See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263009964

A Natural Resource Scarcity Typology:

Theoretical Foundations and Strategic
Implications for Supply Chain Management
Article in Journal of Business Logistics June 2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.0000-0000.2012.01048.x

CITATIONS

READS

20

270

4 authors, including:
John Bell

Chad Autry

University of Tennessee

University of Tennessee

27 PUBLICATIONS 445 CITATIONS

58 PUBLICATIONS 1,611 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Ladonna M. Thornton
University of Nebraska at Lincoln
6 PUBLICATIONS 40 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: John Bell

Retrieved on: 21 September 2016

Journal of Business Logistics, 2012, 33(2): 158166

 Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals

A Natural Resource Scarcity Typology: Theoretical Foundations and

Strategic Implications for Supply Chain Management
John E. Bell, Chad W. Autry, Diane A. Mollenkopf, and LaDonna M. Thornton
University of Tennessee

orld population growth and increased consumption stemming from economic leveling are leading to scarcity of a number of
natural resources on a global scale. Scarcity of critical natural resources such as oil, water, food, and precious metals has the
potential to greatly impact commercial activity as the twenty-rst century progresses. The challenge of continuing to provide needed
goods and services in the face of these constraints falls to supply chain managers, who are ultimately responsible for delivering utility
to customers. Unfortunately, there has been almost no research focused on supply chain strategies aimed at mitigating natural resource
scarcitys (NRS) potential eects. The current research positions NRS as a supply chain risk and proposes an NRS typology based on
key resource attributes. Supply chain mitigation strategies to counter each resource status are oered, with an overall objective of
improving supply chain performance. The study recommends future research aimed at further developing theory and methods for
countering NRS based on resource, systems and behavioral theories. In addition, this study has critical implications for practitioners
faced with the growing threat of NRS in their supply chains.
Keywords: natural resources; supply chain management; population growth; supply chain risk; sustainability

Three convergent societal forces described in both popular

and academic literatures jeopardize global commercial activity. First, human population growth and migration challenge
industries abilities to link demand for essential goods and services with adequate supply. Second, global Internet pervasiveness has led to worldwide consumerism, attening national
demand curves. Third, and consequently, natural resources
needed to sate future product demand are rapidly depleting
(i.e., Biswas 2005; Diamond 2005; Lahart et al. 2008;
Eccleston 2009; Friedman 2009; Pullman et al. 2009). Accordingly, supply chain managers should consider natural resource
scarcity (NRS) a critical supply chain risk factor for the
foreseeable future.
1

It is noteworthy that economists and physical scientists (i.e.,

geologists, ecologists) typically view the seriousness of the
problems discussed herein quite dierently. Many economists
have posited that future exploration, technological advances,
and factor-market substitution could mitigate NRS-related
risks into perpetuity (Rosenberg 1973; Krautkraemer 1998,
2005; Lynch 1999; Adelman and Watkins 2008). Yet, the
physical scientists have often strongly exhorted the perils of
natural resource exhaustion (e.g., Hubbert 1956; Campbell
1994, 2006; Bentley 2002) and are beginning to forecast profound NRS impacts on global commercial activity (Wagner
2002; Holbrook 2009; Duclos et al. 2010; Voeller 2010),
which will impact global supply chain management practice.
We advance a view here similar to that of the physical scientists, while recognizing the potential validity of the economic
views.
Corresponding author:
John E. Bell, Department of Marketing & Logistics, College of
Business Administration, University of Tennessee, 310 Stokely
Management Center, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA; E-mail:
bell@utk.edu

Economists and physical scientists (i.e., Hotelling 1931;

Barnett and Morse 1963; Nelson and Honnold 1976; Koberg
1987; Krautkraemer 1998; Baumgarten et al. 2004;
Kronenberg 2008)1 have extensively studied NRS, dened as a
lack of adequate supply of natural resource(s) to meet required
human demand (Wagner 2002). Unfortunately, the existing
research focuses predominantly on normative social policy
development (i.e., Biswas 2005; Kronenberg 2008; Verbruggen
and Marchohi 2010) or individual-level responses such as
social community activism or consumer recycling (Wagner
2002; Sheth et al. 2011). However, NRS also has implications
that challenge businesses wanting to satisfy their customers in
an increasingly resource-constrained environment.
This article draws attention to NRS as a critical supply
chain risk, and expounds on future research opportunities
and practice implications. To accomplish these goals, a natural resource typology is presented that highlights two key
natural resource attributesscarcity and renewabilitythat
relate to potential risks that supply chain managers (will)
face. The categories are linked to potential supply chain mitigation strategies, and the typology is leveraged as a basis for
generating research directions that would extend current theory. The ambition is to stimulate further examination of
NRS in the supply chain arena, given its salience for
business and society.

NRS AS A SUPPLY CHAIN RISK

Though NRS represents a signicant supply chain risk, the
literature to date fails to consider the strategies necessary for
its mitigation. Supply chain risks signicantly inuence
market competition and rms nancial outcomes (Wagner
and Bode 2008), but researchers have yet to rigorously evaluate NRS (and potential responses) in supply chain settings.
Further, NRS risks are dynamic and stem from macrolevel

A Natural Resource Scarcity Typology

social forces. For example, the population in China has

grown by approximately 40% since 1978, but in that same
time period the per capita income and ability to buy goods
has increased by 1,000% (Brander 2007; Bishop 2009). These
changes increase consumption such that the ability to supply
natural resources such as oil, coal, and precious metals is
increasingly at risk in both emerging and current economies.
Although the established view holds that societies throughout history have generally mitigated scarcity problems
through technology and substitution, some modern economists worry this position may be untenable, given that political and economic systems generally assume resource
availability in perpetuity (Krautkraemer 2005). Recent studies indicate that innovation, discovery, and technological
adaptation may be limited as eective mitigation mechanisms
for responding to future shortages (Bishop 2009), particularly when considering net increased demand (Lahart et al.
2008). Some design engineers already lament that as materials become scarcer and more costly, innovations are more
challenging to produce (Duclos et al. 2010). In addition,
water and food scarcity are emerging as imminent social concerns (Eccleston 2009) of such magnitude that agricultural,
environmental, and political scientists now worry publicly
that shortages will drastically impact demand-supply
balance, leading to increased political conict and even
future wars due to competition for scarce natural resources
(Howard 2009; Kehl 2010).
Risks such as these adversely impact the supply chains
that rms construct to serve customer markets. Though previous research has focused on dening general risk categories linked to microlevel supply market disturbances or
environmental occurrences, that is, the 2008 economic
downturn or Hurricane Katrina (Smeltzer and Siferd 1998;
Svensson 2002; Harland et al. 2003; Cavinato 2004; Chopra
and Sodhi 2004; Christopher and Lee 2004; Spekman &
Davis 2004; Zsidisin et al. 2004; Juttner 2005; Paulraj and
Chen 2007), scholarship has mostly been limited to descriptively categorizing risks and their immediate outcomes (i.e.,
Zsidisin and Smith 2005; Rao and Goldsby 2009; Ellis et al.
2011). Encouragingly, contemporary work has begun to
derive methods for parsing global supply chain risk levels
and sources (Manuj and Mentzer 2008; Wagner and Bode
2008), and factors to enhance rm level resiliency against
such risks (Blackhurst et al. 2011). In a particularly important advancement, Wagner and Bode (2008) empirically
validated constructs representing ve types of supply chain
risks, and related these risks to supply chain performance.
Their ndings suggest that though major supply chain disruptions have dramatic impacts, the more routine, everyday sources of supply chain risk yield greater peril for
managers. Unfortunately, though the authors used existing
measures (cf., Zsidisin 2003; Zsidisin and Ellram 2003) in
their study, NRS was not included as a salient factor. In
spite of popular press accounts, the scholarly literature virtually ignores NRS as a supply chain risk factor, and does not
yet prescribe strategies for its mitigation. To address these
concerns, the current research develops a natural resource
typology. The typology is tied to a set of actionable
responses to NRS-related dilemmas in the supply chain, thus

159

providing guidance for managers and an agenda for future

research.

NATURAL RESOURCE SCARCITY TYPOLOGY

How rms use natural resources is impacted by both the
renewability and scarcity of a held resource. Resources such
as agricultural, forestry, and shery products are renewable (Nelson and Honnold 1976; Craig et al. 2001; Wagner
2002), whereas coal, oil, and minerals are for practical purposes nonrenewable. Scientists have noted for decades
that environmental pollution and damage to underlying
resource bases (air, soil, and water) can disrupt ecosystem
balances and transition renewable resources to a nonrenewable state (Nelson and Honnold 1976). In addition,
economic actors commonly consume the most available and
highest quality natural resources before inferior quality less
acquirable resources are consumed (Rosenberg 1973;
Krautkraemer 1998). Therefore, future production is likely
to use natural resources that are lower in quality, more
dicult and costly to acquire, and create relatively more
environmental pollution in the process (Verbruggen and
Marchohi 2010).
Alternatively, scarcity describes the balance of physical
supply and demand in a given location (Friederich 1929;
Krautkraemer 2005). Following previous scarcity research,
natural resources such as water, petroleum, food, and precious metals can be described as either globally or locally
scarce or available (Rosenberg 1973; Wagner 2002; Biswas
2005; Manning 2008; Liu and Speed 2009; Verbruggen and
Marchohi 2010). For example, platinum and iridium are
becoming globally scarce, with potential widespread eects
on product design (i.e., cell phones) and market demand,
while beef may be locally scarce due to a dearth of nearby
grazing land, while remaining globally available. Further,
some natural resources may be locally abundant but scarce
on a global level (i.e., nickel in Ontario), while others are
abundant both globally and locally, and thus considered
globally available (i.e., sand).
Considered together, the impacts of renewability and scarcity are becoming dicult for supply chain managers to
ignore. Though technology and substitution have undoubtedly suppressed or delayed the many negative eects of NRS
in the past, forces such as consumption and resource base
degradation are accelerating many natural resources from
states of renewability toward nonrenewability, and from
states of availability toward scarcity (Figure 1).
The NRS typology (Figure 2)based on renewability and
scarcity combinationsallows for classication of the current status of a natural resource, in eight scarcity renewability combinations. Beginning with instances where a
renewable resource can exist at either a global or local level,
Degeneration refers to scarcity of a resource due to a currently degraded but remediable resource base. Similarly,
Municence refers to the availability of renewable resources.
Alternatively, when nonrenewable resources are scarce, this
can be described as Depletion, and when a nonrenewable
resource is relatively available, a state of Abundance exists.

160

Figure 1: Natural resource scarcity status.

Figure 2: Natural resource scarcity typology.

The challenge for supply chain managers is to develop

appropriate strategies that enable ongoing utility creation
based on each resource scarcity status.

J. E. Bell et al.

NRS mitigation strategies for supply chain management

To create managerial utility, resource employment and conservation approaches (which together comprise supply chain
mitigation strategies) are needed for each status. Resource
employment approaches (Table 1) include (1) avoidance
(Wagner 2002; Manuj and Mentzer 2008), where product
designs preclude the use of a scarce natural resour
ce; (2) logistics techniques, where resources are shifted to a
site suering from local scarcity; (3) allocation approaches
that ration scarce resources; or (4) sustainment approaches
that ensure the availability of a resource. Furthermore,
conservation approaches include either (1) resource recovery
initiatives such as returns management and closed loop supply chain management for nonrenewable resources (Blackburn et al. 2004; Mollenkopf and Closs 2005; Mollenkopf
2006), or (2) resource base protection initiatives, that
improve and secure underlying renewable resource bases
(Krautkraemer 2005; Pullman et al. 2009).
Combining employment and conservation approaches, a
rm-level supply chain mitigation strategy is specied for
each natural resource status. In a situation of Global Degeneration, (e.g., global corn resources are scarce due to the
combined eects of soil pollution, increased demand for
food, increased industrial usage), a Fortication strategy
would be warranted. Firms would avoid the use of corn in
their products in the short- to medium-term, substitute more
plentiful grains in product designs, while supporting longterm global renewal eorts toward reviving the corn resource
base. Alternatively, when faced with Local Degeneration,
rms should employ a Mobilization strategy, combining a
logistics approach with resource base protection. As an
example, where timber is locally degenerated, a rm could
import timber and or use postponement to balance timber
demand and supply; simultaneously, it could participate in
local initiatives aimed at reconstituting the local environmental base (e.g., reclamation of the water and soil needed to
grow forests) to ensure future supply. Firms such as Nestle
and Coca-Cola also mitigate Local Degeneration by reengineering supply chain networks to avoid locations with local
fresh water scarcity (Alter 2009); others leverage locally
abundant fresh water by purchasing water rights and accumulating stocks to sell for future premiums (Mayer 2007).
When faced with Global Depletion of a rare resource such
as platinum, rms should employ a Discretion strategy, redesigning products to avoid the unnecessary use of platinum,
and employing returns management practices to recapture
any usable quantities. In the case of Local Depletion, rms
should apply a Compilation strategy, combining a logistics
approach with a recovery approach. For example, where
aluminum is locally depleted, companies can leverage transportation and postponement to mitigate local scarcity, while
simultaneously using recovery methods such as recycling to
increase local availability.
When Local Abundance exists for a nonrenewable
resource, a rm should deploy a Utilization strategy, which
emphasizes judicious allocation and simultaneous resource
recovery. For example, diamonds are relatively abundant in
South Africa but scarce globally. Under such circumstances,

A Natural Resource Scarcity Typology

161

Table 1: Supply chain mitigation strategies

NRS status

Supply versus demand balances

Conservation
approach

Employment
approach

Mitigation
strategy

Global
degeneration
Local
degeneration
Global
depletion
Local
depletion
Local
municence
Global
municence
Local
abundance
Global
abundance

Renewable global supply < global demand

Renewable local supply < local demand
Renewable global supply global demand
Renewable local supply < local demand
Nonrenewable global supply < global demand
Nonrenewable local supply < local demand
Nonrenewable global supply global demand
Nonrenewable local supply < local demand
Renewable global supply < global demand
Renewable local supply local renewable demand
Renewable global supply global demand
Renewable local supply local renewable demand
Nonrenewable global supply < global demand
Nonrenewable local supply nonrenewable local demand
Nonrenewable global supply global demand
Nonrenewable local supply nonrenewable local demand

Resource base
protection
Resource base
protection
Resource
recovery
Resource
recovery
Resource base
protection
Resource base
protection
Resource
recovery
Resource
recovery

Avoidance

Fortication

Logistics

Mobilization

Avoidance

Discretion

Logistics

Compilation

Allocation

Cultivation

Sustainment

Perpetuation

Allocation

Utilization

Sustainment

Preservation

Note: NRS, natural resource scarcity.

rms should not only look to capitalize on unique access to

a globally scarce resource and allocate speculative stocks for
future use sale, but also should continue to pursue recovery
activities.2 Alternatively, Global Abundance of a resource
calls for a Preservation strategy that combines sustainment
and recovery approaches. For a common mineral such as
silicon, sustainment practices such as land management and
worker-training programs ensure continued access to supply,
and economically feasible reclamation should be continued
to ensure continued abundance.
For Local Municence, a Cultivation strategy that combines
resource base protection and allocation approaches is eective. For example, rms need to wisely harvest and allocate
local salmon stocks, while continuing to support global
resource base protection strategies to ensure global supply and
ecosystem balances. In the case of Global Municence of a
renewable resource such as rice, rms should employ a
Perpetuation strategy. This strategy combines sustainment and
protection approaches toward the resource base (Pullman
et al. 2009). A perpetuation strategy would also emphasize
widespread activity toward protection of the land, air, and
water resource bases to support renewability for agricultural
crops, forests, and sheries (Krautkraemer 2005).
NRS dynamism considerations
The proposed natural resource typology aords a better
understanding of how and where NRS may impact supply
2

Though theories such as resource-based view and resource

advantage would encourage the rm to perpetuate and take
advantage of global scarcity in situations of local abundance
for short-term competitive purposes, the long-term benets
of resource base revitalization outweigh the more immediate
nancial concerns.

chain operations, and which mitigation strategies are appropriate for a given resource status. While the typology starts
by considering static scarcity conditions, the impact of
dynamic changes in natural resource statuses (Newbert 2007;
Fawcett et al. 2011), and demand levels (Hunt and Davis
2008) are relevant, because they aect NRS mitigation strategy choice. For example, rms may misidentify a resources
current status based on inaccurate assumptions of its availability or renewability, or na ve estimation that the resource
is homogenous with an unlimited supply. Companies may
also not understand that a resources actual current position
on the typology may be evolving, thus shifting the resource
status. Firms must both understand the actual current status,
and how societal forces (i.e., consumption, resource base
degradation) may transition a resource to a future status.
The ever changing dynamic status of NRS highlights the signicance of NRS as a supply chain risk factor of growing
importance.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS AND

CONCLUSION
This paper is intended to encourage dialog about NRS and
its impact on current and future supply chains, and the NRS
typology is designed to elicit understanding of two key
resource characteristics in combination. While the suggested
supply chain mitigation strategies provide some initial managerial direction, both the NRS typology and mitigation strategies require further study to achieve relevance. To inspire
future research, construct theory and develop best practices
for managing NRS in the supply chain, a number of scholarly avenues are oered (Table 2).
Summarily, research is needed to evaluate the appropriateness and content of the mitigation strategies. For example,

Social
exchange
theory
Social
network
theory

Evaluate changes in network structures and

relations under dynamic NRS conditions
Explore the role of social capital and
embeddedness as rms address changing needs
for scarce resources
Address impact of supply chain capital
embeddedness on rm performance under
dierent conditions of scarcity

Examine the interactions of product and

information ows across a network as
resources become constrained
Examine across renewable and nonrenewable
resource situations
Examine total system outputs, productivity
and performance across mitigation strategies
Examine the impact of various mitigation
strategies on system conservation and
preservation
Examine the interaction of ecological systems
and production systems across NRS
mitigation strategies to develop metrics for
joint evaluation of the systems
Examine (at the dyadic level) economic and
behavioral interactions across the various
mitigation strategies
Evaluate drivers of economic and or
behavioral change as NRS conditions change
Evaluate how interactions between supply chain
partners inuence NRS conicts

Conduct NRS research to build theory on

how system balances and protection can be
predicted and achieved
Create theoretical propositions from combined
systems theories to build a more comprehensive
approach that balances industrial and ecological
objectives
Examine changes in contracting and negotiation
strategies under changing resource availability
conditions
Explore supply base-management under
changing resource conditions
Examine whether and how collaboration may
allay NRS issues in product design and
transportation
Assess (near-) optimal connectivity within supply
chain networks to guard against scarcity-related
shortages;
Identify ways core and peripheral network
partners inuence resource ow eciency and
eectiveness;
Explore how to construct and maintain internal
and external networks for rapid response and
optimal security

Conduct forward looking studies on the

future state of resource statuses held by
rms; develop predictive theorems to enable
the management of NRS
Conduct research based on the how demand
and competition impact the management of NRS
Conduct research to build theory that predicts
and explains NRS to achieve a balance
between nancial and sustainment goals
Conduct research that attempts to explain and
predict ows under dierent NRS conditions
Examine inventory positioning issues, as well
as new-versus-recovered inventory strategies

Possible extensions

Notes: RBV, resource-based view; KBV, knowledge-based view; NRS, natural resource scarcity; QAP, quadratic assignment procedure.

Behavioral
based

Industrial
dynamics &
ecological
systems
Political
economy
paradigm

Ecological
systems

Industrial
dynamics

Develop competitive and demand driven NRS

research propositions
Develop sustainment oriented research
propositions related to NRS

Resource
advantage
Natural RBV

Systems
based

Develop NRS research propositions related to

holding and utilizing heterogeneous resources
impacted by NRS

RBV &
KBV

Resource
based

NRS research topics

Theories

Theoretical
lens

Table 2: NRS future researchpotential areas for extension and theory development

Social network analysis

Ethnographic social
network mapping and
content analysis
QAP regression

Survey methodologies
or archival data

Latent variable
modeling to compare
and contrast theories;
time series analysis
Qualitative case studies;
survey methodologies
Agent-based models

Controlled experiments

Simulation or
optimization
modeling
Network Flow
Optimization

Case studies and

analytic modeling
Econometrics and
simulation

Dynamic simulation

Potential methodologies

162
J. E. Bell et al.

A Natural Resource Scarcity Typology

industry case studies addressing a specic resource should

improve understanding of the NRS attributes and identify
creative supply chain responses to changing resource availabilities. Alternatively, analytical modeling techniques,
including dynamic simulation, could provide assessments of
resource status changes or the utility of mitigation strategies,
as rms anticipate future resource availability levels and or
(re)design supply chain networks. In addition, explicit econometric models might be useful for identifying the most ecient use of scarce resources (Hotelling 1931; Kronenberg
2008). However, for richer understanding and causal validation, empirical NRS research is needed, and three broad theoretical bases appear particularly worthy of investigation.
First, supply chain management scholars should seek to
extend current resource theories to include propositions
related to NRS. For example, the resource- and knowledgebased views (RBV KBV) of the rm (e.g., Barney 1991;
Peteraf 1993; Wernerfelt 1995; Peteraf and Barney 2003)
posit that rms can achieve sustainable competitive advantage through the acquisition and deployment of resources
that are heterogeneous, rare, and imperfectly mobile. A natural resource based extension of RBV holds that competitive
advantage is achievable through sustainment activities (Hart
1995, 1997; Pullman et al. 2009). In addition, resource
advantage theory (Hunt and Davis 2008) incorporates a view
of demand-side economics, that is, that resources can yield
comparative market advantages. Thus, current theorization
suggests that rms can compete with rivals through the
deployment of the natural resources they possess. However,
future tests of the RBV should include degrees of resource
renewability and scarcity as key postulates, and rm
advantages weaknesses evaluated not only on the resources
a rm possesses and deploys, but also the dynamism of their
NRS characteristics. The existing natural resource based
extension of RBV (Hart 1995, 1997; Pullman et al. 2009)
should facilitate the categorization and prediction of critical
rm success factors based on a balanced set of resource
sustainment and nancial objectives. In addition, resource
advantage theory (Hunt and Davis 2008) could be used as a
lens to develop propositions related to how competition and
demand interact to drive comparative market advantages,
and therefore NRS mitigation strategy formation. For
example, managers should be interested in understanding
and predicting how rms impacted by NRS can and should
react to competitive moves against their resource positions in
the supply chain within the mitigation process (Capron and
Chatain 2008).
Systems theories oer a second potentially fruitful direction. Though Bertalanys (1950) General Systems Theory
treatise has spawned multiple systems perspectives, two are
particularly relevant for addressing NRS problems. Ecological systems theory addresses the relationship of organisms to
one another and to their physical surroundings, with systems
evolving over time toward a resilient balance (Odum 1969).
Alternatively, industrial dynamics addresses how organizational systems are designed to interrelate the ows of information, materials, manpower, money and capital equipment
so as to achieve a higher standard of living, stability of
employment, prot to the owners, and rewards appropriate

163

to the success of the managers (Forrester 1958, 38). These

theoretical variations dier by ultimate objective; industrial
dynamics researchers seek to maximize output, whereas ecological systems researchers seek maximum protection of the
system. As NRS looms, the clash of these views is becoming
more salient. While technology and product substitution
often provide short-term mitigation under the industrial
view, the ecological impacts of consumption and resource
base degradation impact the long-term health of the natural
system upon which industries depends. However, the ecological impacts often go unnoticed until signicant damage has
occurred to the resource base (Odum 1969). NRS research
blending these perspectives would constitute a signicant
advancement given the long- versus short-term trade-o
dilemmas that often occur in practice. Ideally, such research
would address the temporal conict and potential synergies
of resource use and scarcity mitigation in the supply chain.
Any modeling of the combined systems would necessarily
include factors representing availability, renewability feedback loops, competitive responses, and structural changes in
industrial and ecological resource base systems over time
based on resource scarcity and renewability.
Third, behavioral theories should be constructed that
address the human aspects of NRS management. How rms
and employees interact with each other is likely to change as
NRS implications magnify. For example, the need for
improved collaboration or more innovative relational forms
may increase in importance as power and dependence are
exercised in an NRS environment. The political economy
paradigm (Stern and Reve 1980; Achrol et al. 1983) incorporates both economic and behavioral views of how rms interact, and may provide a theoretical basis for understanding
behavioral NRS processes as economic motivators become
unclear. Similarly, social exchange theory (Thibaut and
Kelley 1959) and social network theory (Borgatti and Foster
2003) provide rich theoretical approaches for exploring
NRS. Social network theory addresses relational, contextual,
and systemic issues across rms and aspects of this theory
base could be applied to NRS. For example, social capital
addresses the value of connections between actors, which
may include aspects of power, leadership, mobility, and performance (Borgatti and Foster 2003), and has recently been
identied as a driver of supply chain ecacy (Autry and
Gris 2008). As resources become increasingly scarce, or
renewability changes, the value of interorganizational connections may play a signicant role in a rms ability to
secure and use scarce resources in a cost- and time-ecient
manner. Managers understanding the link between social
and economic interactions across organizations facing NRS
may have the upper hand.

CONCLUSION
NRS, which stems from increased population growth, economic leveling, and related consumption patterns, threatens
rms future viability, and as a supply chain risk, remains an
understudied and vital topic. This research oers a means
for understanding the attributes of NRS and potential strate-

164

gies for mitigating its eects on the supply chain. Hopefully,

the typology and research directions provided will stimulate
further discussion. The performance of future supply chains
will depend on the knowledge, theory, and best practices
researchers oer in response to the NRS threat.

REFERENCES
Achrol, R.S., Reve, T., and Stern, L.W. 1983. The Environment of Marketing Channel Dyads: A Framework for
Comparative Analysis. Journal of Marketing 47:5567.
Adelman, M.A., and Watkins, G.C. 2008. Reserve Prices
and Mineral Resource Theory. The Energy Journal
29(Special issue):116.
Alter, A. 2009. Yet Another Footprint to Worry About:
Water. The Wall Street Journal, February 17.
Autry, C., and Gris, S. 2008. Supply Chain Capital: The
Impact of Structural and Relational Linkages on Firm
Execution and Innovation. Journal of Business Logistics
29(1):15774.
Barnett, H.J., and Morse, C. 1963. Scarcity and Growth: The
Economics of Natural Resource Availability. Baltimore
MA: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Barney, J. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive
Advantage. Journal of Management 17(1):99120.
Baumgarten, H., Klinkner, R., and Sommer-Dittrich, T.
2004. Recongurable Logistics Systems in Production
and Disassembly Networks. International Journal of Production Research 42(17):364755.
Bentley, R.W. 2002. Global Oil & Gas Depletion: An Overview. Energy Policy 30(3):189205.
Bertalany, L. 1950. An Outline of General System Theory. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
1(2):13465.
Bishop, C. A. 2009. Dwindling Resources, a Molehill Out
of a Mountain. Vacuum Technology & Coating 10(12):
4952.
Biswas, A.K. 2005. An Assessment of Future Global Water
Issues. Water Resources Development 21(2):22937.
Blackburn, J.D., Guide, V.D.R., Jr., Souza, G.C., and van
Wassenhove, L.N. 2004. Reverse Supply Chains for
Commercial Returns. California Management Review
46(2):622.
Blackhurst, J., Dunn, K.S., and Craighead, C.W. 2011. An
Empirically-Derived Framework of Global Supply Resiliency. Journal of Business Logistics 32(4):37491.
Borgatti, S.P., and Foster, P.C. 2003. The Network Paradigm in Organizational Research: A Review and Typology. Journal of Management 29(6):9911013.
Brander, J.A. 2007. Viewpoint: Sustainability: Malthus
Revisited? Canadian Journal of Economics 40(1):138.
Campbell, C. 1994. The Eminent End of Cheap Oil-Based
Energy. Sunworld 18(4):1719.
Campbell, C. 2006. The Rimini Protocol an Oil Depletion
Protocol: Heading O Economic Chaos and Political
Conict during the Second Half of the Age of Oil.
Energy Policy 34(12):131925.

J. E. Bell et al.

Capron, L., and Chatain, O. 2008. Competitors ResourceOriented Strategies: Acting on Competitors Resources
Through Interventions in Factor Markets and Political
Markets. Academy of Management Review 33(1):97121.
Cavinato, J. 2004. Supply Chain Logistics Risks.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 34(5):38387.
Chopra, S., and Sodhi, M. 2004. Managing Risk to Avoid
Supply Chain Breakdown. MIT Sloan Management
Review 46(1):5361.
Christopher, M., and Lee, H. 2004. Mitigating Supply
Chain Risk Through Improved Condence. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
34(5):38896.
Craig, R., Vaughn, D.J., and Skinner, B.J. 2001. Resources
of the Earth: Origin, Use and Environmental Impact.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Diamond, J. 2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or
Succeed. New York: Penguin Group.
Duclos, S.J., Otto, J.P., and Konitzer, D.G. 2010. Design
in an Era of Constrained Resources. Mechanical Engineering 132(9):3640.
Eccleston, C.H. 2009. Peak Food? Environmental Quality
Management 18(3):917.
Ellis, S.C., Shockley, R.M., and Henry, R.M. 2011. Making
Sense of Supply Disruption Risk Research: A Conceptual
Framework Grounded in Enactment Theory. Journal of
Supply Chain Management 47(2):6596.
Fawcett, S.E., Wallin, C., Allred, C., Fawcett, A.M., and
Magnan, G.M. 2011. Information Technology as an
Enabler of Supply Chain Collaboration: A DynamicCapabilities Perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management 47:3859.
Forrester, J.W. 1958. Industrial Dynamics: A Major Breakthrough for Decision Makers. Harvard Business Review
36(4):3766.
Friederich, C.J. 1929. Alfred Webers Theory of the Location of
Industries. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Friedman, T.L. 2009. Hot Flat and Crowded: Why the
World Needs a Green Revolution and How We Can Renew
our Global Future. New York: Penguin Group.
Harland, C., Brenchley, R., and Walker, H. 2003. Risks in
Supply Networks. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 9(2):5162.
Hart, S. 1995. A Natural-Resource Based View of the
Firm. Academy of Management Review 20(4):9861014.
Hart, S. 1997. Beyond Greening: Strategies for a Sustainable World. Harvard Business Review 75(1):6676.
Holbrook, E. 2009. Water, Water EverywhereBut Not
Enough for Business. Risk Management 56(5):2025.
Hotelling, H. 1931. The Economics of Exhaustible
Resources. The Journal of Political Economics 39(2):
13775.
Howard, R. 2009. Peak Oil and Strategic Resource Wars.
The Futurist 43(5):1822.
Hubbert, M.K. 1956. Nuclear Energy and Fossil Fuels. Houston, TX: Exploration and Production Research Division,
Shell Development Company, Publication Number 95.

A Natural Resource Scarcity Typology

Hunt, S., and Davis, D. 2008. Grounding Supply Chain

Management in Resource-Advantage Theory. Journal of
Supply Chain Management 44(1):1021.
Juttner, U. 2005 Supply Chain Risk ManagementUnderstanding the Business Requirements From a Practitioner
Perspective. International Journal of Logistics Management 16(1):12041.
Kehl, J. 2010. Oil, Water, Blood, Diamonds: International
Intervention in Resource Disputes. International Negotiation 15(3):391412.
Koberg, C.S. 1987. Resource Scarcity, Environmental
Uncertainty, and Adaptive Organizational Behavior.
Academy of Management Journal 30(4):798807.
Krautkraemer, J.A. 1998. Nonrenewable Resource Scarcity. Journal of Economic Literature 36:2065107.
Krautkraemer, J.A. 2005. Economics of Natural Resource
Scarcity: The State of the Debate, Washington DC:
Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper 0514.
Kronenberg, T. 2008. Should We Worry About the Failure
of the Hotelling Rule. Journal of Economic Surveys
22(4):77493.
Lahart, J., Barta, P., and Batson, A. 2008. New Limits to
Growth Revive Malthusian Fears. Wall Street Journal,
March 24.
Liu, B., and Speed, R. 2009. Water Resources Management
in the Peoples Republic of China. Water Resource
Development 25(2):193208.
Lynch, M.C. 1999. Oil Scarcity, Oil Crises, and Alternative
Energies-Dont be Fooled Again. Applied Energy 64:
3153.
Manning, L. 2008. The Impact of Water Quality and Availability on Food Production. British Food Journal
110(8):76280.
Manuj, I., and Mentzer, J.T. 2008. Global Supply Chain
Risk Management. Journal of Business Logistics
29(1):13355.
Mayer, C. 2007. A Refreshing Idea. Daily Wealth (January 13). http://www.dailywealth.com/770/A-RefreshingIdea.
Mollenkopf, D.A. 2006. Environmental Sustainability: Examining the Case for Environmentally-Sustainable Supply
Chains. Lombard, IL: Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals.
Mollenkopf, D.A., and Closs, D.J. 2005. The Hidden Value
in Reverse Logistics. Supply Chain Management Review
9(5):3443.
Nelson, L.D., and Honnold, J.A. 1976. Planning for
Resource Scarcity: A Critique of Prevalent Proposals.
Social Science Quarterly 57:33949.
Newbert, S.L. 2007. Empirical Research on the ResourceBased View of the Firm: An Assessment and Suggestions
for Future Research. Strategic Management Journal
28:12146.
Odum, E.P. 1969. The Strategy of Ecosystem Development. Science 164:26270.
Paulraj, A., and Chen, I.J. 2007. Environmental Uncertainty and Strategic Supply Management: A Resource
Dependence Perspective and Performance Implications.
Journal of Supply Chain Management 43(3):2942.

165

Peteraf, M.A. 1993. The Cornerstones of Competitive

Advantage: A Resource-Based View. Strategic Management Journal 14(3):17991.
Peteraf, M.A., and Barney, J.B. 2003. Unraveling the
Resource Based Tangle. Managerial and Decision Economics 24:30923.
Pullman, M.E., Maloni, M.J., and Carter, C.R. 2009. Food
for Thought: Social Versus Environmental Sustainability
Practices and Performance Outcomes. Journal of Supply
Chain Management 45(4):3854.
Rao, S., and Goldsby, T.J. 2009. Supply Chain Risks: A
Review and Typology. International Journal of Logistics
Management 20(1):97123.
Rosenberg, N. 1973. Innovative Responses to Materials
Shortages. Natural Resources 63(2):11118.
Sheth, J.N., Sethia, N.K., and Srinivas, S. 2011. Mindful
Consumption: A Customer-Centric Approach to Sustainability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
39:2139.
Smeltzer, L.R., and Siferd, S.P. 1998. Proactive Supply Management: The Management of Risk. International Journal
of Purchasing & Materials Management 34(1):3845.
Spekman, R.E., and Davis, E.W. 2004. Risky Business:
Expanding the Discussion on Risk and the Extended
Enterprise. International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management 34(5):41433.
Stern, L.W., and Reve, T. 1980. Distribution Channels as
Political Economies: A Framework for Comparative
Analysis. Journal of Marketing 44:5264.
Svensson, G. 2002. A Conceptual Framework of Vulnerability in Firms Inbound and Outbound Logistics
Flows. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management 32(2):11034.
Thibaut, J.W., and Kelley, H.H. 1959. The Social Psychology
of Groups. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Verbruggen, A., and Marchohi, M.A. 2010. Views on Peak
Oil and Its Relation to Climate Change Policy. Energy
Policy 38:557281.
Voeller, J.G. 2010. The Era of Insucient Plenty. Mechanical Engineering 132(6):3539.
Wagner, L.A. 2002. Geological Survey Circular 1221, Materials in the Economy, Material Flows, Scarcity, and the
Environment. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, US. Geological Survey.
Wagner, S., and Bode, C. 2008. An Empirical Investigation
of Supply Chain Performance Along Several Dimensions
of Risk. Journal of Business Logistics 29(1):30725.
Wernerfelt, B. 1995. The Resource Based View of the Firm:
Ten Years After. Strategic Management Journal 16:
17174.
Zsidisin, G.A. 2003. A Grounded Denition of Supply
Risk. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management
9(5 6):21724.
Zsidisin, G.A., and Ellram, L.M. 2003. An Agency Theory
Investigation of Supply Risk Management. Journal of
Supply Chain Management 39(3):1527.
Zsidisin, G.A., Ellram, L.M., Carter, J., and Cavinato, J.L.
2004. An Analysis of Supply Risk Assessment Tech-

166

niques. International Journal of Physical Distribution &

Logistics Management 34(5):397413.
Zsidisin, G.A., and Smith, M.E. 2005. Managing Supply
Risk With Early Supplier Involvement: A Case Study and
Research Propositions. Journal of Supply Chain Management 41(4):4457.
SHORT BIOGRAPHIES
John E. Bell (PhD Auburn University) is Assistant Professor of Logistics in the Department of Marketing and Supply
Chain Management at the University of Tennessee. He also
holds an MS in Logistics Management from the Air Force
Institute of Technology and a BS from the US Air Force
Academy. His research interests include supply chain risks,
network design, vehicle routing, and metaheuristics. His publications have appeared in the Journal of Business Logistics,
Omega, Computers & Operations Research, Transportation
Journal, and other journals.
Chad W. Autry (PhD University of Oklahoma) is an
Associate Professor of Logistics in the Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management at the University of
Tennessee. His research focuses primarily on supply chain
relationships and network design, with specic focus on
collaborative relationship integration and the technological
and social issues that support connectivity across multiple
organizations simultaneously. He has worked with numer-

J. E. Bell et al.

ous professional and civic organizations related to supply

chain process improvement, and is a member of the SC
Pro Certication Committee of the Council of Supply
Chain Management Professionals and the National Board
of Directors of the Warehouse Education and Research
Council, among other organizations.
Diane A. Mollenkopf (PhD Drexel University) is the
McCormick Associate Professor of Logistics in the Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management at the
University of Tennessee. She also earned degrees from
Michigan State University (MBA) and Bowling Green State
University (BSBA). Her research interests focus on logistics supply chain integration and environmentally responsible
supply chain practices, particularly related to returns management and closed loop supply chains. She has published in
the Journal of Business Logistics, Journal of Operations Management, Decision Sciences Journal, International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, and other
journals.
LaDonna M. Thornton (MBA Vanderbilt University) is a
Doctoral Student of Supply Chain Management at the University of Tennessee. She also holds a BSBA from The Ohio
State University. Her research interests include supply chain
relationships and the interorganizational behavior within
these relationships.