�鶹��Ʒ��Ƶ

New Study Highlights Role of Supply Chain Guardians in Consumer Safety

As fraudulent and harmful products continue to move through increasingly complex global supply chains, a new study from researchers at �鶹��Ʒ��Ƶ and two other universities examines a critical question: What causes companies to intervene when another organization in their supply chain commits fraud?

---

As fraudulent and harmful products continue to move through increasingly complex global supply chains, a new study from researchers at �鶹��Ʒ��Ƶ and two other universities examines a critical question: What causes companies to intervene when another organization in their supply chain commits fraud?

The paper, “Supply Chain Guardianship: Why Some Firms Intervene When Other Firms Commit Fraud,” introduces the concept of supply chain guardianship, or the idea that companies can help protect consumers and business partners by identifying, reporting, and taking corrective action against fraudulent behavior beyond their own operations.

Unlike traditional fraud prevention efforts, which focus primarily on internal controls and preventing misconduct within a company, the supply chain guardianship study examines how organizations respond when suppliers, manufacturers, or other partners engage in harmful practices.

“Traditional supply chain controls ask, ‘How do we keep our own company from committing fraud?’” said , Ph.D., supply chain management expert and associate dean of graduate programs in . “Our research asks a different question: ‘What causes companies to step in when they discover someone else is committing fraud?’ Supply chains are interconnected, and the actions—or inactions—of one company can affect many others, including consumers.”

To answer this question, Carnovale and co-researchers Scott DuHadway, Ph.D., associate professor at Portland State University, and Lutz Kaufmann, Ph.D., professor at WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management in Germany, conducted four experiments involving approximately 1,000 screened managers who were asked how they would respond after discovering fraud committed by another firm in their supply chain.

The researchers found that a company’s position in the supply chain, whether upstream or downstream of fraudulent activity, had little influence on managers’ decisions to intervene. Instead, the strongest factors were the values expressed by a firm’s leadership.

Leadership played a key role in shaping employees’ sense of empowerment to act. Organizations where leaders clearly communicated ethical priorities were more likely to encourage intervention, while employees at firms that lacked this tone were more likely to rationalize that misconduct was “someone else’s problem” and were less likely to act.

The findings suggest that preventing harmful products from reaching consumers requires more than compliance systems alone. Researchers recommended that companies establish clear expectations before a crisis occurs, define who is responsible for responding to supply chain fraud, and create cultures where employees feel supported when they raise concerns.

The paper was published in the leading supply chain management journal, The Journal of Operations Management.

-FAU-

Tags: business