Dyadic Information Morphing: A Process Theory of Interorganizational Meaning Transformation in Sustainable Supply Chain Management Initiatives

Dyadic Information Morphing: A Process Theory of Interorganizational Meaning Transformation in Sustainable Supply Chain Management Initiatives

Summary

This paper develops a process theory explaining how information asymmetry arises between two supply‑chain partners during sustainability initiatives. Based on three in‑depth SSCM initiative cases (June 2019–March 2020) involving 47 interviews, six site visits and documentary evidence, the authors introduce the concept of “dyadic information morphing.” The concept comprises three micro‑processes — message focusing, message alteration and message decontextualisation — that transform meaning as messages pass between buyer and supplier, producing chronic asymmetries even when parties intend to cooperate.

Key Points

• Introduces “dyadic information morphing” as a processual explanation for how information asymmetry emerges in sustainable supply‑chain initiatives.
• Identifies three morphing mechanisms: message focusing (selective emphasis), message alteration (deliberate or accidental change) and message decontextualisation (loss of situational meaning).
• Findings derive from three longitudinal SSCM cases using interviews, site visits and document analysis, showing how meaning shifts across dyads over time.
• Offers practical guidance for managers to detect and mitigate morphing (e.g. richer context provision, iterative sensemaking, verification routines).
• Highlights wider societal implications: morphing can undermine transparency, enable greenwashing and impede progress toward global sustainability goals.

Content summary

The authors argue that standard treatments of information asymmetry are overly static and simplistic. Instead, they trace event chronologies within three SSCM initiatives to show how well‑intentioned exchanges evolve into asymmetrical understandings. “Dyadic information morphing” explains this transformation as a sequence of micro‑processes during dyadic exchanges: focusing (what is highlighted), alteration (how content is changed) and decontextualisation (removal of context that gives meaning).

The study connects these mechanisms to managerial practices — for example, how procurement briefs, sustainability criteria and informal communications can inadvertently reshape meaning. The paper concludes with recommendations for managers (use iterative dialogues, preserve contextual metadata, third‑party verification) and discusses consequences for policy and practice in a world pushing for supply‑chain transparency.

Context and relevance

As regulators, customers and investors demand greater sustainability disclosure (see European Green Deal and similar initiatives), organisations are investing in information flows to manage supplier practices. This paper is timely: it reframes transparency problems not as merely missing data, but as a process problem of meaning transformation. That perspective links to current debates on blockchain, traceability, greenwashing and governance — emphasising that technology alone won’t fix mismatched interpretations between partners.

Author style

Punchy and research‑driven: the authors combine qualitative rigour with managerial framing. If you care about why shared data often fails to produce shared understanding, their theory is directly useful — especially for procurement leaders, sustainability managers and researchers seeking micro‑level explanations for persistent transparency failures.

Why should I read this?

Quick and useful: if you’re running sustainability projects with suppliers, this paper tells you why the info you exchange often ends up meaning different things — and gives concrete fixes. It’s not just academic waffle; it maps the everyday slipups that turn good intentions into ambiguity and shows how to tighten up communication so sustainability commitments actually stick.

Source

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.70010?af=R