Collaboration in humanitarian supply chains: an organisational culture framework

Sabari R. Prasanna, Ira Haavisto

International Journal of Production Research · 2018 · 89 citations · 99 references

Concepts

TL;DR

The study aims to assess how institutional logics and organisational culture affect collaboration in humanitarian supply chains. The authors developed a buyer–supplier collaboration framework for humanitarian settings and validated it through 29 semi‑structured interviews with buyers and suppliers. The study found that collaborative outcomes in HSCs—such as new product development, inventory management, and delivery—are shaped by the organisational cultures of buyers and suppliers, with distinct cultures among humanitarian, commercial, and hybrid suppliers; successful collaboration hinges on trust, commitment, information sharing, and mutual respect, while dominant institutional logics also influence dyadic relationships.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact that institutional logics and, more specifically, organisational culture can have on humanitarian supply chain (HSC) collaboration. A framework was developed that explicates buyer–supplier collaboration in a humanitarian setting. Twenty-nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with buyers and suppliers. The data indicated that in a HSC, collaborative outcomes, such as new product development, inventory management, and product/service delivery, are influenced by the buyers' and suppliers' organisational cultures. Based on suppliers' characteristics, they can be classified as humanitarian suppliers, commercial suppliers, and humanitarian and commercial suppliers. These groups have distinct organisational cultures. An unexpected finding is that suppliers that serve commercial buyers primarily claim to have encountered no issues in supply chain collaboration with humanitarian buyers, although they have different types of organisational cultures. The factors that lead to successful collaboration are identified as trust, commitment, information sharing and mutual respect. Simultaneously, dominant institutional logics are observed in the dyadic relationship.

References

99