensus definition of supply chain management: a qualitative study. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39(8), 690–711. http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 617 81) Szostak, B. (2018). Créativité, innovation et fournisseur, comment créer de la valeur en SCM ?.Revue française de gestion, 277(8), 171-175. doi:10.3166/rfg.2019.00303. 82) Tan, K. (2001). A Framework of Supply Chain Management Literature. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management. 7(1), 39-48. 10.1016/S0969-7012(00)00020-4. 83) Torset, C. (2018). Stratégie et supply chain management, un mariage de raison ?. Revue française de gestion, 277(8), 181-185. doi:10.3166/rfg.2019.00298. 84) Vedel J.P. et Kokshagina O., (2021) How firms undertake organizational changes to shift to moreexploratory strategies: A process perspective, Research Policy, 50(1), 104-118, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104118. 85) Wang F. (2010). Le supply chain management et la culture : la mise en oeuvre du supply chain management dans le contexte culturel chinois. Thèse de doctorat. Aix-Marseille 2 (École Doctorale Sciences Economiques et de Gestion d'Aix-Marseille), en partenariat avec Centre de recherche en transport et logistique (Aix-en-Provence, Bouches-du-Rhône). 86) Wheatley, M.J. (1999), Leadership and the New Science, 2nd ed., Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA. 87) Williamson O.E. (1994). Les institutions de l'économie, InterEditions (traduit de l'américain : The Economie Institutions of Capitalism, The University Press New York, 1985). 88) Williamson O.E. (2008). Outsourcing: transaction cost economics and supply chain management. The journal of supply chain management, 44(2), 5–16.