Supply Chain Risk and Resilience Among Startups, SMEs, and Large Enterprises in Different

Industries: A Systematic Review, Analysis, and Future Research Directions

Arsalan Safari*
College of Business and Economics, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar, P.O. Box 2713, Email: asafari@qu.edu.qa,
ORCID: 0000-0002-9324-3321

Vanesa Balicevac Al-Ismail

College of Business and Economics, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar, P.O. Box 2713, Email:
vanesa.b@qu.edu.qa

Mahour M. Parast
School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, 660 S. College Avenue
CAVC 529, Tempe, Arizona, USA, Email: mahour.parast@asu.edu, ORCID: 0000-0001-6589-1076

Ismail Golgeci
Department of Business Development and Technology, Birk Centerpark 15, building 8001, 1303, 7400 Herning,
Denmark, Email: i.golgeci@btech.au.dk, ORCID: 0000-0002-6853-3255

Shaligram Pokharel
College of Engineering, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar, P.O. Box 2713, Email: shaligram@qu.edu.qa, ORCID:
0000-0002-7709-7803

Abstract
Academic literature has well discussed the causes and impacts of supply chain (SC) risks and
disruptions and associated resilience plans. However, the majority of the former studies focused on the
antecedents and consequences of SC resilience, ignoring the fundamental elements of firm size and
industry. Therefore, this study explores and maps the details of all SC risks' root causes and their
effective resilience plans by firm size (i.e., startups, SMEs and large organizations) and by industry
(i.e., manufacturing and services) in a more holistic framework. Our systematic literature review and
analysis of 224 high quality articles shows that the SC risk causes can be categorized in six categories
of demand, supply, organization, operations, environment, and network/control risks. Our findings
suggest that the SC resilience plan for startups and SMEs are not necessarily the same as large
enterprises. While for SMEs' SC resilience plan, information systems, collaboration and networking,
flexibility, and slack resources are crucial, for large organizations, however, besides collaboration and
networking as well as information systems, risk management, knowledge management and contingency
planning are crucial for their SC resilience. Resilience plans for different industries vary and discussed
in the paper as well. Finally and on the basis of this analysis, the authors could identify theoretical
inconsistencies and knowledge gaps that exist in the literature of SC risks and resilience, and they
developed and presented effective directions for future research in this field.
Keywords: Supply Chain, Risk, Disruption, Resilience, Startup, SME, Large Enterprise

1. Introduction
The supply chain (SC) risk and resilience have received extensive attention from many researchers and
practitioners over the years and have been increasingly relevant to businesses of different sizes and
industries for their competitiveness and continuity (Sinha et al., 2004; Hendricks and Singhal, 2005;

*
Corresponding author

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

Jiang, Baker and Frazier, 2009; Leat and Revoredo-Giha, 2013; Todo, Nakajima and Matous, 2015; Ali
et al., 2017). Globalization, technological changes, and efficiency imperative amid turbulent business
environments expose businesses to a range of internal and external supply chain risks and disruptions,
which in turn lead to growing interest in supply chain resilience (Ali and Gölgeci, 2019). As such,
supply chain resilience is increasingly acknowledged as a critical capability to face, respond to, recover
from, and transform in the face of severe adversities and disruptions. Particularly after the Covid-19
pandemic and ensuing severe supply chain disruptions and supply chain crunch, the critical role of
supply chain resilience has further amplified and recognized by the extant research (Golgeci, Yildiz,
and Andersson, 2020; Wieland and Durach, 2021). As a result, a large body of research on supply chain
resilience, including those of systematic literature reviews (e.g., Ali and Gölgeci, 2019; Hosseini,
Ivanov, and Dolgui, 2019; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015), has been formed and provided valuable insights
into the phenomena.
However, the majority of the relevant research on supply chain resilience has focused primarily
on the antecedents and secondarily on the consequences of supply chain resilience (Christopher and
Peck, 2004; Jüttner, 2005; Blos et al., 2009; Cao and Zhang, 2011; Zhao et al., 2013; Bavarsad et al.,
2014; Chen, 2018; Jajja et al., 2018), ignoring a plain yet fundamental elements of supply chain
resilience: organizational size and industry. Extant research has not explored the impacts of different
sizes of enterprises in different industries on supply chain resilience plans, beyond as control variables
for size and industry. It is widely established in the literature that firms’ resource base, capabilities,
structure, and behavior differ vastly across different sizes and industries (citations needed here). That
includes firms’ risk management approaches and responses to supply chain risks and disruptions. For
example, small firms often do not have the slack resources that are seen as the essential pillar of supply
chain resilience and that larger firms can afford (Brandon-Jones, Squire, and Van Rossenberg, 2015;
Malagueño, Gölgeci, and Fearne, 2019). Likewise, the nature of responses to supply chain disruptions
might vastly differ in the agrifood industry versus the electronics industry (Zhao et al., 2020; Mishra,
Singh, and Subramanian, 2020; Blos et al., 2009). As such, to adapt to supply chain disruptions, firms
have specific processes, organizational structures, and capacities that differ by their size and industry,
which have often been treated as peripheral factors by most empirical studies and ignored by the existing
systematic literature reviews on supply chain resilience.
This systematic literature review aims to review and analyze the extant academic literature in
order to understand how supply chain risk and resilience are applied and manifested across different
organizational sizes and industries. We aim to make a systematic review of the literature, and in-depth
quantitative and explorative analysis on different supply chain risks, disruptions, and resilience plans
that can be adopted separately by startups, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and large
enterprises in different industries for mitigating risks, supporting business continuity as well as
contributing to the national strategic plan for their effective supply chain management.
Our systematic literature review shows that most studies have been conducted without paying
enough attention to organizational size and industry. As discussed earlier, we face a limited study and
data on the topic of SC risk and resilience for SMEs and startups (see Table 1). Size is usually considered
as a control variable in operations and supply chain management research (Bode et al., 2011; Ambulkar,
Blackhurst and Grawe, 2015; Bode and Wagner, 2015; Jajja et al., 2018; Azadegan et al., 2019; Parast,
2020). When limiting size and industry only to control variables, we cannot easily extrapolate the
research outcomes to different organizational sizes and industries. SMEs and startups usually have
different capacities, limitations, and priorities than larger enterprises, and they emphasize on different
practices. For a startup, access to funds is the key solution, thus limited access to funds could be a major
source of disruptions. For a large organization, access to funds is not critical; but process innovation is
more important and needs to be emphasized more (Golgeci and Ponomarov, 2013; 2015; Parast, 2020).
Moreover, SMEs emphasize agility while large organizations tend to emphasize efficiency (Wieland
and Wallenburg, 2013; Thun and Hoenig, 2011).
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes methods used in this study, followed
by results and discussions in Section 3, where we apply descriptive statistics as well as deep-dive

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

analysis of the extant literature using various explorative approaches. Section 4, provide future direction
of research in this area, and Section 5 is about conclusion, theoretical and practical implications.

2. Research Methodology
The study uses multiple techniques to search for the relevant literature to ensure the comprehensiveness
of literature analysis (Webster & Watson, 2002; Short, 2009). According to Podsakoff et al. (2005),
reliable and high-quality journal papers can be considered the main source to validate the concepts and
impact the subject area. Therefore, this review focuses only on the structural and systematic analysis of
high-quality journal papers for the period 2000-2021 (from Jan 2000 to June 2021), assuming that any
prior development on risk analysis would have been considered and updated in the recent papers. The
review also shows that the majority of the literature on SC risk and resilience has been developed and
published in recent years. The review is conducted for the articles that meet all of the following criteria:
A. The paper must be written in English and published in a top peer-reviewed publication (at least
A-ranked in the journal quality list provided by the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC)
within the timeframe of 2000-2021.
B. Only those publications that focus on supply chain risk, disruption, or resilience are considered.
C. Conceptual and review articles as well as other types of publications, such as theses, books,
reports, notes, and news, are excluded, and those with empirical data or case study analysis
were targeted. It is assumed that the high-quality research presented in the thesis would have
already been published in a high-quality journal. Also, books and reports may have a time lag
and are more prescriptive and descriptive; therefore, they are not considered in the review.
The focus of the search is limited to ProQuest, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases as they
capture most of the published literature. A correlation of the topic and the journal list mentioned above
would help to develop a comprehensive list of papers for review.
To search for the relevant literature in the database, publications from leading academic
journals were scanned with. key words that are related to supply chain, risks, disruption, small and
medicum enterprises, new ventures (startups), agility, and distribution network. The following
combination of keywords was for searching literature: supply chain AND disruption; supply chain AND
risk; supply AND risk; supply AND disruption; disruptive supply chain; resilient supply chain; supply
chain risk OR disruption OR resilience; supply chain risk OR resilience; supply chain resilience OR
disruption; supply chain risk OR disruption; supply chain AND resilience AND risk AND disruption;
supply chain AND resilience AND risk AND disruption AND SMEs; supply chain AND resilience
AND risk AND disruption AND large companies; supply chain AND resilience AND risk AND
disruption AND startups; supply chain AND resilience AND risk AND disruption AND new ventures;
supply chain AND resilience AND risk AND disruption AND agility; supply chain AND resilience
distribution networks.
The collected literature were then reviewed for their coverage of supply chain resilience, risk
and disruption domains using Hohenstein et al., (2015) definition: “Supply chain resilience is the supply
chain’s ability to be prepared for unexpected risk events, responding and recovering quickly to potential
disruptions to return to its original situation or grow by moving to a new, more desirable state in order
to increase customer service, market share and financial performance”. This definition captures supply
chain resilience as well as its associated risk and disruption at the same time, regardless of firm size.
Extracting and mapping resilience plans for all firm sizes would help us understand the main resilience
focus and differences based on company size. Startups may have a smaller number of employees and
may be more vulnerable to risks and disruption. The process for extracting, reviewing, and mapping the
literature is illustrated in Figure 1.
A total of 3,466 publications were extracted and scanned for their content. A list of only 224
(6.5%) publications satisfied all above A, B, and C criteria for review (details are given in Appendix
A). The final list of articles is categorized by size (i.e., startups, SMEs, large enterprises, and mix),
industry, research type, among other things. The process adopted in this paper is illustrated in Figure 1.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

The theoretical foundations of this study are based on three fundamental approaches; 1) the initial
visualization, mapping and analysis of the existing literature by size, time, journal, approach, theoretical
framework, and variable; 2) exploring, synthesizing and deeply analyzing the literature, and defining
the capacity for resilience; and 3) identifying inconsistencies, gaps and limitations of the current
literature and proposing potential research opportunities and future directions.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

 STEP 1: Formulating research question
 Scope and boundary delimitation

STEP 2: Sourcing of relevant literature

 Developing a robust and replicable sourcing process (defining search
keywords and databases)

STEP 3: Extracting and evaluating literature

 Filtering articles based on dates, relevance, quality (out of 3,466
extracted articles, 224 were accepted)

STEP 4: Analysis and synthesis

 Classifying articles based on main criteria (research orientation, size,
industry)
 Quantitative and qualitative analysis

STEP 5: Reporting and utilization of findings

 Summary of knowledge gained from the literature
 Assessing if it addressed/not addressed the question(s)
 Theoretical and practical/managerial implications of outcomes
 Defining future directions of research to address unanswered questions

Figure 1: Our Process of Systematic Literature Review and Analysis adopted in this paper

3. Results and Discussion

Various aspects of supply chain resilience and disruption have been explored in the literature. The
collected literature shows that most of the papers in supply chain resilience are published in six journals,
and only eight journals have published one or more papers during 2016-2021. Year-wise, the number
of publications given in Figure 2 shows that, between 2000 and 2021, there is an increasing trend of
interest in the analysis and assessment of supply chain resilience and supply chain risks.
Of the 224 reviewed articles that were published, 31 journals are identified as A-ranked journals
in the journal quality list provided by the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC). The distribution
of risk and resilience articles is highly skewed across journals and does not follow a certain path. Around
58% of the publication are seen in management journals, while 42% are published in journals that are
management-related.
3.1. Summary of Data
As Table 1 illustrates, more than 30% of the all reviewed articles are published in two outlets of the
“International Journal of Operations and Production Management”, and “Supply chain management:
An International Journal”. The recent papers in the first journal are mainly focus on the importance of
individual firm’s resilience practices, collaboration, information symmetry for risk management, risk
management and sustainability practices, risk management culture, innovation, strategies for extraction
of materials, production and distribution for supply chains, and technological support. Similarly, for the

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

second journal of “Supply Chain Management: An International Journal”, the topics covered in the
recent publications are related to collaboration and trust, integration of global supply chain entity assets,
risk culture, risk management, risk governance, supply chain complexity, interorganizational supply
chain performance, disruptions in supply-demand and processes, the financial strength of the company,
information symmetry and role of information technology in supporting risk management to create
supply chain resilience. Therefore, the data shows that the recent resilience related research is moving
towards risk management, integration, complexity, sustainability, supply chain coordination, asset
management and technology in risk management. In addition, the use of blockchain to promote
collaboration, counterfeiting, drivers to supply chain vulnerability, firm’s security culture, and supply
chain agility are discussed in other journals. More extensive analyses of the resilience plans are
discussed in the qualitative and descriptive analysis parts of Section 4.
The supply chain resilience in the literature is not limited to a specific application area, size or
industry. Our analysis shows that while only one article discusses risk and resilience in startups in the
collected journals, we have 11 articles focusing on SMEs (with up to 250 employees) and 42 articles
focusing on large organizations (with more than 250 employees). However, most of the publications
either did not segregate their studies by size (mixed studies) or did not specify the firms’ size at all (see
Tables 2 and 3). This means researchers are mainly focused on general aspects of supply chain risk and
resilience and typically considered larger organizations. In summary, the supply chain risk and
resilience plan is not limited to large firms or one industry sector or location. This article provides a
more detailed analysis of supply chain risk and resilience by size and industry, and it provides an
effective SC resilience solutions for firms in different sizes and industries. Cross border assessment of
risk to attain resilience, technological integration, assessment of complexity in risks are the directions
that can be noticed as emerging research topics in supply chain resilience.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

 Table 1: Frequency of SC Risk and Resilience Publications by Journal Source and Year

Period Composition of
Percentage
recent (2016-
of all
Journal 2021) research
articles in
to total in the
2000- 2006- 2011- 2016- the journal
Total journal
2005 2010 2015 2021

Supply Chain Management: An Int'l 2 3 13 22 40 17.9% 55%

Journal
Int'l Journal of Operations & Production 0 0 3 24 27 12.1% 89%
Management
Int'l Journal of Production Research 2 0 13 11 26 11.6% 42%
Int'l Journal of Physical Distribution & 2 4 4 13 23 10.3% 57%
Logistics Management
The Int'l Journal of Logistics Management 1 1 0 16 18 8.0% 89%
Int'l Journal of Production Economics 1 2 5 8 16 7.1% 50%
Annals of Operations Research 0 0 0 7 7 3.1% 100%
Journal of Business Research 0 0 2 5 7 3.1% 71%
Journal of Business Logistics 0 3 3 1 7 3.1% 14%
Journal of Operations Management 1 2 3 1 7 3.1% 14%
Production Planning & Control 0 1 0 4 5 2.2% 80%
Journal of Cleaner production 0 1 1 3 5 2.2% 60%
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics 0 0 0 3 3 1.3% 100%
and Transportation Review
IEEE Transactions on Engineering 0 1 0 2 3 1.3% 67%
Management
Decision Sciences 0 2 0 1 3 1.3% 33%
Journal of Purchasing and Supply 2 1 0 0 3 1.3% 0%
Management
Journal of Supply Chain Management 2 0 1 0 3 1.3% 0%
Intl' Journal of Logistics Research and 0 0 0 2 2 0.9% 100%
Applications
Intl' Journal of Supply Chain Management 0 0 0 2 2 0.9% 100%
Technological Forecasting & Social 0 0 0 2 2 0.9% 100%
Change
Transportation Research Part A: Policy 0 0 0 2 2 0.9% 100%
and Practice
Industrial Management & Data Systems 0 0 1 1 2 0.9% 50%
Int'l Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 0 0 1 1 2 0.9% 50%
Production and Operations Management 2 0 0 0 2 0.9% 0%
European Journal of Operational Research 0 0 0 1 1 0.4% 100%
Industrial Marketing Management 0 0 0 1 1 0.4% 100%
Journal of Enterprise Information 0 0 0 1 1 0.4% 100%
Management
Academy of Management Journal 0 0 1 0 1 0.4% 0%
Decision Support Systems 0 0 1 0 1 0.4% 0%
Journal of Regional Science 0 0 1 0 1 0.4% 0%
Journal of the Operational Research 0 1 0 0 1 0.4% 0%
Society
TOTAL 15 22 53 134 224 100.0%

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

 Frequency
40

30

20

10

0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Figure 2: Increasing trend of research in supply chain risk and resilience since 2016

Table 2: Frequency of SC Risks and Resilience Publications by Size

Size Frequency
Startup 1
Large 42
SME 11
Mix 98
Size not specified 72
Sum 224

The initial analysis of literature shows that the majority of former studies focused on primary
data collected through surveys, interviews, and case studies for their analysis in that order. Surveys can
provide more recent information about risk and resilience if they are executed in a short period. Our
summary also shows that most of the papers are published for mixed types of organizations followed
by large organizations. It confirms a basic perception that supply chain risk and resilience topics are
either generic or mainly focused on larger organizations. Therefore, it needs further attention on startups
and SMEs.
Table 3: Summary of All Articles by Size

Size Total Articles *

Startup 1 Gerd (2020)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

SME 30 Belhadi et al. (2021); Belhadi et al. (2021) (2); Dickens et al. (2021); Dubey et al. (2021); El
Baz and Ruel (2021); Faruquee et al. (2021); Marcucci et al. (2021); Modgil et al. (2021);
Parast and Subramanian (2021) ;Raut, et al. (2021); Alora and Barua (2020); Dubey et al.
(2020); Durach, Wiengarten and Choi (2020); Essuman et al. (2020); Fan, Stevenson and Li
(2020); Gerd (2020); Gölgeci and Kuivalainen (2020); Kahiluoto, Makinen and Kaseva
(2020); Parast (2020); Roscoe et al. (2020); Santoro et al. (2020); Um and Han (2020);
Zouari, Ruel and Viale (2020); Battisti et al. (2019); Chowdhury,Quaddus and Agarwal
(2019); Chunsheng et al. (2019); de Sá et al. (2019); Hu et al. (2019); Liu, Arthanari and Shi
(2019); Miemczyk and Luzzini (2019); Polyviou et al. (2019); Rosales et al. (2019);
Verghese, Koufteros and Huo (2019); Yu et al. (2019); Ali et al. (2018); Chen (2018);
Chiung and Ming-Yu (2018); Dubey et al. (2018); Dubey et al. (2018) (2); Durach and
Machuca (2018); Gouda and Saranga (2018); Jajja, Chatha and Farooq (2018); Kumar et al.
(2018); Kwak et al. (2018); Liu et al. (2018); Parker and Ameen (2018); Scheibe and
Blackhurst (2018); Statsenko, Gorod and Ireland (2018); Treiblmaier (2018); Truong and
Hara (2018); Tse, Zhang and Jia (2018); Yang and Hsu (2018); Zhang, Chen and Fang
(2018); Zhu et al. (2018); Ali, Nagalingam amd Gurd (2017); Brusset and Teller (2017);
Bode and Macdonald (2017); Birkie et al. (2017); Cheng and Lu (2017) ; Dubey et al. (2017);
Durach, Glasen and Straube (2017); Durach and Wiengarten (2017); Kurniawan et al.
(2017); Graveline and Grémont (2017); Loh (2017); Stranieri, Orsi and Banterle (2017);
Bühler, Wallenburg and Wieland (2016); Chowdhury and Quaddus (2016); Fan et at. (2016);
Formentini and Taticchi (2016); Swierczek (2016); Urciuoli and Hintsa (2016); Song,
Ganguly and Turson (2016); Alblas and Jayaram (2015); Ambulkar et al. (2015); Bode and
Wagner (2015); Eckstein et al. (2015); Li et al. (2015); Zailani et al. (2015); Brandon Jones
et al. (2014); Govindan et al. (2014); Jayaram, Dixit and Motwani (2014); Pal, Torstensson
and Mattila (2014); Urciuoli et al. (2014); Chen, Sohal, and Prajogo (2013); Grötsch et al.
(2013); Vedel and Ellegaard (2013); Wiengarten, Pagell and Fynes (2013); Wieland and
Wallenburg (2013); Zhao et al. (2013); Kern et al. (2012); Lavastre, Gunasekaran and
Spalanzani (2012); Ates and Bititci (2011); Acquaah, et al. (2011); Bode et al. (2011); Cao
and Zhang (2011); Demmer , Vickery and Calantone (2011); Gunasekaran, Rai and Griffin
(2011); Hofmann (2011);Thun and Hoenig (2011); Thun , Drüke and Hoenig (2011);
Sullivan-Taylor and Branicki (2011); Blos et al. (2009); Braunscheidel and Suresh (2009);
Moore and Manring (2009); Skipper and Hanna (2009); Ellegaard (2008); Wagner and Bode
(2008); Jüttner (2005); Peck (2005); Yeh (2005).

Large 51 Belhadi et al. (2021); Belhadi et al. (2021) (2); Dickens et al. (2021); Dubey et al. (2021);
El Baz and Ruel (2021); Faruquee et al. (2021); Korbi et al. (2021); Marcucci et al. (2021);
Modgil et al. (2021); Mishra et al. (2021); Schleper et al. (2021); Parast and Subramanian
(2021); Raut, et al. (2021); Wang et al. (2021); Dubey et al. (2020) ;Durach, Wiengarten and
Choi (2020); Essuman et al. (2020); Fan, Stevenson and Li (2020); Ralstona and Blackhurst
(2020); Huang and Lu (2020); Gerd (2020); Gölgeci and Kuivalainen (2020); Kahiluoto,
Makinen and Kaseva (2020); Messina et al. (2020); Parast (2020); Roscoe et al. (2020); Um
and Han (2020); Zouari, Ruel and Viale (2020); Chowdhury,Quaddus and Agarwal (2019);
Chunsheng et al. (2019); Colicchia et al. (2019); de Sá et al. (2019); Hu et al. (2019); Inman
and Bhaskaran (2019); Liu, Arthanari and Shi (2019); Miemczyk and Luzzini (2019);
Polyviou et al. (2019); Rubbio et al. (2019); Rosales et al. (2019); Verghese, Koufteros and
Huo (2019); Wu and Chaipiyaphan (2019); Yu et al. (2019); Ali et al. (2018); Chen (2018);
Chiung and Ming-Yu (2018); Dubey et al. (2018); Dubey et al. (2018) (2); Durach and
Machuca (2018); Fan and Stevenson (2018); Gunessee et al. (2018); Gouda and Saranga
(2018); Machado et al. (2018); Jajja, Chatha and Farooq (2018); Kumar et al. (2018); Kwak
et al. (2018); Liu et al. (2018); Scheibe and Blackhurst (2018); Statsenko, Gorod and Ireland
(2018); Treiblmaier (2018); Truong and Hara (2018); Tse, Zhang and Jia (2018); Yang and
Hsu (2018); Zhang, Chen and Fang (2018); Zhu et al. (2018); Birkie et al. (2017); Bode and
Macdonald (2017); Brusset and Teller (2017); Cheng and Lu (2017) ; Chowdhury and
Quaddus (2017); De Oliveira and Handfield (2017); Dubey et al. (2017); Durach, Glasen and
Straube (2017); Durach and Wiengarten (2017); Kurniawan et al. (2017); Graveline
and Grémont (2017); Loh (2017); Rezapour et al. (2017); Stranieri, Orsi and Banterle
(2017); Bühler, Wallenburg and Wieland (2016); Chowdhury and Quaddus (2016);
Dabhilkar, Birkie and Kaulio (2016); Fan et at. (2016); Filbeck et al. (2016); Lam and Bai
(2016); Formentini and Taticchi (2016); Swierczek (2016); Urciuoli and Hintsa (2016);
Song, Ganguly and Turson (2016); Alblas and Jayaram (2015); Ambulkar et al. (2015); Bode
and Wagner (2015); Eckstein et al. (2015); Li et al. (2015); Davarzani et al. (2015); Kumar,
Liu, and Scutella (2015); Zailani et al. (2015); Brandon‐Jones et al. (2014); Govindan et al.
(2014); Pal, Torstensson and Mattila (2014); Urciuoli et al. (2014); Chen, Sohal, and Prajogo

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

 (2013); Grötsch et al. (2013); Vedel and Ellegaard (2013); Wiengarten, Pagell and Fynes
(2013); Wieland and Wallenburg (2013); Zhao et al. (2013); Kern et al. (2012); Lavastre,
Gunasekaran and Spalanzani (2012); Khan et al. (2012); Ates and Bititci (2011); Acquaah,
et al. (2011); Blackhurst et al. (2011); Blome and Schoenherr (2011); Bode et al. (2011); Cao
and Zhang (2011); Christopher et al. (2011); Demmer , Vickery and Calantone (2011);
Jüttner et al. (2011); Hofmann (2011);Thun and Hoenig (2011); Thun , Drüke and Hoenig
(2011); Wagner and Silveira-Camargos (2010); Foerstl et al. (2010); Blos et al. (2009);
Braunscheidel and Suresh (2009); Oke and Gopalakrishnan (2009); Skipper and Hanna
(2009); Khan et al. (2008); Wagner and Bode (2008); Craighead et al. (2007); Ritchie and
Brindley (2007); Hallikas et al. (2005); Hendricks and Singhal (2005); Zsidisin and Smith
(2005); Zsidisin et al. (2005); Jüttner (2005);Peck (2005); Yeh (2005); Norrman and Jansson
(2004); Sinha et al. (2004); Hendricks and Singhal (2003).

Size not 73 Islam et al. (2021); Modgil et al. (2021); Mwangi et al. (2021); Sharma et al. (2021);
specifie Wiedmer et al. (2021); Yang et al. (2021); Yaroson et al. (2021); Al Naimi, Faisal, Sobh
d and Uddin (2020); Azadegan et al. (2020); Birkie and Trucco (2020); Dubey et al. (2020);
Jihadi et al. (2020); Nandi et al. (2020); Sarafan, Squire and Brandon (2020); Vanalle et al.
(2020); Wang-Mlynek and Foerstl (2020); Azadegan et al. (2019); Baharmand, Comes and
Lauras (2019); Gibilaro and Mattarocci (2019); Hendry et al. (2019); Lawson et al. (2019);
Prasad et al. (2019); Rajesh (2019); Wamba and Akter (2019); Altay et al. (2018);
Bhattacharjya (2018); Brusset and Bertrand (2018); Prasad Zakaria and Altay (2018); Rudolf
and Spinler (2018); Ruiz-Benitez, López and Real (2017); Papadopoulos et al. (2017);
Rajesh (2017); Rathore, Thakkar and Jha (2017); Mandal (2017); Shafiq et al. (2017); Zahiri
et al. (2017); Zineb et al. (2017); Revilla and Sáenz (2017) ; Riley et al. (2016) ; Sabatino
(2016); Haraguchi and Lall (2015); Scholten and Schilder (2015); Stevenson and Busby
(2015); Todo, Nakajima and Matous (2015); Akgün and Keskin (2014); Borekci et al.
(2014); Jaaron and Backhouse (2014); Revilla and Sáenz (2014); Scholten et al. (2014);
Xavier et al. (2014); Golgeci and Ponomarov (2013); Leat and Revoredo-Giha (2013); Pettit
et al. (2013); Boone et al. (2013); Johnson et al. (2013); Lockamy and McCormack (2012);
Mandal (2012); Dowty and Wallace (2010); Hult et al. (2010); Pettit et al. (2010); Zsidisin
and Wagner (2010); Laeequddin (2009); Jiang, Baker, and Frazier (2009); Blackhurst et al.
(2008); Hung and Ryu (2008); Manuj and Mentzer (2008); Gaudenzi and Borghesi (2006);
Blackhurst et al. (2005); Kleindorfer and Saad (2005); Hallikas et al. (2004); Harland et al.
(2003); Zsidisin and Ellram (2003).

* Articles marked with red color originally belong to the ‘Mix’ category. Now they have been distributed
according to the size that appears in article (Startup, SME or Large). If you see one article marked with
red color and repeating in two categories, it means it was under ‘Mix’ before.

3.2 Supply Chain Risks and Sources

An uncertain event leads to the existence of risk, which can be called as a risk event (Manuj and
Mentzer, 2008). Our review and analysis of 224 articles confirms the root causes and antecedents of
risk events in supply chain can be grouped into demand, supply, organization, operations, environment,
and network/control categories which may affect each other, and they summarized in Figure 3 and
explained below. The SC risks and resilience are considered in all firm sizes (i.e., startups, SMEs and
large enterprises) and in many service and manufacturing industries.
- Demand Risks
Demand-related risks are mainly related to the concentration of customer base, short life cycles, loss of
major accounts, the volatility of demand, innovative competitors, forecasting errors, demand
fluctuations, risks affecting customers, payment delays, inventory shortage, and technological changes
leading to demand changes. The demand risks can be tackled through various proactive and reactive
policies and solutions including collaboration, coordination, information and communication
technology, and top management support (Manuj and Mentzer, 2008; Christopher and Peck, 2004;
Mishra et al., 2021).
- Supply Risks

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

It refers to potential or actual disturbance to the inputs of production of goods or services, upstream of
firms. Therefore, supply risks include dependency on crucial suppliers, consolidation in supply markets,
quality and management issues arising from off-shore sourcing, potential disruption at the second tier
level, and length and variability of replenishment lead-times. Supply chain uncertainties, price and
market problems, information asymmetry and logistics-related issues are considered as supply risks as
well. Sourcing intermediaries (Vedel and Ellegaard, 2013) integrating external responsiveness and
creating dynamic capabilities (Foerstl et al., 2010), and developing effective supplier relationship
management (Blackhurst et al., 2011) are some of the suggestions out of many solutions proposed by
researchers.
- Organization Risks
Issues related to the organization are also discussed in the literature. For example, organizational
changes, mechanistic systems, employee turnover, employee engagement issues, lack of dedicated
resources and trainings for supply chain in the organization, marketing and sales process, organization
finances and inventory held and managed can be considered as SC risk events from the organization’s
perspective. Research shows that organizational capability is important in order to adopt supply chain
resilience-related measures, which could be in terms of their flexibility, agility, collaboration (e.g., Jajja,
Chatha and Farooq, 2018; Yang and Hsu, 2018), and integration of digital solutions (e.g., Dubey et al.,
2018; Gerd, 2020).
- Operations Risks
Operations risks are about issues and disruptions in the end-to-end process of producing goods or
providing services. This includes receiving inputs and converting inputs to outputs using human
resources, physical and non-physical resources and distributing outputs. Therefore, the risks include
quality-related issues (e.g., defects, errors, discrepancies, reworks and returns), safety, lengthy set-up
times and inflexible processes, manufacturing yield variability, equipment reliability and breakdowns,
limited capacity/bottlenecks, and outsourcing critical business processes. Firms need to be proactive
and complete demand forecasting, operation planning, and resource allocation (Zhu et al., 2018).
- Environment Risks
The environmental risks include risk events associated with a firm’s external environment from natural,
political, legal, global, economic, demographic, technological, and sociocultural aspects which may
directly or indirectly impact a firm’s supply chain networks, marketplace and ecosystem. This include
natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tropical storms, weather changes, and wildfires
occurring at any place covered by the supply chain. A few of the papers (e.g., Baharmand et al. 2017;
Schnebele et al. 2019; and Fujimoto and Park, 2014) have discussed supply-related risks due to
earthquakes in different parts of the world. These papers discuss the need for implementing different
plans like good infrastructures and dual sourcing to mitigate the impact of earthquakes in supply chain.
Researchers have also focused on supply chain risks related to floods, fire, hurricanes, and tropical
storms (e.g., Anderson et al., 2020; Kim, 2019; Riccardo et al., 2021; Mensah et al., 2017). These papers
focus on restaging and post-staging of items needed to meet the needs of the victims, the building of
collaboration with different suppliers, etc. They warn that due to the nature of these causes, one type of
program would not fit all situations. Therefore, customization of the plans based on the local context
becomes necessary to increase supply chain resilience. Studies related to the climate change (Becker et
al., 2015; Heinzlef, et al., 2019, and Langholtz et al., 2014) also recommend different strategies to be
adopted to mitigate risks quite early in the supply chain process.
Supply chain risks can also be due to the wider level of natural risks such as global pandemics.
There are quite a few research studies that focus on COVID-19 related risks (e.g., Fatemi, et al., 2021;
El Baz and Ruel, 2021; Spieske, and Birkel, 2021; Pimenta et al., 2022). These papers suggest
conducting research on the impact of pandemics on every aspect of supply chains, such as inventory
management, supplier selection, and supply chain design. The utilization of technology is another
mentioned way to mitigate the negative impact of pandemics on supply chain.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

 Similar to the above, supply chain resilience-related issues are also discussed in terms of
economic and policy-related factors. The economic and policy-related risks focus on external issues
like recession, fluctuation of fuel price, exchange rates, customs and import/export regulations and
restrictions, and government interventions. Demographical and socio-cultural changes can cause SC
disruption as well.
- Network/Control Risks
Global supply chains are more risky and complicated than domestic supply chains because of various
links interconnecting a wider network of firms (Manuj and Mentzer, 2008). Ideally, a firm should have
an effective awareness system for any potential or actual disturbances to the anticipated flow of product
and information from within and between every node or link in its supply chain networks through which
its own value-streams flow. This might be hard in practical, but firms should at least strive to familiarize
themselves with these risks, their details, consequences and being more proactive.
The network and control risks deal with risks of asymmetric power relationships, poor visibility
along the supply chain, lack of collaborative planning and forecasts, inappropriate rules that distort
demand, and bullwhip effects due to multiple echelons. Every organization has its own policies, rules,
procedures and systems that help them to govern and control their business affairs and their supply
chain related activities, such as assets management and control, transportation management, and safety
stock. Control risks raise from application or misapplication of these rules and systems (Christopher
and Peck, 2004).

3.3 Methods and Approaches Used (in the literature)

The review of 224 articles shows that both quantitative and qualitative methods are used in their analysis
(Table 4). As shown in this table, the quantitative methods are focused mainly on statistical analysis
whereas the qualitative analysis is focused on the case study, thematic analysis and content analysis.
Table 4: Methods used for analysis
Generic Generic
Method Inputs Outputs Frequency
considered obtained
Quantitative Analysis 198
Structural Equation Modeling 44
Regression Analysis 30
Factor Analysis 26
Hierarchical OLS Regression 13
Partial Least Squares 9
Different Matrices 7
Statistical Analysis 4
The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) 4
Grounded Theory Approach 3
Qualitative Analysis 24
Content Analysis 58
Thematic analysis (Open, axial and
13
selective coding)
Within-case and cross-case analyses 11

For quantitative analysis, researchers have used factor analysis (Dubey et al., 2020; Verghese,
Koufteros, and Huo, 2019; Rosales et al., 2019; Truong and Hara, 2018; Yang et al., 2021; Zineb et al.,

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

2017; Battisti et al., 2019; Santoro et al., 2020; Papadopoulos et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2018; Raut et
al., 2021) as a basis for confirmatory or exploratory analysis. Most of this research focuses on supply
chain risks, connectivity, robustness, resilience, visibility, competence, financial resilience, internal
integration, and sustainability. Regression is another popular method used for risk analysis in supply
chain (Liu and Lee, 2019; Stranieri, Orsi and Banterle, 2017; Bode and Macdonald, 2017; Dubey et al.,
2017; Dubey et al., 2018; Durach, Wiengarten and Choi, 2020; Faruquee et al., 2021). The researchers
applying regression focused mainly on information symmetry, resources alignment, behavioral
uncertainties, environmental uncertainties, liability distribution, supply chain readiness, resilience, trust
and cooperation, adaptability, supplier resilience capabilities, and digital transformation for enhancing
supply chain resilience.
Structural equation modeling is the second widely used quantitative approach due to its
advantages over traditional multivariate techniques such as estimation of latent (unobserved) variables
via observed variables, explicit assessment of measurement errors, and its ability to examine
comprehensive frameworks and its variables together (Shah & Goldstein, 2006). Structural equation
modeling is used either by itself or in combination with other methods such as content analysis,
covariance analysis, economic analysis, factor analysis, and regression analysis. Some of these papers
focus on the analysis of the operational vulnerability of the supply chains (Chowdhury and Quaddus,
2017), risk management and sustainability (Gouda and Saranga, 2018; Ruiz-Benitez, López and Real,
2017), artificial intelligence and supply chain resilience (Belhadi et al., 2021,2), the relationship
between resilience and social capital (Gölgeci and Kuivalainen, 2020), disruptions (Dickens et al.,
2021; Essuman et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2019; Jihadi et al., 2020; Al Naimi, Faisal, Sobh and Uddin,
2020; Zhang, Chen, and Fang, 2018; Parast and Subramanian, 2021; Birkie, Trucco and Campos, 2017;
Chowdhury and Quaddus; 2016), demand risk and financial performance (Chen, 2018), and supply
chain resilience and financial performance (Chunsheng et al., 2019; Ali, Nagalingam and Gurd, 2018;
Raut et al., 2021). It shows that risk management is one of the important aspects studied for supply
resilience through structural modeling. Researchers have used the structural equation modeling to study
supply chain digitalization (Zouari, Ruel and Viale, 2020; Marcucci et al., 2021; Rajesh, 2017), echelon
flexibility for resilience (Brusset and Teller, 2017), and integration or collaboration between the internal
and customers (Jajja, Chatha, and Farooq, 2018; Chiung and Ming-Yu, 2018). This shows that the
current research focuses mainly on disruptions in the supply chain due to natural or unnatural factors
and their impact on resilience, digitization, and integration to improve resilience and the financial
performance due to risks in the supply chain. A similar analysis is also done with other tools adopted
to analyze supply chain risk management and supply chain resilience from different aspects of a
business.
In terms of qualitative analysis, thematic analysis is done for sustainability (Mwangi et al.,
2021), disruptions (Roscoe et al., 2020), conflicts and complexity of supply chains (Yaroson et al.,
2021), and supply chain performance (Liu, Arthanari and Shi, 2019). Some of the recent research using
content analysis have focused on different aspects of disaster and project management (Prasad et al.,
2019), network dependency and big data analysis (Prasad, Zakaria, and Altay, 2018), agility,
redundancy and flexibility (Wang et al., 2021), analysis of supply chain entities (Bhattacharjya, 2018),
capability enhancement for resilience (Ralstona and Blackhurst, 2020), and flexibility and scalability
of the supply chain (Gerd, 2020). For case analysis to study supply chain resilience, recent focus by
some of the researchers have been in the area of information management for supply chain visibility
(Messina et al., 2020; Wang-Mlynek and Foerstl, 2020), ambidexterity, and information analysis (Wang
et al., 2021), the importance of technology in supply chain resource management (Colicchia, Creazza,
and Menachof, 2019), and disruption management adopted in a company (Messina et al., 2020). The
main emphasis in case analysis is to bring up practices adopted for increasing resilience either through
the adoption of information technology to create supply visibility or to profile the practices of disruption
management in and outside of an organization.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

Figure 3: Conceptual Framework of Supply Chain Risk and Resilience

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

3.4. Qualitative/Descriptive Analysis
We provide our analysis concerning two contingency dimensions, firm size, and industry being
examined in the previous sections.
- Firm size and supply chain resilience
Our literature review provides several important insights related to SC risks and resilience capabilities
in startups, SMEs and large corporations. Because there is only one study related to resilience capability
in startups, we provide our assessment for SMEs and large corporations.
We start our evaluation with the common themes in both SMEs and large corporations. In both
groups, we see that collaboration emerges as the most frequently cited resilience capability. We notice
that risk management plans and collaboration are considered the most cited resilience capabilities for
large corporations and SMEs. There is one explanation for this observation. A risk management plan
requires allocating resources and the development of plans to ensure organizations have enough
resources and have developed action plans to respond to disruptions. SMEs usually suffer from a lack
of resources; we have seen a similar pattern concerning other management programs such as quality
management, where SMEs are not inclined to invest in such programs (Kumar & Antony, 2008;
Assarlind & Gremyr, 2016). Given the critical role of risk management plans in responding to
disruptions, SMEs need to pay attention to such programs.
In SMEs, collaboration, flexibility, innovation, information systems, knowledge management,
and risk management are the most highly cited resilience capabilities that are discussed in the literature.
For large corporations, risk management plan is the most widely applied resilience capability. In terms
of more specific resilience capabilities, collaboration is the most widely cited resilience capability,
followed by flexibility, contingency planning, responsiveness and slack resources. Thus, we see
similarities and differences between SMEs and large corporations in terms of resilience capabilities that
are emphasized in each group. Large organizations tend to be more rigid and hierarchical; they develop
actions plans and allocate resources for risk management initiatives. On the other hand, smaller
originations tend to be more organic and flexible, thereby capitalizing on their flexible organizational
structure to improve their flexibility, innovation and learning capacities.

- Industry type and supply chain resilience

Our review of the studies in supply chain resilience based on the industry types reveals several important
insights. The first observation emphasizes collaboration and risk management as the most important
resilience practices across all industries, followed by a mix of different resilience practices, such as
flexibility, information systems and supply chain integration in different orders as shown in the
resilience plans of Figure 3 above.
The analysis provides more nuances that are valuable for developing an industry-specific
resilience plan. While flexibility is regarded as an important resilience capability in the chemical
industry, information systems are critical to improving resilience in the logistics industry. Agility is an
important resilience practice in the manufacturing sector; contingency plan is mostly emphasized in the
service industries. Our review suggests that while some general resilience practices are common across
industries (e.g., collaboration), the development of resilience capabilities should be based on the nature
of the industry.
Further analysis also suggests a clear distinction between manufacturing and service industries
regarding resilience capabilities. In addition to collaboration and risk management which are important
for both sectors, flexibility and supply chain integration are more emphasized in the manufacturing
sector, while in the service sectors, practices such as knowledge management and information
systems/technology and contingency planning are more frequently promoted. We also notice that slack
resources are highlighted as a resilience-enhancing capability in manufacturing; however, in service
organizations, there is not much discussion on the effectiveness of this capability.

- Firm size and industry type combination

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

 We previously examined the effect of firm size and type of industry in the development of resilience
capabilities. It would be insightful for organizations to realize what type of resilience capabilities should
be developed based on the overall impact of these two dimensions of firm size and the type of industry.
This requires a more detailed assessment of the literature to assess the combination of both contingency
factors (firm size and type of industry).
To properly address the combination of firm size and type of industry, we identified studies
that had a clear focus on both firm size and the type of industry. We only reviewed articles where these
two dimensions were clearly identified. Thus, we excluded studies that were using a cross-sectional
approach or studies that firm size was a mix of large and SMEs. Using this procedure, we identified 96
articles that met our criteria.
To develop a more practical assessment of the size-industry combination, we evaluate the
articles based on two dimensions of size (i.e., large and SME) and two dimensions of industry (i.e.,
manufacturing and service). Such assessment provides a more parsimonious evaluation of the
contingencies that should be consisted in developing resilience capabilities based on firm size and
industry type.

Quadrant 1: Large Firms-Manufacturing: This quadrant includes studies related to large

corporations in the manufacturing sector. The most widely cited resilience practices are risk
management plan, collaboration, and knowledge management.

Quadrant 2: Large Firm-Services: This quadrant includes studies related to large service
organizations. The overall resilience capability practices are collaboration, contingency planning, and
information systems.
Resilience capability development in large manufacturing firms entails the development of a risk
management plan, which includes identifying, assessing, avoiding, mitigating, transferring, sharing, and
accepting risk; this encompasses all activities of risk management. There seems to be a much narrower
focus on risk management practices in large service organizations, which only includes identifying steps
to be taken if a risk occurs (contingency planning). Such a distinction between risk management and
contingency plans may suggest that large manufacturing organizations are exposed to more sources of
disruption risks. Overall, the literature suggests that large manufacturing firms are more involved in
risk management plans than their service counterparts.

Quadrant 3: SMEs-manufacturing: This quadrant includes studies related to SMEs in the

manufacturing segment. Our review of the studies in this domain identified collaboration, flexibility,
and visibility as the main resilient capabilities in SMEs in the manufacturing space.

Quadrant 4: SMEs-services: This quadrant includes studies related to SMEs in the service segment.
Our review of the studies in this domain identified collaboration, information systems, and slack
resources as the main resilient capabilities in SMEs in the manufacturing space.

Table 5. Resilience capabilities for different size-industry configuration

Industry/Size Large SME
- Collaboration & networking
- Risk management - Flexibility
Manufacturing - Collaboration & networking - Visibility Quality
- Knowledge management Management (Lean &
Continuous Improvement?)
- Collaboration & networking
- Collaboration & networking
- Risk management?
Service - Information systems
- Contingency planning
- Slack resources
- Information systems

Table 5 provides a summary of the resilience capabilities based on the size and industry type. Since
there was only one study related to resilience capabilities in startups, we are not able to provide a
discussion on resilience capabilities in the startup domain. The single study conducted in the startup

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

space discussed the importance of data analytics and platform economy for improving SC operating
models in startups (Gerd, 2020).

3.5. General findings

By synthesizing the results of our literature review in resilience capabilities, we can identify an
important pattern that can shed some light on the paths organizations can take to become more resilient.
Our review of the literature identified practices such as leadership and strategic planning. Knowledge
management, process improvement, and financial strengths are some of the resilience-enhancing
capabilities. While these practices are not identified in one single study, we see that they have been
identified in different and unrelated studies. A closer look at these practices suggests a significant
overlap between resilience capabilities and the principles of quality management (Parast and
Golmohammadi, 2019; Parast and Safari, 2022a; Parast and Safari, 2022b). Such a linkage between
quality management and supply chain resilience was discussed in the literature (Mwangola 2018);
however, limited scholarly work has been done to explore the relationship between quality management
and supply chain resilience. Our findings provide a more nuanced assessment of such a relationship by
identifying resilience capabilities and relating them to the quality management principles discussed in
the quality management literature. Thus, one can argue that organizations committed to the principles
of quality management should become more resilient. While we could not test such an argument
empirically, the review of the literature provides initial evidence for such a relationship.
Having said that, we see one important distinction between resilience capabilities and quality
management principles. While in quality management, customer focus and satisfaction are some of the
key tenants of the organizational quality system, we could not identify customer satisfaction as a
resilience capability. This is an interesting observation since quality management systems are developed
to address best practices to enhance quality and operational results during the normal business
environment. This does not seem to be the case with resilience, which is concerned with improving an
organizational proactiveness and response to disruptions. The notion of responsiveness, which has been
identified in our literature review, can be seen as the equivalent of customer focus and satisfaction in
the context of resilience. Because firms will not be able to address customer focus and satisfaction when
facing disruptions, the notion of responsiveness seems more applicable in the resilience context. It can
be viewed as an important capability.
Our literature review suggests that most of the studies in supply chain resilience are conducted
in large manufacturing firms. We believe future studies should examine resilience capabilities in service
organizations and SMEs. These segments of the industry have not received much attention. Another
important finding of our study is the lack of understanding of resilience in startups. Operations and
supply chain management scholars have traditionally addressed OM/SCM practices in large and SMEs;
very limited attention has been given to understanding OM/SCM principles in startups. This would be
an interesting research domain to address principles of OM in startups, especially from the resilience
perspective. Since startups are exposed to many types of risks by their nature, applying the principle of
disruption risks and resilience to startups from an OM/SCM perspective may address some other risks
and challenges that startups face. This would be a fruitful research area that has not been explored yet.

4. Future Directions of Research

The findings of our literature review strongly underline the value of the supply chain resilience
for startups, SMEs, and large enterprises in different industries and provide substantial ground
for understanding the significant elements of supply chain resilience across different sizes of
firms in different industries. However, further research is necessary to advance a greater
understanding of the phenomena and continue the discourse on the critical factor of supply
chain resilience in today’s global marketplace. Therefore, while suggesting recommendations
for future research on supply chain resilience across different sizes of firms in different
industries, we concentrate on issues partly derived from our literature and that we believe
would benefit from additional attention above and beyond what has already been accomplished
in recent years. In discussing future research directions, we emphasize research topics that have

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

often been overlooked by research on supply chain risk and resilience across different sizes of
firms in different industries.
First, our findings indicate that despite the attention on SC operations and their linkages
to supply chain resilience of different sized firms in different industries, extant research has
overlooked examining supply chain resilience through a microfoundations perspective. Most
management issues occur across multiple levels of analysis, involving both individuals and the
organizational/interorganizational entities in which individuals operate (Distel, 2019; Foss &
Pedersen, 2016). “Although, on the surface, one macro-level issue appears to be influencing
another macro-level issue, their relation can only be explained through the transition of macro-
micro-macro level forces” (Bouguerra, Gölgeci, Gligor, & Tatoglu, 2019, p. 4). As such, while
supply chain resilience has been extensively investigated by the extant research, it has typically
been examined through the single-level perspective, typically either focusing on firm-level or
supply chain level factors. Thus, there is a need for further research on examining
microfoundations of supply chain resilience. In this domain, example questions could include:
What are the microfoundations of supply chain resilience of SMEs and large enterprises across
different industries? How are different capabilities created by how firms and supply chains are
structured and used as uncertainties or disruptions arise at different phases at supply chain
operations of small and large enterprises? What is the role of task, goal, and knowledge
interdependence in achieving supply chain resilience across different sizes of firms? How do
counterproductive work behaviors and constructive deviance within firms operating in
different industries affect supply chain resilience? How can different ways of organizing (i.e.,
structure, process, capability) by the management teams in startups, SMEs and large firms
inform the emergence of resilience at the supply chain level?
Second, supply chains are inherently network-based systems (Falcone, Fugate, &
Dobrzykowski, 2022; Gölgeci, Gligor, Lacka, & Raja, 2021; Ivanov & Dolgui, 2020).
Networks and network-based factors such as network structure, social capital, structural holes,
network centrality, and network density (cohesion) can be instrumental in shaping and
influencing supply chain resilience. This point is also highlighted in our findings that showcase
the themes of collaboration & networking and network design, among other network-related
themes. As such, past research examined how SC collaboration in supply chain networks and
how network design underpins the supply chain resilience of firms across different sizes and
industries. Nonetheless, there are plenty of network-based elements that await to be explored
further in relation to supply chain resilience. In particular, as network behavior and structure
of the small, medium, and large enterprises may notably vary, which may also be reflected
across firms in different industries, there is a need for further research on the network effects
on supply chain resilience. Examples of questions in this domain that can advance the research
on supply chain resilience include: How do contagion and convergence in global business
networks influence supply chain resilience of small, medium, and large enterprises? What is
the role of structural holes in the resilience of small, medium, and large firms in different
industries in times of severe global supply chain disruptions? How do the network density and
network centrality of small, medium, and large firms in diversified networks influence their
supply chain resilience?
Third, as evidenced by findings on the importance of technology in supply chain
resource management (Colicchia et al., 2019) and the adoption of information technology to
create supply visibility, as well as information systems/technology being among the major
themes in the findings, technology can be an important element to understand in relation to
supply chain resilience of firms of different sizes and industries. Supply chains are increasingly
technology-intensive (Adams, Richey, Autry, Morgan, & Gabler, 2014; Fawcett, Wallin,

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

Allred, Fawcett, & Magnan, 2011; Saldanha, Mello, Knemeyer, & Vijayaraghavan, 2015), and
the growing presence of technology in modern supply chains may have profound effect on the
way supply chain resilience is built and leveraged. In particular, firms may have different ways
to develop and implement SC technologies in the pursuit of supply chain resilience based on
their size and the industry in which they operate. Accordingly, there is a constant need for a
better understanding of the role of SC technologies like industry 4.0 (I4.0), internet of things
(IoT), digitalization, smart factories, additive manufacturing, and automation in logistics and
warehousing in supply chain resilience. As such, example questions include: What is the
interplay between emergent technologies like smart factories and additive manufacturing,
organizational structures, and social processes in developing and applying supply chain
resilience? How do I4.0 and IoT, adopted in different industries, influence supply chain
resilience? What is the role of blockchain implementation by small, medium, and large
enterprises in enhancing or hindering supply chain resilience?
Fourth, behavioral aspects of supply chain resilience, though it has been addressed
partially in past research (as evidenced by the emergent themes of relationship management,
trust, organizational learning/knowledge management and organic organizations in our
review), require further exploration. There is a growing recognition in the extant research that
SCM has traditionally been seen as rigid and mechanistic systems but instead needs to be
acknowledged as organic and behavioral socioecological systems (Wieland, 2021). Likewise,
extant research has highlighted social factors as essential for successful SC operations (Griffith,
Harvey, & Lusch, 2006; Yang, Geng, Jiang, & Feng, 2021). Accordingly, there is a need for
future research exploring behavioral aspects of supply chain resilience focusing on behavioral
issues, such as trust, buyer-supplier relationships, and how supply chain resilience can be
managed and maintained beyond the first tier both upstream and downstream in the supply
chain. Potential interesting research questions within this domain include: Do reciprocity and
relational justice in global supply chain relationships play a role in resilience? What is the
interplay between relational commitment and interorganizational opportunism in explaining
supply chain resilience in different industries? How do trust violations in buyer–supplier
relationships influence supply chain resilience?
Fifth, extreme contexts could be especially relevant to research on supply chain
resilience in a growing number of regions around the world. Extreme contexts are defined as
settings “where one or more extreme events are occurring or are likely to occur that may exceed
the organization’s capacity to prevent and result in an extensive and intolerable magnitude of
physical, psychological, or material consequences to -or in close physical or psychosocial
proximity to - organization members” (Hannah, Uhl-Bien, Avolio, & Cavarretta, 2009, p. 898).
This definition and increasing cases of global pandemics, extreme weather events, geopolitical
tensions, and declining trust in democracies highlight that extreme contexts can be highly
relevant to supply chain resilience, given the nature of the resilience concept. While our
findings reveal disruptions and complexity as important themes in supply chain resilience
research, extant research fails to capture the true extent of these extreme events as ‘normalized
unprecedentedness’ (Atwater, 2021) and their true impact on the supply chain resilience of
small and large firms. As such, further research is essential to understand how firms of different
sizes and industries manage to survive and withstand extreme contexts. Thus, we suggest the
below questions could be relevant for future research: How can resilience be maintained when
firms of different sizes and their supply chains face unprecedented levels of extreme disruptions
and adversity? How do the sense of urgency and rapid response strategies enable coping
mechanisms for emergencies and extreme events? How do firms of different sizes and industries
operate under extreme time pressure and formulate strategies in extreme contexts? What is the

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

role of the moral emotions of managers and individual actors embedded in supply chains in
building new capacities in the wake of unprecedented disasters?
Finally, there is a need to gain new insights into supply chain resilience by applying
novel theories and theoretical lenses and through interdisciplinary research. For example, the
panarchy theory proposed by Wieland (2021) to gain new insights into the SCM phenomena
could also be relevant in the case of supply chain resilience. Likewise, new perspectives that
either complement or challenge existing findings on supply chain resilience from earlier
research following more established theoretical lenses, such as institutional theory, could lead
to a fruitful conversation on this important topic. Furthermore, there is an increasingly evident
need for interdisciplinary research that examines supply chains as open and complex systems
interacting with other systems, such as the political economy, society, or the planet. Future
research may investigate the interconnectedness between supply chain resilience on the one
hand and other forms of resilience, such as climate resilience on the other hand. In this vein,
the following questions could be relevant in the context of examining supply chain resilience
through new theories and interdisciplinary research. What are the processes that underlie the
influence of formal and informal institutions on building and maintaining supply chain
resilience? How do firms respond to institutional voids and extractive institutions when
developing and deploying their supply chain resilience in foreign markets? How does supply
chain resilience interact with political-economic and planetary phenomena? What is the role
of supply chain resilience in the end customer/consumer-related phenomena (e.g., customer
loyalty, brand equity, satisfaction, value creation and provision, engagement)?

5. Conclusions and Implication

In our attempt to answer the research question, “how supply chain risk and resilience are
applied and manifested across different organizational sizes and industries”, we systematically
reviewed and analyzed 224 high quality journal articles published during 2000-2022 period
that as a whole, it can be considered as a good representative of the current knowledge of supply
chain risk and resilience. On the basis of this systematic review, we were able to map the
current status of the SC risk and resilience literature and highlight the main consistencies and
inconsistencies, commonalities and differences concerning SC risk and resilience approaches
among firms located in different sizes and industries, and current knowledge gaps in the field.
Our systematic literature review of 224 articles shows that most SC risk and resilience
studies have been conducted without paying enough attention to organizational size and
industry, and both size and industry of firms are considered as control variables in these studies.
However, SMEs and startups usually have different capacities, limitations, and priorities than
larger enterprises, and they emphasize on different practices.
The study shows most of the studies (67%) are published in six journals of Supply
Chain Management: An Int'l Journal; Int'l Journal of Operations & Production Management;
Int'l Journal of Production Research; Int'l Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management; The Int'l Journal of Logistics Management; and Int'l Journal of Production
Economics. There was an upward trend of research in the analysis and assessment of supply
chain resilience and supply chain risks during the last two decades (2000-2021), and the
majority of these studies focused on primary data collected through surveys, interviews, and
case studies in that order. Based on our deep-dive review and analysis of the literature, we have
categorized the root causes of SC risks and disruptions in six categories of demand, supply,
organization, operations, environment, and network/control, and analyzed all associated
resilience plans by firm size and industry sector as the main contributions of the paper.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

 Throughout this study, we have also elaborated paths for future research that can
dissolve conflicting discussions and fill knowledge gaps by utilizing empirical data and testing
competing hypotheses derived from theoretical foundations.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

This study contributes to the literature of SC risk and resilience in different ways. First, the
study builds upon the relatively dispersed previous research into supply chain risk and
resilience, and it mapped and illustrated the sources and antecedents of supply chain risks and
disruption in a comprehensive framework in six categories, namely demand, supply,
organization, operations, environment and network/control and linked them to the effective
resilience plans (illustrated in Figure 3).
Second, to the best of our knowledge, this study is the first theoretical assessment for
startups, SMEs and large organizations for their SC risk and disruption that may cause due to
various factors discussed above. Our findings suggest that the SC resilience plans for startups
and SMEs are not necessarily the same as the large organizations. While risk management and
resilience plan requires allocations of resources and developing effective action plan, startups
and SMEs usually suffer from lack of enough resources. However, larger enterprises can do
much better to overcome SC risks and being more resilient. According to our literature review
and analysis, while there is only one single study for startups which highlighted the importance
of data analytics, information systems and platform economy for SC resilience in startups, for
SMEs, in addition to information systems, collaboration and networking, flexibility, and slack
resources are important. For larger enterprises, besides collaboration and networking and
information systems, risk management, knowledge management as well as contingency
planning are crucial for their SC resilience plan. Finally, this article provided the future
directions of research to address the conflicting discussions and knowledge gaps exist in this
field by mainly focusing on empirical data and testing competing hypotheses derived from
theoretical foundations.

5.2. Practical/Managerial Implications

This study has some effective practical and managerial implications as well. First and foremost,
SMEs and large organizations get familiar with the main root causes and antecedents of SC
risks and disruptions and effective resilience plans that they need to develop and execute in
their firms ex-ante and ex-post of disruptions. In addition to the responsive efforts to minimize
the impacts of disruptions, firms need to be proactive by putting various preventive measures
to mitigate SC risks and being more resilient.
Second, firms should recognize that their SC resilience plans are not necessarily the
same for different industry sectors. While risk management, collaboration as well as knowledge
management (in that order) are the most important resilience plans/themes in large
manufacturing firms, collaboration, contingency plan and information systems (in that order)
are the most effective resilience plans/themes for large service firms which is aligned with ……
Both sectors of manufacturing and service businesses need to focus on effective collaboration
and networking with their partners and key stakeholders to mitigate any SC risk types and
reduce their negative impacts if occur. Another key implication is that identifying, assessing,
avoiding, mitigating, transferring, sharing, and action plan for risks (i.e., risk management) and
knowledge development and sharing (i.e., knowledge management) are more important in

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

manufacturing operations that are less flexible than service operations which mainly focus on
business continuity plan and effective information systems. The nature of manufacturing and
service operations are different. While manufacturing is a functional, mechanistic, production-
oriented model, services are more organic, humanistic, relationship-based models (Duncan and
Moriarty, 1998; Truong, and Hara, 2018). Therefore, we expect manufacturers focus more on
risk management and preventive measures than service organizations that mainly focus on the
steps to be taken if a risk and disruption occurs (contingency planning).
Third, business managers need to consider that there are various causes of SC risks and
disruptions that need to be considered if they put any preventive measure or response to any
risk events that may occur (see Figure 3). Their likelihood of occurrence, consequences and
their effective ex-ante and ex-poste resilience plans are not the same. We have listed all
resilience plan/themes (prioritized by firm size) that can be considered by businesses in the
Appendix B for further consideration.

CREATE A RISK TYPE AND RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK (Using Appendix B and Fig.
3 and Excel)

6. Referencies
Adams, F. G., Richey, R. G., Autry, C. W., Morgan, T. R., & Gabler, C. B. (2014). Supply
Chain Collaboration, Integration, and Relational Technology: How Complex Operant
Resources Increase Performance Outcomes. Journal of Business Logistics, 35(4), 299-317.
Al Naimi, M., Faisal, M. N., Sobh, R. and Uddin, S. F. (2020). Antecedents and consequences
of supply chain resilience and reconfiguration: an empirical study in an emerging economy.
Journal of Enterprise Information Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-04-2020-0166
Ali, I., & Gölgeci, I. (2019). Where is supply chain resilience research heading? A systematic
and co-occurrence analysis. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 49(8), 793-815.
Ali, I., Nagalingam, S. and Gurd, B. (2018). A resilience model for cold chain logistics of
perishable products. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 29(3), 922-941.
Ali, I., Nagalingam, S. and Gurd, B. (2017). Building resilience in SMEs of perishable product
supply chains: enablers, barriers and risks. Production Planning & Control, 28(15), 1236-1250.
Alora, A. and Barua, M. K. (2021). The effect of supply chain disruptions on shareholder
wealth in small and mid-cap companies. Supply Chain Management, 26(2), 212-223.
Anderson, K., Hotchkiss, E., Myers, L., Stout, S., Grue, N., Gilroy, N., ... & Rits, M. (2020).
After the hurricane: Validating a resilience assessment methodology. International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction, 51, 101781.
Atwater, P. (2021). A dangerous normalisation of unprecedentedness. Financial Times Swamp
Notes Newsletter, 19 February
Azadegan, A., Srinivasan, R., Blome, C. and Tajeddini, K. (2019). Learning from near-miss
events: An organizational learning perspective on supply chain disruption response.
International Journal of Production Economics, 216, 215-226.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

Baharmand, H., Comes, T., & Lauras, M. (2017). Managing in-country transportation risks in
humanitarian supply chains by logistics service providers: Insights from the 2015 Nepal
earthquake. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 24, 549-559.
Bavarsad, B., Boshagh, M. and Kayedian, A. (2014). A study on supply chain risk factors and
their impact on organizational performance. International Journal of Operations and Logistics
Management, 3(3), 192-211.
Belhadi, A., Kamble, S., Jabbour, C. J. C., Gunasekaran, A., Ndubisi, N. O. and Venkatesh, M.
(2021). Manufacturing and service supply chain resilience to the COVID-19 outbreak: Lessons
learned from the automobile and airline industries. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 163, 120447.
Becker, A. H., Matson, P., Fischer, M., & Mastrandrea, M. D. (2015). Towards seaport
resilience for climate change adaptation: Stakeholder perceptions of hurricane impacts in
Gulfport (MS) and Providence (RI). Progress in Planning, 99, 1-49.
Blos, M.F., Quaddus, M., Wee, H.M. and Watanabe, K. (2009). Supply chain risk management
(SCRM): a case study on the automotive and electronic industries in Brazil. Supply Chain
Management,14(4), 247-252
Bouguerra, A., Gölgeci, I., Gligor, D. M., & Tatoglu, E. (2019). How do agile organizations
contribute to environmental collaboration? Evidence from MNEs in Turkey. Journal of
International Management, 100711. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2019.100711
Brandon-Jones, E., Squire, B., & Van Rossenberg, Y. G. T. (2015). The impact of supply base
complexity on disruptions and performance: the moderating effects of slack and visibility.
International Journal of Production Research, 53(22), 6903-6918.
Brusset, X. and Bertrand, J.-L. (2018). Hedging weather risk and coordinating supply chains.
Journal of operations Management, 64, 41-52.
Cao, M. and Zhang, Q. (2011). Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage
and firm performance. Journal of operations Management, 29(3), 163-180.
Chen, H.L. (2018). Supply chain risk’s impact on corporate financial performance.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(3), 713-731.
Christopher M. and Peck H. (2004). Building the resilient supply chain. International Journal
of Logistics Management, 15(2), 13.
Distel, A. P. (2019). Unveiling the microfoundations of absorptive capacity: A study of
Coleman’s bathtub model. Journal of Management, 45(5), 2014-2044.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Fosso Wamba, S., Roubaud, D. and Foropon, C.
(2021). Empirical investigation of data analytics capability and organizational flexibility as
complements to supply chain resilience. International Journal of Production Research, 59(1),
110-128.
Durach, C.F., Wiengarten, F. and Choi, T.Y. (2020). Supplier–supplier coopetition and supply
chain disruption: first-tier supplier resilience in the tetradic context. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 40(7/8),1041-1065.
El Baz, J. and Ruel, S. (2021). Can supply chain risk management practices mitigate the
disruption impacts on supply chains’ resilience and robustness? Evidence from an empirical

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

survey in a COVID-19 outbreak era. International Journal of Production Economics, 233,
107972.
Falcone, E. C., Fugate, B. S., & Dobrzykowski, D. D. (2022). Supply chain plasticity during a
global disruption: Effects of CEO and supply chain networks on operational repurposing.
Journal of Business Logistics.
Faruquee, M., Paulraj, A. and Irawan, C.A. (2021). Strategic supplier relationships and supply
chain resilience: Is digital transformation that precludes trust beneficial?. International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, 41(7), 1192-1219.
Fatemi, M. S., Ghodratnama, A., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., & Kaboli, A. (2021). A multi-
functional tri-objective mathematical model for the pharmaceutical supply chain considering
congestion of drugs in factories. Research in Transportation Economics, 101094.
Fawcett, S. E., Wallin, C., Allred, C., Fawcett, A. M., & Magnan, G. M. (2011). Information
technology as an enabler of supply chain collaboration: a dynamic‐capabilities perspective.
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47(1), 38-59.
Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. (2016). Microfoundations In Strategy Research. Strategic
Management Journal, 37(13), E22-E34. doi:10.1002/smj.2362
Golgeci, I. and Y. Ponomarov, S. (2013). Does firm innovativeness enable effective responses
to supply chain disruptions? An empirical study. Supply Chain Management, 18(6), 604-617.
Gölgeci, I. and Ponomarov, S. Y. (2015). How does firm innovativeness enable supply chain
resilience? The moderating role of supply uncertainty and interdependence. Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management, 27(3), 267-282.
Golgeci, I., Yildiz, H. E., & Andersson, U. R. (2020). The rising tensions between efficiency
and resilience in global value chains in the post-COVID-19 world. Transnational Corporations
Journal, 27(2), 127-141.
Gölgeci, I., Gligor, D., Lacka, E., & Raja, J. Z. (2021). Understanding the influence of
servitization on global value chains: A conceptual framework. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 41(5), 645-667. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-08-2020-0515
Graveline, N. and Gremont, M. (2017). Measuring and understanding the microeconomic
resilience of businesses to lifeline service interruptions due to natural disasters. International
Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 24, 526-538.
Griffith, D. A., Harvey, M. G., & Lusch, R. F. (2006). Social exchange in supply chain
relationships: The resulting benefits of procedural and distributive justice. Journal of
Operations Management, 24(2), 85-98.
Hannah, S. T., Uhl-Bien, M., Avolio, B. J., & Cavarretta, F. L. (2009). A framework for
examining leadership in extreme contexts. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 897-919.
Heinzlef, C., Becue, V., & Serre, D. (2019). Operationalizing urban resilience to floods in
embanked territories–Application in Avignon, Provence Alpes Côte d’azur region. Safety
science, 118, 181-193.
Hendricks, K. B. and Singhal, V. R. (2003). The effect of supply chain glitches on shareholder
wealth. Journal of operations Management, 21(5), 501-522.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

Hendricks, K. B. and Singhal, V. R. (2005). An empirical analysis of the effect of supply chain
disruptions on long‐run stock price performance and equity risk of the firm. Production and
Operations management, 14(1), 35-52.
Hohenstein, N.-O., Feisel, E., Hartmann, E. and Giunipero, L. (2015). Research on the
phenomenon of supply chain resilience: A systematic review and paths for further
investigation. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 45(½),
90-117.
Hosseini, S., Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2019). Review of quantitative methods for supply chain
resilience analysis. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,
125, 285-307.
Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2020). Viability of intertwined supply networks: extending the
supply chain resilience angles towards survivability. A position paper motivated by COVID-
19 outbreak. International Journal of Production Research, 58(10), 2904-2915.
Jajja, M. S. S., Chatha, K. A. and Farooq, S. (2018). Impact of supply chain risk on agility
performance: Mediating role of supply chain integration. International Journal of Production
Economics, 205, 118-138.
Jiang, B., Baker, R. C. and Frazier, G. V. (2009). An analysis of job dissatisfaction and turnover
to reduce global supply chain risk: Evidence from China. Journal of operations Management,
27(2), 169-184.
Jüttner, U. (2005). Supply chain risk management: Understanding the business requirements
from a practitioner perspective. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 16(1),
120-141.
Kim, K., & Bui, L. (2019). Learning from Hurricane Maria: Island ports and supply chain
resilience. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 39, 101244.
Kleindorfer, P. R. and Saad, G. H. (2005). Managing disruption risks in supply chains.
Production and Operations management, 14(1), 53-68.
Kumar, S., Liu, J. and Scutella, J. (2015). The impact of supply chain disruptions on
stockholder wealth in India. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 45(9/10), 938-958.
Langholtz, M., Webb, E., Preston, B. L., Turhollow, A., Breuer, N., Eaton, L., ... & Downing,
M. (2014). Climate risk management for the US cellulosic biofuels supply chain. Climate Risk
Management, 3, 96-115.
Leat, P. and Revoredo‐Giha, C. (2013). Risk and resilience in agrifood supply chains: the case
of the ASDA PorkLink supply chain in Scotland. Supply Chain Management, 18(2), 219-231.
Manuj, I. and Mentzer, J. T. (2008). Global supply chain risk management strategies.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(3), 192-223.
Malagueño, R., Gölgeci, I., & Fearne, A. (2019). Customer categorization, relational justice
and SME performance in supermarket supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 24(3), 417-429.
Mensah, P., Merkuryev, Y., Klavins, E., & Manak, S. (2017). Supply chain risks analysis of a
logging company: Conceptual model. Procedia Computer Science, 104, 313-320.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

Mishra, R., Singh, R.K. and Subramanian, N. (2021). Impact of disruptions in agrifood supply
chain due to COVID-19 pandemic: Contextualized resilience framework to achieve operational
excellence. The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No.
ahead-of-print (DOI: 10.1108/IJLM-01-2021-0043).
Modgil, S., Gupta, S., Stekelorum, R. and Laguir, I. (2021). AI technologies and their impact
on supply chain resilience during COVID-19. International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2020-0434.
Oliver, R. K. and Webber, M. D. (1982). Supply-chain management: logistics catches up with
strategy. Outlook, 5(1), 42-47.
Parast, M. M. (2020). The impact of R&D investment on mitigating supply chain disruptions:
Empirical evidence from US firms. International Journal of Production Economics, 227,
107671.
Parast, M. M., & Golmohammadi, D. (2019). Quality management in healthcare organizations:
empirical evidence from the baldrige data. International Journal of Production Economics,
216, 133-144.
Parast, M. M., & Safari, A. (2022a). Improving Quality and Operational Performance of
Service Organizations: An Empirical Analysis Using Repeated Cross-Sectional Data of US
Firms. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2021.3107499.
Parast, M. M., & Safari, A. (2022b). Enhancing the Quality and competitiveness of small
businesses: A pooled cross-sectional analysis. International Journal of Production Economics,
108410.
Pettit, T. J., Fiksel, J. and Croxton, K. L. (2010). Ensuring supply chain resilience: development
of a conceptual framework. Journal of business logistics, 31(1), 1-21.
Pimenta, M. L., Cezarino, L. O., Piato, E. L., da Silva, C. H. P., Oliveira, B. G., & Liboni, L.
B. (2022). Supply chain resilience in a Covid-19 scenario: Mapping capabilities in a systemic
framework. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 29, 649-656.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G. and Podsakoff, N. P. (2005). The
influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal,
26(5), 473-488.
Ponis, S. T. and Koronis, E. (2012). Supply Chain Resilience? Definition of concept and its
formative elements. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 28(5), 921-935.
Ponomarov, S.Y. and Holcomb, M.C. (2009). Understanding the concept of supply chain
resilience. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 20(1), 124-143.
Raj Sinha, P., Whitman, L.E. and Malzahn, D. (2004). Methodology to mitigate supplier risk
in an aerospace supply chain. Supply Chain Management, 9(2), 154-168.
Revilla, E. and Saenz, M.J. (2017). The impact of risk management on the frequency of supply
chain disruptions: A configurational approach. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 37(5), 557-576.
Ribeiro, J. P. and Barbosa-Povoa, A. (2018). Supply Chain Resilience: Definitions and
quantitative modelling approaches–A literature review. Computers & Industrial Engineering,
115, 109-122.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

Riccardo, A., Daria, B., & Dmitry, I. (2021). Increasing supply chain resilience through
efficient redundancy allocation: a risk-averse mathematical model. IFAC-PapersOnLine,
54(1), 1011-1016.
Ritchie, B. and Brindley, C. (2007). An emergent framework for supply chain risk management
and performance measurement. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(11), 1398-
1411.
Saldanha, J. P., Mello, J. E., Knemeyer, A. M., & Vijayaraghavan, T. A. S. (2015).
Implementing Supply Chain Technologies in Emerging Markets: An Institutional Theory
Perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51(1), 5-26. doi:10.1111/jscm.12065
Schleper, M.C., Gold, S., Trautrims, A. and Baldock, D. (2021). Pandemic-induced knowledge
gaps in operations and supply chain management: COVID-19’s impacts on retailing.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 41(3), 193-205.
Schnebele, E., Jaiswal, K., Luco, N., & Nassar, N. T. (2019). Natural hazards and mineral
commodity supply: Quantifying risk of earthquake disruption to South American copper
supply. Resources Policy, 63, 101430.
Shah, R. and Goldstein, S. M. (2006). Use of structural equation modeling in operations
management research: Looking back and forward. Journal of Operations management, 24(2),
148-169.
Short, J. (2009). The art of writing a review article. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1312-1317.
Spieske, A., & Birkel, H. (2021). Improving supply chain resilience through industry 4.0: a
systematic literature review under the impressions of the COVID-19 pandemic. Computers &
Industrial Engineering, 158, 107452.
Thun, J.-H. and Hoenig, D. (2011). An empirical analysis of supply chain risk management in
the German automotive industry. International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), 242-
249.
Todo, Y., Nakajima, K. and Matous, P. (2015). How do supply chain networks affect the
resilience of firms to natural disasters? Evidence from the Great East Japan Earthquake.
Journal of Regional Science, 55(2), 209-229.
Truong, H.Q. and Hara, Y. (2018). Supply chain risk management: manufacturing- and service-
oriented firms. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 29(2), 218-239.
Tukamuhabwa, B.R., Stevenson, M., Busby, J. and Zorzini, M. (2015), Supply chain resilience:
definition, review and theoretical foundations for further study, International Journal of
Production Research, 53(18), 5592-5623.
Webster, J. and Watson, R. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a
Literature Review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), Xiii-Xxiii.
Wieland, A. (2021). Dancing the Supply Chain: Toward Transformative Supply Chain
Management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 57(1), 58-73.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12248
Wieland, A., & Durach, C. F. (2021). Two perspectives on supply chain resilience. Journal of
Business Logistics, 42(3), 315-322.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

Wieland, A. and Marcus Wallenburg, C. (2013). The influence of relational competencies on
supply chain resilience: a relational view. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, 43(4), 300-320.
Yang, Q., Geng, R., Jiang, Y., & Feng, T. (2021). Governance mechanisms and green customer
integration in China: The joint effect of power and environmental uncertainty. Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 149, 102307.
Zhao, L., Huo, B., Sun, L. and Zhao, X. (2013). The impact of supply chain risk on supply
chain integration and company performance: a global investigation. Supply Chain
Management, 18(2),115-131.
Zhao, G., Liu, S., Lopez, C., Chen, H., Lu, H., Mangla, S. K., & Elgueta, S. (2020). Risk
analysis of the agrifood supply chain: A multi-method approach. International Journal of
Production Research, 58(16), 4851-4876.
Zsidisin, G. A. and Wagner, S. M. (2010). Do perceptions become reality? The moderating role
of supply chain resiliency on disruption occurrence. Journal of business logistics, 31(2), 1-20.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

 Appendix A
Short list of 224 articles Analyzed for the Systematic Literature Review
Acquaah, et al. (2011) Durach and Machuca (2018)
Akgün and Keskin (2014) Durach and Wiengarten (2017)
Al Naimi et al. (2020) Durach, Glasen and Straube (2017)
Alblas and Jayaram (2015) Durach, Wiengarten and Choi (2020)
Ali, Nagalingam and Gurd (2017) Eckstein et al. (2015)
Ali, Nagalingam and Gurd (2018) El Baz and Ruel (2021)
Alora and Barua (2020) Ellegaard (2008)
Altay et al. (2018) Essuman, Boso and Annan (2020)
Ambulkar, Blackhurst, and Grawe (2015) Fan and Stevenson (2018)
Ates and Bititci (2011) Fan et at. (2016)
Azadegan et al. (2019) Fan, Stevenson and Li (2020)
Azadegan et al. (2020) Faruquee, Paulraj and Irawan (2021)
Baharmand, Comes and Lauras (2019) Filbeck et al. (2016)
Battisti et al. (2019) Foerstl et al. (2010)
Belhadi et al. (2021) Formentini and Taticchi (2016)
Belhadi et al. (2021) (2) Gaudenzi and Borghesi (2006)
Bhattacharjya (2018) Gibilaro and Mattarocci (2019)
Birkie and Trucco (2020) Golgeci and Kuivalainen (2020)
Birkie, Trucco and Campos (2017) Golgeci and Ponomarov (2013)
Blackhurst, Scheibe and Johnson (2008) Gouda and Saranga (2018)
Blackhurst, Dunn and Craighead (2011) Govindan et al. (2014)
Blackhurst et al. (2005) Graveline and Grémont (2017)
Blome and Schoenherr (2011) Grötsch, Blome and Schleper (2013)
Blos et al. (2009) Gunasekaran, Rai and Griffin (2011)
Bode and Macdonald (2017) Gunessee, Subramanian and Ning (2018)
Bode and Wagner (2015) HahnGerd (2020)
Bode et al. (2011) Hallikas et al. (2004)
Boone et al. (2013) Hallikas et al. (2005)
Brandon‐Jones et al. (2014) Haraguchi and Lall (2015)
Braunscheidel and Suresh (2009) Harland, Brenchley and Walker (2003)
Brusset and Bertrand (2018) Hendricks and Singhal (2003)
Brusset and Teller (2017) Hendricks and Singhal (2005)
Bühler, Wallenburg and Wieland (2016) Hendry et al. (2019)
Cao and Zhang (2011) Hofmann (2011)
Chen (2018) Hu et al. (2019)
Chen, Sohal, and Prajogo (2013) Huang and Lu (2020)
Cheng and Lu (2017) Hult, Craighead and Ketchen (2010)
Chiung and Ming-Yu (2018) Hung and Ryu (2008)
Chowdhury and Quaddus (2016) Inman and Bhaskaran (2019)
Chowdhury and Quaddus (2017) Islam et al. (2021)
Chowdhury, Quaddus and Agarwal (2019) Jaaron and Backhouse (2014)
Christopher et al. (2011) Jajja, Chatha and Farooq (2018)
Chunsheng et al. (2019) Jayaram, Dixit and Motwani (2014)
Colicchia, Creazza and Menachof (2019) Jiang, Baker, and Frazier (2009)
Craighead et al. (2007) Jihadi et al. (2020)
Dabhilkar, Birkie and Kaulio (2016) Johnson, Elliott and Drake (2013)
Davarzani, Farahani and Rahmandad (2015) Jüttner (2005)
De Oliveira and Handfield (2017) Jüttner, Uta and Maklan (2011)
De Sá et al. (2019) Kahiluoto, Makinen and Kaseva (2020)
Demmer, Vickery and Calantone (2011) Kern et al. (2012)
Dickens et al. (2021) Khan, Christopher and Burnes (2008)
Dowty and Wallace (2010) Khan, Christopher and Creazza (2012)
Dubey et al. (2017) Kleindorfer and Saad (2005)
Dubey et al. (2018) Korbi, Ben-Slimaneand Triki (2021)
Dubey et al. (2018) (2) Kumar et al. (2018)
Dubey et al. (2020) Kumar, Liu, and Scutella (2015)
Dubey et al. (2020) (2) Kurniawan et al. (2017)
Dubey et al. (2021) Kwak, Seo and Mason (2018)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

Laeequddin et al. (2009) Scheibe and Blackhurst (2018)
Lam and Bai (2016) Schleper et al. (2021)
Lavastre, Gunasekaran and Spalanzani (2012) Scholten and Schilder (2015)
Lawson et al. (2019) Scholten, Scott and Fynes (2014)
Leat and Revoredo-Giha (2013) Shafiq et al. (2017)
Li et al. (2015) Sharma et al. (2021)
Liu and Lee (2019) Sinha, Whitman and Malzahn (2004)
Liu et al. (2018) Skipper and Hanna (2009)
Liu, Arthanari and Shi (2019) Song et al. (2016)
Lockamy and McCormack (2012) Statsenko, Gorod and Ireland (2018)
Loh et al. (2017) Stevenson and Busby (2015)
Machado, Paiva and Silva (2018) Stranieri, Orsi and Banterle (2017)
Mandal (2012) Sullivan-Taylor and Branicki (2011)
Mandal (2017) Swierczek (2016)
Manuj and Mentzer (2008) Thun, Drüke and Hoenig (2011)
Marcucci et al. (2021) Thun and Hoenig (2011)
Messina et al. (2020) Todo, Nakajima and Matous (2015)
Miemczyk and Luzzini (2019) Treiblmaier (2018)
Mishra, Singh and Subramanian (2021) Truong and Hara (2018)
Modgil et al. (2021) Tse, Zhang and Jia (2018)
Modgil, Singh and Hannibal (2021) Um and Han (2020)
Moore and Manring (2009) Urciuoli and Hintsa (2016)
Mwangi et al. (2021) Urciuoli et al. (2014)
Nandi et al. (2020) Vanalle et al. (2020)
Norrman and Jansson (2004) Vedel and Ellegaard (2013)
Oke and Gopalakrishnan (2009) Verghese, Koufteros and Huo (2019)
Pal, Torstensson and Mattila (2014) Wagner and Bode (2008)
Papadopoulos et al. (2017) Wagner and Silveira-Camargos (2010)
Parast (2020) Wamba and Akter (2019)
Parast and Subramanian (2021) Wang et al. (2021)
Parker and Ameen (2018) Wang-Mlynek and Foerstl (2020)
Peck (2005) Wiedmer et al. (2021)
Pettit, Fiksel and Keely (2010) Wieland and Wallenburg (2013)
Pettit, Croxton and Fiksel (2013) Wiengarten, Pagell and Fynes (2013)
Polyviou, Croxton and Knemeyer (2019) Wu and Chaipiyaphan (2019)
Prasad et al. (2019) Xavier, Bandeira Mello and Marcon (2014)
Prasad, Zakaria and Altay (2018) Yang and Hsu (2018)
Rajesh (2017) Yang et al. (2021)
Rajesh (2019) Yaroson et al. (2021)
Ralstona and Blackhurst (2020) Yeh (2005)
Rathore, Thakkar and Jha (2017) Yilmaz Borekci et al. (2014)
Raut, et al. (2021) Yu et al. (2019)
Revilla and Sáenz (2014) Zahiri, Zhuang and Mohammadi (2017)
Revilla and Sáenz (2017) Zailani et al. (2015)
Rezapour, Farahani and Pourakbar (2017) Zhang, Chen and Fang (2018)
Riley et al. (2016) Zhao et al. (2013)
Ritchie and Brindley (2007) Zhu et al. (2018)
Rosales et al. (2019) Zineb, Brahim and Houdaifa (2017)
Roscoe et al. (2020) Zouari, Ruel and Viale (2020)
Rubbio et al. (2019) Zsidisin and Ellram (2003)
Rudolf and Spinler (2018) Zsidisin and Smith (2005)
Ruiz-Benitez, López and Real (2017) Zsidisin and Wagner (2010)
Sabatino (2016) Zsidisin, Melnyk and Ragatz (2005)
Santoro et al. (2020)
Sarafan, Squire and Brandon (2020)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

 Appendix B
Resilience Plan-Theme by Firm Size

Startup

Startup
Large

Large
SME

SME
Mix

Mix
THEME THEME
Risk Management 4 25 40 Advanced technology 1
Collaboration & networking 8 20 35 Better distribution 1
Flexibility (adoptability, 6 18 16 capability
design, supply, org, oprs,…) Change management plan 1
Information systems/Tech. 1 4 6 17 Dedicated position (chief 1
Information sharing 1 1 10 risk officer)
Supply Chain integration 1 4 15 Delivery strategy 1
Strategic SC management 3 4 12 (distribution)
Responsiveness 3 7 11 Demand forecasting 1
Knowledge management 3 6 7 Localizing supply sources 1
Organizational learning 3 3 Minimizing cultural bias 1
Agility 2 10 Observation strategy (wait 1
Proactiveness 4 9 and see strategy)
Visibility 3 9 Operational planning
Relationship management 2 5 6 Production in a strong legal 1
Contingency planning 1 7 5 system
Slack resources 7 4 Reducing external barriers 1
Complexity (reduction, 3 7 Security management 1
management...) Supplier quality 1
Innovation 5 2 3 Transaction-specific investments 1
Leadership engagement 2 5 2 (reward system)
Efficiency 1 2 4 Transversal management 1
Continuous improvement 1 4 2 (crossfunctional flexibility)
Lean practices 3 1 1 Visualization of regional SC network 1
Quality improvement 3 Customer service 1
Human resources 1 5 1 adaptation
development Decentralization (organic) 1
Workforce training 1 3 Delegate authorities 1
Employees retention 1 Driver-Safety System 1
Redundancy 2 3 Employee involvement 1
Financial Strength 2 3 Intermediary companies 1
Sustainability (social and 1 3 Job Rotation & Retention 1
environmental) Market strength 1
Traceability 1 1 1 Proactiveness 1
Social Capital 1 2 Process management 1
Stakeholder Management 1 2 Transitional Leadership 1
Trust 2 Velocity 1
Network design 1 1
(reconfiguration)
Environmental scanning 1 1
Awareness 2
Platform economy 1 1
Resource reallocation 1 1
Adaptability 1

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

 Appendix C
Categorizing Resilience Themes
Category Theme Freq. Category Theme Freq.
Risk Management Plan Risk Management 69 Agility Agility 12
Velocity 1
Collaboration &
networking Collaboration 33
Collaboration & networking 26 Responsiveness Responsiveness 21
Relationship management 12
Stakeholder Management 3 Supply Chain Supply Chain integration 20
Networking 3 integration
Collaboration & networking 1 Strategic SC Strategic SC management 17
Social Capital 3 management Delivery strategy (distribution) 1
Network design 1 Better distribution capability 1
Network design
(reconfiguration) 1 Localizing supply sources 1
Relationship commitment 1 Strategic SC planning 1
Strategic SC management 1
Observation strategy (wait and
Flexibility Flexibility (adaptability) 1 see strategy) 1
Flexibility (adoptability) 1
Flexibility (capacity) 1 Proactiveness Proactiveness 14
Flexibility (design) 1 Demand forecasting 1
Flexibility (diversity) 1
Flexibility (Dynamic) 1 Visibility/traceability Visibility 12
Flexibility (machine) 1 Traceability 3
Visualization of regional SC
Flexibility (manufacturing) 1 network 1
Flexibility (operation) 1
Flexibility (operation,
substitutive parts) 1 Innovation Innovation 10
Flexibility (org. structure) 1
Flexibility (port diversification) 1 Slack resources/ Slack resources 11
Flexibility (strategic) 1 materials/ inventory
Flexibility (sup alternatives) 1 Leadership Leadership engagement 7
Flexibility (supply chain) 1 engagement Leadership 1
Flexibility (supply, dependency) 1 Leadership Commitment 1
Flexibility (to adopt processes &
workforces) 1 Transitional Leadership 1
Flexibility(multiple shipment Transversal management
modes) 1 (flexibility for cross-functional) 1
Flexibility 15
Flexibility (supply) 3 Financial Strength Financial Strength 5
Flexibility (routing, alternative Transaction-specific
transportation planning) 2 investments (reward system) 1
Flexibility (supply alternatives) 2
Redundancy Redundancy 5
Information
IT/Info Sharing/Org. systems/Technology 28
Learning Knowledge management 16 Sustainability Sustainability 3
Sustainability (social and
Information sharing 11 environmental) 1
Organizational learning 6
Awareness 2 Platform economy Platform economy 2
Info sharing 1
Trust Trust 2

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201

 Category Theme Freq. Category Theme Freq.
Complexity (mgmt, Complexity (reduction) 5
reduction…) Complexity (management) 1 Advanced technology Advanced technology 1
Complexity (of product) 1 Driver-Safety System 1
Complexity 3
Change management Change management plan 1
HR
Development/Training Human resource development 7 Adaptability 1
Employees retention 1
Employee involvement 1 Customer service Customer service adaptation 1
Workforce training 4 adaptation
Dedicated position (chief risk
officer) 1 Environmental Environmental scanning 2
Delegate authorities 1 scanning
Decentralization (organic org) 1 Intermediary Intermediary companies 1
Job Rotation & Retention 1 companies
Market strength Market strength 1
Quality/Lean/Continuous Continues improvement 1
Improv. Quality improvement 2 Cultural bias Minimizing cultural bias 1
Lean practices 5
Production/operation
Efficiency 6 planning Operational planning 1
Production in a strong legal
Efficiency (resource) 1 system 1
Continuous improvement 6 Resource allocation 1
Process management 1 Resource reallocation 1
Quality improvement 1
Supplier quality 1 Reducing external Reducing external barriers 1
barriers
Continuity/contingency
planning Contingency planning 13 Security management Security management 1

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4051201