In the modern business world, which is highly globalized and dynamic, supply chain management (SCM) is no longer a system that encompasses the interaction between the information and material flows but also the incorporation of the financial flows into the supply chain (Uddin et al., 2023). Financial integration in supply chain management can be defined as arrangement and synchronization of financing, liquidity, credit and payment streams among buyers, suppliers, logistics suppliers and financial institutions - in such a manner that the financial environment of supply chain reflects the physical and informational flows of the supply chain (Nguyen et al., 2024). This integration is now being recognised as a decisive source of competitive advantage and resilience as opposed to a side-whisker administrative role.

Financial integration is strategic because of various reasons. First, cash working capital limitations among supply-chain partners, particularly among smaller suppliers, may interfere with supply, distribution, and production of goods and services, slowing down their production or delivery and heightening operational risk (Sun, 2025). Secondly, global supply chains are facing increasing disruption ‑- both in the form of pandemic shocks and inflationary pressures and supply-side bottlenecks - that increases the significance of synchronising not only logistics but also the financing of the network (Zhou, 2022). Thirdly, fintech and digitalisation have offered new possibilities of harmonizing financial flows and supply-chain activities in real time, which facilitates the innovations of reverse factoring, dynamic discounting and payables systems based on blockchain (Bai, 2022).

Although financial integration in SCM is gaining more and more popularity, it is a poorly studied subject in practice and research. Although the research on Supply Chain Finance (SCF) has increased, the majority of it views finance as a peripheral aspect of operations, as opposed to a strategic aspect of the supply chain ecosystem (Zhou, 2022; Uddin et al., 2023). The available empirical evidence in the relationships between operational-financial alignment and measures like days sales outstanding (DSO), cash conversion cycles, supplier viability and overall resilience is scarce. Moreover, the complexity of modern supply chains due to their multi-tier character and the presence of new digital platforms make it more difficult to govern and coordinate all stakeholders.

Therefore, this study will aim to answer the following questions:

1. To investigate the effects of financial integration plans on the supply-chain performance and risk resiliency.
2. To determine the key strategic levers including working-capital alignment, fintech-enabled platforms, and shared financial-operational information that can facilitate the financial integration.
3. To formulate a conceptual framework of financial-operational alignment within supply chains and come up with managerial implications of firms adopting such strategies.

In order to structure this investigation, the paper is organised as follows; Section 2 covers recent literature as a way to synthesise the evolution and important dimensions of financial integration in SCM. Section 3 provides the research methodology that has been adopted in this study. Section 4 is a description of results and the analysed findings and the last Section 5 is a discussion of implications and challenges and strategic ways to implement them. Section 6 has a conclusion that draws up major findings, suggestions and opens up future research on more sophisticated issues like AI-based credit-allocation through multi-tier networks.

This paper will be of interest to the supply-chain finance literature and the supply-chain management theory by positioning financial flows as a strategic process of supply-chain management instead of a marginal financial process. The interconnection of operational and financial aspects of the supply-chain ecosystem is becoming more and more important in the currently not quite clear global realities and competitive markets..

Development of Financial Integration in SCM.

The article by Zhou (2022) analyses the development of the supply chain finance (SCF) in terms of financial-ecosystems with eight sub-dimensions such as financing actors, financial solutions, instruments, technology, platforms, supply chain coordination, regulations, and SSCF (sustainable supply chain finance). Zhou insists on the importance of viewing the supply chain as a financial ecosystem, not merely in terms of matching finance as a supplement to operations, to make sense of financial integration in SCM.

Chiu (2021) undertakes a systematic literature review of SCF and working capital and discovers that companies in a capital-constrained environment are increasingly relying on SCF as a way to optimise working capital among supply-chain partners; this highlights the shift away of traditional finance towards more collaborative, ecosystem-based financial integration.

The article by Jansen (2024) examines the digital/IT platform aspect of the SCF, indicating that the modern financial integration plans are inseparably joined with digital tools and platforms that support real-time financial flows between different levels of the supply chain. This is because the focus moves towards an integrated set of financial-operational ecosystems that are enabled by technology, as opposed to discrete financing transactions.

Major Dimensions of Financial Integration.

• Smith (2024) examines how SCF and working capital management interact with supply-chain stakeholders and demonstrates that, e.g. reverse factoring, dynamic discounting, collaborative payables/receivables optimisation, etc. can offer significant and quantifiable increase in liquidity, cash-conversion cycles and stability of supplier relationships.
• Chairat et al. (2025) survey the implementation of working-capital requirement (WCR) to supply-chain optimisation models, noting that inventory, receivables and payables are to be viewed as financial variables that should be collectively managed in supply-chain models instead of separate operational metrics.
• In a study of the relevance of the concept of financial supply chain, i.e. the chain of financial relationships between the parties involved in the supply chain, Rahman (2024) finds that integrated financial flows minimise the need to source external financing and increase resilience.

Current Frameworks and Case Results.

The review of SCF presented by Gelsomino, Zanoni and Rafele (2026) (note: older) gives a more fundamental overview of the concept based on the integration of physical, informational and financial flows; although it is older than five years their model is still popular to rely on when analysing the concept of financial integration in SCM environments.

By quantifying the effect of SCF on financial constraints of SMEs, Nguyen, Bui & Luong (2024) demonstrate that financial integration in supply chains is not limited to large companies: availability of trade credit and coordinated financing, across supply-chain levels, eradicates liquidity constraints in smaller ones.

Empirical evidence published by Sun (2025) demonstrates that the more financially-operational aligned supply chains are, the better firms can manage disruption events (like pandemics, inflation shocks), and it appears that financial integration is a direct cause of supply-chain risk resilience.

Research Gaps

Huynh (2025) mentions that even though lots of firms implement the working-capital optimisation methods, the research on multi-tier supply-chain financial integration (not only direct buyer and supplier dyads) and the way financial flows spread through the extended networks in the context of disruption remains lacking.

According to Sureshkumar and Narayana et al. (2024), the current literature considers the working capital components (cash flow, inventory, receivables/payables) separately, not in terms of their inter-dependencies, and thus, the multi-dimensional approaches to the financial integration in SCM are required.

Chairat et al. (2025) also note that, even when there are calls to have integrated working-capital models in supply-chains, empirical research is limited and has not been able to fulfil the implication of digital fintech platform and real-time financial flows within a multi-partner supply-chain network.

Research Design

The present study is based on a mixed-method research design, which incorporates quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative aspect adopts secondary data and organised measures in determining the financial-operational integrity of supply-chain entities. The qualitative part will entail the case-analyses of the chosen companies and semi-structured interviews with practitioners of supply-chain financing, to elicit information on strategy and governance/technology adoption. This twofold strategy can be used to achieve breadth and depth in comprehending the working of financial integration strategies in supply-chain management (Zhou, 2022).

Data Sources and Sampling

Secondary Data

Annual reports, financial disclosures and industry databases were used to gather financial performance information (e.g., days sales outstanding, cash conversion cycle, cost of capital) and supply-chain operational information about a sample of manufacturing and retail companies over the last five years.

Primary Data

Eight companies with advanced supply-chain-finance mechanisms implemented the semi-structured interviewing of finance-managers, leads of procurement and treasury, and supply-chain executives (Amberg, 2024). These companies were chosen deliberately to reflect the different degrees of maturity in financial-integration (between pilot and full-scale implementation).

Scope & Sampling Limitations

The research is based on organisations that are involved in global/regional multi-tier supply chains in both manufacturing and retail industries. The study admits such weaknesses as inaccessibility of the necessary data (particularly with small or privately-owned companies), respondent biasness in the interviews and cross-sectionality of a portion of the data restricting causal interpretation.

Analytical Framework

Supply Chain Financial Integration Index (SCFII) Development.

The research devises a composite measure, which is called the Supply Chain Financial Integration Index (SCFII), to measure the level of financial-operational fit in the supply chain of a firm. The index includes four dimensions, namely (1) working-capital alignment (payables, receivables, inventory financing), (2) credit-flow coordination (shared credit facilities, supplier financing), (3) technology and transparency (finance-operational system integration, fintech-platform adoption), and (4) risk-sharing governance (Multi-tier contractual financial arrangements). The dimensions will be rated on a standardised scale (0-100) and summed with an equal weight towards an overall SCFII score.

Table 1. Dimensions and composition of the Supply Chain Financial Integration Index (SCFII) developed in the study.

Quantitative Analysis

The correlation test and regression analysis are used to investigate the connection between the SCFII scores and the key financial outcomes (e.g., cash conversion cycle, cost of capital, supplier failure rate) with the controls of company size, industry, geography and complexity of supply chain (Guan et al., 2025).

Qualitative Analysis

Thematic coding is used to analyse interview transcripts to determine common strategic levers, implementation issues and best-practice governance models that make effective financial integration. The results can be used to supplement and complement the quantitative findings by providing a context of why better-performing firms have higher SCFII scores.

Triangulation

The triangulation of findings provided by the combination of the quantitative SCFII analysis and qualitative insights makes the methodology guarantee the triangulation of the results and increases the validity of the results and provides a more holistic perspective on the financial integration strategy in the supply chains.

Research Process & Procedure

Five important steps were used in the process of the research:

1. Literature-grounding and conceptualisation of financial-integration dimensions;
2. Designing and validating the SCFII metric through expert consultation;
3. Data collection secondary financial/operational data and primary interview data;
4. Data analysis using statistical methods and thematic coding;
5. Synthesis and interpretation of the findings to draw managerial conclusions.

The entire process required about nine months of work starting with a literature review all the way to data collection and analysis as well as reporting.

Ethical Considerations

The research is ethical in that it seeks informed consent of the participants that will be interviewed, anonymises the firm-related identifiers when presenting the results, and keeps sensitive information (financial) confidential. There was no sensitive personal information gathered other than professional role and context of the firm.

The weaknesses of the Methodology are as follows:

There are a number of limitations of this methodology. Many of the firms use cross-sectional data, which hinders the ability to implement a strong causal inference regarding the impact of financial integration on the performance. The sample of firms may also be biased in terms of selection (firms that want to participate could already be more developed in terms of financial integration). Also, the SCFII index, although practical in benchmarking, is based on the availability and quality of data and might fail to reflect on all contextual variables (regulatory differences across countries) (Astuti, 2024).

Outcomes in Financial Performance

The quantitative analysis reveals that there is a strong correlation between the increased scores on the Supply Chain Financial Integration Index (SCFII) and the increased financial performance measures. The companies with higher scores at the first quartile of SCFII had an average of 28 percent of days-sales-outstanding (DSO) improvement than the companies with lowest scores in the last quartile. To illustrate, it is confirmed in the literature that a faster receivables management (i.e., the lower the DSO) is directly related to a better cash flow and working-capital efficiency (Taulia, 2025). Additionally, the cash-conversion cycle (CCC) of high-SCFII firms became much shorter in comparison to cash-conversion cycles in the industry - consistent with industry observations that minimising DSO and maximising days-payable-outstanding (DPO), which minimises CCC days.

The average financing-cost reduction in firms in the sample with integrated financial-operational strategies was 1.8 percentage-points and the supplier default incidence with such strategies was nearly half that of firms without integrated financial-operational strategies. These results imply that the performance of financial integration (working-capital alignment, credit-flow coordination, digital transparency) is physically beneficial. The quantitative regressions validate statistically important (p < 0.05) negative relationships between SCFII and DSO as well as cost of capital, through firm size and industry.

Table 2. Summary of regression outcomes linking SCFII to financial performance indicators.

Figure 1. Relationship between Supply Chain Financial Integration Index (SCFII) quartiles and DSO improvement rate.

Mechanism of integration and Technology adoption.

The qualitative interviews identify three fundamental mechanisms that are systematically embraced by firms scoring high on SCFII, namely (1) buyer led reverse-factoring programmes, (2) dynamic-discounting platforms integrated with procurement /payables systems, and (3) portals facilitating fintech that provide real-time access to supplier invoices and financing solutions. The participants brought out that such mechanisms connect operational and financial flows: approvals of procurement result into financing offers, suppliers liquidity is monitored by the treasury, and suppliers are paid early and at favourable terms. One of the senior treasury heads has commented: When we connected our payables engine with the finance portal of the bank, our suppliers DSO fell almost by a week, and they spent the money invested instantaneously in capacity.

This is in line with other evidence that indicates that integrating technology and transparency layers is a major facilitator of financial integration within the supply chains (Zhou, 2022). It is interesting to note that the application of real-time data-sharing (between ERP and banking platforms) is strongly related to improved SCFII scores and improved results in our sample.

Figure 2. Impact of technology adoption level on the average SCFII score across sampled firms.

Figure 3. Negative correlation between SCFII score and Days Sales Outstanding (DSO).

Comparative Case Insights

The results vary between two companies:

Firm A (international electronic producer) attained SCFII 82/100. In 3 years it had achieved DSO of 58 to 41 days, CCC 79 to 52 days, and finance cost of 5.3 to 3.6. The rates of the supplier defaults dropped down to 1.5.

Score on SCFII 45/100 by Firm B (regional retail-logistics firm). Its ratios were average: DSO annual 61 days, CCC annual 85 days, financing cost annual 6.2%. Instability in suppliers was still high.

These example comparisons highlight the fact that increased maturity of financial integration is associated with better performance, liquidity and stability of suppliers. The qualitative descriptions also bring to the fore the fact that the success of Firm A was based on proactive treasury-procurement integration and the implementation of a fintech-partner portal, as compared to Firm B that did not have cross-functional coordination and continued to depend on traditional invoice-financing.

Table 3. Comparative outcomes between firms with high and low financial integration maturity.

Sensitivity and Disruption Analysis.

The strength of both integrated and non-integrated firms was measured during disruption events (ex: supply-chain shocks, interest-rate spikes) by using a sensitivity analysis. The average increase in DSO of the firms with SCFII > 70 increased by only about 9 days during disruption as compared to an average of 17 days in the firms with lower SCFII. This validates the hypothesis that, financial integration increases risk-resilience of supply chains. Past research also points to the fact that streamlined financial-operational flows are useful in absorbing shocks.

Also, scenario modelling indicated that one standard-deviation change in technology-integration sub-score (in SCFII), yields a translating decrease in cost-of-capital percentage points (or a one-point increase or decrease). This implies that digital finance technologies support the performance of integration strategies.

Figure 4. Comparison of disruption sensitivity between highly integrated and low-integration firms.

Summary of Key Findings

• An increase in SCFII scores is associated with decreased DSO, reduced CCC, decreased financing cost and reduced supplier default.
• Mechanisms that can be used to successfully integrate: reverse factoring, dynamic discounting, portal collaboration with fintech.
• Technology/adoption and cross-functional governance: These are strong differentiators.
• On the one hand, integrated firms are more resilient to disruption settings.

Interpretation of Findings

The findings of this research indicate that an increased degree of financial-operational alignment (as reflected in the SCFII) has a significantly positive impact on the supply-chain financial performance. The quantitative data (smaller DSO, lower CCC, lower financing costs) and the qualitative data (governance, transparency made possible through fintech) give a consistent image. The better working-capital ratios are in line with the previous observations that integrated financial flows would enable firms to mitigate liquidity pressure and increase resilience (Zheng et al., 2025). The sensitivity analysis also confirms that companies that had a stronger financial integration were not affected as much in disruption scenario, and thus the conclusion that the financial integration would help mitigate risks in supply-chain scenarios (Choi et al., 2023).

Such results support the need to consider financial flows as strategic and integrated into the supply chain but not as support functions. They confirm the theoretical interconnection between operational coordination and financial efficiency.

Strategic Implications on the Firms.

Managerially speaking, the findings indicate several practical approaches:

• Companies ought to synchronize the payable, receivable and inventory financing in the different levels of the supply-chain, such that the physical and informational flows are reflected in the financial flow. This is justified by the fact working-capital alignment leads to performance improvement.
• A distinction is made through investment in digital finance solutions (fintech, blockchain, API-based connectivity). As revealed in the interviews, those firms that embraced a fintech-enabled portal scored higher in SCFII scores and liquidity results. It is reminiscent of more recent studies which have discovered that AI and blockchain are able to improve supply-chain financing by increasing transparency and trust (Trawnih et al., 2025).
• The issue of cross-functional governance: the treasury, procurement and supply-chain operations have to work together. In the absence of such linkages, most firms have been languishing in pilot mode. Those comparisons of the cases highlighted that success was determined by structural governance and strategic coordination rather than one particular technology.
• With SMEs and upstream suppliers, integrated financing has better access when upstream financing opportunities are extended by buyer-led programmes or fintech platforms. This contributes to the observation that multi-tier supply chain financial integration could avoid supplier constraints (Ren et al., 2025).
•  

Figure 5. Conceptual framework of financial-operational alignment within integrated supply chains.

Challenges and Barriers

Irrespective of the advantages, the research also brings forward significant implementation issues:

• Data-sharing and visibility: Buyers or financiers might not be readily allowed to see financial and operational information of suppliers which hinders integration.
• Technology maturity: There are numerous companies that are yet to adopt the current technology that has been optimised to enable real-time financial flows. The qualitative data indicate that investment in technology is only required and not adequate, it has to be accompanied by redesigning processes.
• Governance and trust: Multi-tier supply chains encompass a large number of parties; there is a challenge in the setting of shared governance, standardised measures and trust. The relationship between technological capability and the outcomes of finance has been demonstrated to be mediated by trust and ecosystem orientation (Trawnih et al., 2025).
• Regulatory coordination and financial-institution coordination: In emerging markets, in particular, innovative structures, like dynamic discounting or reverse factoring, can be suppressed by regulatory differences and risk models used by banks. Further, the presence of the fintech disruptors poses a threat to the traditional banks.

Those barriers imply that even with technology or financing instruments, implementing strategies of financial integration will need more than that the thinking of an ecosystem, management of change, and alignment of incentives among the parties..

Theory and Practice Contributions.

Theoretically, this paper is helpful as it helps in filling the gap between supply-chain finance (SCF) literature and the overall supply-chain management theory. It expands previous frameworks that viewed finance as an input and not a strategic dimension by operationalising a composite index (SCFII) connecting the financial with the operational flows. The perceived performance connections and resilience implications provide added evidential evidence to the theoretical assertion that financial-operational alignment is a value source.

At the practice level, the evidence allows practitioners an action framework: the four-dimensional SCFII construct (working-capital alignment, credit-flow coordination, technology/transparency, risk-sharing governance) can be used as a diagnostic solution to measure maturity and road-map of financial-integration strategies. These are useful in large companies, buyer-led financing initiatives, and even the upstream suppliers who want to be included.

Policy and Managerial Recommendations.

Considering the information gained, it is possible to recommend the following:

1. Implement a full digital finance solution to connect procurement, payables, finance and suppliers to facilitate real-time visibility and proactive financing.
2. Design supplier-financing programmes (reverse factoring, dynamic discounting) instead of the financial initiatives-only initiatives.
3. Invest in governance frameworks that integrate treasury, procurement, supply-chain operation and IT, roles, metrics and incentive structures based on financial-operational integration.
4. Encourage trusting and data-transparency strategies by using standardised data-sharing protocols, fintech collaboration and multi-level supplier involvement programmes.
5. Partner with financial institutions and fintech’s to increase access to financing upstream and throughout multi-tier networks particularly to SMEs and suppliers who are at risk in order to improve resilience.
6. Supervise and control regulatory/risk frameworks in such a way that authority-funding tools fit the bank risk inclinations, credit models and supply-chain disclosure requirements across various jurisdictions.

Limitations and Future Research.

In spite of the contributions, the study possesses limitations, which indicate possibilities of conducting research. First, the sample of firms is biased to manufacturing and retail industries; next researches should be extended to services, logistics and emerging-market environments. Second, the SCFII index is a recently established index that might need to be longitudinally validated first to be able to assert causality as opposed to correlation. Third, the disruption-sensitivity analysis provides an understanding of resilience, but is highly modelled instead of being founded on observable major shocks; working in the future, researchers can analyse real-time crisis responses (i.e. pandemic, geopolitical risk).

Future studies could be carried out to:

• AI-inspired credit-allocation frameworks with upstream and multi-tier supplier extension and dynamically distributed financing on predictive risk analytics (Trawnih et al., 2025).
• Inter-industry comparative research to see industry difference in financial-integration approaches.
• Long-term follow-ups of firms across major disruptions to examine the long-term resilience value of financial integration.

This paper has explored the integration strategies in the supply chain management with particular reference to how the process of aligning the operations and financial flows can contribute to increase liquidity, decrease the risk and general supply-chain performance. Through a combined mixed-method design based on a new composite index (SCFII Supply Chain Financial Integration Index) and qualitative case studies, the study shows that there are significant interrelations between financial-operational integration and improved performance of such metrics as days-sales-outstanding (DSO), cash-conversion cycles (CCC), cost of capital, supplier default rates and disruption resilience.

Among its insights are that (1) it is found that the firms with higher SCFII ratings are more likely to have shorter DSOs, reduced financing costs and enhanced supplier stability, (2) the mechanisms that support successful financial integration are the alignment of working capital, coordination of credit flows, fintech-facilitated transparency and risk-sharing governance, and (3) the fact that such firms are more likely to survive when the supply chain experiences a shock. These results are a continuation of previous research indicating that supply chain finance (SCF) is a strategic enabler in supply chains (Amberg, 2024; Dou and Zhao, 2024; Alimaskoski, 2024).

Given these empirical and theoretical contributions, the following recommendations are put forward to the practitioners and policy makers:

1. Embrace a comprehensive digital financial system: Companies are supposed to invest in integrated systems that process procurement, payables, treasury, suppliers financing and operational systems in real time. The result of this integration is the ability to make payments in advance, to dynamically discount, reverse factoring and enhanced data-visibility throughout the supply chain.
2. Design ecosystem funding programmes: Firms should not see supply chain finance as a separate financial instrument, but as a component of an integrated ecosystem - coordinating buyers, suppliers and financiers through common processes, measurements and incentive programs. This involves integrating financial-flow management within the supply chain strategy.
3. Develop cross-functional governance and work: To achieve financial integration, procurement Treasury/finance and IT, and supply-chain operations have to work together. Roles, KPIs and incentives have to indicate the integrated features of both the operational and financial flows.
4. Expand access to finance among multi-tier suppliers: Mega-customers must develop programmes allowing upstream (tier-2/3) suppliers to receive better liquidity and financing conditions. This lightens the strength of the entire chain. The factual observation is that SCF programmes can reduce the limits of supplier financing (Dou and Zhao, 2024).
5. Foster data-transparency, trust and risk-governance: Data-transparency (fintech, blockchain, APIs) are facilitators, but need to be established within governance frameworks, data-sharing, and transparent contractual agreements. Trust-building and data-transparency are two critical obstacles especially in multi-tier supply chains.
6. Make policy and regulation consistent with integrated finance models: Regulators and policy makers must identify the changing role of supply-chain finance in operations and transparency. The SCF market is growing at a rapid pace, and the way to standardised disclosure and regulatory frameworks is being revealed (Alimaskoski, 2024).

Future Research and Limitations

Although the research offers valuable information, there are certain limitations that may be described. To begin with, despite the fact that the SCFII index is an effective benchmarking model, the model is cross-sectional in most aspects, which prevents the possibility of making strong causal inferences. Causal inference would be enhanced by longitudinal or experimental designs. Second, the sample of firms is mainly manufacturing and retail and might not be generalised to services, logistics or non-commercial supply chains. Third, since integrated financial-operational modes are new to research, there is need to conduct further research on contextual variables including regulatory regimes, cultural aspects and emerging-market forces.

Future work might look at the following:

1. longitudinal studies of firms during times of major disruption (e.g., geopolitical, pandemic, reshoring of supply chain) to understand the long-term benefits of financial integration;
2. cross-sector, cross-country studies to identify sector-specific facilitator or impediments of financial integration;
3. comparative studies to learn how networks of firms, banks, fintech’s and platforms organise shared financial -operational systems.

Conclusively, financial integration in the supply chain management is a strategic frontier that transcends the usual operational-finance silos. Through integrating financial flows with supply chain processes, the companies not just open working-capital efficiencies, but also create more resilient, nimble, and cooperative supply networks. In a world where supply-chain volatility is the new reality, considering finance a part of the supply-chain ecosystem is not an option any more, it is a necessity.

1. Alimaskoski, D. (2024, March 15). Supply chain finance: Industry review and outlook for 2023/24. Liquiditas. https://liquiditas.com/supply-chain-finance-industry-review-for-2023-2024/
2. Amberg, N. (2024). Supply-chain finance: An empirical evaluation of supplier outcomes (Riksbank Working Paper No. 435). Sveriges Riksbank. https://www.riksbank.se/globalassets/media/rapporter/working-papers/2024/no.-435-supply-chain-finance-an-empirical-evaluation-of-supplier-outcomes.pdf
3. Astuti, M. (2024). Relationship of supply chain finance and sustainable financial performance. E3S Conferences. https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/pdf/2024/101/e3sconf_icomse2024_03008.pdf
4. Bai, W. (2022). An intelligent supervision for supply chain finance and pledge finance in logistics. IEEE Access, 10, 57880–57892.
5. Billtrust Staff Writer. (2024, December 13). The days sales outstanding formula: unlocking cash flow efficiency. Billtrust. https://www.billtrust.com/resources/blog/days-sales-outstanding-formula
6. Calculum Inc., Frugier, P.-L., Bischof, D., & Belin, O. (2024, February 21). Unlocking working capital efficiency through supply chain finance: A strategic approach. Calculum. https://www.calculum.ai/all-posts/unlocking-working-capital-efficiency-through-supply-chain-finance-a-strategic-approach
7. Chairat, M., et al. (2025). Supply chain optimization and working capital requirement management. Atlantis Press. https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/126008512.pdf
8. Chiu, J. Z. (2021). A systematic literature review of the roles, financing mechanisms and working-capital under supply-chain finance. Econstor. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/248672/1/full-4.pdf
9. Choi, T. Y., Huisman, J., & Talluri, S. (2023). The supply chain financing ecosystem: Early responses to COVID-19 disruptions. Journal of Business Logistics, 44(2), 156-167. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10122550/
10. Chuk, E. (2022). Supply chain finance: An early empirical examination. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/3890547.pdf?abstractid=3890547&mirid=1
11. (2025). World supply chain finance report 2025. https://www.citigroup.com/rcs/citigpa/storage/public/WSCFR_2025_ebook.pdf
12. Dou, Y., & Zhao, J. (2024). The impact of supply chain finance on the investment efficiency of publicly listed companies in China based on sustainable development. Sustainability, 16(18), Article 8234. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188234
13. (2023). Supply chain finance as a strategic tool for managing working capital. https://www.eurofinance.com/news/supply-chain-finance-as-a-strategic-tool-for-managing-working-capital/
14. Exploring factors, outcomes, and benefits in supply chain finance programs (2025, February 4). World Journal of Advanced Research and Review. https://journalwjarr.com/sites/default/files/fulltext_pdf/WJARR-2025-0345.pdf
15. GT Review. (2024). The continuing evolution of supply chain finance. https://www.gtreview.com/magazine/the-supply-chain-issue-2024/the-continuing-evolution-of-supply-chain-finance/
16. Guan, Y., Sun, N., Wu, S. J., & Sun, Y. (2025). Supply chain finance, fintech development, and financing efficiency of SMEs in China. Administrative Sciences, 15(3), 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15030086
17. Huynh, N. (2025). Supply chain risks and working capital management. Journal of [placeholder]. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176524005846
18. Jansen, J. (2024). A literature review of supply chain finance in a digital and IT-platform context. London I.C. Journal of Business & Economics. https://londonic.uk/js/index.php/ljbeh/article/download/185/195/614
19. (2025, June 26). DSO & DPO: How they can improve your cash flow. https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/treasury/automated-receivables/dso-and-dpo-how-they-can-improve-your-cash-flow
20. Kamaldeen Smith, H. (2024, September 26). Supply chain finance and working capital management. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384362356_Supply_Chain_Finance_and_Working_Capital_Management
21. Li, D., Han, D., Crespi, N., Minerva, R., & Sun, Z. (2021). Fabric-SCF: A blockchain-based secure storage and access control scheme for supply chain finance. https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.13538
22. Liu, Z., Zhang, J., & Cao, L. (2025, August 25). The synergistic effect of digital transformation technology and supply chain finance: Empirical evidence from 500 listed companies. Frontiers in Physics, 13, Article 1664273. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2025.1664273
23. Nguyen, T. T., Bui, H. A., & Luong, T. A. (2024). The impact of supply chain finance on financial constraints of SMEs. Accounting & Finance Research, 13(1), 64-82. https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-09-2023-0100
24. Rahman, M. R. (2024). A financial supply chain on corporate working capital and … Journal of Corporate Finance. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1057521923004817
25. Ren, X., Guo, H., & Zhou, L. (2025). Innovative roles of supply chain finance platforms in buyer–supplier ecosystems: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Logistics. Advance online publication. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jbl.70006?__cf_chl_rt_tk=2C_rX8ZdzFVaNl7lx3kX1GnFehzIysZtTOl0gO.YYco-1761151695-1.0.1.1-EIlKYeuuOTiY5F6luTOjCC.0UE1OYh7w46bA7ZcmZ4M
26. Smith, H. K. (2024, September 26). Supply chain finance and working capital management [Working paper]. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384362356_Supply_Chain_Finance_and_Working_Capital_Management
27. Sun, Y. (2025). Supply chain finance and enterprise resilience: Evidence and implications. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.13045
28. Sureshkumar, N., & Narayanan, P. P. et al. (2024). Optimizing working capital management in supply chain finance: A multi-dimensional approach. Information Management & Business Review, 16(2), 44-52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381038656_Optimizing_Working_Capital_Management_in_Supply_Chain_Finance_A_Multi-Dimensional_Approach
29. (2025). What is DSO in finance? APQC Blog. https://www.apqc.org/resources/blog/what-dso-finance
30. Trawnih, A., Yamin, H., Aldehri, M. A.-S., & Hussein, C. (2025). Exploring the integration of supply chain finance, artificial intelligence, blockchain and trust. Logistics, 9(2), Article 69. https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6290/9/2/69
31. Uddin, M. S., Habib, M. M., & Babikir Mohamed, O. E. (2023). The role of supply chain finance on supply chain management and firm’s performance: A conceptual framework. International Supply Chain Technology Journal, 9(6), Article 6.
32. Wetzel, P. (2025). Supply chain financing theory of the trade payables–performance linkage. International Journal of Production Research. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00207543.2024.2410465
33. Zheng, M., et al. (2025). The impact of supply chain finance on enterprise performance: Evidence from emerging markets. Applied Economics, Advance online publication. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504851.2025.2540549
34. Zhou, L., Chen, M., & Lee, H. (2022). Supply chain finance: A research review and prospects based on a systematic literature analysis from a financial ecology perspective. Sustainability, 14(21), Article 14452. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14452