Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 105–117

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pursup

Toward a supply chain finance (SCF) ecosystem – Proposing a framework T

and agenda for future research
Cristof Bals
Technical University Dortmund, Leonhard-Euler-Str. 5, D-44227 Dortmund, Germany

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: While supply chain finance (SCF) is receiving growing attention in research, it remains limited in reach and
Supply chain finance fragmented in its implementation. At the same time, technological advances are changing the shape of the
Financial supply chain management overall business ecosystem in which SCF is embedded. Therefore, the aim of this research is to conduct a sys-
Framework tematic review of the SCF literature and develop a framework of analysis to support further exploration of the
Systematic literature review
SCF ecosystem. This research expands on other recent systematic reviews of SCF literature and introduces the
Ecosystem
business ecosystem concept to the SCF domain. Based on the presented SCF framework, an agenda for future SCF
ecosystem research is proposed.

1. Introduction stakeholders, such a business ecosystem view is regarded as helpful to

1.1. Research background and objective
Financial flows in supply chains, previously largely ignored within
the field of supply chain management (SCM), have been receiving in-
creasing attention in practice and academia – especially since the global
financial crisis of 2007–2008 (Gelsomino et al., 2016; Liebl et al., 2016;
More and Basu, 2013; Pfohl and Gomm, 2009; Wandfluh et al., 2015).
Companies found themselves looking for solutions to their liquidity and
working capital needs, in an environment with restricted access to ca-
pital (Caniato et al., 2016; Gelsomino et al., 2016; Liebl et al., 2016).
The solutions created to address these needs gave rise to the fast
growing field of supply chain finance (SCF) (Gelsomino et al., 2016;
More and Basu, 2013).
At the same time, technological advances are changing the shape of
the overall business ecosystem in which SCF is embedded. Moore : 76)
(1993) describes the ecosystem dynamic as follows: “In a business
ecosystem, companies co-evolve capabilities around a new innovation:
they work cooperatively and competitively to support new products,
satisfy customer needs, and eventually incorporate the next round of
innovations.” It can be argued that greater connectivity and informa-
tion flow, enabled through information technology, is the innovation at
the center of the SCF ecosystem. This greater connectivity and in-
formation flow (e.g. through platforms), is leading to lower information
asymmetry between actors and therefore challenging existing business
models (Ng, 2014; Fairchild, 2005). Therefore, as SCF solutions are
centered around information and financial flows between multiple
understand how SCF is evolving.
Despite the increasing interest, being a fairly recent field with its
roots dating back to the early 2000s, SCF remains limited in reach and
fragmented in its implementation (Gelsomino et al., 2016; Iacono et al.,
2015). Therefore, this research aims to answer the following research
question: How can a comprehensive framework for the SCF ecosystem be
conceptualized? By conducting a systematic literature review, this re-
search seeks to develop a framework of analysis to support further
exploration of the SCF ecosystem. Further, it builds on and extends the
work done in two other recently published SCF systematic literature
review, namely by Liu et al. (2015) and Gelsomino et al. (2016). First,
Liu et al. (2015) conducted a systematic literature review of 151 Chi-
nese SCF articles, thereby providing valuable insights in similarities as
well as differences between SCF programs and research in China com-
pared to western economies. By doing so, Liu et al. (2015) provide
details regarding regional differences in SCF mentioned by other au-
thors (e.g. Liebl et al., 2016; More and Basu, 2013; Wuttke et al.,
2013a). Second, Gelsomino et al. (2016) conducted a systematic lit-
erature review of 119 SCF articles, with the aim of determining research
themes as well as gaps. Gelsomino et al. (2016) establish that there are
two main streams of SCF research, namely the “finance oriented” and
the “supply chain oriented” perspectives. These two perspectives
mainly differ in the scope of solutions considered and stakeholders in-
volved. Additionally, Gelsomino et al. (2016) identify four major gaps
in SCF research, including a lack of a general theory of SCF capable of
bridging both identified perspectives.
This research seeks to explore further, and in more detail, the

E-mail address: cristof.bals@tu-dortmund.de.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2018.07.005
Received 7 April 2017; Received in revised form 23 July 2018; Accepted 31 July 2018
Available online 06 August 2018
1478-4092/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Bals
Fig. 1. Evolutionary stages of a business ecosystem; adapted from Moore (1993).
question of themes covered in SCF research, first posed by Gelsomino
et al. (2016). By identifying and structuring these themes, this research
seeks to develop an initial view of the SCF ecosystem and answer the
above posed research question.
1.2. Conceptual background on business ecosystems
Embedded in the definition by Moore (1993) mentioned in Section
1.1, is the idea that business ecosystems are not static. Instead, Moore
(1993) identified four stages of ecosystem evolution – i.e. (1) Birth, (2)
Expansion, (3) Leadership, (4) Self-Renewal (as shown in Fig. 1).
Drawing parallels to nature, Moore (1993) sees multiple ecosystems,
each with one leader, competing against each other over the different
stages. In the process, leaders as well as structures emerge and establish
themselves over other alternatives. Key characteristics of each of the
four phases include:
1) Birth – Entrepreneurial stage. Focus on defining and implementing
value proposition. Iterative process of trial-and-error. Cooperation
amongst companies.
2) Expansion – Concept and its value established, focus on scaling up.
Battles for market share amongst different providers. Speed of ex-
pansion can be an advantage.
3) Leadership – Growth and profitability established. Stability of
components and processes important. Power comes from having
something the ecosystem needs. Leader focused on maintaining
control.
4) Self-Renewal – Threat to an established ecosystem either by new
ecosystem(s) and innovation(s), or environmental changes (regula-
tion, customer patters, macroeconomic conditions). Established
leaders might need to undertake profound structural and cultural
changes to the established business ecosystem.
Moore (1993) acknowledges that the edges of these stages are not
clear-cut, rather overlapping. In Section 4, the stages of the business
ecosystem are revisited in order to place the SCF ecosystem in this
context. This helps toward the formulation of an agenda for future re-
search.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 in-
troduces key definitions and the systematic literature review metho-
dology. Section 3 summarizes the main results in the form of a SCF
framework. Section 4 provides a discussion of the findings and proposes
an agenda for future research. Final conclusions are presented in
Section 5.
106
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 105–117
2. Key definitions and methodology
Both SCF and the related field of Financial Supply Chain
Management (FSCM) each currently lack a generally accepted defini-
tion, with multiple variations existing (Gelsomino et al., 2016). In the
reviewed literature the two terms (SCF and FSCM) have been used with
varying definitions by different authors.
For example, Wuttke et al. (2013b: 773) define FSCM: “as optimized
planning, managing, and controlling of supply chain cash flows to fa-
cilitate efficient supply chain material flows. FSCM consequently re-
quires the interaction of financial managers and supply chain managers
within the company, as well as collaboration beyond the borders of the
firm with service providers (e.g. banks), suppliers, and customers”.
Regarding SCF, one often cited definition is provided by Pfohl and
Gomm (2009: 151), stating that SCF covers: “the inter-company opti-
mization of financing as well as the integration of financing processes
with customers, suppliers, and service providers in order to increase the
value of all participating companies”.
Acknowledging the fact that there currently are multiple definitions,
this article follows the broad definition provided by Gelsomino et al.
(2016: 348) as the basis for analysis, which states: “SCF aims to opti-
mise financial flows at an inter-organizational level (Hofmann, 2005)
through solutions implemented by financial institutions (Camerinelli,
2009) or technology providers (Lamoureux and Evans, 2011). The ul-
timate objective is to align financial flows with product and information
flows within the supply chain, improving cash-flow management from a
supply chain perspective (Wuttke et al., 2013b).”
In order to answer the research question “How can a comprehensive
framework for the SCF ecosystem be conceptualized?”, a systematic review
of the relevant literature was conducted and the results were analyzed
in three stages combining deductive and inductive approaches
(Tranfield et al., 2003; Seuring and Gold, 2012). First, key sources were
identified to deductively derive coding terms and dimensions. These
coding terms were complemented by additional coding terms derived
inductively during coding. Next, the identified SCF dimensions were
arranged to form the proposed SCF framework (Section 3). Lastly, using
the dimensions from step 1, papers were analyzed a second time to
identify in more detail themes for discussion (see Sections 3 and 4).
In the design and execution of the systematic review of SCF-related
literature presented here, the researchers followed recommendations
from Tranfield et al. (2003) as well as Seuring and Gold (2012). The
next section covers the material collection process, detailing the iden-
tification of research and study selection approach. After that the
method for data analysis and synthesis is described.
C. Bals Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 105–117

Table 1 Table 2
Systematic literature review – material collection, selection and assessment Overview of analyzed articles by methodology.
results.
Methodology 243
Material collection, selection and assessment results
Methodology - Surveys 18
Database Search date Keywords entered Total Methodology - Conceptual 32
Methodology - Case Studies & Interviews 27
SCOPUS 09.09.2017 “supply chain financ*” 37 Methodology - Analytical & Simulation 166
EBSCO 09.09.2017
SCOPUS 09.09.2017 “financial supply chain” 9
EBSCO 10.09.2017 into NVivo 11 for subsequent coding and analysis.
SCOPUS 10.09.2017 “working capital” AND “supply 12
Table 2 below summarizes the distribution of the articles analyzed
EBSCO 17.09.2017 chain”
SCOPUS 17.09.2017 “*factoring” AND “supply chain” 0 by research methodology. Articles employing methods of mathematical
EBSCO 17.09.2017 analysis, modelling and simulation were the most frequent with 166 out
SCOPUS 18.09.2017 “inventory financ*” AND “supply 1 of 243. These results match the findings by Gelsomino et al. (2016) as
EBSCO 18.09.2017 chain”
well as Liu et al. (2015) in their respective systematic literature reviews,
SCOPUS 18.09.2017 “VMI” AND “supply chain” 147
EBSCO 24.09.2017
where analytical articles also constituted the majority.
Gelsomino et al. N/A Analysis of Literature Review 34 Regarding the composition of the journal articles selected for the
(2016) Sources literature review, Table 3 shows the distribution of the articles by
Liu et al. (2015) 3 journal and year of publication. A total of 190 out of the 243 analyzed
243
articles were published in the last 10 years (2007–2017). Additionally,
the distribution supports earlier statements that SCF research has
2.1. Material collection process gained interest since the beginning of the 2000s (Pfohl and Gomm,
2009; Gelsomino et al., 2016). In terms of journals, the International
Regarding the identification of extant research, database searches Journal of Production Economics has the most publications with a total
for multiple SCF-related keywords were performed (see Table 1 for of 32 SCF related articles published, followed by the European Journal
details and results). Searches for each keyword combination were of Operational Research as well as the International Journal of Pro-
conducted first in the SCOPUS database and then repeated in the duction Research both with 21 publications.
EBSCO HOST database in order to ensure broad coverage. While this
research focuses on SCF, given their close thematic relationship, FSCM- 2.2. Data analysis and synthesis
related articles were also considered for the systematic literature re-
view. Therefore, the keywords were selected to cover a broad range of In order to be able to develop a SCF framework proposal from ex-
FSCM- and SCF-related topic areas (e.g. supply chain finance, financial isting literature, a combination of deductive and inductive data analysis
supply chain, working capital, factoring). To improve quality in the and synthesis was applied (Tranfield et al., 2003; Seuring and Gold,
material collection process, keywords used in database searches were 2012). The analysis and synthesis process was broken down into the
selected by reviewing the keywords used in the existing literature re- following steps. First, the 46 final results related to “supply chain fi-
views by Liu et al. (2015) as well as Gelsomino et al. (2016). Ad- nance” and “financial supply chain” keywords (see Table 1 above) were
ditionally, since the majority of these keywords can be applied in dif- reviewed to identify key sources for coding. These keyword search
ferent contexts (e.g. supply chain management, accounting, finance terms were selected as they are the closest to the topic under in-
etc.), they were combined with the keyword “supply chain” in order to vestigation, and therefore most likely to contain key coding terms and
filter results for application in the relevant context. The scope of the related dimensions. These key sources were analyzed in detail with the
searches was refined by searching the keyword combinations in both aim of deriving both dimensions and related deductive coding terms.
databases across title, abstract and keyword search fields. Lastly, sear- These deductive coding terms were then complemented by additional
ches were limited to English language journal articles only. The data- coding terms derived inductively during the coding process. Lastly,
base search results were complemented with the English language another review of the final search results was done to identify more
journal articles analyzed in the two other systematic literature reviews, granular themes covered as well as research gaps highlighted along the
i.e. Gelsomino et al. (2016) and Liu et al. (2015). individual dimensions.
Next, in the selection and assessment process, the initial database Table 4 provides an overview of key sources and coding terms,
research results and references from the other two literature reviews which were used to code the 243 articles across all of the identified
were screened with the purpose of narrowing down the final group of dimensions. A survey of SCF challenges conducted by More and Basu
FSCM and SCF related articles for detailed review. First, all duplicate (2013) was of particular value in identifying the framework dimen-
results were removed. Moreover, all items were removed with no or sions, as survey replies were clustered. These clusters served as a basis
only minor relation to FSCM or SCF (e.g. where “supply chain, finance” for most of the dimensions, e.g. “macro institutional challenges” be-
was mentioned when listing corporate functions and searches ignored came the “market and regulatory dimension”. One dimension not ex-
the comma separating the terms). This screening was done by reviewing plicitly covered by More and Basu (2013) is the “product dimension”.
the abstract of each result. Last, as a minimum quality requirement, Therefore, the product classification of Caniato et al. (2016) was used
only journal articles were included in the final group, which were as a basis for the “product dimension”. In total 7 dimensions and 1
published in journals ranked either in the ABS list (published by the contextual perspective could be identified from the analyzed key
Chartered Association of Business Schools) or in the VHB Jourqual list sources, reflecting the broad scope of the SCF research field. Table 5 at
(published by the German Academic Association for Business the end of this section summarizes the number of articles and items
Research). No specific ranking thresholds were chosen given varying coded for each dimension and provides proof quotes to illustrate the
rankings across lists. coding process.
In line with Tranfield et al. (2003), each step during the systematic
literature review has been documented in a review protocol to ensure
3. Findings: toward a supply chain finance (SCF) framework
repeatability and transparency of results. In summary, upon completion
of the screening process 243 total results remained and were imported
This section starts by arranging the previously identified dimensions

107
 Table 3
C. Bals

Systematic literature review – overview of analyzed articles by journal and year they were published.
Literature Review Coverage by Journal and Year 1960 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total
Journal Name (Frequency Ranked)

International Journal of Production Economics 1 1 1 5 2 1 4 5 3 2 2 3 2 32

European Journal of Operational Research 1 1 1 6 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 21
International Journal of Production Research 1 1 1 1 2 6 3 2 4 21
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics 2 1 2 3 2 1 4 1 16
Management
Computers & Industrial Engineering 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 12
Management Science 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 9
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 1 1 1 1 1 2 7
Production and Operations Management 1 1 2 1 1 6
Production Planning & Control 1 2 1 2 6
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation 1 1 2 1 1 6
Review
Decision Support Systems 3 1 4
Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal 4 4
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 1 1 1 1 4
Omega 2 1 1 4
Journal of Business Logistics 1 1 1 1 4
Expert Systems with Applications 2 1 3
The International Journal of Logistics Management 1 1 1 3
Sustainability 1 1 1 3
Industrial Management & Data Systems 1 2 3
Annals of Operations Research 1 2 3
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 1 1 1 3
Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 1 1 2

108
Journal of Banking & Finance 2 2
Opsearch 1 1 2
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 1 1 2
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 1 1 2
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems 1 1 2
Operations Research 1 1 2
Computers & Operations Research 1 1 2
OR Spectrum 1 1 2
International Journal of Productivity and Performance 1 1 2
Management
Journal of Manufacturing Systems 1 1 2
Information & Management 1 1
Managerial and Decision Economics 1 1
International Journal of Services and Operations Management 1 1
International Transactions in Operational Research 1 1
Decision Sciences 1 1
Internet Research 1 1
Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 1 1
Journal of Applied Accounting Research 1 1
Management Research News 1 1
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 1 1
Maritime Economics & Logistics 1 1
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 1 1
Information Technology and Management 1 1
Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 1 1
Benchmarking: An International Journal 1 1
American Economic Review 1 1
European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 1 1
Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination 1 1
(continued on next page)
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 105–117
 Table 3 (continued)
C. Bals

Literature Review Coverage by Journal and Year 1960 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total
Journal Name (Frequency Ranked)

Management Decision 1 1
Journal of Economics and Business 1 1
Computers in Industry 1 1
Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization 1 1
Communications of the ACM 1 1
China Finance Review International 1 1
Naval Research Logistics (NRL) 1 1
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 1 1
Operational Research 1 1
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 1 1
Operations Research Letters 1 1
The Accounting Review 1 1
International Journal of Integrated Supply Management 1 1
The Journal of Risk Finance 1 1
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 1 1
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 1 1
Business Process Management Journal 1 1
Transportation Science 1 1
Financial Management 1 1
Logistics Research 1 1
M@n @ gement 1 1
Industrial Marketing Management 1 1
IIE Transactions 1 1
Thunderbird International Business Review 1 1
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 1 1

109
European Management Journal 1 1
Journal of Retailing 1 1
INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Research 1 1
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 1 1
Total 1 1 1 2 3 2 11 9 10 3 10 16 16 15 19 9 14 22 15 21 25 18 243
Thereof published in the last 10 years (2007–2017) 190
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 105–117
C. Bals Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 105–117

into the proposed SCF framework, before going into the findings for

technology application; technology

chain; cost optimization; inventory

shipment finance; supplier finance

supply chain cost; cost of supply
each individual dimension in more detail. Fig. 2 shows the proposed

intra-firm; cross-departmental;
Additional inductive coding

framework, incorporating the dimensions identified from literature. As

IT application; IT platform;

pre-shipment finance; post-

standards; standardization;
opportunistic; exploitation
lock-in; opportunism; stated, this research aims to make a contribution towards a more eco-
system-oriented perspective of SCF. For this purpose, the dimensions

senior management
have been arranged in a honeycomb pattern in clock-wise direction
around the aim of establishing an SCF ecosystem. The six dimensions at
the center are encircled by the stakeholder perspective and life-cycle

platform
dimension, which provide different lenses of analysis and can be ap-
terms

cost;

N/A

N/A
plied to all other dimensions.
The following illustrates how the stakeholder perspective and the

(captive) factoring; reverse factoring; inventory financing;

lifecycle dimension can impact all of the other six central dimensions:
working capital; cost of capital; credit rating; credit risk;

regulatory; regulation(s); legal; cross-border; tax; market

intra-company; cross-functional; department(s); training;

dynamic discounting; vendor-managed inventory (VMI);

cash-to-cash (C2C) cycle; cash conversion cycle (CCC)

buyer; supplier or seller; financial institution or bank;

For instance, a buyer and each of its suppliers (stakeholder perspective)
Deductive coding terms derived from key sources

solution provider or platform provider; government

participating in an SCF program might have differing views regarding

consignment stock; (seller-based) invoice auction

the collaborative dynamics of the arrangement (SC collaboration di-
mension). These differing views of each stakeholder might evolve and
collaboration; (bargaining) power; trust

change over the course of the SCF programs’ lifecycle, i.e. initiation

initiation; implementation; adoption;

automation; technology; ERP system

phase, implementation phase and adoption phase (lifecycle dimension).

In summary, in the above example, three different levels of analysis are
combined. First, specific aspects of one or more central dimension(s)
can be selected for study (e.g. collaboration). Second, these aspects can
potential; competition;

be studied through the lenses of one or more stakeholders (e.g. supplier

perspective). Third, changes to dimensions and related stakeholder
perspectives can be studied over time, as the respective SCF program(s)
incentive(s)

move(s) along the different stages of the life-cycle.

Having introduced the proposed SCF framework, findings for each
dimension will be briefly discussed. As mentioned in Section 2.2, a
second round of coding served to identify themes in each dimension.
More and Basu (2013), Iacono et al. (2015), Liu
(2016),Liebl et al. (2016), Iacono et al. (2015)

More and Basu (2013), Liebl et al. (2016), Liu

More and Basu (2013), Wuttke et al. (2013a),

More and Basu (2013), Wuttke et al. (2013a),

These themes, together with the proposed framework, provided the

More and Basu (2013), Caniato et al. (2016)

et al. (2015), Liebl et al. (2016) and Wuttke

Liebl et al. (2016) and Caniato et al. (2016)

Caniato et al. (2016) and Liebl et al. (2016)

More and Basu (2013), Liebl et al. (2016),

Wuttke et al. (2013a)and Liu et al. (2015)

et al. (2015), Gelsomino et al. (2016) and

Caniato et al. (2016),Iacono et al. (2015),

basis for the discussion in Section 4.

More and Basu (2013), Caniato et al.

3.1. Supply chain collaboration dimension

and Gelsomino et al. (2016)

The supply chain collaboration dimensions has received significant

and Wuttke et al. (2013a)

attention in the reviewed literature. Table 6 provides an overview of the

Wuttke et al. (2013a)

Caniato et al. (2016)

detailed codings together with proof quotes. Key themes regarding trust
and (bargaining) power between different stakeholders play an im-
Key source(s)

et al. (2013a)

portant role in the reviewed articles (e.g. Grosse-Ruyken et al., 2011;

Hofmann and Zumsteg, 2015; Wuttke et al., 2013a). Trust as well as
power distribution in the buyer-supplier relationship can influence how
well suppliers adopt a SCF program, e.g. a reverse factoring arrange-
ment (Wuttke et al., 2013a; Wandfluh et al., 2015).
covers aspects relating to the SCF market place as well as the
along supply chains. These can include determining working

covers the SCF solutions discussed in the reviewed literature

dimensions 1–6 can be viewed through different stakeholder

covers aspects related to the optimization of financial flows

covers aspects related to information flows across involved

governance environments in which SCF initiatives need to

dimensions 1–6 as well as the stakeholder perspective can

capital need and optimization potential, solution selection

perspectives. Motivations, benefits and perceptions of SCF

covers the dynamics amongst supply chain participants to

One theme in the collaboration dimension, which might warrant

within a single stakeholder (e.g. the buyer / focal firm)
covers managerial and structural aspects related to SCF

further exploration, is how different stakeholders perceive “lock-in”

effects (with high switching costs) and how these impact the different
differ over time, across phases of SCF programs.

stakeholders’ behavior over time. For example, “lock-in” effects can be

and assessment of performance improvements
Overview of key coding terms and resulting aggregate dimensions.

seen as beneficial from a financial institution perspective (e.g. arising

can often differ amongst involved actors
stakeholders via information technology

from the use of a proprietary platform) as they help retain customers

and provide a basis for longer-term cross selling (Iacono et al., 2015;
Silvestro and Lustrato, 2014; Hofmann and Zumsteg, 2015). From a
corporate perspective, on the other hand, the same scenario is negative
operate across jurisdictions

as it limits options and potentially competition on financing costs when

binding a company to a particular solution and funding provider
Short description

(Martin et al., 2017; Liebl et al., 2016).

realize benefits

3.2. Organization dimension

While the organization dimension has received less dedicated at-

tention so far, several themes have been identified in the existing lit-
5) Market & Regulatory

erature which lend themselves for further research:

Collaboration
SCF dimensions

• Influence of organizational setup on SCF programs, i.e. organiza-

1) Supply Chain

2) Organization

Perspective
7) Stakeholder
4) Technology

8) Life-Cycle
3) Financial

tional structure. Highlighted by Wandfluh et al. (2015),

6) Product

• Impact of SCF knowledge transfer and training measures (or lack

Table 4

thereof) on the adoption/performance of SCF programs. Highlighted

by More and Basu (2013),

110
C. Bals Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 105–117

Table 5
Coverage of dimensions across analyzed papers.
SCF Dimensions Articles Codings Proof quotes (Exemplary)

1) Supply Chain Collaboration 178 1813 “The topic of collaboration is often mentioned in the interviews. A considerable number of cases analyzed underlined the
importance of intra- and inter-firm collaboration for an effective SCF implementation.” (Caniato et al., 2016: 544)
2) Organization 133 500 “Consequently, achieving financial buyer–supplier collaboration requires the involved departments to align their financing
strategy and may also need some structural adaptations in the cross-department collaboration like regular coordination
especially with regard to decision-making.” (Wandfluh et al., 2015: 212)
3) Financial 160 2197 “RF [reverse factoring] considerably improves a supplier's operational performance while providing the potential to unlock
more than 10% of the supplier's working capital. When RF is associated with credit-term extension and the supplier has
access to alternative sources of financing, the value of RF is then lower than intuitively expected unless the interest spread
is considerably large” (Lekkakos and Serrano, 2016: 367)
4) Technology 172 1059 “Technology has become an intrinsic part of modern SCs (Walton and Gupta, 1999). However, when it comes to processing
financial transactions majority of corporations still practice paper-based manual processes (Fairchild, 2005; Aberdeen
Group Report, 2006). These manual intensive payment processes add delays to the receipt of payment and increases the
days sales outstanding (DSO) of the suppliers leading to additional working capital requirements.” (More and Basu, 2013:
627)
5) Market & Regulatory 135 670 “In terms of RF, legal regulations vary strongly in different countries. Furthermore, different financial market structures
influence RF initiatives, neither can however be influenced by supply chain managers.” (Liebl et al., 2016: 399)
6) Product 195 2122 “Reverse factoring is a way to solve the supply chain financing problem (i.e. the problem of aligning financial and physical
flows in supply chains), but it is not the only possible answer. […] Summarising, for the purpose of this article, we
categorise the SCF solutions described in the literature within three groups: traditional financing solutions, innovative
financing solutions and SCC [supply chain collaborative] solutions.” (Caniato et al., 2016: 537)
7) Stakeholder Perspective 236 11885 “In contrast to conventional factoring approaches, RF is initiated by the buyer in the customer-supplier relationship and
supported by financial institutions and, as the case may be, a platform provider.” (Liebl et al., 2016: 393)
8) Life-Cycle 153 1565 “[…] [O]ur aim was to identify firms which are in different stages of the adoption process to better understand particular
challenges in the adoption process. […] [W]e deliberately avoided having only firms which reached the routinizing stage of
SCF adoption and opened our sampling to firms which are in earlier stages of the adoption process.” (Wuttke et al., 2013a:
152)

covered in this as well as in both analyzed previous literature reviews

(Gelsomino et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2015). Table 8 provides an overview
of the codings together with exemplary proof quotes.
Further, ample attention has been dedicated to calculating benefits
of particular solutions for different stakeholders (e.g. Hofmann and
Zumsteg, 2015; Lekkakos and Serrano, 2016; Pfohl and Gomm, 2009;
van der Vliet et al., 2015; Wuttke et al., 2016). Likewise, several papers
have explored the intersection between the “finance” and “supply chain
collaboration” dimensions, identifying scenarios where trust and power
issues are hindering adoption of supply chain collaborative working
capital optimization solutions (e.g. Hofmann and Kotzab, 2010; Viskari
and Kärri, 2012; Vázquez et al., 2016).
However, the study of the economics of SCF for financial institutions
and solution providers so far remain underrepresented in SCF research
(e.g. Hofmann and Zumsteg, 2015; Silvestro and Lustrato, 2014; Wuttke
et al., 2013b), and would profit from additional research. One oppor-
tunity could be to explore the intersection of the “finance” and “market
and regulation” dimensions (see Section 4) further.

3.4. Technology dimension

While individual articles have acknowledged the important role of

information technology (IT) in relation to intra- and inter-company
Fig. 2. Proposed supply chain finance (SCF) framework. information sharing (e.g. Fairchild, 2005; Blackman et al., 2013;
Wandfluh et al., 2015), detailed analysis of technological factors in SCF

• Design of incentive schemes to promote cross-functional collabora-
tion for SCF programs. Highlighted by Wandfluh et al. (2015) and
Liebl et al. (2016),
Table 7 below provides an overview of the detailed codings together
with proof quotes.
3.3. Financial dimension
This dimension has received much attention and extensive research
is available, with strong focus on analytical modelling and simulation
(e.g. Yan and Sun, 2013), making up the largest portion of articles
remains rare. Table 9 provides an overview of the detailed codings
together with exemplary proof quotes.
Some articles mention technological challenges such as proprietary
systems hindering SCF adoption (Silvestro and Lustrato, 2014), whereas
others identify a need for future research regarding adoption of IT-en-
abled SCF platforms (Caniato et al., 2016). With advancing digitization,
a growing role of the technological dimension could be expected.
Therefore, what is needed is a broader discussion on the role IT plays in
SCF and this provides an opportunity for cross-disciplinary research
with management information systems (MIS) research community (see
Section 4).

111
C. Bals Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 105–117

Table 6
Overview of themes for supply chain collaboration dimension.
Themes Articles Codings Theme proof quotes (Exemplary)
Supply chain collaboration 178 1813
dimension

Collaboration 114 1000 “SCF is a collaborative entity primarily encompassing three participants: borrowers, banks and LSPs, as indicated
previously. These three parties have their own industrial characteristics. The successful SCF implementation is
contingent on better cooperation and collaboration in the same language between these partners.” (Liu et al., 2015:
14696)
Power 101 536 “As collaboration is best achieved in balanced relationships, the power of the buying company and supply market
needs to be considered (Kraljic, 1983). Consequently, the findings do not mean that financial collaboration is
desirable for all suppliers.” (Wandfluh et al., 2015: 211)
Trust 67 194 “The absence of trust reduces the supplier's willingness to adopt SCF […]. The positive effect of trust can be
observed in further cases, thus it is plausible that for all firms trust is an important attribute for innovation
dissemination.” (Wuttke et al., 2013a: 158)
Lock-in, Opportunism, Exploitation 36 83 “The FI may or may not lock in the actors once the ARP [accounts receivable platform] program is well established
and could therefore potentially charge higher fees.” (Hofmann and Zumsteg, 2015: 47)

3.5. Market and regulation dimension
Amongst the reviewed articles, only very few addressed the SCF
market and regulation themes in more detail. Table 10 provides an
overview of the detailed codings together with exemplary proof quotes.
Across those articles that addressed this dimension, Iacono et al.
(2015) stands out by proposing a model of a reverse factoring market in
order to explore how factors such as business cycle (measured in re-
ceivables volume), interest rates and suppliers discounting behavior
affect SCF adoption. Next, Fairchild (2005) as well as Martin et al.
(2017) both highlight the issue of missing standards, negatively im-
pacting both adoption rates as well as competition amongst providers
(see proof quotes in Table 10). This poses a major opportunity for ad-
ditional research, covering multiple intersections of the framework, e.g.
“technology” as well as “product” and “market and regulatory” di-
mensions (see Section 4).
In existing literature regulation has mainly been recognized as
complex and an important barrier for further adoption, especially re-
garding cross-border SCF programs, given different rules across jur-
isdictions (Liebl et al., 2016; More and Basu, 2013). Future research in
this area could be aimed at helping governments to draw up appro-
priate regulatory frameworks, while setting the right incentives to help
foster the adoption of SCF and healthy competition amongst providers
(see Section 4).
of SCF, what products or solutions it covers and how these products or
solutions are named (Caniato et al., 2016; Silvestro and Lustrato, 2014;
Martin et al., 2017).
It can be argued that this lack of a clear taxonomy of SCF products
combined with the popularity of specific solutions in practice results in
not all SCF products being widely covered in literature, with many
papers focusing on reverse factoring (e.g. Iacono et al., 2015; Liebl
et al., 2016; Wuttke et al., 2013a, 2016). By comparison, only little
coverage of products such as inventory finance or dynamic discounting
could be found (e.g. Hofmann, 2009; Caniato et al., 2016; Liu et al.,
2015).
Together with the lack of breadth in SCF product coverage comes
also a gap in depth of coverage on specific product characteristics and
their impact on individual stakeholders and/or SCF programs as a
whole. For example, the impact of different supplier discounting be-
havior (auto-discounting vs. manual discounting) has so far received
little attention, with Iacono et al. (2015) identifying it as a parameter
for their model of a reverse factoring market.
Lastly, regional differences also pose an interesting opportunity for
future research at the intersection between the “product” and “market
and regulation” dimensions (see Section 4). For instance, while much of
western literature focuses on reverse factoring, inventory finance
models for SMEs are predominant in SCF research in China (Liu et al.,
2015). Table 11 provides an overview of the detailed codings together
with exemplary proof quotes.

3.6. Product dimension

3.7. Stakeholder perspective
A major limitation of the product dimension as identified in the
reviewed literature is the existence of multiple definitions of the scope The stakeholder perspective is gaining attention, as clearly

Table 7
Overview of themes for organization dimension.
Theme Articles Codings Proof quotes (Exemplary)
Organization Dimension 133 500

Training 25 64 “It is therefore appropriate to say that training on SCF tools, techniques and practices can enhance knowledge on SCF and
support automation of payment transactions along the SC.” (More and Basu, 2013: 640)
Senior Management 8 18 “[…] Collaborative initiatives require senior management support and commitment if they are to succeed (Ireland and Bruce,
2000). Because supply chain collaboration necessitates adopting a process focus this will involve crossing many functional
boundaries, and subsequently senior management support will be necessary to overcome functional "friction'' (Barratt and
Green, 2001)” (Barratt, 2004: 38)
Intra-Firm 2 27 “[…] [I]t is paramount to take into consideration the appropriate moderating variables, i.e. […] fostering intra-company
Intra-Company 4 5 collaboration and ensuring a high financial attractiveness when leaning towards OBJ2-driven.” (Caniato et al., 2016: 546)
Incentive(s) 80 233 “A final barrier mentioned by both banks and buyers is the lack of experience/ incentive structures regarding financial concepts
in purchasing departments. As the cross-case analysis shows, most purchasers are not directly motivated by incentives to
stabilize the supplier base financially.” (Liebl et al., 2016: 406)
Department 50 107 “Interdepartmental collaboration, however, allows each function to better understand its counterpart. Furthermore, formalized
Cross-Functional 16 43 rules, such as weekly meetings, are important for the success of cross-functional teams (Pinto et al., 1993). Second, focusing on
Cross-Departmental 2 3 the same objective and working closely in teams, as we observe in the cases of Zeta and Theta, fosters an efficient knowledge
exchange (Grant, 1996).” (Wuttke et al., 2013b: 783)

112
C. Bals Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 105–117

Table 8
Overview of Themes for Finance Dimension.
Theme Articles Codings Proof quotes
Financial Dimension 160 2197

Cost Optimization 96 506 “One has to regularly search out for the best possible option that is applicable in the current situation so that the
supply chain cost can be reduced while maximizing the satisfaction level of the customer.” (Arora et al., 2010:
39)
Working Capital (Management / 61 1168 “We argue that […] the right working capital management depends on the business model, its specific supply
Optimization) chain design configurations, and risk aspects within the supply chain.” (Grosse-Ruyken et al., 2011: 13)
Credit Risk 26 128 “Financial objectives make all companies want to become “late payers” and “early collectors”. This situation,
Credit Rating 19 59 however, can increase transaction costs in the form of credit risk, with capital costs being transferred from
certain levels to others in the supply chain.” (Vázquez et al., 2016: 324)
Cost of Capital 38 139 “Extended payment terms that pose a lower risk to buyers include a higher risk for suppliers, who may often
have restricted access to short-term financing and a higher cost of capital.” (Hofmann and Kotzab, 2010: 305)
Cash Conversion Cycle (CCC) 16 91 “Cash-to-cash cycle management and supply chain-optimized capital financing provides value that has
Cash-to-Cash cycle (C2C) 16 106 previously been left on the table.” (Randall and Farris, 2009: 672)

separating the perspectives of different stakeholders is an important
step towards addressing conflicts of interest which can arise amongst
stakeholders (e.g. Hofmann and Kotzab, 2010). The need to address
views other than the buyers’ has been previously recognized as a re-
search gap in literature (e.g. Hofmann and Zumsteg, 2015; Silvestro and
Lustrato, 2014; Wuttke et al., 2013a, 2013b).
Some more recent articles have placed their focus on the supplier
and financial institution perspectives in order to start addressing this
gap (e.g. Lekkakos and Serrano, 2016; Silvestro and Lustrato, 2014;
Vázquez et al., 2016). Similarly, it can be argued that the scope of
stakeholders like “solution providers” has changed and continues to
evolve as the SCF market develops, encompassing e.g. banks, tech-
nology vendors, platform providers, 3rd party logistics providers etc.
(e.g. Martin et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2015; Caniato et al., 2016). In
conclusion, not all of the different possible SCF program configurations
have been explored, yet, providing future research opportunities (see
Section 4). Table 12 provides an overview of the detailed codings to-
gether with exemplary proof quotes.
have been assessed purely in terms of the market state prior to im-
plementation”. As a result, there is a need for further research regarding
the SCF life-cycle dimension regarding: a) the phases of individual SCF
programs; b) the maturing of the SCF market overall.
4. Discussion
This research set out to answer the question “How can a compre-
hensive framework for the SCF ecosystem be conceptualized?”. Following a
systematic literature review of the existing FSCM- and SCF-related lit-
erature, 7 dimensions and 1 contextual perspective were identified and
arranged into the proposed SCF framework (see Fig. 2). This section
starts by relating the presented framework to previous systematic lit-
erature review findings, then aggregating research gaps identified in
current literature and lastly proposing an agenda for future research
leveraging the proposed SCF framework.
4.1. Comparing the results to previous literature reviews

3.8. Life-cycle dimension
The life-cycle dimension influences all other elements of the fra-
mework, as SCF programs take time and effort to setup and are there-
fore expected to run for some time. Nevertheless, the life-cycle di-
mension of SCF has received limited explicit attention in the reviewed
literature. Table 13 provides an overview of the detailed codings to-
gether with exemplary proof quotes.
For example, Wuttke et al. (2013a) recognize a need for longitudinal
research in order to validate how firms follow the innovation adoption
process for SCF presented by them. Likewise, Liebl et al. (2016: 410)
suggest that: “[…] it would be interesting to examine RF approaches
before and after the introduction of such a program so that the ad-
vantages and disadvantages provided by RF [reverse factoring] can
better be illustrated.” Lastly, Iacono et al. (2015: 287) identify as a gap
that: “[…] previously, the benefits of reverse factoring arrangements
Gelsomino et al. (2016) in their systematic review of SCF literature,
identified two major research streams. These are the “finance-oriented
perspective” (with a sub-category of “buyer-driven perspective”) as well
as the “supply chain-oriented perspective”. Gelsomino et al. (2016)
differentiate these two research streams by role of financial institutions,
role of the buyer as well as the scope of products considered. As a result,
compared with the framework proposed in Fig. 2, it can be concluded
that these two research streams primarily reflect the product dimension
as well as stakeholder perspective. Additionally, the “supply chain-or-
iented perspective” proposed by Gelsomino et al. (2016) also touches
on the supply chain collaboration dimension from the proposed SCF
framework. The finance dimension is addressed by Gelsomino et al.
(2016) when the authors identify a gap in existing research regarding
measuring the impact of SCF programs on financial performance. While
most of the remaining dimensions of the SCF framework are mentioned
by Gelsomino et al. (2016), they don’t feature prominently in the

Table 9
Overview of themes for technology dimension.
Theme Articles Codings Proof quotes (exemplary)
Technology dimension 172 1059

Technology 119 452 “That banks have been generally slow to respond to the demands of corporate clients to help them improve supply chain
performance, in part due to technology and system integration issues.” (Silvestro and Lustrato, 2014: 310)
Platform or Application 120 474 “Besides a faster introduction process, waiting brings the added benefit of lower introduction costs as the platform technology
matures. Yet, waiting also implies foregone profit.” (Wuttke et al., 2016: 73)
ERP System 18 99 “The catalyst for further significant improvement over the period 1999–2001 was the introduction of a global Oracle enterprise
resource planning (ERP) system, which standardised business processes worldwide. This led directly to an improvement in the
consistency of the data originating from the manufacturing systems.” (Blackman et al., 2013: 138)
Automation 20 34 “Further integration of business processes, both within and between enterprises, will require both human and computational
intelligence to approach efficiencies in automation.” (Fairchild, 2005: 248)

113
C. Bals Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 105–117

Table 10
Overview of themes for market and regulation dimension.
Theme Articles Codings Proof quotes (exemplary)
Market & regulatory dimension 135 670

Tax 24 117 “In this paper, we use the discontinuance of reporting tax (Y) as a strong signal of business failure because it is essential
for SCF clients to file tax return until they cease to operate in China.” (Zhao et al., 2015: 1689)
Regulation 15 34 “The analysis revealed that taxes and regulations are named as the main barrier in this context [implementation of RF
programs]” (Liebl et al., 2016: 406)
Market Potential 4 17 “Market potential can diminish due to competition and/or loss of interest by supply chain participants. This can occur,
for instance, if they are not able to foresee a positive benefit from the arrangement upon adoption.” (Iacono et al., 2015:
293)
Legal 29 73 “Wu (2011) found that, since the introduction of property legislation in 2007, movable assets can be treated as either
pledge or mortgage. As a result of an inadequate legal system, this could lead to many security rights being tied with the
same movable assets, resulting in banks losing property rights. The author, therefore, suggests that it is imperative to
strengthen the risk control, improve the judicial interpretation of property law and establish a registration and inquiry
system for movable assets.” (Liu et al., 2015: 14697)
Cross Border 6 8 “The cross-border transactions are therefore complex in nature with multiple challenges such as multiple currencies,
different languages and multiple legal jurisdictions. These cross-border transactions are often slow and inefficient and
lead to challenges for the global SCs.” (More and Basu, 2013: 629)
Competition 89 299 “[…] [I]t is well known that products with complex characteristics enable producers to avoid the outcome of pure price
competition through product differentiation (Porter, 1985). Intelligent matching allows parameters to be set to enable
matching for complex products or services, with an example being financial portfolio services.” (Fairchild, 2005: 246)
Standardization 43 122 “Finally, the variety of FSPs increases the diversity of practices and applied platforms due to a lack of standardization.
For instance, one supplier may be part of several different supply networks and consequently, multiple platforms.
Hence, FSPs often neglect the need of standards when deriving service specifications.” (Martin et al., 2017: 54)

findings. The only dimension for which no coding could be found in
their article was the market and regulation dimension. Notably,
Gelsomino et al. (2016:360) identify a need for future SCF research to
identify and address: “the building blocks of this approach […], starting
with a comprehensive definition of those practical instruments or so-
lutions that make up the SCF landscape.” Accordingly, by proposing the
SCF Framework, this article seeks to contribute toward identifying and
addressing the “building blocks” of SCF as well as, in the process, to
raise awareness for the concept of an SCF ecosystem in need of further
research.
Liu et al. (2015) in their systematic literature review of SCF in
China, highlight the regional differences in the structure of and ap-
proach to SCF. As also mentioned by More and Basu (2013: 630):
“Global SCs today, need to cross borders and deal with different
countries with different political and cultural backgrounds”. Therefore,
SCF frameworks need to consider these regional differences. In the
proposed framework, this is primarily represented by the market and
regulation dimension and its intersections with the product dimensions
as well as the stakeholder perspective.
In summary, this research builds on and extends the findings of
previous systematic literature reviews. This is achieved by identifying
themes and dimensions in existent SCF literature and forming these into
a proposed framework to better understand and research the SCF eco-
system.
4.2. Summary of identified gaps from research
Research gaps could be identified for all of the dimensions of the
SCF framework (see discussion of findings in Section 3). The research
gaps identified in the findings subsections for each dimension have
been summarized in Table 14 below. This overview shows that there
are ample opportunities for further research in each of the dimensions,

Table 11
Overview of Themes for Product Dimension.
Theme Articles Codings Proof quotes (exemplary)
Product dimension 195 2122

(Reverse) Factoring 32 1283 “Supplier discount behavior has been noted as an important indicator for a successful implementation of reverse factoring
(Dunn, 2011), though it is usually not quantified. The first type of supplier behavior is auto-discounting. […] The second type
of supplier behavior is selective discounting.” (Iacono et al., 2015: 296)
VMI 166 655 “A supplier makes the inventory replenishment decisions for its buyer, monitoring its inventory levels and making periodic
resupply decisions regarding order quantities, shipping and timing” (Caniato et al., 2016: 538)
Consignment Stock 29 112 “A supplier ships goods to its buyer's warehouses, maintaining property in them, until such goods are retrieved for selling. The
supplier monitors the buyer's inventory levels, even on a daily basis” (Caniato et al., 2016: 538)
Supplier Finance 8 34 “One problem in this context is the lack of standards when financial services are communicated. For instance, approved
payables financing is also known as SCF or supplier financing. It can be offered as an early-payment product or a true-sale
product. Therefore, it becomes difficult for customers to understand products and compare different services.” (Martin et al.,
2017: 54)
Inventory Finance 8 19 “Against the background of the scanty knowledge about inventory financing in supply chains, the goal of this paper is to
provide a conceptual explanation of the relevance and the implications of alternative inventory financing by a logistics service
provider (LSP).” (Hofmann, 2009: 716)
Pre-Shipment (Financing) 3 6 “Pre-shipment finance relates to funds needed by an exporter to produce or buy goods for export. It is the finance needed to
provide the working capital between the time of receipt of an export order and the time of shipment.” (Buatsi, 2002: 503)
Dynamic Discounting 3 6 “[…] [I]t allows the dynamic settlement of invoices in a buyer–supplier relation: for every day of payment in advance with
respect to a pre-defined baseline, the supplier grants to the buyer a discount on the invoice's nominal value” (Caniato et al.,
2016: 538)
Post-Shipment (Financing) 3 5 “Post-shipment finance is needed to bridge the gap between the time of shipment and receipt of export proceeds. Exporters
usually have to wait for some time (float time) before payment is received from overseas buyers.” (Buatsi, 2002: 504)
Invoice Auction 1 2 “Online marketplace where (usually) SMEs can auction their invoices to a group of investors, which compete in purchasing
them” (Caniato et al., 2016: 538)

114
C. Bals Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 105–117

Table 12
Overview of themes for stakeholder perspective.
Theme Articles Codings Proof quotes (exemplary)
Stakeholder perspective 236 11885

Supplier 218 7191 “[…] [W]e find that the size of the payment term extension that a supplier can accommodate depends on demand
uncertainty and the cost structure of the supplier. Overall, our results show that the financial implications of an extension of
payment terms need careful assessment in stochastic settings.” (Van der Vliet et al., 2015: 842)
Buyer 138 3245 “The degree to which the buyer can influence suppliers in their adoption decisions affects the optimal introduction timing,
but not optimal payment terms.” (Wuttke et al., 2016: 72)
Financial Institution / Bank 59 1322 “Failing to recognize the role of banks in synchronising the flow of goods with financial and information flows, and in
managing supply chain collaboration, information sharing and visibility, is to miss significant opportunities for improved
supply chain performance.” (Silvestro and Lustrato, 2014: 317)
Government 27 115 “Some macro-institutional factors such as geographical expanse, cultural differences and government laws and regulations
also impose serious challenges for implementing SCF initiatives (Hudson, 2005; Camerinelli, 2009; Siddall, 2010).” (More
and Basu, 2013: 629)
Solution / Platform Provider 9 12 “[…] [N]ovel SCF providers – e.g. online platform providers – enter the market fostering bank-independent financing
alternatives (Hofmann and Belin, 2011).” (Martin et al., 2017: 42)

thereby helping to better define the “building blocks” of SCF. Besides
research gaps related to individual dimensions, there are also oppor-
tunities at the intersections of two or more dimensions, which will be
discussed in Section 4.3.2.
4.3. Proposed future research agenda
The proposed research agenda can be divided into two future re-
search areas, which will each be discussed in a separate subsection. The
proposed future research agenda aims at leveraging the developed
framework and findings to further explore the concept of an SCF eco-
system. In brief the two areas of the proposed agenda are:
2005). Likewise, practitioners have also identified the lack of standards
as a major issue. In 2016 the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
and various industry associations jointly produced a whitepaper pro-
posing standard definitions for SCF products and terms. In their
whitepaper, the authors highlight: “Whilst perfect consistency is un-
likely given the diversity of SCF techniques, standard nomenclature will
greatly facilitate the design, development and deployment of the sup-
porting technology and web-based services for the SCF market.”
(Forum, 2016:19). The statement by ICC highlights the important re-
lationship between standardization and automation/digitalization for
SCF. As mentioned in Section 1.1, greater connectivity and information
flow, enabled through information technology, is the innovation at the
center of the SCF ecosystem. To prosper further, the SCF ecosystem is

• Ecosystem stages and conditions – Exploring evolutionary stages of
business ecosystems as proposed by Moore (1993) in combination
with SCF influence factors identified from the literature review;
• SCF ecosystem dynamics – further exploration of the dimensions and
dynamics between them, building on the identified gaps summar-
ized in Table 14.
4.3.1. Ecosystem stages and conditions
Section 1.2 introduced the four evolutionary stages of the business
ecosystem, as proposed by Moore (1993). Applying these stages to the
context of SCF, it can be argued that the SCF ecosystem is currently
between stages (2) Expansion and (3) Leadership. While arguably SCF
already fulfills the criteria for stage 2 (e.g. wider adoption, scalability,
growth), it lacks one of the central attributes of stage 3 – namely
standardization. Moore (1993: 80) describes stage 3 as follows: “It's in
Stage 3 that companies become preoccupied with standards, interfaces,
‘the modular organization,’ and customer supplier relations.” The lack
of SCF standards has been previously identified as a severe barrier to
adoption, and one that requires urgent attention in order to further
advance SCF adoption globally (see e.g. Martin et al., 2017; Fairchild,
dependent on efficient and effective exchange of information across
stakeholders, enabled by common standards. The importance of auto-
mation and digitalization of supply chains was also highlighted by
Caniato et al. (2016), who identify the “level of digitalization” as one of
the most relevant enablers for the implementation of different clusters
of SCF solutions.
Therefore, it stands to reason that standardization together with
higher degrees of automation are key conditions to getting the SCF
ecosystem to the next stage of maturity according to Moore (1993). A
starting point for future research in this area could be to identify the
enablers and barriers for standardization and automation / digitaliza-
tion.
Another interesting focus for future research concerns different
actor groups in the SCF ecosystem and how they impact standardization
and automation / digitalization. In a recent literature review of soft-
ware ecosystems, Manikas (2016: 93) states: “We define a software
ecosystem as: the software and actor interaction in relation to a
common technological infrastructure, that results in a set of contribu-
tions and influences directly or indirectly the ecosystem.” Each of these
actors, performing one or more roles, seeks to add value for itself and

Table 13
Overview of themes for life-cycle dimension.
Theme Articles Codings Proof quotes (exemplary)
Life-cycle dimension 153 1565

Initiation 14 24 “The initiation of SCF shows similar diffusion patterns to other studies analyzing organizational innovations. […] For instance, we
learn that firms need to focus on working capital improvements and stable supply chains simultaneously. […] Moreover, SCF
requires firms to consider working capital efficiency gains through structural adaptations. So, […] SCF is initiated in firms with a
long-term focus on recurring efficiency improvements.” (Wuttke et al., 2013a: 154 f)
Implementation 134 854 “[Delta] builds its SCF implementation on an already existing automated payment platform within its corporate group. From a
technical and information system perspective, Delta thus only needed to adjust this platform, rather than to integrate an entirely
new one.” (Wuttke et al., 2013a: 156)
Adoption 72 687 “A further limitation is the restriction to European firms. It is plausible to assume that distinct banking and industrial contexts
would significantly alter the adoption process (e.g., limited use of electronic banking and strong use of checks in India).” (Wuttke
et al., 2013a: 161)

115
C. Bals Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 105–117

Table 14
Summary of identified SCF research gaps.
Framework dimensions Summary of identified SCF research gaps Sources

1) Supply Chain
Collaboration
• Impact of “lock-in” (switching costs) on different stakeholders – incentive for
providers / risk for companies?
Iacono et al. (2015), Silvestro and Lustrato (2014), Hofmann
and Zumsteg (2015), Martin et al. (2017) and Liebl et al.
• Impact of growing information transparency, through standards and
technology, on the power distribution of main SCF stakeholders
(2016)

2) Organization • Impact of ownership of SCF within corporations – which department should

“own” SCF?
Wandfluh et al. (2015), More and Basu (2013), Liebl et al.
(2016) and Blackman et al. (2013)
• departments
Impact of organizational setup impact on SCF – does structure matter? Which
are needed?
• Training requirements and incentives schemes – how can departments be
aligned behind SCF goals?
3) Financial • How to improve sharing of benefits across stakeholders Blackman et al. (2013), Gelsomino et al. (2016), Hofmann and
• What are financial considerations for financial institutions and solution
providers? How are these considerations being impacted e.g. by technological
Kotzab (2010) and Randall and Farris (2009)

developments?
4) Technology • Technology as enabler of supply chain financial and information flows – what
are the drivers?
Martin et al. (2017), Liebl et al. (2016), Fairchild (2005) and
Hofmann et al. (2017)
• Impact of technology on market dimension (e.g. multi-bank platforms
fostering transparency / competition)
• Opportunities of applying new technologies such as blockchain to SCF
5) Market & Regulation • Impact of missing standards on SCF adoption as well as impact of standards on
competition
Fairchild (2005), Martin et al. (2017), Liu et al. (2015), More
and Basu (2013) and Iacono et al. (2015)
• Regional regulation and market differences and their impact on SCF adoption
• Competitive dynamics and exogenous factors impacting SCF market (e.g.
regulation, business cycle etc.)
6) Product • Product breadth (coverage of different product solutions) Caniato et al. (2016), Liu et al. (2015), Silvestro and Lustrato
• Product
in RF)
depth (coverage of different product aspects, e.g. discounting behavior (2014) and Gelsomino et al. (2016)

• Product selection mechanisms – how should corporations choose the best-

7) Stakeholder Perspective
8) Life-Cycle
suited product?
• SCF from the perspective of the financial institution and solution providers Hofmann and Zumsteg (2015), Silvestro and Lustrato (2014),
• SCF from the perspective of the supplier, including smaller suppliers (“long-
tail”)
Wuttke et al. (2013a), Wuttke et al. (2013b) and Vázquez
et al. (2016)
• Impact of SCF further downstream in supply chain (e.g. 2nd and 3rd tier)
• Longitudinal
the life-cycle
research in how organizations adopt and use SCF across phases of Gelsomino et al. (2016), Silvestro and Lustrato (2014),
Wuttke et al. (2013a) and Liebl et al. (2016)
• Longitudinal research in how the market for SCF products changes to customer
requirements as well as exogenous factors (e.g. regulation, business cycle etc.)

the ecosystem as a whole. One on central role is that of the orchestrator,
who is typically responsible for governing and supporting the eco-
system (Manikas, 2016). This opens up two primary questions in the
context of the SCF ecosystem: (1) Which actor(s) in the current SCF
ecosystem play a central role in either enabling or hindering the de-
velopment of standards and automation / digitalization? (2) Which
stakeholder(s) do/can/should play the role of orchestrator of the SCF
ecosystem to help promote the adoption of standards?
4.3.2. SCF ecosystem dynamics
A second area for future research are the dynamics between two or
more of the SCF framework dimensions. Combinations involving under-
researched aspects of the stakeholder perspective and/or life-cycle di-
mension would seem particularly interesting. There are many combi-
nations possible, below a few suggestions for further research:
• Long-term value proposition (SC Collaboration + Stakeholder +
Life-cycle) – how do different stakeholders (suppliers, buyer, pro-
vider) perceive their decision to adopt an SCF solutions years after
implementation? Do they re-evaluate/benchmark their decision
after a certain time? What are factors influencing the long-term
success of an SCF program for all stakeholders?
• Regional adoption patterns (Product + Market and Regulatory +
Stakeholder) – What are regional differences in the SCF ecosystem,
both in terms of demand as well as solutions offered? What role do
differences in regulatory environments play in shaping regional SCF
offerings? What aspects are region-specific and which best-practices
might be transferable to other regions? Do involved stakeholders
and their roles differ across regions?
Better understanding what defines successful SCF programs both
over time as well as across geographical regions might help to form a
basis from which common best practices can be distilled. These best
practices could serve as a stepping stone towards a definition of SCF
standards for the SCF ecosystem.
In terms of research methodologies, empirical research in SCF is not
yet fully developed. This fact has been highlighted as a research gap by
Gelsomino et al. (2016) and is reflected in the numbers in Table 2. As a
result, there is opportunity for application of empirical research
methods (e.g. surveys, case studies, action research) to answer the
above proposed research questions.
5. Conclusions
This paper sought to explore how a framework for the SCF eco-
system can be conceptualized by performing a systematic literature
review of FSCM and SCF related research. In total seven dimensions and
one contextual perspective have been identified and arranged to form
the proposed SCF framework.
The research contribution of the presented framework is twofold. First,
the framework aims to serve as a reference point to start the discussion
towards an ecosystem-oriented perspective on SCF. Second, the framework
aims to propose a structure to the SCF discussion and existing research as
well as a potential frame for future areas of research and practical appli-
cation. During the analysis, the initial view of SCF as a fairly recent field
still being limited in reach and fragmented in implementation could be
confirmed. Different levels of coverage within and across the dimensions
of the proposed framework have been discussed in Sections 3 and 4, to-
gether with relevant themes and research opportunities.

116
C. Bals
Likewise, the managerial implications of the presented framework
are also twofold. First, the framework aims to serve as an overview of
SCF to the different stakeholders, providing guidance on aspects to
consider when engaging in SCF. For instance, regarding the long-term
value proposition and lock-in considerations mentioned in Section 4.
Second, by introducing the ecosystem perspective, the framework aims
to contribute to the nascent discussion around the urgent need for
standards in SCF. Following the ecosystem thinking, standards are an
important stepping stone to a bigger and more vibrant SCF market.
Therefore, stakeholders (especially solution providers, financial in-
stitutions and regulators) should work together to establish SCF stan-
dards and help educate other stakeholders in those standards. Organi-
zations such as the ICC might play an important part in encouraging the
discussion around and adoption of SCF standards.
Finally, one potential limitation of this study concerns the coverage
of the literature search, especially with regard to published research
outside the primary domain of supply chain management. Nonetheless,
the resulting framework is believed to be an accurate depiction of the
current relevant dimensions and themes found in the SCF literature. As
such, the proposed framework aims to serve as a summary of the cur-
rent body of knowledge. Looking ahead, the SCF framework will have
to co-evolve as the overall SCF ecosystem and related SCF research
progress further.
References
Aberdeen Group Report, 2006. Supply Chain Finance Benchmark Report, available at:
〈www.aberdeen.com/Aberdeen-Library/3380/RA_SCFinance_VS_BE_3380.aspx〉
(Accessed 12 September 2011).
Barratt, M., 2004. Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain.
Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 9 (1), 30–42.
Barratt, M.A.,Green, M., 2001. The cultural shift: the need for a collaborative culture,
Conference Proceedings of Supply Chain Knowledge 2001, Cranfield School of
Management, November.
Blackman, I.D., Holland, C.P., Westcott, T., 2013. Motorola's global financial supply chain
strategy. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 18, 132–147.
Camerinelli, E., 2009. Supply chain finance. J. Paym. Strategy Syst. 3 (2), 114–128.
Caniato, F., Gelsomino, L.M., Perego, A., Ronchi, S., 2016. Does finance solve the supply
chain financing problem? Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 21, 534–549.
Dunn, T., 2011. Steps to SCF success. Glob. Financ. 25 (11), 8–9.
Fairchild, A., 2005. Intelligent matching: integrating efficiencies in the financial supply
chain. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 10 (4), 244–248.
Forum, G.S.C.F., 2016. Standard Definitions for Techniques of Supply Chain Finance, URL
- 〈http://www.iccwbo.org/Data/Documents/Banking/General-PDFs/Standard-
Definitions-for-Techniques-of-Supply-Chain-Finance_Global-SCF-Forum_2016/〉
(Accessed 16 May 2016).
Gelsomino, L.M., Mangiaracina, R., Perego, A., Tumino, A., 2016. Supply chain finance: a
literature review. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 46, 348–366.
Grant, R.M., 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 17
(Winter Special Issue), 109–122.
Grosse-Ruyken, P.T., Wagner, S.M., Jönke, R., 2011. What is the right cash conversion
cycle for your supply chain? Int. J. Serv. Oper. Manag. 10, 13–29.
Hofmann, E., 2005. Supply chain finance: some conceptual insights. In: Lasch, R., Janker,
C.G. (Eds.), Logistik Management. Innovative Logistikkonzepte, German
Universitätsverlag, Wiesbaden, pp. 203–214.
Hofmann, E., 2009. Inventory financing in supply chains: a logistics service provider-
approach. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 39 (9), 716–740.
Hofmann, E., Kotzab, H., 2010. A supply chain‐oriented approach of working capital
management. J. Bus. Logist. 31, 305–330.
Hofmann, E., Belin, O., 2011. Supply Chain Finance Solutions: Relevance – Propositions –
Market Value. Springer, Berlin.
Hofmann, E., Zumsteg, S., 2015. Win-Win and No-Win Situations in supply chain finance:
the case of accounts Receivable programs. Supply Chain Forum.: Int. J. 16, 30–50.
Hofmann, E., Strewe, U.M., Bosia, N., 2017. Supply Chain Finance and Blockchain
Technology: the Case of Reverse Securitisation. Springer.
Hudson, S., 2005. Cultural affects on the global supply chain, The SCRC Articles Library,
available at: 〈http://scm.ncsu.edu/scm-articles/article/cultural-affects-on-the-
global-supplychain〉 (Accessed 22 September 2011).
117
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 105–117
Iacono, Dello, U., Reindorp, M., Dellaert, N., 2015. Market adoption of reverse Factoring.
Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 45, 286–308.
Ireland, R., Bruce, R., 2000. CPFR: only the beginning of collaboration. Supply Chain
Manag. Rev. 4 (4), 80–88.
Kraljic, P., 1983. Purchasing must become supply management. Harv. Bus. Rev. 61 (5),
109–117.
Lamoureux, J.-F. and Evans, T.A., 2011. Supply chain finance: a new means to support the
competitiveness and resilience of global value chains, Working Paper No. 2179944,
Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY.
Lekkakos, S.D., Serrano, A., 2016. Supply chain finance for small and medium sized en-
terprises: the case of reverse Factoring. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 46,
367–392.
Liebl, J., Hartmann, E., Feisel, E., 2016. Reverse factoring in the supply chain: objectives,
antecedents and implementation barriers. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 46,
393–413.
Liu, X., Zhou, L., Wu, Y., 2015. Supply chain finance in China: business innovation and
theory development. Sustainability 7, 14689–14709.
Manikas, K., 2016. Revisiting software ecosystems research: a longitudinal literature
study. J. Syst. Softw. 117, 84–103.
Martin, J., Martin, J., Hofmann, E., 2017. Involving financial service providers in supply
chain finance practices: company needs and service requirements. J. Appl. Account.
Res. 18 (1), 42–62.
Moore, J.F., 1993. Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harv. Bus. Rev. 71,
75–83.
More, D., Basu, P., 2013. Challenges of supply chain finance - a detailed study and a
hierarchical model based on the experiences of an indian firm. Bus. Process Manag. J.
19, 624–647.
Ng, I., 2014. New business and economic models in the connected digital economy. J.
Revenue Pricing Manag. 13, 149–155.
Pfohl, H.-C., Gomm, M., 2009. Supply chain finance: optimizing financial flows in supply
chains. Logist. Res. 1, 149–161.
Pinto, M.B., Pinto, J.K., Prescott, J.E., 1993. Antecedents and consequences of project
team cross-functional cooperation. Manag. Sci. 39 (10), 1281–1297.
Porter, M.E., 1985. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior
Performance. Free Press, New York, NY.
Randall, W.S., Farris, M.T., 2009. Supply chain financing: using Cash‐to‐Cash variables to
Strengthen the supply chain. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 39, 669–689.
Seuring, S., Gold, S., 2012. Conducting Content‐Analysis Based Literature Reviews in
Supply Chain Management. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 17, 544–555.
Siddall, S., 2010. Supply Chain Finance: Report of the Supply Chain Finance Working
Group, The Association of Corporate Treasurers, available at: 〈www.treasurers.org/
scf〉 (Accessed 10 September 2011).
Silvestro, R., Lustrato, P., 2014. Integrating financial and physical supply chains: the role
of banks in enabling supply chain integration. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 34,
298–324.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evi-
dence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J.
Manag. 14, 207–222.
van der Vliet, K., Reindorp, M.J., Fransoo, J.C., 2015. The price of reverse factoring:
financing rates vs. payment delays. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 242, 842–853.
Vázquez, X.H., Sartal, A., Lozano-Lozano, L.M., 2016. Watch the working capital of tier-
two suppliers: a financial perspective of supply chain collaboration in the automotive
industry. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 21, 321–333.
Viskari, S., Kärri, T., 2012. A model for working capital management in the inter-orga-
nisational context. Int. J. Integr. Supply Manag. 7, 61–79.
Wandfluh, M., Hofmann, E., Schoensleben, P., 2015. Financing buyer–supplier dyads: an
empirical analysis on financial collaboration in the supply chain. Int. J. Logist. Res.
Appl. 19, 200–217.
Walton, S.V., Gupta, J.N.D., 1999. Electronic data interchange for process change in an
integrated supply chain. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 19 (4), 372–388.
Wu, J., 2011. The law conflict and suggestions of minor enterprise financing based chattel
hypothec. Forecasting 3, 30–52 (In Chinese).
Wuttke, D.A., Blome, C., Foerstl, K., Henke, M., 2013a. Managing the innovation adoption
of supply chain finance – empirical evidence from six european case studies. J. Bus.
Logist. 34, 148–166.
Wuttke, D.A., Blome, C., Henke, M., 2013b. Focusing the financial flow of supply chains -
an empirical investigation of financial supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
145, 773–789.
Wuttke, D.A., Blome, C., Heese, H.S., Protopappa-Sieke, M., 2016. Supply chain finance -
optimal introduction and adoption decisions. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 178, 72–81.
Yan, N., Sun, B., 2013. Coordinating loan strategies for supply chain financing with
limited credit. OR Spectr. 35 (4), 1039–1058.
Zhao, X., Yeung, K., Huang, Q., Song, X., 2015. Improving the predictability of business
failure of supply chain finance clients by using external big dataset. Ind. Manag. Data
Syst. 115, 1683–1703.