By BSD –
Curated by Business Science Daily — peer-reviewed sources, human-verified.
Learn more
About Our Curation Process
Business Science Daily curates academic research in business and economics. Each featured study is selected from reputable, peer-reviewed journals, institutional repositories, or working papers (e.g., Elsevier, Sage, NBER, SSRN).
Articles are carefully summarized to ensure clarity and accuracy, with direct citations or links to original sources. Our process emphasizes transparency, academic integrity, and accessibility for a broader audience.
Learn more in our Editorial Standards & AI Policy.
Research in supply chain management has mostly focused on operational performance. This includes moving goods faster, coordinating information more effectively, and using resources efficiently across firms. The financial side of these activities has often been treated as secondary. It is usually considered a topic for corporate finance rather than supply chain management.
Operational and financial flows are closely interconnected in practice. Every shipment triggers a corresponding payment. Each inventory decision affects working capital, either tying up cash or freeing it. Supplier relationships are shaped not only by service levels and reliability, but also by negotiated payment terms and the extension of credit between partners. Despite this clear interdependence, the movement of cash through supply chains — and its impact on inter-firm relationships and overall performance — has received far less systematic attention than physical and informational flows.
The six papers discussed here contribute to a more nuanced understanding of this financial dimension. In their influential review, Gelsomino, Mangiaracina, Perego, and Tumino (2016) take an important first step in organizing what had previously been a rather fragmented stream of research. They show that supply chain finance (SCF) has developed along two primary lines of inquiry. One perspective is finance-oriented, emphasizing solutions led by banks or financial institutions. The other is supply chain-oriented, focusing on how trading partners collaboratively manage working capital. This distinction is more than semantic; it shapes how problems are defined, which actors are positioned at the center of SCF arrangements, and what types of value creation are emphasized.
Hofmann and Johnson (2016) build on this foundation by identifying six schools of thought within the SCF literature. Their analysis highlights the conceptual diversity of the field and makes clear that SCF is still characterized by multiple, partially overlapping theoretical lenses. Rather than converging around a single dominant framework, research continues to draw from finance, operations management, and interorganizational theory.
Additionally, adopting a longitudinal perspective, Xu, Chen, Jia, Brown, Gong, and Xu (2018) use bibliometric techniques to trace how SCF research has evolved over the past fifty years. They identify four major research clusters and document a gradual shift in emphasis — from early work centered on individual firm decisions related to inventory and trade credit, toward a broader supply chain-level focus on coordinated financial decision-making. This evolution reflects a growing recognition that financial optimization in supply chains cannot be fully understood at the level of a single firm.
Furthermore, Chakuu, Masi, and Godsell (2019) contribute by developing archetypes of SCF instruments. Their framework brings together previously disconnected strands of research by linking financial instruments to specific supply chain contexts, the actors involved, and the value created for each participant. In doing so, they move the discussion beyond isolated tools and toward a more integrated understanding of SCF configurations.
Relevantly, Muneeb, Nobanee, Kamal, and Shanti (2023) incorporate the digitalization of supply chains into the conversation. By mapping more than 4,000 academic publications, they identify 18 thematic areas, including blockchain, artificial intelligence, and green inventory management. Their findings underscore how digital technologies are reshaping both operational coordination and financial arrangements within supply networks.
Also, Liao et al. (2025) extend the scope of SCF research toward sustainability. The authors examine how financial mechanisms can be aligned with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) objectives and propose the idea of a sustainable supply chain finance ecosystem. In this view, financial flows are not merely instruments for liquidity management, but also potential levers for encouraging more responsible practices across supply chains.
Browse the tabs below for detailed findings.
Supply chain finance literature reviews
Gelsomino (2016) · Hofmann & Johnson (2016) · Xu (2018) · Chakuu (2019) · Muneeb (2023) · Liao (2025) — combined: what each paper is about + their detailed analytical findings.
Gelsomino, Mangiaracina, Perego & Tumino (2016)
Supply chain finance: a literature review · International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
The article is a systematic attempt to bring together the fragmented literature on supply chain finance (SCF). The authors discovered that researchers and practitioners were talking about SCF in two very different ways: one group focused on financial solutions provided by banks (finance‑oriented), the other on collaborative inventory and working capital optimisation between supply chain partners (supply chain‑oriented). The paper’s main objective is to clarify these two perspectives, map the existing research, and identify what still have not discovered.
The authors searched databases for 2000–2014, found 119 relevant papers, and analyzed them using a structured coding scheme. Each paper was classified by research method (analytical, conceptual, case study, etc.), by whether it addressed definitions, benefits, or real‑world projects, and by which perspective was taken.
Detailed analytical findings
Two main perspectives
| Perspective | Role of financial institution | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Finance oriented | Mandatory (lender essential) | payables/receivables only; often only reverse factoring |
| Supply chain oriented | Non‑mandatory (can be absent) | includes inventories, fixed assets; inter‑company optimisation |
| Buyer‑driven (subset) | Mandatory | evolved reverse factoring, technology‑enabled |
Research methods (119 papers)
- Analytical (57), Conceptual (30), Survey (12), Case study (13), Simulation (11)
Four research gaps
- No general theory of supply chain finance (disconnected perspectives).
- Weak empirical holistic analyses (mostly dyadic, upstream).
- Few assessment models for supply chain financial performance (beyond dyad).
- Lack of managerial tools to choose supply chain finance solutions.
Hofmann & Johnson (2016)
Guest editorial: supply chain finance – some conceptual thoughts reloaded · International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
The article starts with asking what exactly is supply chain finance? Where does it come from? Why is there so much terminological confusion? The authors argue that supply chain finance is not a single, well‑defined field but a set of different “schools of thought” that have grown up around different aspects of financing in supply chains.
Detailed analytical findings
Six schools of thought in supply chain finance
- Reverse factoring school: restricted to one financing arrangement.
- Asset school: financing specific resources (warehouses, equipment) – sale‑and‑leaseback.
- Quantitative modeling school: external capital view (securitisation) and internal capital view (trade credit).
- Financial chain school: optimisation of financial processes and transactions.
- Risk school: trade spillovers, financial resilience.
- Stakeholder school: examines different supply chain parties involved (banks, FinTechs, logistics service providers).
Thematic scope – beyond working capital
- inventories, receivables, payables + fixed assets (logistics fleets, ICT), taxes, risk, performance‑based contracting.
Theoretical foundations
- Interorganisational settings, corporate financing (WACC as endogenous), principal‑agent theory.
Outlook – game changers
- Blockchain, smart contracts, Industry 4.0, sustainability‑linked supply chain finance (Levi Strauss & IFC example).
- Regional specificities: China, Islamic finance, Latin America.
Xu, Chen, Jia, Brown, Gong & Xu (2018)
Supply chain finance: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis · International Journal of Production Economics
This review combines traditional systematic review with bibliometric methods to map the intellectual structure of supply chain finance research over nearly five decades (1970–2016). The authors wanted to go beyond simple summaries and actually identify the main research clusters, the most influential papers and authors, and how the field has evolved.
Detailed analytical findings
Four clusters (co‑citation based)
| Cluster | Theme | # papers (214) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Deteriorating inventory + trade credit (EOQ/EPQ) | 63 |
| 2 | Inventory decisions under complex trade credit (fuzzy, two‑level) | 31 |
| 3 | Interaction replenishment–delay payment (Stackelberg, coordination) | 63 |
| 4 | Roles of financing service (bank vs trade credit, reverse factoring) | 57 |
PageRank prestige (top 3)
- Goyal (1985), Jaggi et al. (2008), Huang (2007)
Seven future directions
- Multi‑tier supply chain finance, relax assumptions (asymmetric info, risk), game theory, tax & exchange rates, sustainability, more empirical research.
Chakuu, Masi & Godsell (2019)
Exploring the relationship between mechanisms, actors and instruments in supply chain finance: A systematic literature review · International Journal of Production Economics
The authors noticed that most supply chain finance studies look at either actors (buyers, suppliers, banks) or instruments (reverse factoring, inventory financing) in isolation. There was no integrated understanding of how actors, instruments, processes, and benefits fit together. This paper sets out to create that integrated picture by developing “supply chain finance archetypes”.
Detailed analytical findings
Five key constructs
- Actors (primary: buyer, supplier; supportive: banks, logistics service providers, non-bank financial institutions, platform)
- Instruments (reverse factoring, inventory financing, purchase order financing, leasing, etc.)
- Processes & triggers (Source‑to‑Pay, Order‑to‑Cash, Fulfill‑to‑Service; triggers: purchase order, inventory, approved invoice, fixed asset)
- Enablers & inhibitors (credit rationing, financial risk, info asymmetry, legal barriers)
- Financial benefits (Cash Conversion Cycle, Net Working Capital, Collaborative Cash Conversion Cycle, Economic Value Added, service fee, Days Payable Outstanding, Days Sales Outstanding)
Three supply chain finance archetypes
| Archetype | Triggers | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Fixed‑asset financing (asset‑centric) | movable/immovable assets | leasing, fixed‑asset loans |
| Inventory financing (inventory‑centric) | inventory, raw materials, purchase order | warehouse finance, vendor managed inventory, consignment |
| Accounts receivable/payable (buyer‑/supplier‑centric) | issued/approved invoice | factoring, reverse factoring, dynamic discounting |
Each archetype links to specific actors, enablers/inhibitors, and financial benefits (see detailed tables in paper).
Muneeb, Nobanee, Kamal & Shanti (2023)
A bibliometric review of supply chain finance and digitalisation: mapping, current streams, and future research agenda · Management Review Quarterly
This is the most up‑to‑date and large‑scale bibliometric review, covering 1941 to 2023. The authors specifically focus on the intersection of supply chain finance and digitalisation (Industry 4.0, blockchain, AI, etc.). They wanted to map the entire field, identify the main research streams, and provide a detailed future research agenda that takes digitalisation seriously.
Detailed analytical findings
Top authors (citations)
- Teng J.-T. (2533), Chung K.-J. (2028), Goyal S.K. (1927)
Keyword co‑occurrence (top 5)
- trade credit (590), inventory (468), inventory control (332), working capital management (214), supply chain finance (205).
18 research streams (selected)
- Digital supply chain finance
- Spare parts inventory control
- Stochastic modelling
- Trade credit
- EOQ / deterioration
- Green inventory
- Islamic finance & working capital
- Blockchain/AI in digital supply chain finance
- Cash conversion cycle
- Government guidance funds
- Hospital management
- Profitability
Future research framework (tables 6-8)
Digital sustainability, metaheuristic cost minimisation, physical internet, blockchain transparency, AI for disruption forecasting.
Liao, Prataviera, Ghadge & Abushaihka (2025)
A sustainable supply chain finance ecosystem: A review and conceptual framework · International Journal of Production Economics
While supply chain finance has traditionally focused on economic benefits, this review asks: how can supply chain finance be used to promote environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals? The authors coin and develop the concept of “sustainable supply chain finance” (SSCF). They aim to consolidate the emerging literature and build a comprehensive framework that explains how sustainability gets integrated into supply chain finance.
Detailed analytical findings
Sustainable supply chain finance ecosystem – stakeholders
- Primary: buyers, suppliers, financial institutions.
- Auxiliary: technology/logistics providers, ESG information providers, regulators, NGOs.
Influencing sustainability factors
- Environmental: carbon policies, green credit, stakeholder expectations.
- Social: corporate social responsibility, labour rights, human rights (e.g. Germany’s Supply Chain Due Diligence Act).
- Governing: transparency, collaboration, Industry 4.0 (blockchain, AI).
Sustainable supply chain finance solutions (buyer‑ vs supplier‑centric)
| Category | Solutions | Key stakeholder |
|---|---|---|
| Buyer‑centric accounts payable financing | reverse factoring, purchase‑order financing | buyer initiates, suppliers gain |
| Supplier‑centric accounts receivable financing | trade credit (most common) | supplier offers credit, buyer benefits |
CIMO framework
- Context: economic, environmental, social, governing factors + stakeholders.
- Intervention: buyer‑centric / supplier‑centric sustainable supply chain finance instruments.
- Mechanism: buyers give order/payment priority; financial institutions offer preferential rates based on ESG; technology providers enable transparency.
- Outcome: economic (profit, access to finance), environmental (carbon reduction), social (CSR, labour rights), governing (transparency, risk mitigation).
Future research questions
- How does sustainable supply chain finance promote social sustainability (beyond CSR)?
- How does power asymmetry influence sustainable supply chain finance decisions?
- How do sustainable supply chain finance solutions impact different tiers?
- How does fixed asset financing evolve in sustainable supply chain finance?
- What are mechanisms for effective stakeholder collaboration?
The six reviews
- Gelsomino, L.M., Mangiaracina, R., Perego, A., & Tumino, A. (2016). Supply chain finance: a literature review. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 46(4), 348–366.
- Hofmann, E., & Johnson, M. (2016). Guest editorial: supply chain finance – some conceptual thoughts reloaded. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 46(4), 342–347.
- Xu, X., Chen, X., Jia, F., Brown, S., Gong, Y., & Xu, Y. (2018). Supply chain finance: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 204, 160–173.
- Chakuu, S., Masi, D., & Godsell, J. (2019). Exploring the relationship between mechanisms, actors and instruments in supply chain finance: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Production Economics, 216, 35–53.
- Muneeb, D., Nobanee, H., Kamal, M.M., & Shanti, H.Z. (2023). A bibliometric review of supply chain finance and digitalisation. Management Review Quarterly, 75, 43–81.
- Liao, Z., Prataviera, L.B., Ghadge, A., & Abushaihka, I. (2025). A sustainable supply chain finance ecosystem: A review and conceptual framework. International Journal of Production Economics, 286, 109676.
