Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Location Flexibility in Global Supply Chains: The Efficiency-Imitability Tradeoff and Sustained Competitive Advantage

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The New Frontiers of International Business

Part of the book series: Contributions to Management Science ((MANAGEMENT SC.))

  • 707 Accesses

Abstract

This explorative study, which complements research on manufacturing, supplier, and governance flexibility, identifies and aims to fill a gap in extant research related to firms’ location flexibility in global supply chains. In an increasingly dynamic and globally integrated economic environment, firms are compelled to develop the capacity to swiftly relocate tasks and resources in order to reduce the impact of location-specific risks and to benefit from location opportunities as they emerge. From this perspective, the study outlines basic modes for developing location flexibility in order to sustain competitiveness in global sourcing and discusses the managerial tradeoffs between cost efficiency and imitability associated with these modes. We also touch upon various tradeoff-shifting mechanisms and propose principles for combining location-flexibility modes in a balanced way.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aaker, D. A., & Mascarenhas, B. (1984). The need for strategic flexibility. Journal of Business Strategy, 5(2), 74–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackers, P., & Wilkinson, A. (2003). Understanding work and employment: Industrial relations in transition. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, P., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10(1), 43–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, L., & Pantzalis, C. (1996). Valuation of the operating flexibility of multinational operations. Journal of International Business Studies, 27, 633–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allred, C. R., Fawcett, S. E., Wallin, C., & Magnan, G. M. (2011). A dynamic collaboration capability as a source of competitive advantage. Decision Sciences, 42(1), 129–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Holm, U. (2002). The strategic impact of external networks - subsidiary performance and competence development in the multinational corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 23(11), 979–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apte, U. M., & Mason, R. O. (1995). Global disaggregation of information-intensive services. Management Science, 41(7), 1250–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyres, N. S., & Liebeskind, J. P. (2002). Governance inseparability and the evolution of US biotechnology industry. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 47(2), 197–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Athreye, S. S. (2005). The Indian software industry and its evolving service capability. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3), 393–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, J. (1984). Manpower strategies for flexible organizations. Personnel Management, 16(August), 28–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C. Y. (2008). Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions, and the boundaries of firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(1), 155–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity. MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belderbos, R., & Zou, J. (2007). On the growth of foreign affiliates: Multinational plant networks, joint ventures, and flexibility. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 1095–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braunscheidel, M. J., & Suresh, N. C. (2009). The organizational antecedents of a firm’s supply chain agility for risk mitigation and response. Journal of Operations Management, 27(2), 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bresnahan, T., Gambardella, A., & Saxenian, A. (2001). ‘Old economy’ inputs for ‘new economy’ outcomes: Cluster formation in the new Silicon Valleys. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 835–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N., Rasche, A., & Seidl, D. (2012). The dynamics of standardization: Three perspectives on standards in organization studies. Organization Studies, 33(5–6), 613–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., Enderwick, P., & Cross, A. R. (2018). International business. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camison, C., & Lopez, A. V. (2010). An examination of the relationship between manufacturing flexibility and firm performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 30(8), 853–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, C.-Y., Kocabasoglu-Hillmer, C., & Suresh, N. (2012). An empirical investigation of the impact of strategic sourcing and flexibility on firm’s supply chain agility. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32(1), 49–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christopher, M., & Holweg, M. (2011). “Supply chain 2.0”: Managing supply chains in the era of turbulence. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 41(1), 63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christopher, M., & Holweg, M. (2017). Supply chain 2.0 revisited: A framework for managing volatility-induced risk in the supply chain. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 47(1), 2–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, R., & Foray, D. (1997). The economics of codification and the diffusion of knowledge. Industrial & Corporate Change, 6(3), 595–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’souza, D., & Williams, F. (2000). Toward a taxonomy of manufacturing flexibility dimensions. Journal of Operations Management, 18(5), 577–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demirbag, M., Mellahi, K., Sahadev, S., & Elliston, J. (2012). Employee service abandonment in offshore operations: A case study of a US multinational in India. Journal of World Business, 47(2), 178–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504–1511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doh, J. P., Bunyaratavej, K., & Hahn, E. D. (2009). Separable but not equal: The location determinants of discrete services offshoring activities. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 926–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., Singh, H., & Hesterly, W. (2018). The relational view revisited: A dynamic perspective on value creation and value capture. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 3140–3162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebben, J. J., & Johnson, A. C. (2005). Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to performance in small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26(13), 1229–1259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ECCO. (2012). Annual report for 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., Furr, N. R., & Bingham, C. B. (2010). Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science, 21(6), 1263–1273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellram, L. M., Tate, W. L., & Feitzinger, E. G. (2013). Factor-market rivalry and competition for supply chain resources. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(1), 29–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ethiraj, S. K., Kale, P., Krishnan, M. S., & Singh, J. V. (2005). Where do capabilities come from and how do they matter? A study in the software services industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26(1), 25–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ethiraj, S. K., Levinthal, D., & Roy, R. R. (2008). The dual role of modularity: Innovation and imitation. Management Science, 54(5), 939–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisch, J. H., & Zschoche, M. (2011). Do firms benefit from multinationality through production shifting? Journal of International Management, 17(2), 143–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisch, J. H., & Zschoche, M. (2012). The role of operational flexibility in the expansion of international production networks. Strategic Management Journal, 33(13), 1540–1556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frandsen, T. (2017). Evolution of modularity literature: A 25-year bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 37(6), 703–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gereffi, G. (2020). What does the COVID-19 pandemic teach us about global value chains? The case of medical supplies. Journal of International Business Policy, 3(3), 287–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gereffi, G., Humphrey, S., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 78–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gligor, D. M., Esmark, C. L., & Holcomb, M. C. (2015). Performance outcomes of supply chain agility: When should you be agile? Journal of Operations Management, 33–34, 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., & Sytch, M. (2007). Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in interorganizational relationships: Effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer's performance in procurement relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 32–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, E. D., Doh, J. P., & Bunyaratavej, K. (2009). The evolution of risk in information systems offshoring: The impact of home country risk, firm learning, and competitive dynamics. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), 597–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A. (2011). Relevance of strategic management theory and research for supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47(1), 9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Xu, K., & Carnes, C. M. (2016). Resource based theory in operations management research. Journal of Operations Management, 41, 77–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huchzermeier, A., & Cohen, M. A. (1996). Valuing operational flexibility under exchange rate risk. Operations Research, 44(1), 100–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain, A., Jain, P. K., Chan, F. T. S., & Singh, S. (2013). A review on manufacturing flexibility. International Journal of Production Research, 51(19), 5946–5970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, P. D. Ø., & Petersen, B. (2013). Global sourcing of services: Risk, process, and collaborative architecture. Global Strategy Journal, 3(1), 67–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. (2009). The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1411–1431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kedia, B. L., & Lahiri, S. (2007). International outsourcing of services: A partnership model. Journal of International Management, 13(1), 22–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kedia, B. L., & Mukherjee, D. (2009). Understanding offshoring: A research framework based disintegration, location and externalization advantages. Journal of World Business, 44(3), 250–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khadria, B. (2004). Human resources in science and technology in India and the international mobility of highly skilled Indians. In OECD science, technology and industry working papers, 2004/07. OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. S., & Mathur, I. (2008). The impact of geographic diversification on firm performance. International Review of Financial Analysis, 17(4), 747–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. W. (2007). Disentangling interfirm and intrafirm causal ambiguity: A conceptual model of causal ambiguity and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 156–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knemeyer, A. M., Zinn, W., & Eroglu, C. (2009). Proactive planning for catastrophic events in supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 27(2), 141–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. (1985). Designing global strategies: Profiting from operational flexibility. Sloan Management Review, 26(4), 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Kulatilaka, N. (1994). Operating flexibility, global manufacturing, and the option value of a multinational network. Management Science, 40(1), 123–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, K., van Fenema, P. C., & von Glinow, M. A. (2009). Offshoring and global distribution of work: Implications for task interdependence theory and practice. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 642–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, A. Y., Massini, S., & Peeters, C. (2009). Why are companies offshoring innovation? The emerging global race for talent. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 901–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippman, S. A., & Rumelt, R. P. (1982). Uncertain imitability: An analysis of interfirm differences in efficiency under competition. The Bell Journal of Economics, 13(2), 418–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y., Wang, S., Zheng, Q., & Jayaraman, V. (2012). Task attributes and process integration in business process offshoring: A perspective of service providers from India and China. Journal of International Business Studies, 43, 498–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mair, A. (1994). Honda’s global flexifactory network. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14(3), 6–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, S. (2014). Mitigate, tolerate or relocate? Offshoring challenges, strategic imperatives and resource constraints. Journal of World Business, 49(4), 522–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, S., Hutzschenreuter, T., & Strathmann, A. (2013). Emerging capability or continuous challenge? Relocating knowledge work and managing process interfaces. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(5), 1159–1193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, S., Ricart, J. E., Rique, M. S. R., & Lewin, A. Y. (2010). From blind spots to hotspots: How knowledge services clusters develop and attract foreign investment. Journal of International Management, 16(4), 369–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, S., Sydow, J., & Windeler, A. (2012). Securing access to lower-cost talent globally: The dynamics of active embedding and field structuration. Regional Studies, 46(9), 1201–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manuj, I., & Mentzer, J. T. (2008). Global supply chain risk management strategies. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(3), 192–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, K. J. (2006). Spillovers and governance: An analysis of knowledge and reputational spillovers in information technology. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 69–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinsey. (2020). Risk, resilience, and rebalancing in global value chains. McKinsey Global Institute. August 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinsey. (2021). The resilience imperative: Succeeding in uncertain times. McKinsey Global Institute. May 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1986). Organizations: New concepts for new forms. California Management Review, 18(3), 62–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H., & McHugh, A. (1985). Strategy formation in an adhocracy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(2), 160–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niosi, J., & Tschang, F. T. (2009). The strategies of Chinese and Indian software multinationals: Implications for internationalization theory. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(2), 269–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2001). International mobility of the highly skilled. OECD Proceedings. OECD Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C., & Holzinger, I. (2008). The effectiveness of strategic political management: A dynamic capabilities framework. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 496–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ORN. (2011). Organizational flexibility: The strategic differentiator of global sourcing effectiveness. ORN annual corporate client report. Durham, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pananond, P., Gereffi, G., & Pedersen, T. (2020). An integrative typology of global strategy and global value chains: The management and organization of cross-border activities. Global Strategy Journal, 10(3), 421–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papastergiadis, N. (2000). The turbulence of migration: Globalization, deterritorialization, and hybridity. Polity Press and Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, R. P., & Wirth, A. (1999). Manufacturing flexibility: Measures and relationships. European Journal of Operational Research, 118(3), 429–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patibandla, M., & Petersen, B. (2002). Role of transnational corporations in the evolution of a high-tech industry: The case of India’s software industry. World Development, 30(9), 1561–1577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peréz, J. B., & Pla-Barber, J. (2005). When are international managers a cost effective solution? The rationale of transaction cost economics applied to staffing decisions in MNCs. Journal of Business Research, 58(10), 1320–1329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, B., Welch, D. E., & Welch, L. S. (2000). Creating meaningful switching options in international operations. Long Range Planning, 33(5), 690–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1986). Competition in global industries: A conceptual framework. In M. E. Porter (Ed.), Competition in global industries (pp. 15–60). Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prater, E., Biehl, M., & Smith, M. A. (2001). International supply chain agility – Tradeoffs between flexibility and uncertainty. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 21(5/6), 823–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priem, R. L., & Swink, M. (2012). A demand-side perspective on supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48(2), 7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rangan, S. (1998). Do multinationals operate flexibly? Theory and evidence. Journal of International Business Studies, 29, 217–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, G., Barney, J. B., & Muhanna, W. A. (2004). Capabilities, business processes, and competitive advantage: Choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, R., & DeFillippi, R. J. (1990). Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 88–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ring, P. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 13(7), 483–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. (1996). Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez, A. M., & Pérez, M. P. (2005). Supply chain flexibility and firm performance: A conceptual model and empirical study in the automotive industry. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25(7), 681–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreyoegg, G., & Sydow, J. (2010). Organizing for fluidity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 21(6), 1251–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 597–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starkey, K., Barnatt, C., & Tempest, S. (2000). Beyond networks and hierarchies: Latent organizations in the U.K. television industry. Organization Science, 11(3), 299–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stecke, K. E., & Kumar, S. (2009). Sources of supply chain disruptions, factors that breed vulnerability, and mitigating strategies. Journal of Marketing Channels, 16(3), 193–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stringfellow, A., Teagarden, M., & Nie, W. (2008). Invisible costs in offshoring services work. Journal of Operations Management, 26(2), 164–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swafford, P. M., Ghosh, S., & Murthy, N. (2006). The antecedents of supply chain agility of a firm: Scale development and model testing. Journal of Operations Management, 24(2), 170–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, C. Y., & Tikoo, S. (1999). Operational flexibility and market valuation of earnings. Strategic Management Journal, 20(8), 749–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanriverdi, H., Konana, P., & Ge, L. (2007). The choice of sourcing mechanisms for business processes. Information Systems Research, 18(3), 280–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theyel, G., & Hofmann, K. H. (2021). Manufacturing location decisions and organizational agility. Multinational Business Review, 29(2), 166–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD. (2020). World investment report 2020: International production beyond the pandemic. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vahlne, J. E., & Johanson, J. (2020). The Uppsala model: Networks and micro-foundations. Journal of International Business Studies, 51, 4–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A. (2020). Will the COVID-19 pandemic really change the governance of global value chains? British Journal of Management, 31(3), 444–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vokurka, R. J., & O’Leary-Kelly, S. W. (2000). A review of empirical research on manufacturing flexibility. Journal of Operations Management, 18(4), 485–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volberda, H. W. (1996). Towards the flexible form: How to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science, 7(4), 359–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (1994). “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, S. M., & Bode, C. (2006). An empirical investigation into supply chain vulnerability. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 12(6), 301–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, G., & Yeh, E. Y. (2005). Globalization and hybridization in cultural products: The cases of Mulan and crouching Tiger, hidden dragon. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 8(2), 175–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, D. E. (2003). Globalisation of staff movements: Beyond cultural adjustment. Management International Review, 43(2), 149–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1989). From critical resources to corporate strategy. Journal of General Management, 14(3), 4–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windeler, A., & Sydow, J. (2001). Project networks and changing industry practices – Collaborative content production in the German television industry. Organization Studies, 22(6), 1035–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 991–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum. (2013). Building resilience in supply chains – An initiative of the risk response network in collaboration with Accenture. World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum. (2020). How to rebound stronger from Covid-19 – Resilience in manufacturing and supply systems. World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xanthopoulos, A., Vlachos, D., & Iakovou, E. (2012). Optimal newsvendor policies for dual-sourcing supply chains: A disruption risk management framework. Computers & Operations Research, 39(2), 350–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, H., Zeng, A. Z., & Zhao, L. (2009). Single or dual sourcing: Decision-making in the presence of supply chain disruption risks. Omega, 37(4), 788–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K. Z., & Wu, F. (2010). Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 547–561.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Strategy and Innovation, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Peter D. Ørberg Jensen

  2. School of Business, Management and Economics, University of Sussex, Sussex House, Falmer, Brighton, UK

    Stephan Manning

  3. Department of International Economics, Government and Business, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Bent Petersen

Authors
  1. Peter D. Ørberg Jensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephan Manning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bent Petersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter D. Ørberg Jensen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. St. Petersburg campus, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL, USA

    Hemant Merchant

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Jensen, P.D.Ø., Manning, S., Petersen, B. (2022). Location Flexibility in Global Supply Chains: The Efficiency-Imitability Tradeoff and Sustained Competitive Advantage. In: Merchant, H. (eds) The New Frontiers of International Business. Contributions to Management Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06003-8_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation