Critical Evaluation: Chain Liability in Multitier Supply Chains (Case Study Sample)

Name
Course
Tutor
Date
Critical Evaluation of the article titled, “Chain liability in multitier supply chains? Responsibility attributions for unsustainable supplier behavior”
Introduction
The article titled “Chain liability in multitier supply chains? Responsibility attributions for unsustainable supplier behavior,” written by Julia Hartmanna and Sabine Moeller, discusses the concept through which consumers hold corporation responsible for the flawed behavior of their upstream partners, particularly the suppliers and the distributors. This phenomenon is referred to as “chain liability” and it assumes that the firms are the ones responsible rather than their contracted business partners. Thus, the study broad objective is to investigate the impacts of such consumer responsibility attributions whilst generates insights into the antecedents of this subject matter. The scholars assert that firms should work to ensure acceptable behavior throughout the supply and distribution chain, to protect their reputation and evade chain liability (Hartmann and Sabine 2). The writer of this paper reviews this article as well as the authors' main arguments. Also, the paper presents a critical analysis of this study by focusing on areas of strengths and weakness of the methodologies adopted. Finally, recommendations of how the noted poor methodologies can be improved are suggested.
Summary of the Article
The study is underpinned by the affirmation that customers protest when they publicly realize that the firm's products are linked with either suppliers or distributors that engage in licentious behaviors. The unacceptable behavior by the upstream business partners stems the notion of “chain liability.” The overall goal of the study was to examine the antecedents and impacts of consumer protests as a result of unsustainable behavior by the upstream partners. Data was gathered from four survey experiments that were vignette-based. Detailed analysis of the data established that the impact of chain liability increases if the supply firm is engaged in environmental degradation activities. Again, this situation is often caused by supplier or distributor behavior rather than force majeure. The study also established that chain liability arises as result of a company decision and not of decision made by an individual employee. Finally, the impacts of these indecent behaviors by upstream partners have far-reaching consequences on the performance of the business. Other factors that facilitate chain liability include strategic value of the supplied product, existence of poor environmental management systems in the supply firm, corporation size, and the firm's distance from the supplier. This phenomenon also creates strong risks, especially to the focal company; higher chain liability results to an increased consumer' protest and predisposition to boycott the product. The study concludes by proposing that firms should strive to ensure upstream partners have sustainable to protect them from chain liability.
Critical Evaluation
First, this article draws great strength from the fact that study was conducted recently-in 2014. Consequently, it shows that the findings in the article are reliable and valid. Moreover, it is a peer-reviewed Operational Management Journal. It means that the authors submitted this piece of writing to professionals in the field of operational management for assessment on its validity and accuracy. Furthermore, the scholars took a very important step of ensuring the work was not only of high-quality but also up-to-date by using current external sources. These bibliography materials underpinned several arguments, concepts, and propositions throughout the research work. Notable also is that the adopted citation style is consistent. This shows that that the writers credited other people's work. Markedly, The American Psychological Association, often abbreviated as APA, is the pre-dominant citation style throughout the manuscript. For this reason, it can be argued the article contents are relevant and very reliable.
Secondly, the title mirrors the research content presented in the article. Throughout the text, the authors lay much focus responsibility attributions for unsustainable supplier behavior.. However, the writers fail to offer a detailed review of existing literature regarding this subject question. In point of fact, the literature review information is very scanty since it is only covered in four pages. It is paramount to conduct an extensive review of the existing related works since it provides the conceptual and theoretical framework of the study, a fundamental component in any concrete research. Again, the authors lay a lot of in the data collection and analysis section, rather than sectioning the various parts evenly. For this reason, I strongly hold the view that the findings are possibly biased and incomplete.
However, I opine that there is flawed understanding of the concept and use exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims. For instance, lack of clear knowledge to differentiate between the focal firms and the upstream business partners, particularly when dealing with the issue of issues of unsustainable behaviors among the consumers and chain liability. It is challenging for an average person o differentiate between focal firm and upstream business partners. This is because the words are too technical and only business experts can unravel their meaning. Again, the discussion only focused on suppliers yet there are many other upstream partners that are known to cause chain liability- for example, distributors and other business contractors. As afore-noted, the broad objective of the study was to investigate the impacts of consumer protests as a result of unsustainable behavior by the upstream partners. However, the discussion narrowed down one determinant; the suppliers. Besides, I refute the claim that it is the responsibility of detecting any shortcomings arising from their supplier's indecent behaviors primarily lies on the focal firm. In my view, this claim is unsubstantiated since the act of identifying unsustainable behavior is a collaborative task that calls for mitigation measures from several stakeholders including the government, community, and other business associates. In overall, the inclusion of such claims denotes that the research was not founded on concrete and substantive basis.
Additionally, the technique used for data gathering was inefficient. Worth noting, the study only used one primary method to collect data. In particular, data was collected using the survey method-four vignette-based survey experiments with three samples (Hartmann and Sabine 11). The vignettes described a buying firm that had been engaged in a supply chain interaction with at least one supplying company. Each survey reported an incident of environmental pollution in each supplying firm. This apparently resulted to its unsustainable behavior. After the respondents read the vignettes, they responded to a series of survey questions. It is critical to gather data from both the secondary and primary sources. The secondary data collection techniques that could have been used included the use of use of books, journals, articles, and internet sources. However, since the collected data First hand data was drawn from an original source (1s...