Theoretical perspectives on information sharing in supply chains: A systematic literature review and conceptual framework
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore what theoretical lenses have been used to analyze and understand information sharing in supply chains. The paper elaborates on the predominant theories and discusses how they can be integrated to research different aspects of information sharing. Design/methodology/approach – The paper carried out a structured literature review by using a combination of selected keywords to search for peer-reviewed articles in ten journals. Findings – The findings suggest that four out of ten reviewed articles explicitly apply one or more theoretical lenses. The predominant theories used include transaction cost economics, contingency theory, resource-based view, resource dependency theory and relational governance theories such as the relational view and social exchange theory. Research limitations/implications – These theories can be applied to analyze different aspects of information sharing. By using the theories in a complementary way, it is possible to increase our understanding of information sharing between companies related to: why and what information to share with whom, how to share and the impact of antecedents, barriers and drivers. Practical implications – The results of the paper highlight the importance of tailoring information sharing structures and mechanisms to the context of the transaction and the business relationship. Originality/value – This paper addresses how theoretical perspectives inform empirical research on information sharing in supply chains. It puts forward an integrative conceptual framework based on cross-disciplinary theories and makes specific suggestions for future empirical research in this area.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Other significant limitations for blockchain adoption are lack of willingness of chain actors to share information, limits on transactions per unit time compared to Visa or Mastercard, and regulatory uncertainty.
“Other significant limitations are: lack of willingness of the actors of the chain to share information [115], limits on the number of transactions per unit of time, compared to other players such as Visa or Mastercard (i.e., performance and scalability issues) [116], and regulatory uncertainty [47].”
From A Review of Blockchain-Based Systems in Transportation (2019) · cites this paper as [115]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 139 · Cited by 168
- Authors
- Kembro, J., Selviaridis, K., & Näslund, D.
- Affiliations
- Lund University (SE)
- University of North Florida (US)
- Venue
- Supply Chain Management An International Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2014-09-02
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 5/6
- Pages
- 609-625
- ISSN
- 1359-8546 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1987401569
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 139
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5
- FWCI
- 6.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Supply Chain Management An International Journal (publishedVersion)
- Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
- Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Quality and Supply Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Supply Chain and Inventory Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
- Keywords
- information sharing, supply chain, transaction cost economics, contingency theory, resource-based view, resource dependence theory, relational governance, social exchange theory, relational view, theoretical integration, conceptual framework, business relationships
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