The Effects of Network Relationships on Global Supply Chain Vulnerability

  • Jose M. Cruz


In this chapter, we analyze the effects of levels of social relationship on the global supply chain networks vulnerability. Relationship levels in our framework are assumed to influence transaction costs as well as risk for the decision-makers. We propose a network performance measure for the evaluation of the global supply chain networks efficiency and vulnerability. The measure captures risk, transaction cost, price, transaction flow, revenue, and demand information in the context of the decision-makers behavior the network. The network consists of manufacturers, retailers, and consumers. Manufacturers and retailers are multicriteria decisionmakers who decide about their production and transaction quantities as well as the level of social relationship they want to pursue in order to maximize net return and minimize risk. The model allows us to investigate the interplay of the heterogeneous decision-makers in the supply chain and to compute the resultant equilibrium pattern of product outputs, transactions, product prices, and levels of social relationship. The results show that high levels of relationship can lead to lower overall cost and therefore lower price and higher product transaction. Moreover, we use the performance measure to assess which nodes in the supply networks are themost vulnerable in the sense that their removal will impact the performance of the network in the most significant way.


Supply Chain Variational Inequality Transaction Cost Demand Market Supply Chain Network 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Baker WE, Faulkner RR (2004) Social networks and loss of capital. Soc Networks 26:91–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bazaraa MS, Sherali HD, Shetty CM (1993) Nonlinear programming: Theory and algo- rithms. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bienenstock EJ, Bonacich P (2003) Balancing efficiency and vulnerability in social net- works. In: Breiger R , Carley K, Pattison P (eds) Dynamic social network modeling and analysis: Workshop summary and papers. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 253–264Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cannon JP, Perreault Jr WD (1999) Buyer-seller relationships in business markets. J Marketing Res 36:439–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christopher M, Jüttner U (2000) Developing strategic partnerships in the supply chain: A practitioner perspective. Eur JPurchasing Supply Manag 6: 117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christopher M, Peck H (2004) Building the resilient supply chain. Int J Logist Manag 15(2):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crosby LA, Stephens N (1987) Effects of relationship marketing on satisfaction, retention, and prices in the life insurance industry. J Marketing Res 24:404–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cruz JM, Nagurney A, Wakolbinger T (2006) Financial engineering of the integration of global supply chain networks and social networks with risk management. Nav Res Logist 53:674–696zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dyer J (2000) Collaborative advantage . Oxford University Press, Oxford, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Engardio P, Shari M, Weintraub A, Arnst C (2003) Deadly virus, BusinessWeek Online; see:
  11. 11.
    Flint DJ (2004) Strategic marketing in global supply chains: four challenges. Ind Market Manag 33:45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fisher ML (1997) What is the right supply chain for your product? Harvard Bus Rev 75(2):105–116Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gabarino E, Johnson MS (1999) The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. J Marketing 63:70–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gadde L, Snehota I (2000) Making the most of supplier relationships. Ind Market Manag 29:305–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Golicic SL, Foggin JH, Mentzer JT (2003) Relationship magnitude and its role in interorganizational relationship structure. J Bus Logist 24:57–75Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. Am JSociol 91:481–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harland C, Brenchley R, Walker H (2003) Risk in supply networks. J Purchasing and Supply Manag 9(2):51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hendricks KB, Singhal VR (2005) An empirical analysis of the effects of supply chain disruptions on long-run stock price performance and equity risk of the firm. Prod Oper Manag 14(1):35–52Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hult GT M, Ketchen Jr DJ, Slater SF (2004) Information processing, knowledge develop- ment, and strategic supply chain performance. Acad Manag J 47(2):241–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Husted BW (1994) Transaction costs, norms, and social networks. Bus Soc 33:303–324Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jüttner U, Peck H, Christopher M (2003) Supply chain risk management: Outlining and agenda for future research. Int J of Logist: Res Applications 6:197–210Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johnson ME (2001) Learning from toys: Lessons in managing supply chain risk from toy industry. Calif Manage Rev 43:106–130Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade- offs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kleindorfer PR, Saad GH (2005) Managing disruption risks in supply chains. Prod Oper Manag 14(1):53–68Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Krause DR, Handfield RB, Tyler BB (2007) The relationships between supplier develop- ment, commitment, social capital accumulation and performance improvement. J Oper Manag 25(2):528–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Martha J, Subbakrishna S (2002) Targeting a just-in-case supply chain for the inevitable next disaster. Supply Chain Manag Rev 6(5):18–23Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nagurney A (1999) Network economics: A variational inequality approach (Second and re- vised edition). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nagurney A, Cruz J, Matsypura D (2003) Dynamics of global supply chain supernetworks. Math Comput Model 37:963–983zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nash JF (1950) Equilibrium points in n-person games. P Natl Acad Sci 36:48–49zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nash JF (1951) Noncooperative games. Ann Math 54:286–298CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Norrman A, Jansson U (2004) Ericssons proactive supply chain risk management approach after a serious sub-supplier accident. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 34:434–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Qiang Q, Nagurney A (2008) A unified network performance measure with importance iden- tification and the ranking of network components Optim Lett 2:127–142zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sheffi Y (1985) Urban transportation networks – Equilibrium analysis with mathematical programming methods. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sheffi Y (2001) Supply chain management under the threat of international terrorism. Int J Logist Manag 12:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Spekman RE, Davis EW (2004) Risk business: Expanding the discussion on risk and the extended enterprise. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 34:414–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tang CS (2006) Robust strategies for mitigating supply chain disruptions. Int J Logist: Res Applications 9(1):33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Uzzi B (1997) Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of em- beddedness. Admin Sci Quart 42:35–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wakolbinger T, Nagurney A (2004) Dynamic supernetworks for the integration of social networks and supply chains with electronic commerce: Modeling and analysis of buyer-seller relationships with computations. Netnomics 6:153–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zsidisin GA, Panelli A , Upton R (2000) Purchasing organization involvements in risk assessment, contingency plans, and risk management: an exploratory study. Supply Chain Manag 5(4):187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jose M. Cruz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Operations and Information Management, School of Business,University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations