Human actions in supply chain management: the interplay of institutional work and institutional logics in the Russian Arctic

Abstract

Purpose This study explores how human actions affect existing supply chain management (SCM) practice. Design/methodology/approach Using a narrative approach, this qualitative in-depth case study looks at micro-human activities in SCM practices in the Russian Arctic. Data from personal observations, 13 semi-structured interviews and archival materials are interpreted through the concepts of institutional work and institutional logics. Findings The study reveals how human actions and institutions affect each other and change existing SCM practice constrained by institutional order and logics. The findings identify two forms of institutional work, initiated by the presence of conflicts of interest between practitioners engaged in different organisational routines, that become an essential driver for logic change. Social action, often invisible in practice, is indicated by finding compromises and informal arrangements that shape interactive activity among practitioners. The findings show that changes enacted by human actions in SCM practice have envisioned new forms of collaboration among supply chain members, thereby making supply chains in the Russian Arctic more integrated than before. Research limitations/implications This study involves a limited number of supply chain practitioners, making it imperative to study larger samples, specifically from various empirical contexts. Originality/value This study suggests an alternative approach focusing on SCM practice as consistent patterns of human actions, to reflect on supply chain integration problems. It provides an understanding of how practitioners are influenced by and active in producing institutional change. An issue of practitioners' responsibility and morality regarding the consequences of their decisions when exerting change in existing SCM practice is further emphasised.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.