Skip to main content

Information Leakage in Supply Chains

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Information Exchange in Supply Chain Management

Part of the book series: Springer Series in Supply Chain Management ((SSSCM,volume 5))

Abstract

Information sharing within a supply chain has numerous benefits. However, in the past decade, several works using game-theoretic models have pointed out that: (1) a supply chain entity may not have an incentive to share information for fear of exploitation by the party (e.g., manufacturer) with whom they share information as well as leakage of information to their competitors, (2) the negative effects of information leakage can be mitigated by using appropriate contracts between supply chain entities. This chapter reviews this literature and provides a framework for classifying it. The most common supply chain structure analyzed in these works comprises of a manufacturer supplying a set of retailers who share demand information with the manufacturer which may be leaked, either directly or indirectly, to other retailers. The literature has shown that while vertical information sharing with the manufacturer always has negative effects, the horizontal leakage of information to other retailers can have positive or negative effects and the strength of these effects depends on a number of factors. These include whether the competition among retailers is on price or quantity, whether their products are substitutes or complements, whether information sharing arrangements are made before or after private information is revealed and the level of accuracy of private information among different entities. To incentivize truthful information sharing despite the potential for leakage and its negative effects, the literature has come up with a variety of solutions: side payments by manufacturers to retailers, different wholesale prices charged to different retailers, revenue sharing contracts and market-based contracts, etc. In addition, retailers can enter into a binding confidentiality agreement to prevent leakage. Some of these solutions can coordinate the supply chain and sometimes benefit all the entities, including ones that do not have private information. While anecdotal evidence from industry suggests that firms primarily fear direct leakage of information to their competitors, two important insights from the academic literature are: (1) indirect leakage of information can have as significant an effect on the incentives to share information as direct leakage, (2) information leakage to competitors can sometimes have positive effects.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Some prior-posterior conjugate distributions, e.g., normal-normal, gamma-Poisson, and beta-binomial, satisfy these assumptions. However, as pointed out by Li and Zhang (2008), assumption (2) imposes some restrictions on how much about θ can be learned from these signals.

  2. 2.

    The paper shows that the manufacturer cannot gain from charging different w’s to participating and non-participating retailers (if the wholesale price is determined after information sharing).

  3. 3.

    It is shown in the paper that the functions q 1(w 1, Y 1), w 2(w 1, q 1), and q 2(w 1, q 1, w 2, Y 2) (in FD) or q 2(w 2, Y 2) (in ND) are all affine functions.

  4. 4.

    Indirect leakage occurs only after the orders are made, through the index price \(\overline{p}(\mathbf{q})\). However, as shown in the paper (Proposition 5), the retailers’ equilibrium strategy is regret-free, i.e., they have no incentive to alter their order quantities after learning other retailers’ quantities.

References

  • Adewole A (2005) Developing a strategic framework for efficient and effective optimization of information in the supply chains of the UK clothing manufacture industry. Supply Chain Manag Int J 10(5):357–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anand KS, Goyal M (2009) Strategic information management under leakage in a supply chain. Manag Sci 55(3):438–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cachon G (2003) Supply chain coordination with contracts, Chap. 6 In: de Kok AG, Graves SC (eds) Handbooks in operations research and management science: supply chain management. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 229–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Cachon G, Lariviere M (2005) Supply chain coordination with revenue-sharing contracts: strengths and limitations. Manag Sci 51(1):30–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen F (2003) Information sharing and supply chain coordination, Chap. 7 In: de Kok AG, Graves SC (eds) Handbooks in operations research and management science: supply chain management. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 341–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen Y, Vulcano G (2009) Effects of information disclosure under first- and second-price auctions in a supply chain setting. Manuf Serv Oper Manag 11(2):299–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Dana JD Jr, Spier KE (2001) Revenue sharing and vertical control in the video rental industry. J Ind Econ 49(3):223–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deshpande V, Schwarz L, Atallah M, Blanton M, Frikken K, Li J (2010) Secure-computations for collaborative planning, forecasting and replenishment (SCPFR). Working paper, Purdue University

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas M (2004) Trust me! The human side of collaboration. Inbound Logistics (Jan). Accessed 21 Jun 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • Gal-Or E, Geylani T, Dukes AJ (2008) Information sharing in a channel with partially informed retailers. Mark Sci 27(4):642–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ha A, Tong S, Zhang H (2011) Sharing demand information in competing supply chains with production diseconomies. Manag Sci 57(3):566–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain A, Seshadri S, Sohoni M (2011) Differential pricing for information sharing under competition. Prod Oper Manag 20(2):235–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain A, Sohoni M (2015) Should firms conceal information when dealing with common suppliers? Nav Res Logist 62(1):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kong G, Rajagopalan S, Zhang H (2013) Revenue sharing and information leakage in a supply chain. Manag Sci 59(3):556–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurtulus M, Toktay B (2008) Category captainship practices in the retail industry, Chap. 7 In: Agrawal N, Smith SA (eds) Retail supply chain management: quantitative models and empirical studies. Springer, New York, pp 147–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee HL, Whang S (2000) Information sharing in a supply chain. Int J Technol Manag 20:373–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li L (1985) Cournot oligopoly with information sharing. Rand J Econ 16(4):521–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li L (2002) Information sharing in a supply chain with horizontal competition. Manag Sci 48(9):1196–1212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li L, Zhang H (2008) Confidentiality and information sharing in supply chain coordination. Manag Sci 54(8):1467–1481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mello JP Jr (2012) Hackers attack Foxconn for the laughs. Macworld (9 Feb). Accessed 21 Jul 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • Qian Y, Chen J, Miao L, Zhang J (2012) Information sharing in a competitive supply chain with capacity constraint. Flex Serv Manuf J 24(4):549–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamir N (2012) Strategic information sharing between competing retailers in a supply chain with endogenous wholesale price. Int J Prod Econ 136(2):352–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamir N (2015) Cartel formation through strategic information leakage in a distribution channel. SSRN working paper. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2292410

  • Shamir N, Shin H (2015) Public forecast information sharing in a market with competing supply chains. Management Sci. Published online, Dec 18, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2261

  • Shang W, Ha AY, Tong S (2015) Information sharing in a supply chain with a common retailer. Manag Sci (June 5) articles in advance. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.2127

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin H, Tunca T (2010) Do firms invest in forecasting efficiently? The effect of competition on demand forecast investments and supply chain coordination. Oper Res 58(6):1592–1610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ye Q, Duenyas I, Kapuscinski R (2013) Should competing firms reveal their capacity? Nav Res Logist 60(1):64–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang H (2002) Vertical information exchange in a supply chain with duopoly. Prod Oper Manag 11(4):531–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guangwen Kong .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kong, G., Rajagopalan, S., Zhang, H. (2017). Information Leakage in Supply Chains. In: Ha, A., Tang, C. (eds) Handbook of Information Exchange in Supply Chain Management. Springer Series in Supply Chain Management, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32441-8_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics