Elizabeth Barber

This paper analyses the changing nature of domination in supply chains as portrayed in the academic literature. It provides a review of the literature following the supplier-centric to retailer-centric degrees of power exerted by the various participants in supply chains. It has been argued that in specialists industries both the retailer and supplier can be equally dominant. (Govil & Proth, 2002) This paper follows the debate to show the changing degrees of power and the changes to domination that occur depending on the way certain players exert their power in complex and global supply chains. Initially supply chain management, replete with uncertainty, showed conditions for leadership relating to transactional influences. Such domination was typically dictatorial in nature. (Drake & Schlachter, 2007) The debate shifted from coercive and dictatorial domination to complexities of relationships and greater collaborative power. (Lonsdale, 2001) Asymmetrical distribution of power was seen to lead to resistance by other participants along the supply chains. (Gelderman, Sameijn and De Zoete, 2008) The transfer of power from manufacturers has been primarily to retailers. This change was attributed to the emergence of demand chains or customer centric chains. (McKenna, 2008) This proposition was refuted by the historical evidence of the Australian retail dominated market over the period of 1880-1920 demonstrated by Merriles and Miller (2001). Wang and Liu supported these findings claiming that consumer requirements are given little consideration in relation to mass produced products. (Wang and Liu, 2007) Given these findings, my analysis poses the question of how the type of product or type of supply chain or the types of relationships within supply chains may influence the extent or type of domination that occurs in supply chains. Cox (2004) advocated that ‘aligned relationships’ strongly influences how dominant participants adopt methods of working with other less powerful supply chain members.

My paper concludes with the current state of play in the academic debate on domination of power in supply chains. It shows there is still some confusion and robust debate on domination and power influencing various aspects of supply chain management and processes. At this early stage of my research I do not propose a model or methodology to analyse the way forward in this debate. Nevertheless leaders in supply chains need to be innovative and dynamic and most importantly be an agent for change to cope with increasing complexities and uncertainties. Sustainable collaboration or collaboration through influence rather than dictatorial or enforcement appears to be the mechanism that delivers long term gains. The overall roles of dominant participants may not have ostensibly changed but what has changed recently have been their self awareness and the means by which they exercise their dominance. Influence rather than enforcement, nurture rather than demand, common goal setting and shared visions and profits are now the necessary pre requisites for successful domination in supply chains. It is proposed however that, if the current global recession continues for a longer term, collaborative partnerships may fall apart or be less loyal and thus the pre requisites for successful domination might well take a back flip.