*7.4. Country*

Figure 5 depicts the contributing countries to the supply chain finance literature. The highest contribution has come from China (29 articles), followed by Germany (eight articles), the United States of America (USA) (eight articles), and Switzerland (five articles). China alone has contributed about 40% of the total reviewed papers. In comparison, all of the above-mentioned countries—i.e., China, Germany, the USA, and Switzerland—contributed 77% of the total articles reviewed. Among these countries, there are similarities and differences in the patterns of contribution to the field, e.g., China and Germany's main contributions have come in the form of analytical articles, followed by case studies and conceptual articles. However, in the case of China, around 86% (25 out of 29) of the articles have been analytical, whereas in the case of Germany, it is 50% (four out of eight). With regards to the USA, the majority of the articles have been in the form of studies based on secondary data (five out of eight), and in the case of Switzerland, more articles have been in the form of empirical studies based on surveys. It is interesting to note that there is no article present in the sample that is considered for the review from the regions such as Africa and South America. It can be said that there is still a lack of exploration and studies on supply chain finance in certain parts of the globe.

**Figure 5.** Contributing countries.

#### *7.5. Factors Influencing the Acceptance of Supply Chain Finance*

Several researchers discussed the varied number of factors that are expected to affect the acceptance of supply chain finance amongs<sup>t</sup> firms in the supply chain. The most widely discussed factors in the literature are collaboration, the automation of trade process/level of digitalisation, trust, reputation, image or track record, bargaining power, coordination, financing cost, information sharing, cooperation, availability of external financing, financial attractiveness, supply chain integration, credit rating, dependence, objectives, information visibility, workforce, and joint decision making.

Collaboration is one of the important factors that have been widely discussed as having an effect on the use of SCF (Fairchild 2005; Pfohl and Gomm 2009; Wuttke et al. 2013a, 2013b; Popa 2013; Silvestro and Lustrato 2014; Wandfluh et al. 2016; Caniato et al. 2016; Protopappa-Sieke and Seifert 2017; Zhang 2016; Blackman and Holland 2006). It is clearly understood that SCF is a collaborative form of financing, and thus, collaboration as a factor plays an important role in its use and successful adoption. Not only inter-firm collaboration, but intra-firm collaboration as well, i.e., between departments of the organisation, is found to be essential for SCF (Wandfluh et al. 2016; Caniato et al. 2016). Trust is an integral part of supply chain financing, and several researchers have stressed that trust is essential (Randall and Farris 2009; Wuttke et al. 2013b; Liebl et al. 2016; Martin 2017; Blackman and Holland 2006; Karyani et al. 2015; Ta et al. 2018). Martin (2017) stated that trust exists when there is honesty and benevolence. The parties involved in the supply chain need to maintain trustworthiness, and Ta et al. (2018) mentioned that changes in the trustworthiness can play a crucial role in maintaining a relationship. It is important for the SC partners to maintain openness (Randall and Farris 2009) and fairness (Chen et al. 2017). In line with this, several articles also stressed reputation, image, or track record (Iacono et al. 2015; Liebl et al. 2016; Chen 2016; Zheng and Zhang 2017). While Iacono et al. (2015) showed the importance of a bank's track record in reverse factoring, Liebl et al. (2016) stated that buyers extend

reverse factoring to the suppliers with a proper track record. Chen (2016), while working on the supply chain financing and the function and role of logistics enterprises, pointed out the need for the focal company to have a good reputation, i.e., the logistics company in this case. Zheng and Zhang (2017) viewed the SCF for Business to Business (B2B) cross-border e-commerce business, and demonstrated that reputation is essential. The higher the reputation, image, or track record, the better the trustworthiness and facilitation of SCF will be. Besides, the SC partners need to maintain cooperation (Jiang et al. 2016; Zheng and Zhang 2017; Yu and Zhu 2018) and coordination (Shang et al. 2009; Silvestro and Lustrato 2014; Gomm 2010; Yu and Ma 2015), as well as share risk, reward (Randall and Farris 2009), and information (Silvestro and Lustrato 2014; Wandfluh et al. 2016; Jiang et al. 2016; Ding et al. 2017); and jointly make decisions (Raghavan and Mishra 2011; Wuttke et al. 2013b). Carnovale and Yeniyurt (2015) demonstrated that the supply chain network is crucial for the firm's performance, and a well-connected network is associated with better performance.

Power is defined as "the ability of one firm to influence the actions and intentions of another" (Maloni and Benton 2000; Martin 2017), and it also plays a role in SCF, which several articles have highlighted (Wuttke et al. 2013b; Caniato et al. 2016; Wuttke et al. 2016; Protopappa-Sieke and Seifert 2017; Chen et al. 2017). In the literature, power has been mostly associated with the bargaining power of the buyer (focal company), as the buyer has been assumed to be a larger enterprise to their supplier. Caniato et al. (2016) used a term called "financial attractiveness" to refer to the bargaining power of the focal company to the financial institutions, which help in offering SCF solutions to their supplier, as in the case of reverse factoring. If the bargaining power of the focal firm, which is the buying firm in this case, is high, the buyer tends to reduce the purchase prices, whereas if it is low, then the buyer will try to improve the relationship with key suppliers. Similarly, the dependence of one firm on another, which is the reciprocal of power, influences the supply chain financing (Wuttke et al. 2013a; Martin 2017). Wuttke et al. (2013a) goes further, and divided dependence into 'pooled dependence' and 'dispersion of dependence'.

Caniato et al. (2016) mentioned that there is a plurality of objectives behind adopting SCF, i.e., improving the adopter's financial performance and securing the supply chain, and these objectives play a crucial role in SCF adoption. Other studies by Iacono et al. (2015), Liebl et al. (2016), and Zhou et al. (2018) also confirmed the influence of objectives on SCF.

The level of automation of trade processes or the level of digitalisation is another important factor that the literature stressed (Fairchild 2005; Wuttke et al. 2013b; Gomm 2010; Caniato et al. 2016; Chen 2016; Blackman and Holland 2006; Zhou et al. 2018). The automation of trade processes may occur in various ways, e.g., electronic invoicing, reconciliation databases, electronic paymen<sup>t</sup> systems, trade platforms, and forecasting platforms, among others. These technologies or automation may be offered by banks or financial service providers (Silvestro and Lustrato 2014), or it may need the involvement of another party in the supply chain financing, i.e., a technology service provider (TSP) (Martin and Hofmann 2017). TSP may act as a bridge between the funders and buyers, as well as the sellers. Due to the significance of technologies and vast opportunities arising out of it, Fintechs are also starting to ge<sup>t</sup> involved in SCF (Tsai and Peng 2017). Although for the traditional SCF solutions, a higher level of automation may not be needed, for innovative SCF solutions, a higher level of automation may be required. The visibility of information across the trade process and the supply chain is desirable. In supply chain financing, the same is desired (Silvestro and Lustrato 2014; Jiang et al. 2016), and the level of automation can increase the visibility.

The studies of Yan and Sun (2013) and Martin (2017) highlighted that the availability of external financing affects the supply chain partners' participation in SCF, and the easier accessibility of external financing may reduce the use of SCF.

The frequency and volume of transactions matter in supply chain finance, as the transactions need to be financially attractive, especially for the financial service provider. However, the same may hold true for the buyer as well, e.g., in the case of reverse factoring, where the buyer may be motivated

to use reverse factoring only for those suppliers with an attractive enough volume of receivables (Pellegrino et al. 2018; Hofmann and Zumsteg 2015; Iacono et al. 2015).

Supply chain integration has also been discussed as an influence on supply chain financing. Wuttke et al. (2013a) considered it as an umbrella that includes the joint decision, joint investment, real-time sharing of operational information, regular meetings, engagemen<sup>t</sup> in collaborative planning, and sharing cost information, among others. Not only should the supply chain partners be integrated upstream and downstream, but SC integration should also exist among financial service providers (FSPs) as well.

The talent, skill, and expertise of the workforce may also affect supply chain financing. Jiang et al. (2016) input it in a factor called 'basic condition', which consisted of personnel quality, and other factors similar to this concept include innovation ability, technical ability, quality, and financial condition.

Yan and Sun (2013) performed several analytical methodologies such as the Stackelberg game, coordination analysis, and numerical analysis, and showed that an "appropriate financing scheme/solution" matters, and influences the retailer's decision to order.

The literature has discussed several factors influencing SCF. However, it may be possible to classify them into broader groups based on similar characteristics. It is understandable that many of these factors will be overlapping between categories, but for simplification and clearer understanding, classification of the factors is desirable. Table 4 shows the categorisation of these factors into five categories, i.e., operational factors, financial factors, relationship factors, and informational factors.



#### *7.6. The Outcome of Supply Chain Financing*

One of the benefits of SCF that the literature has widely highlighted is the reduction of cost of financing (Van der Vliet et al. 2015; Iacono et al. 2015; Gelsomino et al. 2016b; Zheng and Zhang 2017; Ding et al. 2017; Babich and Kouvelis 2018; Yu and Zhu 2018; Yang et al. 2018). It helps to facilitate offering finance at a lower cost to the SC partners, who generally are not privileged to receive capital at lower cost. It leads to financial service providers extending finance at lower interest rates. Supply chain finance not only facilitates a lower cost of financing, it also helps reduce the overall cost in the supply chain, e.g., cost of producing and delivering goods/services (Blackman and Holland 2006; Iacono et al. 2015; Gelsomino et al. 2016b; Jiang et al. 2016; Liu and Wen 2017; Babich and Kouvelis 2018). SCF has been widely touted to offer solutions to the problems faced by SMEs in availing finance; the literature on SCF revealed that SCF improves the accessibility to funds, particularly for smaller SC partners (Suayb Gundogdu 2010; Wang et al. 2012; Yan and Sun 2015; Hofmann and Zumsteg 2015; Liu and Wen 2017; Ding et al. 2017; Chen and Wen 2017; Zheng and Zhang 2017; Li et al. 2011). The major problems in approaching working capital optimisation from a single-company perspective involve larger enterprises exercising their bargaining power and optimising the working capital at the expense of other enterprises in the supply chain, which can cause cash flow risk and disruptions in the supply chain. SCF, on the other hand, helps reduce cash flow risk (Wuttke et al. 2013b; Jiang et al. 2016; Martin 2017; Yan and Sun 2015; Gelsomino et al. 2016b; Liu and Wen 2017) and disruptions in the supply chain (Blackman and Holland 2006; Wuttke et al. 2013b; Jiang et al. 2016). It helps unlock and improve the working capital position, e.g., in factoring, reverse factoring, inventor financing, or warehouse financing, a supplier can avail the needed funds before the paymen<sup>t</sup> period. Although financial institutions may need to offer to fund at lower rates, SCF ensures an increase in transactions (Hofmann and Zumsteg 2015; Jiang et al. 2016), and helps increase revenue and income for FSPs (Iacono et al. 2015; Zheng and Zhang 2017). Several articles discussed the ability of SCF to enhance the profitability of the individual enterprises as well as that of the supply chain (Wang et al. 2012; Hofmann and Zumsteg 2015; Yan and Sun 2015; Grüter and Wuttke 2017; Bi et al. 2018a; Yu and Zhu 2018; Zhou et al. 2016). There are also other articles that merely touched on the benefits as improving the financial performance (Gomm 2010; Yan et al. 2014; Shi and Wang 2015; Caniato et al. 2016; Carnovale and Yeniyurt (2015); Zhang 2016; Liu and Wen 2017). It is understandable that all of the above-discussed points contribute to the overall financial performance. Pfohl and Gomm (2009) stated that SCF affects the firms by influencing three areas: volume, cost, and duration. The solutions will affect one or more of the dimension(s), and some of the solutions will have a greater effect than the other (also see Gelsomino et al. 2016b).

The visibility of information in the chain is essential for the efficiency and effectiveness of the chain, and SCF aids in reducing information asymmetry in the supply chain (Fairchild 2005; Hofmann and Zumsteg 2015; Ding et al. 2017; Gelsomino et al. 2016b; Li 2017; Song et al. 2018). Several researchers are also of the view that supply chain finance also helps reduce financing risk (Wang et al. 2012; Tsai and Peng 2017). While Wang et al. (2012) stated that SCF can reduce the financing risk for the commercial banks, Tsai and Peng (2017) approached the reduction of financing risk from perspective of the larger enterprise offering loans to the suppliers through online SCF platforms. The main reason for the reduction of risk for larger enterprise as per Tsai and Peng (2017) is due to greater familiarity with their suppliers. Although the approach may be different, nevertheless, SCF can help reduce the financing risk for the finance provider.

Supply chain finance also helps to improve the collaboration between functional departments within the firm, as well as that between enterprises (Bi et al. 2018a; Bi et al. 2018b; Yang et al. 2018). It also helps improve the coordination in the supply chain (Huff and Rogers 2015; Bi et al. 2018a; Bi et al. 2018b). In fact, it improves the relationship in the chain by reducing the conflicts and issues and improving collaboration and coordination.

Some of the articles discussed SCF as improving the overall supply chain (Yu and Ma 2015; Protopappa-Sieke and Seifert 2017; Chen et al. 2017). It may be said that SCF offers a win–win situation for all of the supply chain partners. Overall, it can be said that SCF provides both financial and non-financial benefits.

On the other hand, there are also articles that discussed the possible negative effects of SCF. The major issues that could arise from SCF are risk, uncertainty, and vulnerability. Johnson (2008) demonstrated that risk/uncertainty/vulnerability can occur due the leakage of documents, as supply chain partners may be transacting through financial institutions. The researchers also characterised the threat of loss by examining search patterns in peer-to-peer networks, and also showed the linkage between firm visibility and threat activity. Karyani et al. (2015) stated that if there is a congestion of cash flow in one of the perpetrators, it will cause a ripple effect on the other partners of the supply chain as well. Martin (2017) found that suppliers may also face uncertainty on future terms besides being uncertain about buyers to offer them a financing alternative or solutions.

#### *7.7. Supply Chain Finance Solutions*

Supply chain finance is not a single solution-based mode of financing. As it is a medium to optimise the flow of funds and cover the supply chain, various solutions or instruments make up the SCF solutions. Table 5 shows various SCF solutions discussed in the literature.


**Table 5.** Some of the widely discussed solutions in the literature.


#### **Table 5.** *Cont*.

Reverse factoring is the most widely discussed solution in the supply chain literature (Liebl et al. 2016; Lekkakos and Serrano 2016; Caniato et al. 2016; Iacono et al. 2015; Grüter and Wuttke 2017; Popa 2013; de Goeij et al. 2016). In fact, there are some articles that considered reverse factoring to be SCF. Gelsomino et al. (2016b) put it as 'buyer-driven perspective', which is a subset of the financial-oriented perspective of SCF. Besides, there are other solutions mentioned, such as payables discounting (Silvestro and Lustrato 2014), approved payables financing (Martin 2017), and payables extension finance (Basu and Nair 2012; More and Basu 2013), which in substance are similar to reverse factoring, i.e., based on payables.

Several articles also focused on 'accounts receivables financing', which is the mode of financing in which enterprises use receivables as the underlying asset (Basu and Nair 2012; Popa 2013; More and Basu 2013; Silvestro and Lustrato 2014; Wang 2017). Two forms of accounts receivables financing are evident from the literature, i.e., accounts receivables pledging and accounts receivables factoring. Although factoring may be a part of accounts receivables financing, various articles touched on factoring specifically as the mode of financing (Caniato et al. 2016; Tang et al. 2018; Martin and Hofmann 2017; Yu and Ma 2015).

The suppliers may avail of financing using the 'purchase orders' before the repaymen<sup>t</sup> period from the buyers. This form of financing is known as 'purchase order financing' (Basu and Nair 2012; More and Basu 2013; Silvestro and Lustrato 2014; Tang et al. 2018; Babich and Kouvelis 2018).

Supply chain finance may also be used to finance the agricultural supply chain, and is known as 'agricultural supply chain finance'. Karyani et al. (2015) and Karyani et al. (2016) categorised it into 'pre-harvest financing' and 'trade services financing'. Suayb Gundogdu (2010), while studying the Islamic structured trade finance on cotton production, grouped the financing modes into pre-harvest (Salam) and post-harvest (Murabaha and Mursharakah). Zhou et al. (2018) grouped agricultural supply chain finance into four categories: microcredit, microloans, supply chain and industrial model, and online and offline lending.

One of the solutions through which SCF can take place is through the online platform. It could be a platform through which e-factoring or e-reverse factoring could take place, or it may occur in the form of peer-to-peer lending, or where the smaller supplier or retailer may ge<sup>t</sup> a necessary funding from their SC partner, which could be buyer or manufacturer (Wuttke et al. 2013a; Hofmann and Zumsteg 2015; Martin and Hofmann 2017; Tsai and Peng 2017; Gao et al. 2018). Caniato et al. (2016) also dwelled on the online form of SCF by calling them an 'advanced form of reverse factoring' and 'seller-based invoice auction'. The online platform could also be that which connects the supply chain partners, i.e., buyer, supplier, and service provider, where the documentary process involved in the transactions could be managed more quickly, visibly, and cost-effectively. Yuan (2007) did a case study on the TradeCard solution, which helps connect the supply chain partners through better managing the documentary process of international transactions. TradeCard is stated to be replacing letters of credit or open accounts in international transactions.

Suppliers may avail funding through 'inventory financing', which uses inventory as an underlying asset (Li et al. 2011; Popa 2013; Tang et al. 2018; Babich and Kouvelis 2018; Chen and Kieschnick 2018). Warehousing financing is also another popular form of financing where the concerned party may avail financing by generally pledging the warehouse receipt (Popa 2013; Luo et al. 2015; Jiang et al. 2016; Chen and Wen 2017).

Buyer direct financing is a mode through which a seller may avail funds from the buyer through advances or loans, and has also been discussed in several articles (Popa 2013; Tang et al. 2018; Babich and Kouvelis 2018; Chen and Kieschnick 2018).

Besides the above-mentioned solutions of SCF, the literature on SCF revealed several solutions such as vendor-managed inventory (Basu and Nair 2012; More and Basu 2013; Caniato et al. 2016), raw material financing (Basu and Nair 2012), third-party logistics financing (Basu and Nair 2012; More and Basu 2013), dynamic discounting (Caniato et al. 2016; Martin and Hofmann 2017), early paymen<sup>t</sup> discount programmes (Basu and Nair 2012; More and Basu 2013), buy-back guarantees (Chen et al. 2017; Yu and Ma 2015), credit guarantees (Yan et al. 2017), bank guarantees (Martin and Hofmann 2017), manufacturer collateral (Bi et al. 2018a), supplier's subsidy (Bi et al. 2018b); SME closed-loop supply chains (SMECLSCs) (Zhang 2016), and supply chain carbon finance (SCCF) (Yang et al. 2018). Martin (2017) also included letters of credit, bank guarantees, insurances, and credit assessment as risk mitigation aspects of SCF. Trade credit, which is a form of credit offered by the supplier to its buyer in the form of deferred payments, is discussed as 'supplier-led solutions' by Babich and Kouvelis (2018).

Although there are many solutions to SCF, it may be possible to group them based on certain characteristics, e.g., pre-shipment, in-transit, and post-shipment financing (Basu and Nair 2012; More and Basu 2013), traditional and innovative financing solutions (Caniato et al. 2016), traditional and integrated SCF practices (Babich and Kouvelis 2018, and buyer-led and supplier-led supply chain finance (Babich and Kouvelis 2018).

#### **8. Contribution to the Existing Literature**

Our study contributes to the existing literature on supply chain finance, and extends the work of Gelsomino et al. (2016b) and Xu et al. (2018) in the following ways. 1. We identified and consolidated the factors that influence SCF. Further, we also grouped these factors into five categories based on certain common characteristics. This grouping can help simplify the understanding of the factors. 2. The current study also identified various outcomes that could emerge out of the use of SCF. We did not limit ourselves only to the expected benefits resulting out of the SCF. 3. We also addressed the question: what constitutes the supply chain finance solutions? We identified several SCF solutions that have been discussed in the extant literature. In addition, we also showed which solutions are most widely discussed and which are understudied.

#### **9. Managerial Implications**

We believe our study offers managerial implications in the following ways. 1. The parties involved in the supply chain finance, whether the supplier, buyer, financial service provider, or technology service provider, can understand the important factors that influence the use of SCF. This study can help them concentrate on these factors to improve the adoption and effectiveness of SCF. 2. The parties can understand the expected outcome when SCF is implemented. Understanding this is crucial, as it can improve and enhance the adoption of SCF. For example, SMEs that are generally unaware and reluctant to explore different instruments may be encouraged to participate in SCF. Larger buyers can be encouraged to opt for viewing working capital from the SCF perspective, as it can offer a win–win situation rather than trying to think about its own gain. These buyers may also be able to bring on board their smaller suppliers under SCF by making them aware about the benefits that can be expected out of SCF. FSPs can also know that there are benefits in offering SCF solutions. FSPs and technology service providers can promote their solutions and services better to their potential clients. 3. We have identified and covered many of the SCF solutions that have been discussed in the literature. This can help create awareness for the suppliers and buyers alike, and increase an interest to explore more of these SCF solutions. Technology service providers may also benefit from knowing the various SCF solutions, and can make better decisions and steps to offer technology-fitting solutions.

#### **10. Conclusions, Future Directions, and Limitations**

Supply chain finance as a concept has seen a rise in the early 21st century. It received more attention and go<sup>t</sup> a thrust after the financial crisis of September 2008, as the loans from the banks and financial institutions declined considerably. This article reviewed the articles based on three themes: SCF factors, outcomes, and solutions. We used a string of keywords, i.e., "Supply Chain Finance" OR "Supply Chain Financing" OR "Financial Supply Chain" OR "Financial Value Chain" and searched the Scopus and Web of Science databases. After removing the duplications, conference proceedings, and the articles that did not meet the themes of the paper, finally, we reviewed 70 research articles. We found that analytical and case studies are the most widely used methodologies. There has been a growing interest in the SCF in academics whereby the highest number of publications have come in the last three years. The sources of publications have been quite diverse. Most of the publications have come from the countries such as China, Germany, the USA, and Switzerland. There is a lack of contributions from the regions such as Africa and South America.

The most widely discussed factors in the literature are collaboration, the automation of trade process/level of digitalisation, trust, reputation, image or track record, bargaining power, coordination, financing cost, information sharing, and cooperation, among others. For the simpler understanding of the factors influencing SCF, the authors also classified these factors into five categories, i.e., operational, financial, relationship, technological, and informational factors.

Outcome-wise, a lower cost of financing, reduction in cost, improvement in accessibility to financing, reduction in information asymmetry, improvement in financial performance, and enhancement of profitability were the most recurring areas in the research. Overall, the benefits of SCF can be grouped into financial benefits and non-financial benefits. The Cash-to-Cash cycle (C2C) is a metric that has been widely discussed in the literature to demonstrate the financial benefits of SCF (Randall and Farris 2009; Hofmann and Kotzab 2010; Popa 2013; Silvestro and Lustrato 2014; Hofmann and Zumsteg 2015). C2C is a time-based measure comprised of Days Sales Outstanding (DSO), Days Inventory Outstanding (DIO), and Days Payables Outstanding (DPO).

#### C2C = DSO + DIO − DPO

The shorter the C2C, the higher the net present value of cash generated by the assets and the overall increase in the value of the firm will be (Soenen 1993). The C2C metric is a component for enhancing the value of shareholders. C2C optimisation can be approached from a single entity perspective; however, in such cases, the focal firm may end up optimising at the expense of the supply chain partners, and can be counterproductive for the supply chain and the focal firm in the long run. As such, it is vital to view C2C from a supply chain collaborative perspective. The literature has discussed some of the instances of how SCF can manage C2C optimally at the supply chain level, e.g., shifting the inventory upstream to the suppliers, as the cost of the product is lower upstream in the chain, and the ability to shift inventory further up, even for a few days, will create savings for the entire chain. Some SC partners have strong credit and a lower weighed average cost of capital (WACC), and can reduce the cost of capital of the whole supply chain. Being able to shift the financial needs and burdens of the SC transactions to the partner with lowest WACC will result in an optimal C2C for the SC. Thus, SCF can offer a win–win situation for the SC partners (Randall and Farris 2009; Hofmann and Kotzab 2010). Not only a win–win situation in the case of a dyadic buyer–supplier relationship, but SCF can also create a 'triple win situation' (TWS) when the financial service provider (FSP) is also involved in the SCF, although there are caveats (see Hofmann and Zumsteg 2015).

The literature also revealed that the consequences of SCF might even be negative, and these may be due to risk, uncertainty, and vulnerability.

Amongst the solutions, the most widely covered solutions were reverse factoring, accounts receivables financing, purchase order financing, and agricultural supply chain finance. Although there are lots of SCF solutions, and more are expected to emerge with more innovation and need to improve the financial flow, it is possible to group them based on certain characteristics, e.g., pre-shipment, in-transit, and post-shipment financing; traditional and innovative financing solutions; traditional and integrated SCF practices; or buyer-led and supplier-led supply chain finance.

A lot of work in the literature has been analytical, case study, and simulation-based. We identified several factors from the extant literature; however, more empirical studies will be needed for validation. Although a few articles such as those of Martin (2017) and Wuttke et al. (2013b) have attempted to explain SCF with existing organisational theories, the SCF literature needs more theoretical underpinning, and surveys of the existing theoretical frameworks would be especially beneficial. Innovation diffusion theory (IDT), social exchange theory, and transaction cost theories, among others,

may be especially worth considering, in order to give a framework for survey research on SCF. Out of the identified factors, some factors may be more critical than others. It will be worth exploring the relationship between these factors. For this, total interpretive structural modelling (TISM)—and with a larger survey dataset, structural equation modelling (SEM)—can be used in the future research. The same can be applied in the case of identified outcomes of SCF. Even the analytical modellings have mostly concentrated on a single period or buyer–supplier or manufacturer–retailer dyads. Future studies may look into a more complicated multi-time period or multi-level in the supply chain. Some of the solutions for SCF such as dynamic discounting, manufacturer collateral, and supplier's subsidy, among others, are very understudied. Most of the studies on SCF have viewed SCF by focussing on single solutions, and it may be possible, especially in empirical studies, to consider more than a single solution. Future research may focus on studying more than a single SCF solution. It may be difficult to take up all of the solutions of SCF, but concentrating on the particular category of SCF solutions, such as buyer-led or supplier-led; pre-shipment or post-shipment, etc. may be more manageable for empirical research. Currently, most of the contributions have come from China, followed by Germany, USA, and Switzerland. However, we found a lack of contributions from regions such as Africa and South America. More research contributions from such regions and countries with lesser contributions will be beneficial for the overall research in supply chain finance. Tsai and Peng (2017) discussed the Fintech revolution and the regulation involved therein by using it as a case study. They viewed Fintech in terms of a larger focal company offering online supply chain financing to their supplier or distributor without the intermediation of banks or financial institutions. However, Fintech companies may not necessarily offer direct financing, but may help in facilitating the SCF by linking the parties in the SCF. More study on the role of Fintechs on SCF and their regulations will be beneficial. All of the studies based on secondary data have been from USA and United Kingdom (UK), and it will be worth exploring the various aspects of SCF such as the expected benefits, risk, and cost, among others, using secondary data from other countries, especially from emerging countries. Another exciting area would be to link SCF with other emerging technologies such as blockchain, the Internet of Things (IoT) and big data.

The limitations of the paper are as follows. 1. The findings of this article are based on a review of 70 papers. We used a search string- "Supply Chain Finance" OR "Supply Chain Financing" OR "Financial Supply Chain" OR "Financial Value Chain"—to identify articles, and this may have caused the exclusion of some of the relevant papers. 2. While performing a qualitative analysis of the documents on the focussed themes, personal biases might have occurred. 3. We also did not include 'grey papers', and this may provide material for further insights into SCF.

**Author Contributions:** Z.R.M. conceptualised the idea which eventually led to the formulation of research questions, reviewed and tabulated the literature on Supply Chain Finance. He also performed both quantitative and qualitative analysis and worked on the discussions of the results besides offering theoretical and managerial implications of the paper. D.P. offered a valuable contribution in terms of developing the process and framework for literature review, quantitatively analysing the results of the reviewed articles besides editing and refining the drafts of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
