Abstract:

The great success of ecological chains， exemplified by companies such as Xiaomi， JD.com， and TikTok， has attracted an increasing number of firms to establish their own eco-chains. By sharing resources within the supply chain， including technology， brand， sales platforms， and customer bases， eco-chains have created a win-win ecosystem for firms across different industries. Specifically， from the perspective of eco-chain “owner，” the establishment of collaborative relationships with eco-chain members through equity investment， extensive incubation， and joint operations enables them to swiftly penetrate more market segments and capitalize on the growth of eco-chain members. From the perspective of eco-chain member， on the other hand， joining such a network allows them to benefit from the rapid development of high-quality products and the explosive growth of market size facilitated by the eco-chain “owner.” In contrast to traditional supply chains， the relationships between firms （i.e.， owner and members） within an eco-chain are much more complicated， with a more pronounced symbiotic effect， and a heightened focus on long-term interests. Consequently， eco-chains have given rise to many new business models and supply chain structures， while also presenting numerous new management challenges to related firms.According to the investigation， there are three typical eco-chain structures. The first type involves eco-chains where manufacturers， as the core entities， have unique advantages in product development and supply chain resources. For instance， Xiaomi， a globally leading smartphone manufacturer， has accumulated core advantages through iterative smartphone development. These include incorporating continuous user feedback for quality improvement， enhancing technology accumulation and product development capabilities， and fostering a stronger brand image. From the perspective of Xiaomi's eco-chain members， they can quickly develop high-quality products with financial support and shared resources from Xiaomi. The second type encompasses eco-chains with core retailers. These retailers possess key capabilities， such as a demand-oriented brand image， extensive channel resources， and a loyal customer base. JD.com， a globally leading online retailer， exemplifies this type by providing financing， warehousing， logistics， and after-sales services to various eco-chain members. The third type is eco-chains in which platforms are core entities. These platforms excel in system construction and service provision， with distinctive advantages in technology and bilateral matching. For example， the live streaming e-commerce eco-chain， TikTok， quickly realizes high profits by accumulating a large number of users from short videos and opening e-commerce modules to attract members such as Multi-Channel Network （MCN） agencies and brand merchants. In practice， the above three types of eco-chain structures give rise to different eco-chain business models， including the equity investment model and the operation cooperation model. The equity investment model involves the eco-chain “owner” holding the equity of its eco-chain members. In contrast， in operation cooperation model， eco-chain “owner” and members allocate the total operational benefits in the system.In the context of the three types of eco-chain structures and two eco-chain business models， the eco-chain “owner” forms into a different competition and collaboration relationship with the member firms， manifesting unique sources of income compared to traditional supply chains. Consequently， both the eco-chain “owner” and members confront several new challenges in eco-chain management relative to traditional supply chain management. Through careful analysis， this paper summarizes five new management challenges of eco-chains， including complicated competition and cooperation， inconsistent objectives among eco-chain firms， the trade-off between the long-term benefits and the short-term profits， financing， and innovation and optimization within eco-chains. Specifically， first， various interactions， such as investment and ownership， product collaboration， or complementarity competition between eco-chain firms， create complicated competition and cooperation relationships. For instance， investment and ownership relationships prompt the eco-chain “owner” to provide technical support and share resources for the member firms， whereas the member firms need to decide whether to compete or collaborate with the “owner.” Further， the complex relationships may result in significant goal conflicts between eco-chain “owner” and member firms， which can evolve dynamically. For example， startups （member firms） initially rely almost entirely on the eco-chain “owner” for their operations but may later compete with the “owner.” Therefore， eco-chain firms should carefully design contracts to facilitate cooperative operations. Third， in models involving investment and incubation， the eco-chain “owner” may prioritize long-term benefits such as market size and industry layout， over short-term profits， influencing the short-term decisions. Consequently， eco-chain firms must strike a careful balance between short-term profits and long-term benefits. Fourth， unlike the direct upstream and downstream relationships of traditional supply chain firms， eco-chain financing is more complex due to the intertwined relationships. Traditional supply chain financing model may not be applicable to eco-chains， necessitating the development of new financing models. Lastly， innovation and optimization in eco-chains often require the balance of efficiency and benefits to ensure collaboration and sustainability. The establishment of data-sharing platforms to address privacy and security concerns may serve as an effective solution.Through the above analysis， this paper surveys the existing relevant literature and summarizes the research gaps. Based on the new management challenges in eco-chains and research gaps in existing related studies， this paper proposes some potential research issues and directions of eco-chains from the perspective of operations and supply chain management， including analysis of consumer behavior， operational decision optimization， competition and cooperation strategies within and across eco-chains， and coordination mechanisms between eco-chain members. Specifically， first， new business models may have different influences on consumer behavior and knowledge acquisition in eco-chains compared to traditional supply chains. Therefore， it is crucial to develop a framework for analyzing consumer behavior by understanding the pivotal role of fans （consumers） and their engagement within eco-chain firms. Second， new structures and business models in eco-chains may affect firms’ operational decisions such as pricing， financing， and investment approaches， through changes in consumer behavior. Focusing on the distinctive characteristics between eco-chain “owners” and member firms， it is of great research value in exploring dynamic pricing strategies leveraging machine learning techniques， financing strategies amidst resource sharing and interactivity， investment strategies tailored to different eco-chain business models， and the trade-off between long-term benefits and short-term profits. Third， when extending the perspective to multiple members rather than single firm within an eco-chain， it is essential not to overlook the effects of evolving competition and cooperation relationships among eco-chain firms. Investigating the dynamics of contracts and incentive-compatible coordination mechanisms holds important theoretical and practical contributions. Finally， from the perspective of competition and cooperation across eco-chains， future research avenues should explore global competitiveness， societal implications， and technological innovation for sustainable development.

Key words: ecological chain management, operations and supply chain management, collaboration and competition, coordination contract, mechanism design