Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 178

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Supply chain security: an overview and research agenda

Williams, Zachary, Lueg, Jason E., LeMay, Stephen A.·2008·The International Journal of Logistics Management

Abstract

Purpose: Supply chain security (SCS), as a component of an organization's overall supply chain risk management strategy, has become a critical factor for businesses and government agencies since September 11, 2001, yet little empirical research supports policy or practice for the field. Therefore, this paper develops and presents a categorization of SCS based on existing research. This categorization of supply chain literature can help academics and practitioners to better understand SCS and also helps to identify a research agenda. Setting a research agenda for SCS will help academic and practitioner research focus on critical issues surrounding SCS. Design/methodology/approach: The researchers thoroughly reviewed the literature on SCS, including academic publications, white papers, and practitioner periodicals. The literature was then categorized according to the approach to SCS and the practical implications of this categorization are presented. In addition, this categorization was used to identify research gaps. Findings: This analysis found that SCS needs more attention from the academic community. Like earlier assessments of this literature, this analysis found it to be mainly normative, with little research based on primary data. This paper categorizes the literature into four approaches to SCS: intraorganizational, interorganizational, a combination of intraorganizational and interorganizational, and ignore. This study develops a focused agenda for future, primary, empirical research on SCS. Research limitations/implications: The sources of data for this literature review are secondary. The review sets a research agenda and calls for future empirical testing. Practical implications: Practitioners will benefit from the framework presented here by better understanding approaches to SCS. This comprehensive review discusses the characteristics of SCS in great depth. As other researchers follow the research agenda, practitioners will benefit from the empirical findings and theory building. Originality/value: This paper summarizes the literature on SCS to date, a topic that has grown in importance, yet received little attention from academics. This is the first comprehensive literature review of SCS. It includes a categorization of four possible approaches to SCS. It also distinguishes SCS from supply chain risk, while also recognizing their relationship. It identifies key issues in SCS research and calls for future research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/09574090810895988

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 178

Metadata

Authors
Williams, Z., Lueg, J. E., & LeMay, S. A.
Venue
The International Journal of Logistics Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2008-08-15
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
254-281
ISSN
0957-4093 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1970374317
Cited by
178
References
1
FWCI
22.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Supply chain security: an overview and research agenda. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/09574090810895988
The paper
Williams, Z., Lueg, J. E., & LeMay, S. A. (2008). Supply chain security: an overview and research agenda. The International Journal of Logistics Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090810895988

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.