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 COVID-19 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 delivery failures that might traditionally be attributed to driver performance less likely when drivers are viewed as making sacrifices to deliver orders? And, for how long might this tolerance for subpar delivery performance persist? There were also expressed concerns regarding the health safety of delivery drivers and the well-being of consumers on the receiving end of these deliveries. More research is also needed to investigate delivery policies that might serve as health safety “cues” for both delivery workers and consumers, such as distance-based delivery practices, protective product packaging solutions, and driver use of personal protective equipment. The COVID-19 crisis has brought these realities to the forefront, necessitating more research to tease out how, why, and when typical delivery attributes might be augmented, or even trumped, by perceived and objective safety practices. Likewise, more public policy work is needed to outline effective governing of these practices in the postpandemic marketplace.
The COVID-19 pandemic also highlights the need for more dialogue on a pillar of effective SCM: information visibility (Srivastava, Shervani, and Fahey 1999). The product scarcity that many consumers experienced during the onset of the pandemic triggered questions such as “How long before the next shipment?” and “Is more product being produced?” Such upstream supply chain information has traditionally not been made available to consumers, yet research has shown that retail inventory status (i.e., “one left in stock”) can shape consumer purchasing decisions and behavior (Peinkofer, Esper, and Howlett 2016). Thus, knowledge of upstream inventory replenishment delivery windows and allocations through the use of technologies such as blockchains and transportation tracking platforms might assist consumers, particularly those more vulnerable, in being more targeted and health-conscious regarding shopping decisions.
It will be interesting to see how the COVID-19 crisis shifts the standards and practices involved in SCM. At the core of this will be the emergence of public health issues as key strategic considerations when designing supply chains, as well as additional policies to oversee the work and performance involved in getting product to market. While such conversations are already prevalent within supply chains for food and pharmaceuticals, the true story lies in how supply chains for all products will be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in the months and years to come.
Leave a Reply