supply chain uncertainty case study

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

How do uncertainties affect supply-chain resilience the moderating role of information sharing for sustainable supply-chain management.

1. Introduction

2. conceptual framework and hypotheses, 2.1. supply-chain uncertainty (scu), 2.2. supply-chain resilience, 2.3. supply-chain information sharing (scis), 2.4. theoretical background and hypotheses development, 2.4.1. contingency theory, 2.4.2. resource-based theory, 2.4.3. contingent resource-based theory, 2.4.4. the impact of scu on scres, 2.4.5. moderating effect of scis, 3. research methodology, 3.1. sample and data collection, 3.2. instrument design, 4.1. validity and reliability check, 4.2. assessment of the structural model, 5. discussion, 5.1. theoretical implications, 5.2. practical implications.

• Differing from the SCU scales in the literature, the fact that the scale used in this research is more inclusive will provide managers with a wider perspective in their observations and will make it easier for them to identify areas that they will have difficulty seeing;
• Taking into account the COVID-19 pandemic, which has recently caused radical changes around the world, businesses will have the opportunity to make a more detailed self assessment, taking into account the strategic information provided by this research;
• By adapting the strategies revealed in this research on SCRES, it will serve as a guide in determining the methods to overcome the fluctuations caused by unforeseen events;
• By integrating the information-sharing parameter with the field of management information systems, innovation-based information-sharing mechanisms can be created to improve SCRES in public- and private-sector organizations;
• By demonstrating that information exchanged among supply-chain members strengthens SCRES, this study offers managerial benefits.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

6. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Davis, K.F.; Downs, S.; Gephart, J.A. Towards Food Supply Chain Resilience to Environmental Shocks. Nat. Food 2021 , 2 , 54–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ehrenhuber, I.; Treiblmaier, H.; Nowitzki, C.E.; Gerschberger, M. Toward a Framework for Supply Chain Resilience. Int. J. Supply Chain Oper. Resil. 2015 , 1 , 339–350. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mensah, P.; Merkuryev, Y. Developing a Resilient Supply Chain. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014 , 110 , 309–319. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salam, M.A.; Bajaba, S. The Role of Supply Chain Resilience and Absorptive Capacity in the Relationship between Marketing–Supply Chain Management Alignment and Firm Performance: A Moderated-Mediation Analysis. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2023 , 38 , 1545–1561. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• ur Rehman, O.; Ali, Y. Enhancing Healthcare Supply Chain Resilience: Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2022 , 33 , 520–546. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Scholten, K.; Schilder, S. The Role of Collaboration in Supply Chain Resilience. Supply Chain Manag. 2015 , 20 , 471–484. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schroeder, M.; Lodemann, S. A Systematic Investigation of the Integration of Machine Learning into Supply Chain Risk Management. Logistics 2021 , 5 , 62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lawrence, P.R.; Lorsch, J.W. Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 1967 , 12 , 1–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miller, D. Environmental Fit Versus Internal Fit. Organ. Sci. 1992 , 3 , 159–178. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thompson, J.D.; Zald, M.N.; Scott, W.R. Organizations in Action ; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017; ISBN 9781315125930. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwark, B. Toward a Contingent Resource-Based View of Nonmarket Capabilities under Regulatory Uncertainty. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference on Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, Brussels, Belgium, 19 November 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aragón-Correa, J.A.; Sharma, S. A Contingent Resource-Based View of Proactive Corporate Environmental Strategy. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2003 , 28 , 71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, I.J.; Paulraj, A. Towards a Theory of Supply Chain Management: The Constructs and Measurements. J. Oper. Manag. 2004 , 22 , 119–150. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vahlne, J.E.; Hamberg, M.; Schweizer, R. Management under Uncertainty—The Unavoidable Risk-Taking. Multinatl. Bus. Rev. 2017 , 25 , 91–109. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Galbraith, J. Designing Complex Organizations ; Addison-Wesley Publishing Company: Reading, MA, USA, 1973. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang, B.; Burns, N.D.; Backhouse, C.J. Management of Uncertainty through Postponement. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2004 , 42 , 1049–1064. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davis, T. Effective Supply Chain Management. Sloan Manag. Rev. 1993 , 34 , 35–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hult, G.T.M.; Craighead, C.W.; Ketchen, D.J., Jr.; Ketchen, D.J. Risk Uncertainty and Supply Chain Decisions: A Real Options Perspective. Decis. Sci. 2010 , 41 , 435–458. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van Der Vorst, J.G.A.J.; Beulens, A.J.M. Identifying Sources of Uncertainty to Generate Supply Chain Redesign Strategies. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2002 , 32 , 409–430. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simangunsong, E.; Hendry, L.C.; Stevenson, M. Supply-Chain Uncertainty: A Review and Theoretical Foundation for Future Research. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2012 , 50 , 4493–4523. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Flynn, B.B.; Koufteros, X.; Lu, G. On Theory in Supply Chain Uncertainty and Its Implications for Supply Chain Integration. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2016 , 52 , 3–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Lima, F.A.; Seuring, S.; Sauer, P.C. A Systematic Literature Review Exploring Uncertainty Management and Sustainability Outcomes in Circular Supply Chains. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2022 , 60 , 6013–6046. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peng, H.; Shen, N.; Liao, H.; Xue, H.; Wang, Q. Uncertainty Factors, Methods, and Solutions of Closed-Loop Supply Chain—A Review for Current Situation and Future Prospects. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 254 , 120032. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marcos, J.T.; Scheller, C.; Godina, R.; Spengler, T.S.; Carvalho, H. Sources of Uncertainty in the Closed-Loop Supply Chain of Lithium-Ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles. Clean. Logist. Supply Chain 2021 , 1 , 100006. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sato, Y.; Tse, Y.K.; Tan, K.H. Managers’ Risk Perception of Supply Chain Uncertainties. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2020 , 120 , 1617–1634. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Angkiriwang, R.; Pujawan, I.N.; Santosa, B. Managing Uncertainty through Supply Chain Flexibility: Reactive vs. Proactive Approaches. Prod. Manuf. Res. 2014 , 2 , 50–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hoffmann, P.; Schiele, H.; Krabbendam, K. Uncertainty, Supply Risk Management and Their Impact on Performance. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2013 , 19 , 199–211. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sreedevi, R.; Saranga, H. Uncertainty and Supply Chain Risk: The Moderating Role of Supply Chain Flexibility in Risk Mitigation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017 , 193 , 332–342. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gokarn, S.; Kuthambalayan, T.S. Creating Sustainable Fresh Produce Supply Chains by Managing Uncertainties. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 207 , 908–919. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tse, Y.K.; Zhang, M.; Zeng, W.; Ma, J. Perception of Supply Chain Quality Risk: Understanding the Moderation Role of Supply Market Thinness. J. Bus. Res. 2021 , 122 , 822–834. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sopha, B.M.; Jie, F.; Himadhani, M. Analysis of the Uncertainty Sources and SMEs’ Performance. J. Small Bus. Entrep. 2021 , 33 , 1–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tse, Y.K.; Matthews, R.L.; Tan, K.H.; Sato, Y.; Pongpanich, C. Unlocking Supply Chain Disruption Risk within the Thai Beverage Industry. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2016 , 116 , 21–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Asbjørnslett, B.E.; Rausand, M. Assess the Vulnerability of Your Production System. Prod. Plan. Control 1999 , 10 , 219–229. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rice, J.B.; Caniato, F. Building a Secure and Resilience Supply Chain. Supply Chain Manag. Rev. 2003 , 5 , 22–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holling, C.S. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1973 , 4 , 1–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sheffi, Y. The Resilient Enterprise: Overcoming Vulnerability for Competitive Advantage ; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; Paperback: London, UK, 2005; ISBN 9788578110796. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shuai, Y.; Wang, X.; Zhao, L. Research on Measuring Method of Supply Chain Resilience Based on Biological Cell Elasticity Theory. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Singapore, 6–9 December 2011; pp. 264–268. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pettit, T.J.; Fiksel, J.; Croxton, K.L. Ensuring Supply Chain Resilience: Development of a Conceptual Framework. J. Bus. Logist. 2010 , 31 , 1–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Hoek, R. Research Opportunities for a More Resilient Post-COVID-19 Supply Chain—Closing the Gap between Research Findings and Industry Practice. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2020 , 40 , 341–355. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Christopher, M.; Peck, H. Building the Resilient Supply Chain. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2004 , 15 , 1–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Johnson, N.; Elliott, D.; Drake, P. Exploring the Role of Social Capital in Facilitating Supply Chain Resilience. Supply Chain Manag. 2013 , 18 , 324–336. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Emenike, S.N.; Falcone, G. A Review on Energy Supply Chain Resilience through Optimization. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020 , 134 , 110088. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sabahi, S.; Parast, M.M. Firm Innovation and Supply Chain Resilience: A Dynamic Capability Perspective. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2020 , 23 , 254–269. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wieland, A.; Stevenson, M.; Melnyk, S.A.; Davoudi, S.; Schultz, L. Thinking Differently about Supply Chain Resilience: What We Can Learn from Social-Ecological Systems Thinking. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2023 , 43 , 1–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jain, V.; Kumar, S.; Soni, U.; Chandra, C. Supply Chain Resilience: Model Development and Empirical Analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2017 , 55 , 6779–6800. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brusset, X.; Teller, C. Supply Chain Capabilities, Risks, and Resilience. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017 , 184 , 59–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chowdhury, M.M.H.; Quaddus, M.; Agarwal, R. Supply Chain Resilience for Performance: Role of Relational Practices and Network Complexities. Supply Chain Manag. 2019 , 24 , 659–676. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qader, G.; Junaid, M.; Abbas, Q.; Mubarik, M.S. Industry 4.0 Enables Supply Chain Resilience and Supply Chain Performance. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022 , 185 , 122026. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hussain, G.; Nazir, M.S.; Rashid, M.A.; Sattar, M.A. From Supply Chain Resilience to Supply Chain Disruption Orientation: The Moderating Role of Supply Chain Complexity. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2023 , 36 , 70–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, J.; Lin, S.; Benitez, J.; Luo, X.; Ajamieh, A. How to Build Supply Chain Resilience: The Role of Fit Mechanisms between Digitally-Driven Business Capability and Supply Chain Governance. Inf. Manag. 2023 , 60 , 103747. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lotfi, Z.; Mukhtar, M.; Sahran, S.; Zadeh, A.T. Information Sharing in Supply Chain Management. Procedia Technol. 2013 , 11 , 298–304. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Samaddar, S.; Nargundkar, S.; Daley, M. Inter-Organizational Information Sharing: The Role of Supply Network Configuration and Partner Goal Congruence. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2006 , 174 , 744–765. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barua, A.; Ravindran, S.; Whinston, A.B. Enabling Information Sharing within Organizations. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2007 , 8 , 31–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, H.L.; Whang, S. Information Sharing in a Supply Chain. Int. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2000 , 1 , 79–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Erturgut, R. Lojistik ve Tedarik Zinciri Yönetimi ; Nobel Yayıncılık: Ankara, Turkey, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, F.; Drezner, Z.; Ryan, J.K.; Simchi-Levi, D. Quantifying the Bullwhip Effect in a Simple Supply Chain: The Impact of Forecasting, Lead Times, and Information. Manag. Sci. 2000 , 46 , 436–443. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ouyang, Y. The Effect of Information Sharing on Supply Chain Stability and the Bullwhip Effect. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2007 , 182 , 1107–1121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tran, T.T.H.; Childerhouse, P.; Deakins, E. Supply Chain Information Sharing: Challenges and Risk Mitigation Strategies. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2016 , 27 , 1102–1126. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Colicchia, C.; Creazza, A.; Noè, C.; Strozzi, F. Information Sharing in Supply Chains: A Review of Risks and Opportunities Using the Systematic Literature Network Analysis (SLNA). Supply Chain Manag. 2019 , 24 , 5–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, J.; Chen, J. Coordination of Information Sharing in a Supply Chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2013 , 143 , 178–187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khan, M.; Hussain, M.; Saber, H.M. Information Sharing in a Sustainable Supply Chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016 , 181 , 208–214. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Han, G.; Dong, M. Trust-Embedded Coordination in Supply Chain Information Sharing. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2015 , 53 , 5624–5639. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shang, W.; Ha, A.Y.; Tong, S. Information Sharing in a Supply Chain with a Common Retailer. Manag. Sci. 2016 , 62 , 245–263. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, S.; Guan, X.; Chen, Y.J. Retailer Information Sharing with Supplier Encroachment. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2018 , 27 , 1133–1147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jeong, K.; Hong, J.D. The Impact of Information Sharing on Bullwhip Effect Reduction in a Supply Chain. J. Intell. Manuf. 2019 , 30 , 1739–1751. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gruzauskas, V.; Burinskiene, A.; Krisciunas, A. Application of Information-Sharing for Resilient and Sustainable Food Delivery in Last-Mile Logistics. Mathematics 2023 , 11 , 303. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, M.; Jie, F.; Abareshi, A. The Measurement Model of Supply Chain Uncertainty and Risk in the Australian Courier Industry. Oper. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 2014 , 7 , 89–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Han, Z.; Huo, B.; Zhao, X. Backward Supply Chain Information Sharing: Who Does It Benefit? Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 2021 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bai, C.; Govindan, K.; Huo, B. The Contingency Effects of Dependence Relationship on Supply Chain Information Sharing and Agility. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2023 , 34 , 1808–1832. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Z.; Ye, F.; Tan, K.H. Effects of Managerial Ties and Trust on Supply Chain Information Sharing and Supplier Opportunism. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2014 , 52 , 7046–7061. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Burns, T.; Stalker, G.M. The Management of Innovation ; Oxford University Press: London, UK, 1961. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kembro, J.; Selviaridis, K.; Näslund, D. Theoretical Perspectives on Information Sharing in Supply Chains: A Systematic Literature Review and Conceptual Framework. Supply Chain Manag. 2014 , 19 , 609–625. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blackhurst, J.; Dunn, K.S.; Craighead, C.W. An Empirically Derived Framework of Global Supply Resiliency. J. Bus. Logist. 2011 , 32 , 374–391. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Olavarrieta, S.; Ellinger, A.E. Resource-Based Theory and Strategic Logistics Research. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 1997 , 27 , 559–587. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lai, K. Service Capability and Performance of Logistics Service Providers. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2004 , 40 , 385–399. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gligor, D.M.; Holcomb, M. The Road to Supply Chain Agility: An RBV Perspective on the Role of Logistics Capabilities. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2014 , 25 , 160–179. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ralston, P.M.; Grawe, S.J.; Daugherty, P.J. Logistics Salience Impact on Logistics Capabilities and Performance. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2013 , 24 , 136–152. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peteraf, M.A. The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View. Strateg. Manag. J. 1993 , 14 , 179–191. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barney, J. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. J. Manag. 1991 , 17 , 99–120. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koç, E.; Delibaş, M.B.; Anadol, Y. Environmental Uncertainties and Competitive Advantage: A Sequential Mediation Model of Supply Chain Integration and Supply Chain Agility. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 8928. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, M.; Jie, F.; Abareshi, A. A Conceptual Framework for Mitigating Supply Chain Uncertainties and Risks in the Courier Industry. Int. J. Supply Chain Oper. Resil. 2015 , 1 , 319. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roscoe, S.; Skipworth, H.; Aktas, E.; Habib, F. Managing Supply Chain Uncertainty Arising from Geopolitical Disruptions: Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry and Brexit. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2020 , 40 , 1499–1529. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barney, J.B.; Ketchen, D.J.; Wright, M. The Future of Resource-Based Theory: Revitalization or Decline? J. Manag. 2011 , 37 , 1299–1315. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahmed, W.; Khan, M.A.; Najmi, A.; Khan, S.A. Strategizing Risk Information Sharing Framework among Supply Chain Partners for Financial Performance. Supply Chain Forum Int. J. 2023 , 24 , 233–250. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ling-yee, L. Marketing Resources and Performance of Exhibitor Firms in Trade Shows: A Contingent Resource Perspective. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2007 , 36 , 360–370. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Donaldson, L. The Contingency Theory of Organizations ; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brandon-Jones, E.; Squire, B.; Autry, C.W.; Petersen, K.J. A Contingent Resource-Based Perspective of Supply Chain Resilience and Robustness. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2014 , 50 , 55–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fredericks, E. Infusing Flexibility into Business-to-Business Firms: A Contingency Theory and Resource-Based View Perspective and Practical Implications. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2005 , 34 , 555–565. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Birkie, S.E.; Trucco, P.; Fernandez Campos, P. Effectiveness of Resilience Capabilities in Mitigating Disruptions: Leveraging on Supply Chain Structural Complexity. Supply Chain Manag. 2017 , 22 , 506–521. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Agarwal, N.; Seth, N. Analysis of Supply Chain Resilience Barriers in Indian Automotive Company Using Total Interpretive Structural Modelling. J. Adv. Manag. Res. 2021 , 18 , 758–781. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ambulkar, S.; Blackhurst, J.; Grawe, S. Firm’s Resilience to Supply Chain Disruptions: Scale Development and Empirical Examination. J. Oper. Manag. 2015 , 33–34 , 111–122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Christopher, M. Logistics & Supply Chain Management , 4th ed.; Pearson Education Limited: Dorchester, UK, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiksel, J.; Polyviou, M.; Croxton, K.L.; Pettit, T.J. From Risk to Resilience: Learning to Deal with Disruption. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2015 , 56 , 79–86. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu, G. Three Essays on Mass Customization: Examining Impacts of Work Design, Supply Chain Uncertainty Management, and Functional Integration on Mass Customization. Ph.D. Dissertation, Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Minnesota, UMI Microform, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gölgeci, I.; Ponomarov, S.Y. How Does Firm Innovativeness Enable Supply Chain Resilience? The Moderating Role of Supply Uncertainty and Interdependence. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2015 , 27 , 267–282. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tang, C.S. Perspectives in Supply Chain Risk Management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2006 , 103 , 451–488. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gu, M.; Yang, L.; Huo, B. The Impact of Information Technology Usage on Supply Chain Resilience and Performance: An Ambidexterous View. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021 , 232 , 107956. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Spiegler, V.L.M.; Naim, M.M.; Wikner, J. A Control Engineering Approach to the Assessment of Supply Chain Resilience. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2012 , 50 , 6162–6187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ramanathan, U.; Aluko, O.; Ramanathan, R. Supply Chain Resilience and Business Responses to Disruptions of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Benchmarking 2022 , 29 , 2275–2290. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Williams, T.A.; Gruber, D.A.; Sutcliffe, K.M.; Shepherd, D.A.; Zhao, E.Y. Organizational Response to Adversity: Fusing Crisis Management and Resilience Research Streams. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2017 , 11 , 733–769. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghosh, S.; Bhowmick, B. Technological Uncertainty: Exploring Factors in Indian Start-Ups. In Proceedings of the IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC 2014), San Jose, CA, USA, 10–13 October 2014; pp. 425–432. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Hakimi, M.A.; Borade, D.B.; Saleh, M.H.; Nasr, M.A.A. The Moderating Role of Supplier Relationship on the Effect of Postponement on Supply Chain Resilience under Different Levels of Environmental Uncertainty. Prod. Manuf. Res. 2022 , 10 , 383–409. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Trkman, P.; McCormack, K. Supply Chain Risk in Turbulent Environments-A Conceptual Model for Managing Supply Chain Network Risk. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2009 , 119 , 247–258. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sydow, J.; Müller-Seitz, G.; Provan, K.G. Managing Uncertainty in Alliances and Networks—From Governance to Practice. In Managing Knowledge in Strategic Alliances ; Das, T.K., Ed.; Information Age Publishing: Charlotte, NC, USA, 2013; pp. 1–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tan, H.-C.; Soh, K.L.; Wong, W.P.; Tseng, M.-L. Enhancing Supply Chain Resilience by Counteracting the Achilles Heel of Information Sharing. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2022 , 35 , 817–846. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou, H.; Benton, W.C. Supply Chain Practice and Information Sharing. J. Oper. Manag. 2007 , 25 , 1348–1365. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, S.; Lin, B. Accessing Information Sharing and Information Quality in Supply Chain Management. Decis. Support Syst. 2006 , 42 , 1641–1656. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Darkow, P.M. Beyond “Bouncing Back”: Towards an Integral, Capability-Based Understanding of Organizational Resilience. J. Contingencies Cris. Manag. 2019 , 27 , 145–156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, G.; Li, X.; Liu, M. Inducing Supplier Backup via Manufacturer Information Sharing under Supply Disruption Risk. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2023 , 176 , 108914. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Syed, M.W.; Li, J.Z.; Junaid, M.; Ye, X.; Ziaullah, M. An Empirical Examination of Sustainable Supply Chain Risk and Integration Practices: A Performance-Based Evidence from Pakistan. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 5334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, C.; Gu, T.; Cai, Y.; Yang, Y. Impact of Supply Chain Information Sharing on Performance of Fashion Enterprises: An Empirical Study Using SEM. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2019 , 32 , 913–935. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cachon, G.P.; Fisher, M. Supply Chain Inventory Management and the Value of Shared Information. Manag. Sci. 2000 , 46 , 1032–1048. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, L.; Huo, B.; Gu, M. The Impact of Information Sharing on Supply Chain Adaptability and Operational Performance. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2022 , 33 , 590–619. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Krejcie, R.V.; Morgan, W.D. Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1970 , 30 , 607–610. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sekaran, U. Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach , 4th ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2003; ISBN 9781119111931. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haider, S.N.; Siddiqui, D.A. Impact of Logistics Capabilities on Mitigation of Supply Chain Uncertainty and Risk in Courier Firms in Pakistan. SSRN Electron. J. 2018 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fynes, B.; de Búrca, S.; Marshall, D. Environmental Uncertainty, Supply Chain Relationship Quality and Performance. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2004 , 10 , 179–190. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huo, B.; Zhao, X.; Zhou, H. The Effects of Competitive Environment on Supply Chain Information Sharing and Performance: An Empirical Study in China. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2014 , 23 , 552–569. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ponomarov, S.Y. Antecedents and Consequences of Supply Chain Resilience: A Dynamic Capabilities Perspective. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003 , 88 , 879–903. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling ; Kenny, D.A., Little, T.D., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2011; ISBN 9781606238776. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gefen, D.; Straub, D. A Practical Guide to Factorial Validity Using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and Annotated Example. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2005 , 16 , 91–109. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ho, R. Handbook of Univariate and Multivariate Data Analysis with IBM SPSS , 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis , 7th ed.; Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, UK, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray, C.D.; Kinnear, P.R. Psychology Press; IBM SPSS Statistics 19 Made Simple ; New York, NY, USA, 2012; ISBN 9781848720695. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown, T.A. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research ; Kenny, D.A., Ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007; Volume 44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981 , 18 , 39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Raykov, T.; Grayson, D. A Test for Change of Composite Reliability in Scale Development. Multivariate Behav. Res. 2003 , 38 , 143–159. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ab Hamid, M.R.; Sami, W.; Mohmad Sidek, M.H. Discriminant Validity Assessment: Use of Fornell & Larcker Criterion versus HTMT Criterion. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2017 , 890 , 012163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ullman, J.B.; Bentler, P.M. Structural Equation Modeling. In Handbook of Psychology ; Weiner, I.B., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 661–690. ISBN 9781119111931. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng, J.H.; Lu, K.L. Enhancing Effects of Supply Chain Resilience: Insights from Trajectory and Resource-Based Perspectives. Supply Chain Manag. 2017 , 22 , 329–340. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fiksel, J. From Risk to Resilience. In Resilient by Design ; Island Press/Center for Resource Economics: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; pp. 19–34. ISBN 9781610915885. [ Google Scholar ]
• Akter, S.; Debnath, B.; Bari, A.B.M.M. A Grey Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory Approach for Evaluating the Disruption Risk Factors in the Emergency Life-Saving Drugs Supply Chains. Healthc. Anal. 2022 , 2 , 100120. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dubey, R.; Gunasekaran, A.; Childe, S.J.; Papadopoulos, T.; Blome, C.; Luo, Z. Antecedents of Resilient Supply Chains: An Empirical Study. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2019 , 66 , 8–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ruel, S.; Ouabouch, L.; Shaaban, S. Supply Chain Uncertainties Linked to Information Systems: A Case Study Approach. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017 , 117 , 1093–1108. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ho, C.F.; Chi, Y.P.; Tai, Y.M. A Structural Approach to Measuring Uncertainty in Supply Chains. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2005 , 9 , 91–114. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rodrigues, V.S.; Stantchev, D.; Potter, A.; Naim, M.; Whiteing, A. Establishing a Transport Operation Focused Uncertainty Model for the Supply Chain. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2008 , 38 , 388–411. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, M. Impacts of Supply Chain Uncertainty and Risk on the Logistics Performance. Asia Pacific J. Mark. Logist. 2018 , 30 , 689–704. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Perdana, Y.R. Supply Chain Uncertainty: An Empirical Study of Indonesia’S Agro-Industry. Agrointek J. Teknol. Ind. Pertan. 2021 , 15 , 910–920. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Coşkun, A.E.; Erturgut, R. How Do Uncertainties Affect Supply-Chain Resilience? The Moderating Role of Information Sharing for Sustainable Supply-Chain Management. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 131. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010131

Coşkun AE, Erturgut R. How Do Uncertainties Affect Supply-Chain Resilience? The Moderating Role of Information Sharing for Sustainable Supply-Chain Management. Sustainability . 2024; 16(1):131. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010131

Coşkun, Artuğ Eren, and Ramazan Erturgut. 2024. "How Do Uncertainties Affect Supply-Chain Resilience? The Moderating Role of Information Sharing for Sustainable Supply-Chain Management" Sustainability 16, no. 1: 131. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010131

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Help | Advanced Search

Mathematics > Optimization and Control

Title: sustainable closed-loop supply chain under uncertainty.

Abstract: With the fast change of information and communication technologies and global economics manufacturing industry faces the challenges in both market and supply sides. The challenges in the market include short product life cycle, demand uncertainty, and product delivery. Accordingly, supply challenges are the dramatic increase of flexibility in productions and complexity in the supply chain, which result from the changes in the industry and rapid development of ICPT (Information, Communication, and Production Technologies). In this study, we consider a supply chain converged with ICPT, called Smart Manufacturing Supply Chain (SMSC). By investigating the attributes of SMSC, we identify the functional and structural characteristics of SMSC. Tactical supply planning in SMSC recognizes the ability of a pseudo real-time decision-making constrained by the planning horizon. In order to take advantages of SMSC a multi-objective multi-period mixed integer non-linear programming for closed-loop supply chain network design is presented. This model aims to minimizing overall costs environment effects and lead time. To solve the proposed model, considering uncertainties in the problem, the improved epsilon-constraint approach was adopted to transform the multi-objective model into a single-objective one. Then, the Lagrange relaxation method was employed for an effective problem-solving. In the following a case study in the real world was proposed to evaluate the models performance. Finally a sensitivity analysis was carried out to investigate the effects of important parameters on the optimal solution.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

Advertisement

Supply chain disruptions and resilience: a major review and future research agenda

• S.I. : Design and Management of Humanitarian Supply Chains
• Published: 08 January 2021
• Volume 319 , pages 965–1002, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• K. Katsaliaki 1 ,
• P. Galetsi 1 &
• S. Kumar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4592-9502 2  

133k Accesses

183 Citations

17 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Our study examines the literature that has been published in important journals on supply chain disruptions, a topic that has emerged the last 20 years, with an emphasis in the latest developments in the field. Based on a review process important studies have been identified and analyzed. The content analysis of these studies synthesized existing information about the types of disruptions, their impact on supply chains, resilience methods in supply chain design and recovery strategies proposed by the studies supported by cost–benefit analysis. Our review also examines the most popular modeling approaches on the topic with indicative examples and the IT tools that enhance resilience and reduce disruption risks. Finally, a detailed future research agenda is formed about SC disruptions, which identifies the research gaps yet to be addressed. The aim of this study is to amalgamate knowledge on supply chain disruptions which constitutes an important and timely as the frequency and impact of disruptions increase. The study summarizes and builds upon the knowledge of other well-cited reviews and surveys in this research area.

Similar content being viewed by others

Supply Chain Resilience: A Decade of Evolvement

Analysis of Theoretical Aspects of Supply Chain Resilience Determinants and Strategies

Understanding Global Supply Chain and Resilience: Theory and Practice

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Driven by the globalization of markets and the competitive business environment, lean supply chain management (SCM) practices have become very popular (Blackhurst et al. 2005 ) calling for continuous flow processing with low inventory volumes, levelled and just-in-time production and accurate scheduling of transport for cross-docking operations leading to more cost-effective and responsive supply chains (SCs). Furthermore, the pressure for cost reductions has led to the outsourcing and offshoring of many manufacturing and R&D activities, especially the sourcing from low-cost countries. These trends place enormous pressure for undistracted operations and stable environments, but also increase their vulnerability to disruptions which consequently increases the operational and financial impact of supply chain (SC) disruptions (Zsidisin et al. 2005 ). Given that more than 56% of companies globally suffer a SC disruption annually, firms have started taking SC disruptions more seriously (BCI-Business Continuity Institute 2019 ). Therefore, the need for designing resilient SCs and preparing contingency plans is of paramount importance.

Supply chain disruptions may occur due to climate change or human factors. Based on the site of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which keeps a record regarding the number of disasters and their associated costs in the U.S, there have been 212 disasters since 1980 resulting in approximately $1.2 trillion in damage. A typical year in the 1980s experienced, on average, 2.7 such disasters in the U.S, 4.6 in the 1990s, 5.4 in the 2000s, and 10.5 in the 2010s. The occurrence of costly disasters has mounted. The same phenomenon is observed globally based on the OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database with less than 200 disasters per year in the 1980s and over 300 in the 2010s. Natural disasters like the Thailand flood and Japan’s earthquake and tsunami in 2011 immediately affected the SCs of several products from firms such as Apple, Toshiba, General Motors, Nissan Motor and Toyota Motor causing negative results in these companies’ reputations and earnings (Chongvilaivan 2011 ). Statistics show that about 40–60% of small businesses never reopen following a disaster (FEMA 2015 ).

On the other hand, recent examples of human factor disruptions include the tariffs imposed on billions of products for US importers in 2018–19, specifically to steel and aluminum, which led to import delays due to an inability of companies to adjust their current customs clearance programs and absorb the extra cost. This left a negative impact on the relations of the US with China, whose companies have been affected the most. Moreover, the wake of Brexit at the beginning of 2020 increases production failure risks to just-in-time auto manufacturers and others with similar operations (Banker 2019 ). The civil war in Syria has created humanitarian logistics problems with refugees’ flows in Turkey and EU which based on the situation had to change supply chain strategies from serving populations on the move to serving dispersed but static groups of people, by supplying refugee camps, etc. (Dubey et al. 2019a , b , c ). Recently, the deadly coronavirus outbreak in a major industrial and transport hub of central China has triggered lockdowns in Chinese (and many other) cities and factories which have severely restricted production and transport routes globally (Araz et al. 2020 ).

The issue of SC disruptions has been greatly emphasized in the literature. It is a topic that increasingly challenges the SC of products and their focal firms, as SCs have become very complex and interdependent and disruptions create a snowball effect with serious consequences to all related SC echelons. This propagation, the ripple effect as is denoted in the literature (Ivanov et al. 2014a , b ) amplifies the impact of disruptions.

Although companies have high awareness about SC risks, more than 80% have been concerned about SC resilience (Marchese and Paramasivam 2013 ; Wright 2013 ), about 60% believe they have not yet developed and applied effective SC risk management practices (Sáenz and Revilla 2014 ). Therefore, managing risk in SCs is an important topic of supply chain management and has been the focus of research through reviews (Ho et al. 2015 ; Kleindorfer and Saad 2005 ), case studies (Ferreira et al. 2018 ) and an analysis of management models (Tomlin 2006 ). Related studies have exhibited a rich academic structure that encourages research in the field by identifying SC risks’ types, ways to detect and assess them and apply the right methods to react to them by linking theory with strategy and managerial practices (Nakano and Lau 2020 ).

However, there is evidence of a shift away from traditional risk management thinking as a reactive tactic to disruptions and towards more proactive strategies such as building SC resilience which increases the chances of achieving business continuity in turbulent cases (Christopher and Peck 2004 ). Building resilience is a capability that enables the SC to anticipate, adapt and promptly respond to unpredictable events (Blackhurst et al. 2005 ), and therefore greatly appeals to the firms. However, its effective application requires the development of certain operational capabilities aligned across the SC partners (Ali et al. 2017 ).

Supply chain disruptions and resilience have developed to become a well-defined research area, exhibiting a rich academic output. Indicative are the special issues in prestigious journals such as in the Supply Chain Management: An International Journal in 2019 on “New Supply Chain Models: Disruptive Supply Chain Strategies for 2030” (Wilding and Wagner 2019 ) and in the International Journal of Production Research (IJPR) in 2016 on “supply chain dynamics, control and disruption management” (Ivanov et al. 2016a , b ). Among the publications, numerous theoretical developments as well as review studies can be found exploring certain aspects of SC disruptions. There are also a few scientometric studies investigating mitigation methods (Bier et al. 2019 ), methods for building resilience (Centobelli et al. 2019 ; Hosseini et al. 2019a ) and the connection between SC risk and artificial intelligence (Baryannis et al. 2019a , b ).

From an academic standpoint, it is significant to classify and synthesize the output of research in a specific field, so that those interested can follow the field’s developments and trends (Merigó and Yang 2017 ). Bibliometrics is one method of conducting such a classification, which guides academics toward a discipline’s most influential studies (Gaviria-Marin et al. 2019 ; Godin 2006 ). On the other hand, the synthesis of knowledge can be performed through review and content analysis methods for classifying research and presenting a more analytical view of the developments of the field.

Our study examines the literature published in important journals on SC disruptions and resilience, a topic that has emerged the last 20 years, with an emphasis in the latest developments in the field.

The methodology is comprised of a profiling of our article pool, which is followed by a thorough review of advances in the field, completed by combining knowledge and providing information about supply chain disruptions, their impact and remedies, with a special focus on the ripple effect reduction, through the analysis of state of the art literature and comparisons. Finally, a review of the related technology advances draws a picture for the future of supply chain management against disruptions and provides a list of research ideas to gain a further understanding of the phenomenon, helping to better develop the field and prepare firms. Through this process managerial insights are offered for decision makers in the industry. Therefore, the manuscript aims to address: (1) how the literature has helped to advance theoretical debates and influence decision-making and (2) how the future is shaped, what the research gaps are that published papers have not yet addressed and constitute the future research agenda on SC disruptions. The study’s contribution is to complement prior research and provide a broad picture of SC disruptions and remedies at a time when the existing literature has matured, the interest of firms on the topic has mounted, especially due to the COVID19 pandemic lockdowns, and there are new ways emerging that require further investigation.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The second section discusses the study’s methodology. The third section presents the profile of research on SC disruptions with an emphasis on the most influential papers. The findings from the content analysis of the related papers are described in the fourth section under eight subsections, focusing on the types of disruptive events, SC propagation-ripple effect, the impact of SC disruptions, resilience methods and recovery strategies, modeling approaches for SC disruptions, cost–benefit analysis of SC resilience, popular IT tools for resilience and response to disruptions and finishing with a future research agenda. The last section on discussion presents the research and managerial implications of this study.

2 Methodology

The paper’s main research methodology follows a step by step review approach by using explicit methods and adopts a bibliometric technique to identify research streams in the analyzed literature and also a content analysis method to provide a description of research evidence.

The data collection process of the relevant articles on SC disruptions is described below. The Web of Science (WoS) database was queried for articles and reviews written in English that were published between the years of t and 2019 inclusive and contain in their title the terms “supply chain*” AND in the topic (title, abstract or keywords) the term disrupt* (*with its derivatives). The search identified 951 studies, which were analyzed based on their profile. Figure  1 presents a detailed schema of the methodology which is divided in three stages: preparation of dataset, profiling and content analysis and paper writing. The tools of the WoS database were utilized to derive profiling results such as the distribution of papers per year, the journals and affiliations with the most published papers and the citation report. The content analysis was completed with the help of EndNote capabilities and two of the authors reading a selection of the articles. The criteria for an article’s participation in the content analysis was based on the thematic area under investigation. A positive inclination was towards papers belonging to the top 10 journals that publish relevant subjects or towards highly cited papers (based on total citation or average citations per year). Around 250 papers were read in full and a number of them sketched the content of the specific categories. The content analysis categories include the types of disruptions (hierarchized by reason and frequency of occurrence), the impact that SC disruptions create (e.g. ripple-snowball effect), resilience, response and recovery methods, cost–benefit analysis of responses to disruptions, the most popular modeling approaches for applying resilience and mitigation strategies (topped with indicative examples and a special focus on the ripple effect), the IT tools and technological trends that enhance resilience and response to disruptions and research gaps that require further investigation. For this last section of future research, we also included ideas from 5 studies published in 2020 which cover issues related to the enormous SC disruption caused by the COVID19 pandemic.

Methodology schema

3 Profiling research on SC disruptions

A look into the yearly distribution of the 951 related articles shows that the first papers on the topic were published as recently as in 2004, followed by continuous interest after that year. After 2015 there is a dramatic annual increase in the number of papers in the subject by around 30% from year to year. Around 30% of these papers are published in the following 10 journals: International Journal of Production Research, International Journal of Production Economics, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, International Journal of Logistics Management, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Omega: International Journal of Management Science, Transportation Research Part E Logistics and Transportation Review, European Journal of Operational Research, Computers & Industrial Engineering, and Annals of Operations Research. A lot of the work in the subject is conducted in the Russian Academy of Sciences, the University of Tehran and the Berlin School of Economics and Law.

3.1 Most influential papers and their contribution

If we assume that citation reports indicate the most read and referenced papers in the field, the most popular paper in the subject as of March 2020, is a framework for classifying SC risk management literature (Tang 2006 ), followed by one discussing SC disruptions in particular (Kleindorfer and Saad 2005 ).

Overall, the analysis of the 10 most important papers’ contribution (Appendix Table  3 ) indicate that in their great majority are a) review papers about: (1) managing SC risks [either through a conceptual framework (Tang 2006 ) or as a textbook style (Chopra and Sodhi 2004 ) or a citation-review analysis (Tang and Musa 2011 )], (2) managing SC disruptions (Kleindorfer and Saad 2005 ), (3) explaining SC resilience (Ponomarov and Holcomb 2009 ) and (b) survey papers discussing about: (1) the different levels of severity of SC disruptions through interviews (Craighead et al. 2007 ), (2) the impact of disruptions’ announcements to the firms’ stock price performance (Hendricks and Singhal 2005 ), (3) the perceptions of SC professionals of how SC agility is achieved (Braunscheidel and Suresh 2009 ) and (4) of their approaches to risk in global SCs (Manuj and Mentzer 2008 ). There is also one paper in this list which presents an inventory optimization model to assess sourcing strategies under disruptions (Tomlin 2006 ). Almost all of these papers have been published before 2010 (only one in 2011). Therefore, apart from their important content, the time that have been available is also a crucial parameter of their popularity.

A further investigation on trending WoS papers* (10 more recent papers with increasing citations - Appendix Table  4 ) revealed a focus on the digitalization of SCs and its impact on SC risk control, such as the effect of digital technology and Industry 4.0 on SC disruptions (Ivanov et al. 2019 ), the effect of the use of blockchain (Saberi et al. 2019 ) and employees’ perceptions in using it (Queiroz and Wamba 2019 ). Altogether these 10 studies constitute a collection of (1) reviews about quantitative methods for modelling SC disruptions and aiding decision-making (Dolgui et al. 2018 ; Heckmann et al. 2015 ; Ho et al. 2015 ; Hosseini et al. 2019a ; Snyder et al. 2016 )], (2) conceptual frameworks of certain approaches on the subject (Ivanov and Dolgui 2019 ) and (3) surveys of professionals’ knowledge on SC disruptions and adoption of mitigation tactics (Queiroz and Wamba 2019 ; Sodhi et al. 2012 ).

4 Content analysis results

In this section, a review of the selected studies is presented. The review is organized under the following areas: types and reasons of disruptions, the ripple effect, impact analysis of SC disruptions, resilience-response-recovery strategies to disruptions, popular quantitative approaches for the analysis of SC disruptions, cost–benefit analysis of resilience Vs disruptions, IT tools for enhanced resilience and research gaps for future research directions. All the subsections’ information is generated through a content analysis of the important papers of our dataset that is enhanced with other external sources when necessary. Many sections are supported by tables that provide an account of the reported analysis.

4.1 Types of disruptive events

There is a vast literature which names and analyses the reasons for disruptions in SCs. Selectively, some of the most relevant studies are the following: (Baryannis et al. 2019a , b ; Chopra and Sodhi 2014 ; Christopher and Peck 2004 ; Dolgui et al. 2018 ; Ivanov 2017 ; Ivanov et al. 2014a , b ; Rao and Goldsby 2009 ; Tang and Tomlin 2008 ; Thun and Hoenig 2011 ; Vilko and Hallikas 2012 ; Zsidisin et al. 2016 ) which reveal the main reasons for the disruptions’ occurrence. There are also a number of annual surveys on SC disruptions and resilience which are triggered by the Business Continuity Institute (BCI-Business Continuity Institute 2019 ) and other older surveys from Hendricks and Singhal ( 2005 , Hendricks et al. ( 2009 ).

The literature provides several ways of grouping the reasons for disruptions/glitches:

Based on the SC echelons are clustered under (a) production, (b) supply and (c) transportation disruptions (Ivanov et al. 2017 );

Based on the reason that caused the disruption, form 9 groups: (a) disasters (e.g. natural disasters, terrorism, war, etc.), (b) delays (e.g. inflexibility of supply source), (c) systems (e.g. information infrastructure breakdown), (d) forecast (e.g. inaccurate forecast, bullwhip effect, etc.), (d) intellectual property (e.g. vertical integration), (e) procurement (e.g. exchange rate risk), (f) receivables (e.g. number of customers), (g) inventory (e.g. inventory holding cost, demand and supply uncertainty, etc.) and (h) capacity (e.g. cost of capacity) (Chopra and Sodhi 2014 );

Based on their frequency of occurrence, SC risks that occur regularly are: supply risks, process risks, demand risks, intellectual property risks, behavioral risks, and political/social risks (Tang and Tomlin 2008 );

Based on their nature and their source are classified under 5 categories: (a) process risk, (b) control risk, (c) demand risk, (d) supply risk and (e) environmental risk (Christopher and Peck 2004 );

Based on who they affect, from broad to specific, disruptions are: (a) external to the SC network and are termed environmental, (b) internal to the SC network but external to the focal firm, called network or industry risks (c) internal to the firm, called organizational disruptions, (d) problem-specific and (e) decision-maker specific (Rao and Goldsby 2009 ).

Moreover, disruptive events are characterized by their type, intensity, duration (Dolgui et al. 2019 ), source and impact. Below we provide examples from the literature based on these characterizations.

The disruptive events may have an individual impact (e.g. affect only one supplier, e.g. equipment breakdown, fire etc.), a local impact for suppliers in a geographic area (e.g. labor strike triggered by new worker’s legislation of a State, etc.) or a global impact that affects all suppliers or SC echelons simultaneously. Such global events may include an economic crisis, a widespread labor strike in a transportation sector, etc. Suppliers may suffer all three types (individual, local, global) of disruption risks (Sawik 2014 ).

Natural disasters and catastrophic events are considered to have low probability, but are high impact events with significant consequences to the SC network. On the other hand, high probability and moderate impact disruptions are: unanticipated demand, rush orders, shortage in supply, company buyouts, delivery coordination and sourcing constraints (Scheibe and Blackhurst 2018 ). 589 professionals who participated in a survey in 2011 indicated that delivery chain disruptions were higher in their organizations than most other risks, but with less than average impact (Thun and Hoenig 2011 ). Aligned with the latter, the results of a Finish survey identified time delays (as opposed to financial and quality risks) as the most serious in terms of likelihood of occurrence (Vilko and Hallikas 2012 ). Earlier, Hendricks and Singhal ( 2003 ) reported that of the 14 primary SC disruption categories that were identified, parts shortages was by far the most frequent reported cause, and delivery disruptions was one of the leading causes of parts shortages. Another survey showed that infrastructural events are the cause of more than half of the disruptions (Zsidisin et al. 2016 ). The latest reports show that SC disruptions, such as cyber-attack, data breach and loss of talent/skills have become more evident since 2014. Consistently high rated causes of disruption in the 2010s include unplanned IT and telecommunication outages, as well as adverse weather, transport network disruption and outsourcer failure which have rarely dropped from the top five causes (BCI-Business Continuity Institute 2019 ).

Synthesizing the analysis of the individual papers referring to the types of disruptions, and survey papers and reports that have estimated their frequency of occurrence, in Table  1 we provide a summary of disruptive event categories, hierarchized by frequency of occurrence, from low to high. We also provide indicative references from our review database which refer to the specific category’s events.

4.2 Supply chain propagation and the ripple effect

Given the geographical diversification, the number of tiers and the nature of product failure in an echelon of the SC may not only be a local problem but a far-reaching one which affects many echelons of the SC, but most importantly the end-customer. Perturbations originating in a localized point have the potential to be passed onto subsequent tiers of a SC with possible amplification effects (Wu et al. 2007 ).

The most-known such SC amplification effect is the bullwhip effect, which is caused by changes in customer demand that can propagate through the SC, amplifying in magnitude as the change passes to adjacent tiers (Lee et al. 1997 ). However, the bullwhip effect only describes one type of demand-side disruption which is caused by order batching, promotions, shortage gaming and mainly from a lack of coordination among the SC tiers as well as the lack of information sharing and transparency. This is a problem that has been cured in recent years with the use of enterprise resource planning (ERP) software, cloud services and other online sharing means.

On the other hand, the amplification effect which is caused by any type of disruption in the SCs is called the ripple effect (Ivanov et al. 2014a , b ; Liberatore et al. 2012 ). The ripple effect describes the disruption propagation in the SC, the resulting SC structural dynamics and the performance impact of this propagation (Sokolov et al. 2016 ). Disruptions may occur upstream from interruptions in the supply-side (supplier/production failure, product quality problems, resource constraints) or downstream originated from demand-side and legal, regulatory and financial unexpected changes in the markets. An upstream example is the case of a supplier that has produced some components with harmful properties for the environment, which are supplied to the next upstream tier and further to tier-one, where the component should be suspended and recalled, resulting in delays for the whole SC of the final product (Levner and Ptuskin 2018 ).

The ripple effect describes the SC amplification and propagation effects of unpleasant events in broader terms and its consequences which may be much more severe than these of the bullwhip effect (Ivanov et al. 2017 ). The disruption frequency is usually lower, but the performance impact is higher than this of the bullwhip effect (Dolgui et al. 2018 ). The ripple effect has also been regarded with the snowball effect (Swierczek 2016 ) and domino effect (Khakzad 2015 ), which have similar definitions. However, the term ripple effect has dominated the literature and in many papers has been related with low-frequency high-consequence chains of accidents (Ivanov et al. 2017 ). Often, the ripple effect has a tremendous impact on the whole supply chain’s performance, its ability to deliver to the end-customer and ultimately to the financial survival of its network of companies (Ivanov et al. 2014a , b ; Kamalahmadi and Mellat-Parast 2016 ).

4.3 The impact of SC disruptions

Companies find it difficult to measure the effects of supply-chain disruptions and empirical evidence remains limited (Wagner and Neshat 2012 ). However, there are a few surveys and case studies that have attempted to shed some light and quantify the impact of disruptions. Additionally, there is a list of notable large scale disruptive events and their consequences (Dolgui et al. 2018 ) which are often used in the literature as outstanding examples. Indicative is the plant fire (infrastructural event) of Philips microchip in 2000 in New Mexico which caused a shortage of chips in the market. The undelivered supplies resulted in $400 million lost sales for the cellphone producer Ericsson. Similarly, in 2011 the flood in Thailand and the earthquake-tsunami in Japan (catastrophic event), where many component manufacturers are concentrated, resulted in huge losses for these companies. This also affected the reputation, earnings and shareholder returns of several international industries such as Apple, Toshiba, General Motors, etc., as companies are increasingly dependent on the supply chains’ business continuity (Chongvilaivan 2011 ). In 2016, a contact dispute (legal event) between Volkswagen and two of its parts suppliers caused a production halt in 6 of the carmaker’s German plants. Around 28,000 workers were laid off or made part-time (Dolgui et al. 2018 ).

Therefore, taking also into account the ripple effect, it is understood that disruptions cause many negative consequences to the entire SC and the individual firms involved. The relevant literature analyses a number of these consequences. Also, the accumulated knowledge from surveys of the last decade show that loss of productivity is the number one consequence followed by increased working cost, impaired service, customer complaints, loss of revenue and damage to brand reputation (BCI-Business Continuity Institute 2019 ).

In broad terms, the effect of SC disruptions may include a sales decrease and cost increase (Ponomarov and Holcomb 2009 ), from which many companies never recover (Wagner and Neshat 2012 ).

Sales decreases occur due to failure to meet end-customer demand as a result of product unavailability, partially fulfilled orders in terms of quantity and late deliveries. These lead to customer complaints, damaged image and brand reputation and loss of customers. The financial consequences then follow with lower sales, loss of revenues and reduced market share.

On the other hand, higher costs may occur (a) due to the use of alternative transportation means for product deliveries, and higher administrative costs for dealing with backorders, (b) due to premium supplier contacts for ensuring delivery of the limited resources from alternative geographical areas and firms, (c) due to production rescheduling as a consequence of stockouts of certain resources, or worse (d) due to production shutdowns (e.g. fire) and hampered productivity (e.g. labor strike, slack times in manufacturing) and lower assets and capacity utilization (Jabbarzadeh et al. 2018 ). Extra costs may incur also e) due to penalties for breaching contracts and failure to meet legal or regulatory requirements (Wagner and Neshat 2012 ). Overall the decreasing sales and increasing costs ultimately lead to loss of profitability and a decrease in the company’s value (Ivanov 2017 ). Table  2 presents this degradation process.

Empirical research has shown that SC disruptions cause on average of a 107% drop in profitability (operating income), bring about 7% lower sales growth and an 11% growth in costs (Hendricks and Singhal 2005 ).

Poor firm performance is one of the most acknowledged effects of disruptions, but its negative impact is not consistent across all types of risks (Wagner and Bode 2008 ). Empirical research has shown that if recovery is possible, it takes up to 50 trading days (e.g. restart production) (Knight and Pretty 1996 ) and lower performance is observed for a period of two years after disruptions (Hendricks and Singhal 2005 ). The non-recoverers suffer a net negative cumulative impact of almost 15% up to one year after the catastrophe. Moreover, the more frequent the occurrence of a disruption within a focal manufacturing firm, the more likely it is that plant performance, relative to its competitors, will diminish. Consequently the higher the frequency of supply disruptions, the lower the plant performance (Brandon-Jones et al. 2015 ).

Another major impact that has been extensively studied is the financial impact of disruptions. Empirical findings indicate that financial markets react more dramatically to catastrophic and restrictive regulatory events, factors that usually cannot be easily controlled or avoided by firms, as compared to supply-side reasons, where some of them may be controlled or mitigated by firms through process improvement and early identification (Zsidisin et al. 2005 ).

At first sight, these findings indicate that managers should prioritize actions for contingency plans and the mitigation of catastrophic and regulatory-related disruptions, as these seem to have the highest financial impact. Nevertheless, apart from the severity of events, another factor that managers should consider when prioritizing actions related to disruptions is the frequency of occurrence of these disruptions and their cumulative financial impact. Therefore, low-impact but frequently occurring disruptions, combined, may have a more severe impact on shareholder wealth than infrequent high-impact events. Consequently, it is not irrational for managers to prioritize actions that could mitigate low-impact, high-likelihood events and especially these, mainly supply-side disruptions, that could be prohibited through process improvements (Zsidisin et al. 2016 ), good scheduling, appropriate maintenance and training, balancing inventory and capacity across the SC, etc. It is also empirically supported that firms with more operational slack, more days of inventory (inventory on hand) and a smaller sales over assets ratio (unutilized capacity), experience a less negative stock market reaction when disruptions occur, as slack provides resources and the required flexibility to handle disruptions (Hendricks et al. 2009 ).

Nonetheless, comparative surveys (Hendricks and Singhal 2003 ; Zsidisin et al. 2016 ) show that disruptions have a less detrimental impact to firm financial performance than in the past. The investigation of the impact to the firms’ stock price of SC glitches’ announcements (> 500) showed a dramatic fall that has smoothed throughout the years. Specifically, the effect of a SC disruption announcement (resulting in a production or shipment delay) on shareholder value meant an average reduction of above 10% on the stock market in the 90s (Hendricks and Singhal 2003 ), which has reduced to 2% in the 2000s (Zsidisin et al. 2016 ) probably due to an increased awareness and mitigation actions regarding disruptions and fast recovery (Wagner and Neshat 2012 ). Albeit the considerable advancements that have been achieved, disruptions now occur in greater frequency and intensity, therefore the consequences are still, in many cases, dramatic (Wagner and Neshat 2012 ). Realizing this negative impact, businesses are recognizing the importance and are attempting to create and be part of more resilient SCs (Jabbarzadeh et al. 2018 ).

4.4 Resilience methods and recovery strategies

To successfully recover from a SC disruption, a firm needs to activate effective methods (Blackhurst et al. 2005 ). According to the literature, managers need to respond to such incidents by following three identified stages of response: first detecting the volume of disruption, then designing or selecting a predesigned recovery method to tackle the disruption and finally deploying the solution (Chopra and Sodhi 2014 ). Several literature reviews have described the stages, methods and techniques of firm reaction and recovery after a disruption (Dolgui et al. 2018 ; DuHadway et al. 2019 ; Ivanov 2020b ; Ivanov et al. 2017 ; Sawik 2019 ).

According to the literature (Chowdhury and Quaddus 2017 ; Dolgui et al. 2018 ) resistance (proactive approach) and recovery (reactive approach) are included in the resilience concept. A firm needs to maintain redundancy (high safety-stock, additional production capacity) and flexibility (alternative suppliers for sourcing, alternative transportation depots and modes for delivery) to resist against disruptions and use them effectively to reduce their impact. Likewise, the recovery stage incorporates some of the same tactics as the resistance approach, such as the use of backup suppliers for sourcing, the use of the buffer stock for satisfying customer orders and redundant capacity for continuing the production (Ivanov et al. 2017 ).

Other important mitigation strategies for disruptive events focus on better demand forecasting (Scheibe and Blackhurst 2018 ), better coordination amongst the SC echelons before and after the disruption with the use of information-sharing (Dubey et al. 2019a b c ), joint relationship efforts, and decision synchronization (Nakano and Lau 2020 ) by deploying supply chain management software (such as warehouse and transport management systems and vendor managed inventories) connected to the ERP and business intelligence software add-ons (Brusset and Teller 2017 ).

However, surveys show that firms address disruptions most commonly with increased safety-stock, dual or multi-sourcing, and better forecasting. Although they consider coordination between the SC nodes very significant to recover from disruptions, in reality they act in isolation and their visibility of the SC extends only to one tier above and one tier below (Scheibe and Blackhurst 2018 ). Low collaboration and responsiveness has emerged as a great vulnerability (Pettit et al. 2013 ). Real-time supply-chain reconfiguration software could enhance responsiveness against specific situations (Blackhurst et al. 2005 ) and improve coordination and decision-making by recomputing, for example, optimal routes and facility selection to maximize demand fulfillment and minimize penalties and delay costs due to the disruption (Banomyong et al. 2019 ).

A representative example of the backup sourcing recovery option is the incident concerning the fire at the Philips microchip plant in Albuquerque. Ericson experienced a production shutdown because its materials were sourced only from that plant while Nokia took advantage of its emergency backup sourcing strategy to obtain chips from other suppliers (Chen and Yang 2014 ). A resilient design of a SC that promotes flexibility is described through the BASF example. BASF built a resilient SC with safety and risk prevention measures that included globally valid guidelines and requirements for capacity and security trainings for staff. In 2016 a pipeline at BASF facility in Germany exploded and destroyed a terminal for the supply of raw materials, limiting the access to key raw materials and product inventories. During this time, logistics was temporarily shifted from ships and pipelines to trucks and trains. BASF was prepared for an incident and was in close contact with its customers to keep them informed about the current availability of products to minimize the impact on customer deliveries, which resulted in smaller than expected economic consequences from the accident (Dolgui et al. 2018 ). Another example of flexibility importance is the case of the 2015 Nepal earthquake in which humanitarian organizations offering aid to locals were met with great disruptions (delays) in relief delivery. They identified the significance of developing a flexible network with the most influential factors being IT support, fleets’ (re)scheduling, and relief packages’ volume (Baharmand et al. 2019 ).

Firms belonging to specific SCs can utilize practical assessment tools from the literature that were developed to measure their own SC resiliece (Chowdhury and Quaddus 2017 ; Pettit et al. 2013 ). This is a first step to ackowledge their readiness to resist and respond to disruptions and understand where they should make efforts to improve.

4.5 Popular modeling approaches

4.5.1 modeling approaches for sc disruptions.

Mitigation and recovery are very important procedures and the adoption of these “recovery strategies” include processes based on quantitative methods (Ivanov et al. 2014a , b ), which usually evaluate the effectiveness of each strategy prior to its implementation. Quantitative analysis methods for anticipating operational and disruption SC risks mainly include mathematical optimization, simulation, and control theory to control risk, respond and stabilize the execution process in case of disruptions and to recover or minimize the middle-term and long-term impact of deviations (Ivanov et al. 2017 ). Mathematical optimization offers optimal solutions by using algorithmic models; simulations are models that provide the “what if’ scenarios” and control theory provides additional analytical tools often used to analyze system dynamic performances over time (Yang and Fan 2016 ).

More specifically, optimization models offer analytical solutions which determine the impact of disruptions and identify resilient SC policies. Such models can incorporate a large variety of parameters and objectives (e.g. minimization of disruption cost). Mixed-integer programming (MIP) is a category of optimization problems that has been repeatedly used to model SC disruptions (Ivanov et al. 2017 ). However, a major limitation of optimization models is that they cannot capture the dynamic nature of SCs (e.g. disruptions are modeled as static events, without considering their duration or erratic impact) and therefore make a high number of assumptions (e.g. known demand, suppliers’ reliability, etc.). On the other hand, stochastic programming modeling allows for the insertion of some uncertainty through probability distributions depicting disruption event scenarios and leads to optimal solutions by taking into account multiple objective functions (Sawik 2014 ). Stochastic programming models incorporate a set of discrete scenarios with a given probability of occurrence. The probability distributions may describe demand uncertainly, disruption impact uncertainly, costs uncertainty for applying response and recovery strategies, etc. Stochastic programming techniques have also been used to model disruptions in SC, however, the scenario-based approach of stochastic programming modelling exponentially increases the number of variables and constraints and makes these models difficult to implement and run.

Simulation methods are more flexible than stochastic optimization models as they are used to replicate system behavior and allow for a dynamic approach of randomness in disruption and recovery policies, as well as they incorporate and handle more complexity (more probabilistic scenarios for more variables simultaneously), incorporate the time dimension and even offer real-time analysis, and multiple results under each what-if scenario. Simulation can also be applied to enhance the optimization results or be used as a simulation-based optimization technique. Simulation techniques such as discrete-event simulation, system dynamics, agent-based modeling, optimization-based simulation and graph theory-based simulation have been applied to describe and model the impact of the ripple effect in SC disruptions (Ivanov et al. 2017 ) among other things.

Control theory has also the analytical ability to execute SCs over time and is used to analyze eventual system dynamic performances. The development of control models is usually related to specific operational risks which constitute the key control metrics (such as, demand fluctuation, degree of information sharing, speed of convergence) for quantifying disruption recovery performance (Ivanov and Sokolov 2019 ; Yang and Fan 2016 ).

Another technique which is apparent in the analysis of SC disruptions is graph theory (e.g. Bayesian network, decision trees) which, through mathematical structures, describes the interrelationships of the SC and based on the predictions and decision scenarios model pairwise relations between entities (Hosseini and Ivanov 2019 ). Finally, game theory (e.g. Stackelberg game) is another type of mathematical modeling which focuses on the strategic interaction among rational decision-makers and, given the order of decisions from decision-makers, certain scenarios are deployed about their reactions in SC disruptions.

Needless to say, inventory theory is dominantly used for modeling SC disruptions. It incorporates popular inventory models (deterministic or stochastic optimization models), such as economic order quantity models and periodic review models which determine safety stock, optimal ordering and production quantities during the design of resilient SCs and the recovery period to minimize total costs, capturing the trade-offs between inventory policies and disruption risks. These models can be two-echelon or multi-echelon models based on the length of the SC.

In the examined articles, we have identified that most papers use optimization methods, followed by papers that apply simulation techniques. There are also studies that present statistical analysis of database data or survey, e.g. (Brusset and Teller 2017 ) or that use graph theory, e.g. (Nakatani et al. 2018 ) and game theory, e.g. (Fang and Shou 2015 ). From the optimization methods notable is the use of stochastic programing e.g. (Snoeck et al. 2019 ), mixed-integer programming, e.g. (Amini and Li 2011 ) and multi-objective programing e.g. (Teimuory et al. 2013 ). The simulation methods used are discrete-event simulation, e.g. (Ivanov et al. 2017 ), system dynamics, e.g. (Kochan et al. 2018 ) and agent-based modeling, e.g. (Hou et al. 2018 ). Looking into our article pool, the papers that have developed quantitative analysis methods model resilience, response and recovery strategies. (Appendix Table  5 shows 10 indicative papers as examples of the variety of quantitative methods used in the relevant literature with a brief explanation of the model’s purpose.)

Quantitative techniques offer a great range of analysis which varies from solving single, simple problems to very complex and interrelated ones. The latter more precisely describes the need of SC modeling. Operations and supply chain managers can choose from the available quantitative tools for different application areas of SC disruptions and determine an optimal or near optimal solution.

4.5.2 Modeling approaches for the ripple effect

Special attention is given in the most recent literature (after 2014) with regards to the ripple effect and the ways to manage it/reduce it through tactics that are tested in quantitative models. From a search in the Web of Science database regarding the literature on the ripple effect of SCs (keywords: “ripple effect” and “supply chain”), 31 journal papers have been identified, 18 of which are published in the IJPR, 3 in the International Journal of Production Economics (IJPE) and the remaining 10 each in different journals. Prof Ivanov is the author in 21 of these, establishing the ripple-effect as a scientific topic in the area of SC disruption management, by using an analogy to computer science where ripple effect determines the disruption-based scope of changes in the system (Ivanov et al. 2014a , b ).

Α thorough analysis of the ripple effect in SCs is given in a review paper (Ivanov et al. 2014a , b ) and its follow-up (Dolgui et al. 2018 ) which provides a framework for the reasons of the ripple effect (sourcing strategy, production planning, inventory management, and control), presents its quantitative modelling approaches (including mixed-integer programming, simulation, control theory, complexity and reliability theory) and provides an analytic count down of future research avenues. Adding to the latter an overview paper demonstrates the positive impact of technology (big data analytics, 3D printing, blockchain, etc.) on the ripple effect mitigation (Ivanov et al. 2019 ). Attention is also drawn to case studies. For example a highly cited paper published in IJPE (Koh et al. 2012 ), assesses impact of actions for greening the SC and the triggering of the ripple effect and another one based on the analysis of the 2009 Italian earthquake uses MIP to model protection plans of regional disruptions by identifying which facilities to protect first (Liberatore et al. 2012 ).

The majority of the remaining papers in the literature on ripple effect are focused on modelling the phenomenon, which requires the inclusiosn of many SC echelons and thus more complex processes in the model, and exploring mitigation tactics. This is done by the use of mathematical models e.g. (Hosseini and Ivanov 2019 ; Ivanov et al. 2015 ; Ivanov et al. 2013 ; Kinra et al. 2019 ; Pavlov et al. 2019 ; Sokolov et al. 2016 ) or by simulation techniques which are frequently used to present the ripple effect phenomenon (Dolgui et al. 2019 ; Hosseini et al. 2019b ; Ivanov 2017 ; Ivanov et al. 2016a , b ). (Appendix Table  6 gives an overview and a categorization of the main papers focusing on the phenonmenon and their contribution).

Research on papers that focus on the ripple effect is dominated by the performance analysis of disruptions probabilities, especially for supplier failure. There is an urge for studies to explore other characteristics too by applying new modelling approaches with real company data and visualization techniques (Dolgui et al. 2018 ; Kinra et al. 2019 ). Forward and backward propagation analysis with the use of Bayesian networks and inclusion of the dynamic recovery time and cost by applying multi-objective stochastic optimization and agent-based models are some of the approaches that can be tried out (Hosseini et al. 2019a ).

4.6 Cost–benefit analysis of supply chain resilience

Since disruption implies serious commercial costs, the mechanisms for resilience, response and recovery are of vital importance to all SC echelons. An approach to reducing the costs of disturbance events is to highly motivate the managers to implement risk mitigation programs in the firm and engage in knowledge development activities (Cantor et al. 2014 ). Therefore, SCs should be protected in anticipation of disruptions by means of mitigation actions such as having safety stock, capacity reservations, backup sources and other methods, which nevertheless raise the level of management complexity and end-up being costly solutions themselves, especially if no disruption happens (Ivanov et al. 2019 ). So, resilient SC designs result in costly systems, which could negatively influence SC’s financial performance. To overcome the resulted costs, an efficient combination of resilient elements must be implemented, such as structural variety and complexity reduction, process and resource utilization flexibility and non-expensive parametric redundancy together with decision-support systems for SCs (Ivanov et al. 2019 ). Nevertheless, researchers have come to the conclusion that the cost for building resilience by using slack resources and visibility is smaller than the cost of SC disruptions (Jabbarzadeh et al. 2018 ).

Unfortunately, cost–benefit analysis (CBA) is not common in studies that present SC control models (Ivanov et al. 2019 ). The beneficial portion of the CBA can be modelled via the reduction of the disruption risk by a given percentage or its incurring costs, the shortening of the period of the disruption impact or via sustaining the service level (Namdar et al. 2018 ). On the other hand, although the cost of risk mitigation is considered visible (e.g. performance measures include fixed and variable costs, disruption costs, recovery cost), its accurate calculation is made difficult by the fact that recovery costs are generated by the adoption of a combination of proactive and reactive policies while cost analysis can also be extended to the operative losses and long-term future impact of deviation and recovery (Ivanov et al. 2017 ).

Nevertheless, there are many studies in the literature that, in their modeling approach, incorporate in the objective function the cost element and then by running what-if scenarios can measure the impact of certain policies and the overall benefit. For example, a study (Mori et al. 2014 ) developed a risk simulator for a multi-tier supply chain to evaluate the cost of retailer’s decentralized ordering and the effect of risk mitigation, identifying the cost–benefit relationship. Another study used a MIP which enables what-if analyses of cost and performance trade-off options in the SC (Das and Lashkari 2015 ).

Therefore, the use of quantitative models are viable methods for testing ways of minimizing costs of disruptions and contributing to the responsiveness and flexibility of the entire SC. Another identified way is for companies to choose to invest in social responsibility in order to balance disruption costs and resilience planning. Even though investment in corporate social responsibility activities could bring more cost to the company, it is also capable of increasing profit and reducing risk by decreasing production inefficiencies and increasing sales, access to capital and new markets (Cruz 2009 ). In line with this, it is the firm’s investment in good communication infrastructure, with the help of professionally qualified marketing agencies, that help problems with demand risks (e.g. demand decline) be mitigated (Diabat et al. 2012 ) or the implementation of pre-disaster/pre-disruption defense measures, such as insurance purchasing (Song and Du 2017 ). In any of these cases top management commitment is essential for building robust SC connectivity and information sharing systems to accomplish efficient SC integration (Shibin et al. 2017 )

4.7 Popular IT tools for resilience and response to disruptions

Modeling methods paired together with digitization enabled the development of tools that have led to many interesting applications for aiding SCs in general and SC resilience and real-time response to disruptions in specific. Many papers in our database offer very interesting overviews of digital technologies and their impact in mitigating disruption risks in the SC.

Computerized planning systems tools, such as materials requirements planning, manufacturing resource planning and enterprise resource planning (ERP) were the first software to help with the scheduling of operations and timely rescheduling in the case of disruptions and the retrieval of enterprise data from a single access point for informed decision-making (Baryannis et al. 2019a , b ), especially in cases of emergency interventions. Moreover, flexible manufacturing systems with sensors and advanced robots for more precise, reliable and easily adaptable production processes; automated guided vehicles and automated tracking and tracing technologies for safe, accurate and fast fulfillment of orders from wholesalers; radio frequency identification (RFID) for inventory control; geographic positioning systems (GPS) for timely and less costly distribution of goods are all technologies that have highly been adopted in the last decades and have greatly aided the SCs and reduced their response time, especially with their real-time capabilities for fast implementation of contingency plans (Blackhurst et al. 2005 ).

Then, the Internet of Things (IoT) have taken these technologies a step forward. The IOT is a dynamic network infrastructure with self-configuring capabilities of interoperable physical devices (Things), such as wireless sensors, smart devices, RFID chips, GPS, which can monitor, report and exchange data using intelligent interfaces seamlessly integrated into the information (Wi-Fi or data) network (Kranenburg 2008 ). The IOT can effectively track and authenticate products and shipments and inform on the location of goods, their storage condition and their time of arrival. Enhanced with augmented reality, which adds digital elements to a live view by using a camera, the IOT combines the real with the virtual world. A few examples of the uses of augmented reality in SCs are: the easier navigation of workers or tracing systems in the warehouse with the help of a graphic overlay of the space and its products, the reduction in the searching time of courier drivers for a box in the truck for the next delivery with a graphic overlay of the initial loading of products in the truck, informing the customers in real-time about prices and stock availability of items on the shelves by incorporating virtual labels viewable from smartphone cameras or google glasses. Like this, IoT and augmented reality technologies offer SC visibility and traceability, sending early warnings of internal and external disruptions that require attention, reducing uncertainty and enhancing effective internal operations and collaboration among all SC players (Ben-Daya, Hassini, & Bahroun, 2019 ).

Moreover, Industry 4.0, 3D printing, big data analytics (BDA), as well as blockchain also constitute tools of the new era that quickly find their way into the business world.

With the help of the IOT, Industry 4.0 is the smart factory of cyber-physical systems, like internet-connected workstations, conveyors and robotics, which autonomously control and monitor the route of products in the assembly line offering customized configuration (Katsaliaki and Mustafee 2019 ). Hence, Industry 4.0 enables the production of customized goods at the cost of mass production, with shorter lead times and better capacity utilization. Cost risks are minimized while higher market flexibility and responsiveness to customers is offered with customized products and risk diversification (Ivanov et al. 2019 ). On the other hand, 3D printing (additive manufacturing) builds a 3D object from a computer-aided design model by sequentially adding material layer by layer. This method of production, which progressively broadens the range of products it offers, constitutes a disruptive technology to the traditional SC configuration as products can be manufactured to SC echelons closer to the customer and even at the retailer’s site. The shorter lead times and the reduction in demand risks as manufacturing comes closer to the customer are the main contributions made by this technology (Ivanov et al. 2019 ) to aid in the reduction of disruptions.

With recent revolutions in technology, data is generated much quicker from different sources and technologies are in place capable for their storage, categorization and analysis. Statistical analysis and reliability become stronger with the increased data volume and the high number of factors for analysis. Therefore, predictive methods have better explanatory power (Gunasekaran et al. 2016 ) and together with machine learning algorithms, artificial intelligence (AI) that allows computers to evolve behaviors based on empirical data (Chen and Zhang 2014 ) offer answers to demanding questions and what-if scenarios through prescriptive analytics. Big data analytics and machine learning methods came to the foreground as enablers of value creation from massive data, offering new competitive advantages to companies (Chen et al. 2012 ). They have increased SC data visibility and data transparency and can reduce information disruption risks and behavioral uncertainty as well as demand risks through predictability (Baryannis et al. 2019a , b ; Brintrup et al. 2019 ); all of which are positively linked to SC resilience.

Blockchain technology is a distributed database of records or shared public/private ledgers of all digital events that have been executed and shared among participating blockchain agents (Crosby et al. 2016 ). Blockchains can be considered a disruptive technology for the general management of SCs, specifically in the field of suppliers’ contracts. Distributed contract collaboration platforms using blockchain technology could guarantee the traceability and authenticity of information, along with smart contracts (computer protocols which digitally verify or enforce the agreed terms between the members of a contract without third parties’ involvement). These transactions are trackable and irreversible and validate transactions (Saberi et al. 2019 ). This brings a new era in SCs and a remedy to fraudulent acts and security risks (Wang et al. 2019 ).

Especially for the ripple effect, information technology can have a very positive mitigation influence. RFID technology can offer feedback control and SC event management systems can communicate disruptions to the other SC tiers and assist in revising and adapting schedules. For example, Resilience360 at DHL is a cloud-based analytics platform for managing disruption risks by mapping end-to-end SC partners, building risk profiles, identifying critical hotspots in order to initiate mitigation actions and alert in near-real time mode about events that could possibly disrupt the SC (Dolgui et al. 2018 ).

4.8 Future research agenda

Following a content analysis of selective papers on SC disruptions, future directions have been identified which we hope will inspire new scholars to establish their research agenda in this field. The selection of the research topics was made primarily on the grounds of managerial applicability without diminishing the importance of theory advancements. The great majority of the papers include a shorter or longer future research section but, in many cases, this is targeted to the advancement of their modelling technique, of their data collection approach, or the hypothesis testing which are out of the scope of this study’s agenda. Below we take a practical approach of the field and we try to map research on SC disruptions especially with regards to the use of new tools and resilience approaches. There is a list of 34 research directions organized in seven themes. These relate to research about (a) effective resilience strategies, (b) SC disruptions in specific sectors, (c) a special focus on human resources management (HRM) and behavioral analysis, (d) modelling approaches with an emphasis on the ripple effect, e) combination of modeling approaches with new information technologies (IT), f) research about the implementation of these new IT/digital technologies and g) research driven by the recent enormous disruptions due to the COVID19 pandemic. It is notable that about 1/3rd of these topics are related to the use of digital technologies which greatly enhance modeling capabilities and decision-making to tackle and resist SC disruptions. Each research direction begins with a short title in bold, depicting its aim and its methodology approach.

4.9 Resilience strategies

Resilience Strategies—Multi-method (modelling, survey) Which strategy or combination of strategies: redundancy (excess inventory, spare capacity, multiple sourcing), flexibility (flexible production systems and distribution channels, multi-skilled workforce), collaborative planning (information-sharing, joint relationship efforts, decision synchronization), contingency planning (back-up suppliers-transportation modes) is most effective for building resilient SCs to disruption risks? (Centobelli et al. 2019 )

Resilience Strategies—Survey, case study Is it true that SCs that adopt a flexibility strategy utilize a higher degree of information sharing and collaboration through higher ICT utilization in comparison to adopting a redundant strategy? Is it true that redundant strategies are more expensive to implement (need more capital and operating cost) than flexibility strategies? (Nakano & Lau, 2020 ).

Resilience Strategies—Survey What is the effect and relative importance of specific disruptions (such as, ineffective suppliers’ management, lack of information sharing and risk assessment) so managers can prioritize the allocation of resources to tackle them? (Centobelli et al. 2019 ).

Risk metrics—Survey What are the most effective, as opposed to the most used SC risk metrics (performance measurement system), among recovery time, safety stock, customer service level, total cost and others, for managers to focus on and under which circumstances (e.g. ripple effect)? (Dolgui et al. 2018 ).

4.10 Certain sectors of SC disruptions’ application areas

Military—Mixed methods Exploring effective disaster resilience approaches for the military (Centobelli et al. 2019 ).

Perishable products—Modelling Modelling disruptions in the SC of perishable products and their limited resilience strategies as redundancy strategies may not be an option (freshness, write-offs) but others may be, such as customer segmentation by requirements for freshness and product batching (Dolgui et al. 2018 ).

Food—Mixed methods Analysis of the use of the IoT and other recent technologies for preventing avoidable food waste generation, food safety and efficiency throughout the food SC (Ben-Daya et al. 2019 ).

Information Systems disruptions—Mixed methods Research on disruptions in the information systems and the networked cloud-based digital SC environment (Dolgui et al. 2018 ).

Reverse logistics—Modelling Studying the disruptions that take place in the reverse logistics flows of SCs (e.g. unavailability/limited space in the warehouse that stores the collected recyclable materials) for analyzing their impact to the overall SC performance and identifying effective response and mitigation strategies (Dolgui et al. 2018 ).

Humanitarian aid—Modelling Analysis of the fair allocation of the limited resources in situations of severe regional disasters which usually simultaneously lead to humanitarian emergency and industrial crisis, in order to balance human life rescue, everyday life and the recovery of the industrial sector (Dolgui et al. 2018 ).

Behavioral analysis—Modelling Employing agent-based simulation to model managerial decisions subject to individual risk perceptions, such as collaboration issues (trust and information sharing) and SC risk management culture (leadership and risk-averse behavior) (Dolgui et al. 2018 ).

Behavioral analysis—Mixed methods Analysis of the patterns of human behavior when managers are faced with real data or the dashboards of big data and visualization/cognitive computing approaches (that their development mechanisms may or may not be trusted) and the nature of their governance and decision-making, especially when related decision refer to disasters causing humanitarian crises (de Oliveira and Handfield, 2019 ).

Training—Survey Analyzing ways that offer successful training to company staff in the related departments to effectively cope with SC disruptions, which create a stressful environment and require preparedness (Dolgui et al. 2018 ).

4.12 Modelling methods about SC disruptions

Ripple effect—Multiple models Modelling SC disruptions by considering the dynamic recovery time/cost. More modelling approaches are needed for capturing the disruption propagation and SC design survivability and for evaluating recovery policies and their implementation (Dolgui et al. 2018 ).

Ripple effect—Stochastic modelling Development of two-stage stochastic models with the first-stage objective function to minimize the traditional SC cost (procurement, supplier evaluation, transportation costs) and the second-stage objective function to measure the SC resilience under all possible disruption scenarios (Hosseini et al. 2019a ).

Ripple effect—Model validation Practical validation of the simulation and optimization models for preventing and mitigating the ripple effect in the SC with real company data, such as coordinated contingency plans (Dolgui et al. 2018 ).

Ripple effect—Model visualization Adding visualizing features to the simulation models of the ripple effect (Dolgui et al. 2018 ).

Ripple effect—Bayesian Networks Forward and backward propagation analysis using Bayesian Networks (a unique capability of this method) by entering any number of disruption observations to analyze the ripple effect in complex supply networks with a large number of nodes and links (Hosseini et al. 2019a ).

Resilience Vs Sustainability—Multi-objective stochastic optimization Developing multi-objective stochastic optimization models capable of making trade-offs between resilience (that requires capacity buffer, surplus inventory, multiple sourcing) and sustainability decisions (which on the contrary requires less redundancy) (Hosseini et al. 2019a ).

Large supply networks—Modelling Toolbox Development of a common language to facilitate the development of reference models for supply networks with a standardized toolbox of supply network representations and identification of suitable methods for analyzing risks in complex supply networks (Bier et al. 2019 ) and will accelerate comprehension and execution.

4.13 Hybrid models combined with IT

Predicting SC disruptions—Prediction and machine learning algorithms Development of prediction models and adaptation of SC disruptions management practices with the use of prediction algorithms and machine learning techniques such as unsupervised learning algorithms which can be used to mine SC data, identify patterns related to certain risks and be trained to recognize risk patterns and their incurring probability (Baryannis et al. 2019a , b ).

Risk management practices—Mathematical programming, Multi agent systems, Semantic reasoning, Machine learning techniques and BDA Development of hybrid models to analyze risk management practices by combining mathematical programming (effective in modelling highly complex systems for SC risk avoidance and mitigation), with agent-based approaches, BDA and machine learning techniques (capable of automated decision-making by creating automated rule-based reasoning and learning and handling of big and variable data) in order to select an appropriate response strategy (Baryannis et al. 2019a , b ; Hosseini et al. 2019a ).

Digital SC twin—Simulation, optimization and BDA Analysis of the combination of simulation, optimization and data analytics to create a digital SC twin – a model that represents the state of the network in real-time (Ivanov et al. 2019 ) offering end-to-end SC visibility when all players are included. A disruption in a SC echelon can be reported by a risk data monitoring tool and transmitted to the simulation model. The simulation model in the digital twin can measure disruption propagation and impact, test recovery policies and adapt the contingency plans based on the situation (e.g. considering back-up routes on-the-spot) (Hosseini et al. 2019a ; Ivanov et al. 2019 ).

IoT – Modelling Modelling SC problems (procurement, production planning, inventory management, quality, maintenance) in an IoT environment. Decision-making in an IoT context requires new tools and models to exploit the new environment, such as big data generated from sensors and connected things (Ben-Daya et al. 2019 ).

Resilience strategies—BDA and AI Analysis of how BDA and AI techniques can help with SC disruptions and the mechanics for achieving it. For example in global SCs where sales volumes and product variability are high and disperse, the analysis of SC big data (sales, buying behavior, product inventory, transportation channels, distribution frequency and production rates) can reduce demand uncertainty and sensor data in distribution centers which can mitigate logistics risks and increase visibility and trust among suppliers (Baryannis et al. 2019a , b ). Some evidence also exists (Griffith et al. 2019 ) that the BDA and AI technologies can assist visibility (e.g. with open-source imagery tools and analytic mapping tools) in disaster relief chains and humanitarian logistics but how this can be done is a question that requires further investigation (Dubey et al. 2019a b c ).

Identification of suppliers based on proximity—machine learning algorithm Development of a learning algorithm to deduce location-based relationships of suppliers by identifying the localization of suppliers from public data sources (Brintrup et al. 2019 ).

Large supply chain networks—BDA Analysis of large-scale complex supply networks and their risks (as in their majority researchers illustrate their contributions using small cases) with the use of current digital technologies which facilitate collection of big data from across the SC. Having such test datasets of realistic size and complexity for SCs would result in more empirical insights (Bier et al. 2019 ).

4.14 Digital technologies

Blockchain—Survey, case study Testing the hypothesis that implementing blockchain technology in SCs decreases opportunistic behavior of SC players like subtle violation of agreements and concealing of critical information due to the transparency, security, and auditability that the technology promotes (Saberi et al. 2019 ).

Blockchain—Survey, case study Supply chain governance structure characteristics need to be evaluated for effectiveness in understanding blockchain-based SCs where no central authority is responsible for information management and validation. Analysis is required regarding who and what governs transactions, rules, and policies. Will operational relationships improve their outcome due to the features of blockchain technology, which do not require strategic formal coordination (Saberi et al. 2019 )?

IoT—Survey, case study Provision of guidance for IoT adoption from companies as to which process and where in the SC they should deploy IoT, given that SC partners may be at different stages of the IoT implementation (Ben-Daya et al. 2019 ).

4.15 Disease outbreaks/pandemics/COVID19

Pandemic—Mixed Methods Measuring how the Covid-19 or other pandemics affect firms, employees, consumers, and markets for formulating effective policy responses to the challenges posed by the crisis (Hassan et al. 2020 ).

Pandemic—Modelling Development of a contingency plan framework with operating policies for specific SCs deriving from the analysis of modeling techniques that simulate disease breakouts, as unlike other disruption risks, epidemic outbreaks start small but spread fast and disperse over many geographic regions creating increased uncertainty (Ivanov 2020a ). A special case are products with high demand during disease outbreaks such as medical face masks, sanitizers, etc. Evaluation of the SC behaviors of adaptation, digitalization, preparedness, recovery, ripple effect, and sustainability during and after pandemics (Queiroz et al. 2020 ).

Pandemic—Modelling, case study How do changing regulations due to the pandemic (lockdowns, changing working patterns, etc.) impact productivity throughout the supply chain? How do dark (fully automated) warehouses and other operational solutions for contactless or zero interaction among employees or employees with customers impact firms’ performance, employees’ work environments and customer experience? (Mollenkopf et al. 2020 )

Pandemic/digital technologies—Modelling, case study Investigation of the utilization of digital technologies, such as digital SC twins, omnichannel, additive and digital manufacturing, to support decision-making in long-term disruptions caused by pandemic outbreaks (Ivanov and Dolgui 2020 ).

5 Discussion

In this study, we aimed to present an overview of the literature in order to provide a picture of SC disturbances and resilience methods. We first mapped all relevant studies and provided a profile of the popular articles. The second part of the paper, through content analysis, presented the knowledge offered in selected articles in a comprehensive and narrative way. Both methods concluded in a synthesis of knowledge about SC disruptions and resilience methods which we believe are useful to researchers and managers alike.

5.1 Research implications

Our study has numerous implications for researchers. First, it provides a useful introduction to the field through the profiling study which focuses on the key literature. It shows that publications about SC disruptions started appearing after 2004 but the field has matured fast and in these 15-20 years is populated by many studies which explain and evaluate the impact of the adoption of certain response strategies to SC disruptions and risks. However, this is not to say that the field has been over-researched but on the contrary it has become as hot as ever due to the recent pandemic of COVID19 and the enormous disruptions that has caused to the whole world. Therefore, more research is required for specific and new types of disruptions but also in general for all types as innovative ways of building resilience are created by utilizing modelling techniques and new digital technologies. Two popular review studies on SC disruptions and risks are (Kleindorfer and Saad 2005 ; Tang 2006 ) and two more trending papers deal with Industry 4.0 (Ivanov et al. 2019 ) and blockchain (Saberi et al. 2019 ).

As SC disruptions occur in greater frequency and intensity (Zsidisin et al. 2016 ), we hierarchized them based on the literature by type, impact and occurrence, starting from the catastrophic events of low frequency and high impact and concluding with the infrastructural events of high occurrence but lower impact. Although the urge so far has been to research high occurrence but lower impact SC disruptions which cumulative cause a nonnegligible and continuous problem to SCs (Zsidisin et al. 2016 ), the new unforeseen pandemic seems to rush research towards the other direction as already in 2020 a number of papers have been published in the particular topic, e.g.(Ivanov 2020a ; Queiroz et al. 2020 ). Our study also examined the growing research on the ripple/snowball effect of perturbations originating in a localized point which amplifies consequences for the downstream SC echelons, as opposed to the bullwhip effect which impacts the SC upstream. The realizations of the ripple effect consequences is another reason for more research in SC disruptions with models that take into considerations many echelons across the SC.

Moreover, the study presents an analysis supported with examples of quantitative approaches which were used to model the SCs based on risk factors, their impacts, mitigation tactics’ costs and benefits and what-if scenarios for testing certain strategies (Das and Lashkari 2015 ). Optimization is the mathematical method most often used for this purpose (stochastic programing, mixed-integer programing, multi-objective programing) followed by simulation techniques (system dynamics, discrete-event simulation, agent-based model and Monte-Carlo simulations) that can handle more uncertainty and complexity. Statistical analysis, graph theory and game theory are also among the modeling methods that are distinguished in the papers of our review. Many models incorporate a function of cost to measure the impact of disruptions and provide a cost–benefit analysis of mitigation or resilience actions.

There is also an attempt to benefit, with regards to data promptness and accuracy, from the operability with new digital solutions (e.g. IOT, BDA, machine learning) to build real-time reconfigurable SC models based on the incurring disruption and knowledge that has been accumulated from past reactions. These trends call for new principles and models to support SCM and populate the future research agenda. Such promising methods for dynamic supply-chain models are Agent-based models, which are configurable distributed software components that continually realign goals and processes (Blackhurst et al. 2005 ). In the research agenda of SC disruptions and the ripple effect, notable is the call for the development of quantitative decision-making models coupled with the new digital technologies’ capabilities including blockchain contracts. Another area is the behavioral analysis of managers who interpret the automated generated knowledge and the importance of receiving training for tackling SC disruptions and increasing the level of preparedness. The study offers a long list of topics in the field that require immediate investigation from interested researchers. While the research dealing with disease outbreaks from the humanitarian logistics aspect provides a substantial body of knowledge, e.g. (Banomyong et al. 2019 ; Dubey et al. 2019a b c ), the literature on analyzing the impact of pandemics from a business point of view is still limited (Ivanov 2020a ) but growing fast. Therefore a special focus is required with regards to SC disruptions caused due to pandemics, such as COVID19. New and fast changing regulations for lockdowns, transport guidelines and employees’ working conditions call for urgent understanding and evaluation of their effect in the SCs and identification of appropriate ways to react and adapt with the minimum possible distraction.

5.2 Managerial implications

The review part of this study has also identified several interesting points with managerial applicability.

The literature brings up several recovery and resilient strategies and methods that firms choose to adopt either in isolation or in coordination with the other SC echelons. The aim should be to build resilience to reduce or avoid disruptions (Hosseini et al. 2019a ). Popular resilience strategies are redundancy building through safety stock, capacity reservations and multiple sourcing but more effective is considered the flexibility acquisition strategy through alternative suppliers, contingency plans and the adoption of ICT for information access, tracing, monitoring, warning, reporting and prediction of SC risk for fast response and rescheduling of operations (Centobelli et al. 2019 ). Moreover, information-sharing, collaborative communication with the other SC echelons, joint relationship efforts from the product/service design until its delivery and the reverse logistics flow and decision synchronization utilizing ICT capabilities (Nakano and Lau 2020 ) are all cost-effective ways for building resilience to SC disruptions and minimizing the occurrences and the duration of man-made disruptions.

Digital technologies have also played a crucial role, maybe the most important of all, in the improvement of SC performance enabling new capabilities of real-time reconfigurations and fast response and implementation of emergency plans in cases of disruptions. While the individual contributors (e.g. robots, sensors, RFID, agents, modular factories, etc.) are not new, they are becoming more approachable and companies more receptive to using them to stay competitive. More recent technologies, such as the IOT, augmented reality, Industry 4.0, 3D printing, BDA, artificial intelligence and blockchain are all examples of tools that are progressively changing the way SCs are organized. The level of accuracy, transparency, traceability and flexibility is immensely growing, transforming SCs to systems which continuously evolve and can be reconfigured on demand. Involvement of such technologies, which are often characterized as disruptive to the traditional SC model, have the potential to shrink SCs, and also produce better quality, reduce product development times, increase customized offerings to customers (Viswanadham 2018 ) and be more prepared for timely reactions to perturbations. Applicability studies of these technologies in the business environment are part of the future agenda. More importantly at the current situation of the rapid-spreading pandemic which has caused so many SC disruptions the whole business world is changing the business model by fast-tracking digital transformation to increase chances of survival.

Natural disasters and disease outbreaks consequences can be mitigated through resilient management of the relief SC operation. Development of trust between humanitarian organisations and other partners/stakeholders is necessary for coping with complex tasks during disaster relief and following standard code of ethics (Awasthy et al. 2019 ). Therefore, a focus on metrics and performance measurement such as delivery time, number of saved lives, the quantity of distributed relief items, and operations’ costs is essential in order to empower the effectiveness and long-term relationships of the humanitarian aids and relief SCs (Baharmand et al. 2019 ). Foremost, research emphasizes the development of flexible resiliency strategies with assisting technological solutions, such as BDA and AI technologies offering open-source imagery tools and analytic mapping tools in humanitarian logistics, for improving responsiveness through information and materials pipeline visibility and increased effectiveness of processes through better management of the scene (Griffith et al. 2019 ). Flexible networks with prompt rescheduling functions can achieve the required balance between speed and quality of the survival processes.

6 Conclusions

IT professionals continually develop new applications with big data capabilities to help stakeholders increase value (Galetsi et al. 2019 ), thus there are expectations for the allocation of higher budgets towards IT infrastructure and BDA experts (Galetsi et al. 2020 ). Investing in appropriate technology and quality information sharing helps with SC visibility, enhances trust and cooperation among SC partners and eventually leads to a more resilient SC (Dubey et al. 2019a , b , c ; Kamalahmadi and Mellat-Parast 2016 ) against disruptive events. This should be the focus of the top administration of each firm alone and in collaboration with the other echelons of their SC. Supply chains should embrace the TQM (total quality management) philosophy of prevention, as studies have shown that building resilience is less costly than recovering from problems (Jabbarzadeh et al. 2018 ). Yet, it is impossible to completely avoid disruption and attention should also be drawn to the recovery policies regardless of what caused the disruption. Therefore, human-driven adaptation first, followed by computer-driven adaptation, is needed to change SC plans, inventory policies and schedules to achieve the desired performance, which is the precondition of stability and robustness (Ivanov et al. 2013 ). As SCs become more global and complex, the impact of any disruption intensifies. The answer is building resilience by incorporating longer term partnerships, government policy that enables flexibility, an IT approach that fosters business continuity (Wright 2013 ) and a culture of readiness in contingency actions.

Ali, A., Mahfouz, A., & Arisha, A. (2017). Analysing supply chain resilience: Integrating the constructs in a concept mapping framework via a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 22 (1), 16–39.

Article   Google Scholar  

Amini, M., & Li, H. (2011). Supply chain configuration for diffusion of new products: An integrated optimization approach. Omega, 39 (3), 313–322.

Araz, O., Choi, T., Olson, D., & Salman, F. (2020). Data analytics for operational risk management. Decision Sciences . https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12443 .

Atadeniz, S. N., & Sridharan, S. V. (2019). Effectiveness of nervousness reduction policies when capacity is constrained. International Journal of Production Research, 58, 4121.

Awasthy, P., Gopakumar, K. V., Gouda, S. K., & Haldar, T. (2019). Trust in humanitarian operations: a content analytic approach for an Indian NGO. International Journal of Production Research, 57 (9), 2626–2641. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1566652 .

Baghalian, A., Rezapour, S., & Farahani, R. Z. (2013). Robust supply chain network design with service level against disruptions and demand uncertainties: A real-life case. European Journal of Operational Research, 227 (1), 199–215.

Baharmand, H., Comes, T., & Lauras, M. (2019). Defining and measuring the network flexibility of humanitarian supply chains: Insights from the 2015 Nepal earthquake. Annals of Operations Research, 283 (1), 961–1000.

Banker, S. (2019). Supply chain trends to watch in 2019. Forbes, Transportation https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2019/01/05/supply-chain-trends-to-watch-in-2019/#2b4b4f5a323d .

Banomyong, R., Varadejsatitwong, P., & Oloruntoba, R. (2019). A systematic review of humanitarian operations, humanitarian logistics and humanitarian supply chain performance literature 2005 to 2016. Annals of Operations Research, 283 (1–2), 71–86.

Baryannis, G., Dani, S., & Antoniou, G. (2019a). Predicting supply chain risks using machine learning: The trade-off between performance and interpretability. Future Generation Computer Systems, 101, 993–1004.

Baryannis, G., Validi, S., Dani, S., & Antoniou, G. (2019b). Supply chain risk management and artificial intelligence: State of the art and future research directions. International Journal of Production Research, 57 (7), 2179–2202. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1530476 .

BCI-Business Continuity Institute. (2019). Supply chain resilience 10 year trend analysis. 2009–2018. Zurich Insurance Group https://www.b-c-training.com/img/uploads/resources/Supply-Chain-Resilience-10-year-trend-analysis.pdf .

Ben-Daya, M., Hassini, E., & Bahroun, Z. (2019). Internet of things and supply chain management: A literature review. International Journal of Production Research, 57 (15–16), 4719–4742.

Bier, T., Lange, A., & Glock, C. H. (2019). Methods for mitigating disruptions in complex supply chain structures: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Production Research, 58, 1835.

Blackhurst, J., Craighead, C. W., Elkins, D., & Handfield, R. B. (2005). An empirically derived agenda of critical research issues for managing supply-chain disruptions. International Journal of Production Research, 43 (19), 4067–4081. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540500151549 .

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.986296 .

Braunscheidel, M. J., & Suresh, N. C. (2009). The organizational antecedents of a firm’s supply chain agility for risk mitigation and response. Journal of operations Management, 27 (2), 119–140.

Brintrup, A., Pak, J., Ratiney, D., Pearce, T., Wichmann, P., Woodall, P., et al. (2019). Supply chain data analytics for predicting supplier disruptions: a case study in complex asset manufacturing. International Journal of Production Research, 58, 3330.

Brusset, X., & Teller, C. (2017). Supply chain capabilities, risks, and resilience. International Journal of Production Economics, 184, 59–68.

Cantor, D. E., Blackhurst, J., Pan, M., & Crum, M. (2014). Examining the role of stakeholder pressure and knowledge management on supply chain risk and demand responsiveness. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 25, 202.

Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., & Ertz, M. (2019). Managing supply chain resilience to pursue business and environmental strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29, 1215.

Google Scholar  

Chen, K. B., & Yang, L. (2014). Random yield and coordination mechanisms of a supply chain with emergency backup sourcing. International Journal of Production Research, 52 (16), 4747–4767. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.886790 .

Chen, C. P., & Zhang, C. Y. (2014). Data-intensive applications, challenges, techniques and technologies: A survey on Big Data. Information Sciences, 275, 314–347.

Chen, H., Chiang, R. H. L., & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business intelligence and analytics: From big data to big impact. MIS Quarterly, 36 (4), 1165.

Chongvilaivan, A. (2011). Managing global supply chain disruptions: Experience from Thailand’s 2011 flooding. Regional Economic Studies Programme, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), 30

Chopra, S., & Sodhi, M. (2004). Supply-chain breakdown. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46 (1), 53–61.

Chopra, S., & Sodhi, M. (2014). Reducing the risk of supply chain disruptions. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55 (3), 72–80.

Chowdhury, M. M. H., & Quaddus, M. (2017). Supply chain resilience: Conceptualization and scale development using dynamic capability theory. International Journal of Production Economics, 188, 185–204.

Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the resilient supply chain. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 15 (2), 1–14.

Craighead, C. W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M. J., & Handfield, R. B. (2007). The severity of supply chain disruptions: Design characteristics and mitigation capabilities. Decision Sciences, 38 (1), 131–156.

Crosby, M., Nachiappan Pattanayak, P., Verma, S., & Kalyanaraman, V. (2016). Blockchain technology: Beyond bitcoin. Applied Innovation Review, June, Issue No. 2. Sutardja Center for Entrepeneurship and Technology, Berkeley .

Cruz, J. M. (2009). The impact of corporate social responsibility in supply chain management: Multicriteria decision-making approach. Decision Support Systems, 48 (1), 224–236.

Das, K., & Lashkari, R. S. (2015). Risk readiness and resiliency planning for a supply chain. International Journal of Production Research, 53 (22), 6752–6771. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1057624 .

de Oliveira, M. P. V., & Handfield, R. (2019). Analytical foundations for development of real-time supply chain capabilities. International Journal of Production Research, 57 (5), 1571–1589. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1493240 .

Diabat, A., Govindan, K., & Panicker, V. V. (2012). Supply chain risk management and its mitigation in a food industry. International Journal of Production Research, 50 (11), 3039–3050. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.588619 .

Dolgui, A., Ivanov, D., & Sokolov, B. (2018). Ripple effect in the supply chain: an analysis and recent literature. International Journal of Production Research, 56 (1–2), 414–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1387680 .

Dolgui, A., Ivanov, D., & Rozhkov, M. (2019). Does the ripple effect influence the bullwhip effect? An integrated analysis of structural and operational dynamics in the supply chain(dagger). International Journal of Production Research . https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1627438 .

Dubey, R., Altay, N., & Blome, C. (2019a). Swift trust and commitment: The missing links for humanitarian supply chain coordination? Annals of Operations Research, 283 (1), 159–177.

Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Papadopoulos, T., Blome, C., & Luo, Z. (2019b). Antecedents of resilient supply chains: An empirical study. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 66 (1), 8–19.

Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., & Papadopoulos, T. (2019c). Disaster relief operations: Past, present and future. Annals of Operations Research, 283 (1–2), 1–8.

DuHadway, S., Carnovale, S., & Hazen, B. (2019). Understanding risk management for intentional supply chain disruptions: Risk detection, risk mitigation, and risk recovery. Annals of Operations Research, 283 (1), 179–198.

Dupont, L., Bernard, C., Hamdi, F., & Masmoudi, F. (2018). Supplier selection under risk of delivery failure: A decision-support model considering managers’ risk sensitivity. International Journal of Production Research, 56 (3), 1054–1069. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1364442 .

Dwivedi, Y. K., Shareef, M. A., Mukerji, B., Rana, N. P., & Kapoor, K. K. (2018). Involvement in emergency supply chain for disaster management: A cognitive dissonance perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 56 (21), 6758–6773. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1378958 .

Elzarka, S. M. (2013). Supply chain risk management: The lessons learned from the Egyptian revolution 2011. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 16 (6), 482–492.

Fan, Y., Schwartz, F., & Voß, S. (2017). Flexible supply chain planning based on variable transportation modes. International Journal of Production Economics, 183, 654–666.

Fang, Y., & Shou, B. (2015). Managing supply uncertainty under supply chain Cournot competition. European Journal of Operational Research, 243 (1), 156–176.

FEMA. (2015). Make your business resilient: Business infographic. Federal Emergency Management Agency https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/108451 .

Ferreira, F. D. A. L., Scavarda, L. F., Ceryno, P. S., & Leiras, A. (2018). Supply chain risk analysis: A shipbuilding industry case. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 21 (5), 542–556.

Galetsi, P., Katsaliaki, K., & Kumar, S. (2019). Values, challenges and future directions of big data analytics in healthcare: A systematic review. Social Science and Medicine, 241, 112533.

Galetsi, P., Katsaliaki, K., & Kumar, S. (2020). Big data analytics in health sector: Theoretical framework, techniques and prospects. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 206–216.

Gaviria-Marin, M., Merigó, J. M., & Baier-Fuentes, H. (2019). Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 140, 194–220.

Ghadge, A., Weib, M., Caldwell, N., & Wilding, R. L. (2019). Managing cyber risk in supply chains: A review and research agenda. Supply Chain Management, 25 (2), 223.

Godin, B. (2006). On the origins of bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 68 (1), 109–133.

Griffith, D. A., Boehmke, B., Bradley, R. V., Hazen, B. T., & Johnson, A. W. (2019). Embedded analytics: improving decision support for humanitarian logistics operations. Annals of Operations Research, 283 (1–2), 247–265.

Gunasekaran, A., Kumar Tiwari, M., Dubey, R., & Fosso Wamba, S. (2016). Big data and predictive analytics applications in supply chain management. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 101, 525–527.

Gunessee, S., Subramanian, N., & Ning, K. (2018). Natural disasters, PC supply chain and corporate performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management . https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-12-2016-0705 .

Hassan, T. A., Hollander, S., van Lent, L., & Tahoun, A. (2020). Firm-level exposure to epidemic diseases: Covid-19, SARS, and H1N1 (0898-2937). Retrieved from

Heckmann, I., Comes, T., & Nickel, S. (2015). A critical review on supply chain risk–Definition, measure and modeling. Omega, 52, 119–132.

Hendricks, K. B., & Singhal, V. R. (2003). The effect of supply chain glitches on shareholder wealth. Journal of Operations Management, 21 (5), 501–522.

Hendricks, K. B., & 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.

Hendricks, K. B., Singhal, V. R., & Zhang, R. (2009). The effect of operational slack, diversification, and vertical relatedness on the stock market reaction to supply chain disruptions. Journal of Operations Management, 27 (3), 233–246.

Ho, W., Zheng, T., Yildiz, H., & Talluri, S. (2015). Supply chain risk management: A literature review. International Journal of Production Research, 53 (16), 5031–5069. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1030467 .

Hosseini, S., & Ivanov, D. (2019). A new resilience measure for supply networks with the ripple effect considerations: A Bayesian network approach. Annals of Operations Research . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03350-8 .

Hosseini, S., Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2019a). Review of quantitative methods for supply chain resilience analysis. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 125, 285–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2019.03.001 .

Hosseini, S., Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2019b). Ripple effect modelling of supplier disruption: integrated Markov chain and dynamic Bayesian network approach. International Journal of Production Research, 58, 3284.

Hou, Y., Wang, X., Wu, Y. J., & He, P. (2018). How does the trust affect the topology of supply chain network and its resilience? An agent-based approach. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 116, 229–241.

Ivanov, D. (2017). Simulation-based ripple effect modelling in the supply chain. International Journal of Production Research, 55 (7), 2083–2101. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2016.1275873 .

Ivanov, D. (2018). Revealing interfaces of supply chain resilience and sustainability: A simulation study. International Journal of Production Research, 56 (10), 3507–3523. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1343507 .

Ivanov, D. (2020a). Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: A simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) case. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 136, 101922.

Ivanov, D. (2020b). Viable supply chain model: integrating agility, resilience and sustainability perspectives—lessons from and thinking beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Annals of Operations Research , 1.

Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2019). Low-Certainty-Need (LCN) Supply Chains: A new perspective in managing disruption risks and resilience. International Journal of Production Research, 57 (15–16), 5119–5136.

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.

Ivanov, D., & Sokolov, B. (2019). Simultaneous structural–operational control of supply chain dynamics and resilience. Annals of Operations Research, 283 (1–2), 1191–1210.

Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B., & Pavlov, A. (2013). Dual problem formulation and its application to optimal redesign of an integrated production-distribution network with structure dynamics and ripple effect considerations. International Journal of Production Research, 51 (18), 5386–5403. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.774503 .

Ivanov, D., Pavlov, A., & Sokolov, B. (2014a). Optimal distribution (re) planning in a centralized multi-stage supply network under conditions of the ripple effect and structure dynamics. European Journal of Operational Research, 237 (2), 758–770.

Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B., & Dolgui, A. (2014b). The Ripple effect in supply chains: Trade-off ‘efficiency-flexibility-resilience’ in disruption management. International Journal of Production Research, 52 (7), 2154–2172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.858836 .

Ivanov, D., Hartl, R., Dolgui, A., Pavlov, A., & Sokolov, B. (2015). Integration of aggregate distribution and dynamic transportation planning in a supply chain with capacity disruptions and the ripple effect consideration. International Journal of Production Research, 53 (23), 6963–6979. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.986303 .

Ivanov, D., Mason, S. J., & Hartl, R. (2016a). Supply chain dynamics, control and disruption management. International Journal of Production Research, 54 (1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1114186 .

Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B., Solovyeva, I., Dolgui, A., & Jie, F. (2016b). Dynamic recovery policies for time-critical supply chains under conditions of ripple effect. International Journal of Production Research, 54 (23), 7245–7258. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2016.1161253 .

Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., Sokolov, B., & Ivanova, M. (2017). Literature review on disruption recovery in the supply chain. International Journal of Production Research, 55 (20), 6158–6174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1330572 .

Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., & Sokolov, B. (2019). The impact of digital technology and Industry 4.0 on the ripple effect and supply chain risk analytics. International Journal of Production Research, 57 (3), 829–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1488086 .

Jabbarzadeh, A., Fahimnia, B., & Sabouhi, F. (2018). Resilient and sustainable supply chain design: Sustainability analysis under disruption risks. International Journal of Production Research, 56 (17), 5945–5968. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1461950 .

Kamalahmadi, M., & Mellat-Parast, M. (2016). Developing a resilient supply chain through supplier flexibility and reliability assessment. International Journal of Production Research, 54 (1), 302–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1088971 .

Katsaliaki, K., & Mustafee, N. (2019). Distributed simulation of supply chains in the industry 4.0 Era: A state of the art field overview. In: Simulation for industry 4.0 (pp. 55–80): Springer.

Khakzad, N. (2015). Application of dynamic Bayesian network to risk analysis of domino effects in chemical infrastructures. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 138, 263–272.

Kinra, A., Ivanov, D., Das, A., & Dolgui, A. (2019). Ripple effect quantification by supplier risk exposure assessment. International Journal of Production Research, 58, 5559.

Kleindorfer, P. R., & Saad, G. H. (2005). Managing disruption risks in supply chains. Production and Operations management, 14 (1), 53–68.

Knight, R., & Pretty, D. (1996). The impact of catastrophes on shareholders. Retrieved on September, 10, 2007.

Kochan, C. G., Nowicki, D. R., Sauser, B., & Randall, W. S. (2018). Impact of cloud-based information sharing on hospital supply chain performance: A system dynamics framework. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 168–185.

Koh, S. C., Gunasekaran, A., & Tseng, C. S. (2012). Cross-tier ripple and indirect effects of directives WEEE and RoHS on greening a supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 140 (1), 305–317.

Kranenburg, R. V. (2008). The Internet of Things: A critique of ambient technology and the all-seeing network of RFID: Insitute of Network Cultures.

Lee, H. L., Padmanabhan, V., & Whang, S. (1997). The bullwhip effect in supply chains. Sloan Management Review, 38, 93–102.

Levner, E., & Ptuskin, A. (2018). Entropy-based model for the ripple effect: Managing environmental risks in supply chains. International Journal of Production Research, 56 (7), 2539–2551. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1374575 .

Liberatore, F., Scaparra, M. P., & Daskin, M. S. (2012). Hedging against disruptions with ripple effects in location analysis. Omega, 40 (1), 21–30.

Maiyar, L. M., & Thakkar, J. J. (2019). Robust optimisation of sustainable food grain transportation with uncertain supply and intentional disruptions. International Journal of Production Research, 58, 5651.

Manuj, I., & Mentzer, J. T. (2008). Global supply chain risk management strategies. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management . https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030810866986 .

Marchese, K., & Paramasivam, S. (2013). The Ripple Effect How manufacturing and retail executives view the growing challenge of supply chain risk. Deloitte Development LLC.

Merigó, J. M., & Yang, J.-B. (2017). A bibliometric analysis of operations research and management science. Omega, 73, 37–48.

Mishra, D., Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., & Hassini, E. (2019). Evolution of supply chain ripple effect: a bibliometric and meta-analytic view of the constructs. International Journal of Production Research . https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1668073 .

Mollenkopf, D. A., Ozanne, L. K., & Stolze, H. J. (2020). A transformative supply chain response to COVID-19. Journal of Service Management . https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-0143 .

Mori, M., Kobayashi, R., Samejima, M., & Komoda, N. (2014). Cost-benefit analysis of decentralized ordering on multi-tier supply chain by risk simulator. Studies in informatics and control, 23 (3), 230.

Nakano, M., & Lau, A. K. (2020). A systematic review on supply chain risk management: using the strategy-structure-process-performance framework. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications , 23 (5), 443–473.

Nakatani, J., Tahara, K., Nakajima, K., Daigo, I., Kurishima, H., Kudoh, Y., et al. (2018). A graph theory-based methodology for vulnerability assessment of supply chains using the life cycle inventory database. Omega, 75, 165–181.

Namdar, J., Li, X. P., Sawhney, R., & Pradhan, N. (2018). Supply chain resilience for single and multiple sourcing in the presence of disruption risks. International Journal of Production Research, 56 (6), 2339–2360. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1370149 .

Ni, J., Flynn, B. B., & Jacobs, F. R. (2016). The effect of a toy industry product recall announcement on shareholder wealth. International Journal of Production Research, 54 (18), 5404–5415. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1106608 .

Pavlov, A., Ivanov, D., Werner, F., Dolgui, A., & Sokolov, B. (2019). Integrated detection of disruption scenarios, the ripple effect dispersal and recovery paths in supply chains. Annals of Operations Research . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03454-1 .

Pettit, T. J., Croxton, K. L., & Fiksel, J. (2013). Ensuring supply chain resilience: Development and implementation of an assessment tool. Journal of business logistics, 34 (1), 46–76.

Ponomarov, S. Y., & Holcomb, M. C. (2009). Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience. The International Journal of Logistics Management . https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090910954873 .

Queiroz, M. M., & Wamba, S. F. (2019). Blockchain adoption challenges in supply chain: An empirical investigation of the main drivers in India and the USA. International Journal of Information Management, 46, 70–82.

Queiroz, M. M., Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., & Wamba, S. F. (2020). Impacts of epidemic outbreaks on supply chains: Mapping a research agenda amid the COVID-19 pandemic through a structured literature review. Annals of Operations Research . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03685-7 .

Rao, S., & Goldsby, T. J. (2009). Supply chain risks: A review and typology. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 20 (1), 97–123.

Saberi, S., Kouhizadeh, M., Sarkis, J., & Shen, L. J. (2019). Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management. International Journal of Production Research, 57 (7), 2117–2135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1533261 .

Sáenz, M. J., & Revilla, E. (2014). Creating more resilient supply chains. MIT Sloan management review, 55 (4), 22–24.

Sarkar, S., & Kumar, S. (2015). A behavioral experiment on inventory management with supply chain disruption. International Journal of Production Economics, 169, 169–178.

Sawik, T. (2014). Optimization of cost and service level in the presence of supply chain disruption risks: Single vs. multiple sourcing. Computers & Operations Research, 51, 11–20.

Sawik, T. (2019). Disruption mitigation and recovery in supply chains using portfolio approach. Omega, 84, 232–248.

Scheibe, K. P., & Blackhurst, J. (2018). Supply chain disruption propagation: A systemic risk and normal accident theory perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 56 (1–2), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1355123 .

Sheffi, Y. (2001). Supply chain management under the threat of international terrorism. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 12 (2), 1–11.

Shibin, K., Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Hazen, B., Roubaud, D., Gupta, S., et al. (2017). Examining sustainable supply chain management of SMEs using resource based view and institutional theory. Annals of Operations Research, 290, 301.

Snoeck, A., Udenio, M., & Fransoo, J. C. (2019). A stochastic program to evaluate disruption mitigation investments in the supply chain. European Journal of Operational Research, 274 (2), 516–530.

Snyder, L. V., Atan, Z., Peng, P., Rong, Y., Schmitt, A. J., & Sinsoysal, B. (2016). OR/MS models for supply chain disruptions: A review. IIE Transactions, 48 (2), 89–109.

Sodhi, M. S., Son, B. G., & Tang, C. S. (2012). Researchers’ perspectives on supply chain risk management. Production and Operations management, 21 (1), 1–13.

Sokolov, B., Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., & Pavlov, A. (2016). Structural quantification of the ripple effect in the supply chain. International Journal of Production Research, 54 (1), 152–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1055347 .

Song, M., & Du, Q. (2017). Analysis and exploration of damage-reduction measures for flood disasters in China. Annals of Operations Research, 283, 795.

Swierczek, A. (2016). The “snowball effect” in the transmission of disruptions in supply chains: The role of intensity and span of integration. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 27 (3), 1002–1038.

Tang, C. S. (2006). Perspectives in supply chain risk management. International Journal of Production Economics, 103 (2), 451–488.

Tang, O., & Musa, S. N. (2011). Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain risk management. International Journal of Production Economics, 133 (1), 25–34.

Tang, C., & Tomlin, B. (2008). The power of flexibility for mitigating supply chain risks. International Journal of Production Economics, 116 (1), 12–27.

Teimuory, E., Atoei, F., Mohammadi, E., & Amiri, A. (2013). A multi-objective reliable programming model for disruption in supply chain. Management Science Letters, 3 (5), 1467–1478.

Thun, J. H., & 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.

Tomlin, B. (2006). On the value of mitigation and contingency strategies for managing supply chain disruption risks. Management Science, 52 (5), 639–657.

Vilko, J. P. P., & Hallikas, J. M. (2012). Risk assessment in multimodal supply chains. International Journal of Production Economics, 140 (2), 586–595.

Viswanadham, N. (2018). Performance analysis and design of competitive business models. International Journal of Production Research, 56 (1–2), 983–999. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1406171 .

Wagner, S. M., & Bode, C. (2008). An empirical examination of supply chain performance along several dimensions of risk. Journal of Business Logistics, 29 (1), 307–325.

Wagner, S. M., & Neshat, N. (2012). A comparison of supply chain vulnerability indices for different categories of firms. International Journal of Production Research, 50 (11), 2877–2891. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.561540 .

Wang, Y., Han, J. H., & Beynon-Davies, P. (2019). Understanding blockchain technology for future supply chains: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal . https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-03-2018-0148 .

Wilding, R., & Wagner, B. (2019). New Supply Chain Models: Disruptive Supply Chain Strategies for 2030 (Systematic Literature Reviews): Emerald group publishing ltd Howard house, Wagon lane, Bingley

Wright, J. (2013). Taking a broader view of supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Management Review, 17 (2), 26–31.

Wu, T., Blackhurst, J., & O’Grady, P. (2007). Methodology for supply chain disruption analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 45 (7), 1665–1682. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540500362138 .

Yang, T. J., & Fan, W. G. (2016). Information management strategies and supply chain performance under demand disruptions. International Journal of Production Research, 54 (1), 8–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.991456 .

Yang, Y. Y., Pan, S. L., & Ballot, E. (2017). Mitigating supply chain disruptions through interconnected logistics services in the Physical Internet. International Journal of Production Research, 55 (14), 3970–3983. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2016.1223379 .

Zsidisin, G. A., Melnyk, S. A., & Ragatz, G. L. (2005). An institutional theory perspective of business continuity planning for purchasing and supply management. International Journal of Production Research, 43 (16), 3401–3420. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540500095613 .

Zsidisin, G. A., Petkova, B. N., & Dam, L. (2016). Examining the influence of supply chain glitches on shareholder wealth: Does the reason matter? International Journal of Production Research, 54 (1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1015751 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Humanities, Social Sciences and Economics, International Hellenic University, 14th km Thessaloniki-N.Moudania, 57001, Thessaloniki, Greece

K. Katsaliaki & P. Galetsi

Opus College of Business, University of St. Thomas Minneapolis Campus, 1000 LaSalle Avenue, Schulze Hall 435, Minneapolis, MN, 55403, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Kumar .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

See Tables  3 , 4 , 5 , 6 .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Katsaliaki, K., Galetsi, P. & Kumar, S. Supply chain disruptions and resilience: a major review and future research agenda. Ann Oper Res 319 , 965–1002 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03912-1

Download citation

Accepted : 17 December 2020

Published : 08 January 2021

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03912-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Supply chain
• Disruptions
• Ripple effect
• Modeling techniques
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Taking the pulse of shifting supply chains

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have asked supply chain leaders annually about their efforts to overcome disruptions, mitigate risks, and build resilience in their operations. Our third and most recent survey shows that companies have made significant progress on measures that have been on their agenda since the start of the crisis, and that work has helped them weather supply chain challenges such as geopolitical disruption and the worldwide shortage of semiconductors.

About the authors

This article is a collaborative effort by Knut Alicke , Edward Barriball , Tacy Foster , Julien Mauhourat, and Vera Trautwein, representing views from McKinsey’s Supply Chain service line.

For example, over the past year, many companies have made structural changes to their supply networks by implementing dual or multiple sourcing strategies for critical materials and moving from global to regional networks. And as companies shift their focus from visibility to improvements in demand and supply planning, supply chain digitization efforts are also entering a new phase.

However, most respondents admit that they still have significant work to do. An acute shortage of talent is holding organizations back in their efforts to accelerate digitization and implement advanced planning systems. And despite progress over the past 12 months, many companies still lack a comprehensive picture of the risks lurking deep inside complex multitier supply networks.

Data for this year’s survey were collected from 113 supply chain leaders worldwide, representing organizations from a broad range of industries. We ran the survey over a three-week period from the end of March to the middle of April 2022.

An acute shortage of talent is holding organizations back in their efforts to accelerate digitization and implement advanced planning systems.

Network resilience: Footprints on the move

The turbulence of the past two years has forced many organizations to address vulnerabilities in their complex, highly globalized supply networks. But the 2020 and 2021 supply chain pulse surveys revealed a significant gap between respondents’ ambition and their action. While many respondents said they wanted to diversify their supply base and boost in-region sourcing, the most common action in response to disruption was increases in the inventory of components and finished projects.

Bigger buffers and safety stocks are still seen as an important tool for supply chain resilience. Eighty percent of respondents told us that they increased their inventories during 2021; separate McKinsey analysis of almost 300 listed companies found that inventories increased by an average of 11 percent between 2018 and 2021, 1 S&P Global; Corporate Performance Analytics (CPA) by McKinsey (n = 293 listed companies). with the largest increases in the high-tech and commodity sectors. Some supply chain leaders have told us that they would have increased inventories even further if suppliers had been able to meet their requests.

While higher overall stock levels have become the norm, our survey suggests that companies are now looking for smarter ways to ensure resilience while keeping inventory costs under control. Seventy-one percent of respondents expect to revise their inventory policies in 2022 and beyond (Exhibit 1).

Companies are also reporting significant progress in longer-term strategies designed to increase network resilience. For example, 81 percent of respondents say that they have implemented dual-sourcing strategies during the past year, up from 55 percent in 2020. Forty-four percent of respondents, up from 25 percent the previous year (an even larger relative jump), say they are developing regionalized supply networks (Exhibit 2). Most respondents expect this momentum to continue. Sixty-nine percent of supply chain leaders told us that dual sourcing will continue to be relevant in 2022 and beyond, and 51 percent think the same about regionalization.

Overall, our survey shows that disruption has reshaped almost every supply chain. Ninety-seven percent of respondents say they have applied some combination of inventory increases, dual sourcing, and regionalization to boost resilience. Supply chain leaders believe that these efforts are paying off: Eighty-three percent told us that the footprint resilience measures they have taken over the past two years helped them minimize the impact of supply chain disruptions in 2022. For example, respondents from the commodity, consumer goods, and chemicals sectors were most likely to say that recent geopolitical disruption has not resulted in significant supply chain challenges this year; it is these industries that have focused most on structural changes such as nearshoring or network redesign. This situation may change as disruption continues, however, since data collection for our survey was conducted in the spring of 2022.

Would you like to learn more about our Manufacturing & Supply Chain Practice ?

Supply chain planning: a winning formula.

The volatility of the past two years has rigorously tested planning teams. Our survey reveals a formula, with three key ingredients, for resilient supply chain planning (Exhibit 3).

The first of those is visibility—companies can manage their supply chains only when they have a clear picture of each link. This is one area where organizations report significant recent progress: sixty-seven percent of respondents have implemented digital dashboards for end-to-end supply chain visibility. And those companies were twice as likely as others to avoid supply chain problems caused by the disruptions of early 2022.

The second ingredient is robust scenario planning, which can be seen in the planning counterpart to footprint redesign. Scenario planning has not been as widely adopted as visibility tools, with only 37 percent of respondents saying they had implemented the practice. These companies are also twice as likely as others to have avoided supply chain challenges this year.

An essential foundation to both supply chain visibility and effective scenario planning is comprehensive, accurate master data. Just over half the respondents tell us that the quality of the data in their supply chain planning systems were “sufficient” or “high,” suggesting that many companies still have room to improve their data collection and data management processes. High-quality data were associated with lower levels of recent supply chain disruption, although the effect was less pronounced than with visibility or scenario planning.

Digitization: Building on success

Previous surveys revealed that most companies ramped up their digital supply chain investments significantly over the past two years. Digital tools have been critical to companies’ efforts to improve the resilience of supply chain planning and execution.

That story continues in our most recent survey: in almost every sector, more than 90 percent of respondents report that they invested in digital supply chain technologies last year. Only two sectors—automotive and healthcare—report lower-than-expected investments. For the automotive sector, that finding hints at implementation delays, while healthcare companies may have slowed their pace of digitization following several years of rapid progress. Overall, just over 80 percent of respondents expect to make further investments this year and beyond.

However, the focus of these investments is changing significantly, a shift that can be attributed to the success of recent digitization projects. Last year, supply chain visibility was the top priority for companies, with 77 percent of respondents saying they were investing in this area. This year, with little more than half saying they have supply chain visibility systems in place, it has fallen to fourth place (Exhibit 4).

As companies address their visibility issues, digitization efforts are shifting to the next big challenge in supply chain management: capturing the demand signal. In this year’s survey, respondents report that the top two priorities for digital investments were demand and supply planning, cited by 74 percent and 69 percent, respectively. Fifty-eight percent of respondents are prioritizing inventory optimization.

Of the companies looking to invest in advanced planning systems, more than two-thirds say they expect to use the technology offered by their existing supply chain software provider. This is indicative of a continued market shift away from specialized point solutions for specific tasks and toward integrated end-to-end technology platforms. DIY isn’t dead in the supply chain sector, however: thirty-seven percent of respondents tell us that they expect to develop at least some supply chain software in-house, with most focusing on specific point-solutions such as visibility dashboards.

Digital talent remains a significant challenge for companies. In our 2020 survey, only 8 percent of respondents felt they had sufficient in-house talent to support their digital ambitions. By 2021, when many large digitization projects were in full swing, that number had dropped to just 1 percent. The situation has improved somewhat in the past year: in our latest survey, 10 percent of companies indicate they now have the talent they need. Respondents from the high-tech sector report the most progress in acquiring digital talent, with 20 percent more respondents than last year saying they had sufficient talent to meet their needs. Respondents from the automotive, aerospace, and defense sectors, by contrast, were much more likely than last year to report “limited” or “no” in-house digital supply chain talent.

The past two years have also seen a marked shift in companies’ approach to talent acquisition. In 2020, 70 percent of companies were building talent by reskilling their existing labor force. This year, the primary approach, used by 68 percent of companies, was outside hiring. That shift might reflect the dramatic increase in labor mobility that has occurred worldwide following the lifting of coronavirus restrictions.

Risk management: Steady progress

While companies have made radical changes in the way they use technology to manage their supply chains over the past two years, the development of their supply chain risk management capabilities has been much more incremental.

Risk remains a priority for most respondents in our latest survey, with 83 percent of respondents experiencing at least some raw-materials shortages over the past year. Ninety percent say that they want to further increase resilience, and almost three-quarters expect to increase the budget allocated to resilience-related actions. Over the past 12 months, two-thirds of companies have implemented new supply chain risk management practices; among the most popular approaches are new processes to monitor supplier-related risks.

Forty-five percent of survey respondents say that they either have no visibility into their upstream supply chain or that they can see only as far as their first-tier suppliers.

However, understanding the status of complex, multitier supply chains is still proving extremely challenging. Forty-five percent of respondents tell us that they either have no visibility into their upstream supply chain or that they can see only as far as their first-tier suppliers.

Future-proofing the supply chain

There are some signs of progress. Last year, a paltry 2 percent of respondents said they had a good picture of their supply chains down to the third tier or beyond. This year, that fraction has increased to 17 percent, with the greatest progress in sectors with shorter, simple supply chains (Exhibit 5). In the consumer products and retail sector, for example, 21 percent of respondents feel they have sufficient multitier transparency. Forty-three percent of respondents from the commodity sector believe their organizations have sufficient supply chain resilience measures in place, even though only 14 percent have a good view of third-tier suppliers. Deep supply chain transparency remains especially problematic for the automotive, aerospace, and defense sectors, with only 9 percent of respondents confident in their third-tier supplier visibility and none expressing satisfaction with their supplier visibility at all levels.

For the third year in a row, supply chains remain at the top of the corporate agenda. Our latest survey shows that companies have made significant efforts to improve supply chain resilience over the past 12 months by expanding their successful digitization programs and implementing structural changes to their networks. With volatility and disruptions likely to continue, we expect resilience to remain a key topic for the foreseeable future. For leaders, upcoming priorities include more sophisticated approaches to planning, further adaptation of supply networks, and smarter inventory management strategies.

Knut Alicke is a partner in McKinsey’s Stuttgart office; Edward Barriball is a partner in the Washington, DC, office; Tacy Foster is a partner in the Charlotte office; Julien Mauhourat is an associate partner in the Paris office; and Vera Trautwein is an expert in the Zurich office.

The authors wish to thank Tim Beckhoff and Jürgen Rachor for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

A better way to drive your business

Supply chains: To build resilience, manage proactively

• DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2015.12.025
• Corpus ID: 19705730

Supply chain optimization under risk and uncertainty: A case study for high-end server manufacturing

• Faisal Aqlan , S. Lam
• Published in Computers & industrial… 1 March 2016
• Engineering, Business

84 Citations

The design and planning of an integrated supply chain for perishable products under uncertainties, resilient supply chain design under operational and disruption risks considering quantity discount: a case study of pharmaceutical supply chain, integrating performance and risk aspects of supply chain design processes, supply chain reconfiguration for a new product development with risk management approach, optimizing strategies to mitigate risk in a supply chain disruption, mathematical model of location, multi-commodity and multi-period in sustainable closed-loop supply chain considering risk and demand and quality uncertainty (a case study), a resilient supply chain network for an online retailer: a three-phase robust framework and a case study, a multi-objective mixed-integer programming approach for supply chain disruption response with lead-time awareness, customer prioritization integrated supply chain optimization model with outsourcing strategies., advancements in sustainable manufacturing supply chain modelling: a review, 27 references, production , manufacturing and logistics a stochastic model for risk management in global supply chain networks, risk assessment and management for supply chain networks: a case study, modeling risk in a design for supply chain problem, modeling and simulating supply chain schedule risk, a decision support system for procurement risk management in the presence of spot market, multi-objective supply chain sourcing strategy design under risk using pso and simulation, a fuzzy-based integrated framework for supply chain risk assessment, supply chain redesign for resilience using simulation, plant operations , integration , planning / scheduling and supply chain simulation-optimization approach to clinical trial supply chain management with demand scenario forecast, managing supply chain risk and vulnerability: tools and methods for supply chain decision makers, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Case Study: Managing Uncertainties

Andre Agassi, a legend in men’s tennis, lost his first three matches to Boris Becker in 1988-1989 . Agassi later won 10 of the remaining 11 contests against Becker in his career. Amazon.com, founded in 1994 by Jeff Bezos as an online bookstore, initially struggled to raise investor capital. Amazon eventually became one of the world’s most-valued companies. A Dutch sugar refinery, Cosun Beet Company, improved its yield management practices by offering sugar beet growers a low-code platform to manage their crop development . This helped the firm achieve sustainable growth.

In all these cases, corporations or people achieved a competitive edge by successfully managing the uncertainties facing them. They rationalized others’ behavior, acted preventively to reduce negative aspects of uncertainty, or invested in the jaws of it. However, many organizations still lack capabilities to manage uncertainties, struggling to deal with them. To address these issues, I investigate uncertainty through the lens of economics and link its findings to organizational strategies.

Uncertainty is a barrier between our knowledge and truth. When it widens, reality becomes less clear given the current state of knowledge. Uncertainty takes three different forms. The first is where decision-makers recognize the uncertain elements and their patterns very well. Yet, some variations may persist under some uncontrollable factors. Such known unknowns are referred to as truth uncertainty by economists. A second type features distorted knowns where uncertainty is deliberately created by decision-makers to induce some stakeholders to behave in a selected way, known in economics as epistemological uncertainty . The third case is unknown unknowns such that truth is not known by anybody, which is referred to as o ntological uncertainty . Organizations wisely strive to eliminate truth uncertainty, keep epistemological uncertainty at a low level to improve short-term profitability, and invest in ontological uncertainty to sustain long-term profitability.

Truth Uncertainty: “Known” Unknowns

Organizations create value through certain operational activities they have excelled over the years. While they can control such operations along several dimensions, some variations may still exist. Organizational knowledge might correctly identify the truth about an object or a working system. However, a high level of knowledge may not suffice to eliminate process variations, thus leading to truth uncertainty. Elimination of truth uncertainty helps organizations boost profits and reduce quality problems. If total elimination proves impossible, firms can still effectively manage truth uncertainty by employing traditional predictive and prescriptive analytics methods. For example, FMCG companies, such as Pepsi and Colgate, have used a combination of predictive and prescriptive methods to manage truth uncertainty .

There is no strategic value in carrying truth uncertainty. Firms can build organizational capabilities through digital transformation and advanced analytics to absorb uncertainties internally. Otherwise, they would consider paying others to bear it. For example, manufacturers use analytical models to exploit advance demand information and to predict customer demand accurately , helping them absorb demand uncertainty. If absorbing uncertainties internally is not viable, firms may exchange them with other supply chain parties. For instance, producers of commodity products exposed to large, protracted price volatility may eliminate this uncertainty by selling their products in advance via forward contracts. To convince buyers to accept these contracts, producers forego the upside potential of uncertainty when commodity prices rise. Here, the upside of price volatility comprises the cost of transferring the uncertainty to another. If both prediction and transfer are infeasible, organizations suffer from uncertainties and lose profits. In the end, companies have three options in dealing with truth uncertainty: (1) control it internally, (2) transfer it to other supply chain parties, or (3) suffer.

Epistemological Uncertainty: Distorted Unknowns

One of the biggest rivalries in men’s tennis featured Andre Agassi versus Boris Becker. These two stars faced each other 14 times. After losing the first three matches in 1988 and 1989, Agassi won the next eight in a row. He lost only once more to Becker after 1989. Andre’s dominance on the court was due to Becker’s facial ‘tell’ that Agassi described after retiring. In a conversation with journalists in 2017, Agassi disclosed: “if … he put his tongue in the middle of his lip, he was either serving up the middle or the body. But if he put it to the side, he was going to serve out wide.” When he eventually admitted this to Becker, Boris nearly fell off his chair: “I used to go home all the time and just tell my wife: it is like he reads my mind.” In sports, players create uncertainties to trick their foes, and no one expects, for example, Becker to signal where he intends to serve! Those working to resolve such competitive uncertainties attain more career titles and reputation, just as Andre Agassi won eight grand slams versus only six for Boris Becker.

If decision makers’ knowledge suffers distortion because of information inaccuracy or agency conflict, organizations become exposed to epistemological uncertainty. In the case of a tennis match, each player faces epistemological uncertainty created by his opponent. To manage epistemological uncertainty, each player must first rationalize the behavior of his opponent and then optimize his decision. This is exactly what Agassi did in his matches against Becker.

Organizations have incentives to create epistemological uncertainty. Nevertheless, it is not a sustainable strategy to keep epistemological uncertainty at a high level. Imagine a farmer aiming to sell 10 watermelons in the farmers’ market where he always offers the best price. However, less than half of his watermelons are expected to be ripe. Suppose a restauranteur has learned over weeks that only 40% of the farmer’s watermelons are ripe. Whenever the restauranteur attempts to buy watermelons from the farmer, he first asks which ones are ripe. If the farmer does not disclose any information, then the buyer opts out. If the farmer designates five watermelons of the ten, then the odds of selecting a ripe one improves. Here, the restauranteur would likely buy all five. In practice, organizations are free to determine how much to disclose (or not disclose) of their proprietary information with outside parties. They may create epistemological uncertainty that would, in turn, yield increasing profits in the short term. However, too much epistemological uncertainty might repel customers or cause retaliatory actions. Thus, epistemological uncertainty must be kept at low or moderate levels in practice.

To manage epistemological uncertainty with farmers, for example, crop processors have often used crop management systems . This makes the crop development and agriculture supply chain fully transparent for both processors and farmers, reducing epistemological uncertainty and avoiding retaliatory actions. However, processors do not necessarily have any incentive to share their market price trajectories with growers. Indeed, information of a potential price rise is best undisclosed with farmers in negotiating the optimal price for buying crops.

Ontological Uncertainty: “Unknown” Unknowns

The strategic importance of ontological uncertainty for organizations may be aptly expressed in a Chinese proverb: “There is no fish in clear water.” For example, the Amazon.com project was born into ontological uncertainty. When the online retail giant was founded, Jeff Bezos contacted investors to raise capital. However, investors asked him what the Internet was, and they were very sceptical about the future of Amazon . At that time, the future of online retail was highly exposed to ontological uncertainty. Amazon would not have achieved high growth over the years if the future of e-commerce had been well-predicted in the 1990s. In that case big players, such as Walmart, could have invested in developing a better online platform and prevented Amazon’s evolution from an online bookstore into a retail giant in the 2010s.

Ontological uncertainty makes it problematic for wealthy investors to identify and invest in key technologies that customers will value in the future. Here, smaller firms and start-ups fill this gap and achieve sustainable growth. Thus, organizations wisely invest amid ontological uncertainty to foster entrepreneurship and sustainable growth.

Case Questions

What would be potential outcomes of elimination of uncertainties for each uncertainty type?

How can analytical approaches be designed to deal with each type of uncertainty?

What are the threats of epistemological uncertainty in social media?

Asking the better questions that unlock new answers to the working world's most complex issues.

Trending topics

AI insights

EY podcasts

EY webcasts

Operations leaders

Technology leaders

Marketing and growth leaders

Cybersecurity and privacy leaders

Risk leaders

EY Center for Board Matters

EY helps clients create long-term value for all stakeholders. Enabled by data and technology, our services and solutions provide trust through assurance and help clients transform, grow and operate.

• 5||See all Assurance

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Strategy, transaction and transformation consulting

Technology transformation

Tax function operations

Climate change and sustainability services

EY Ecosystems

Supply chain and operations

EY Partner Ecosystem

Explore Services

We bring together extraordinary people, like you, to build a better working world.

• 1||More about what you can do here
• 2||More about what it's like to work here
• 3||More about how to join us
• 4||More about job search

Experienced professionals

MBA and advanced-degree students

Student and entry level programs

Contract workers

EY-Parthenon careers

Discover how EY insights and services are helping to reframe the future of your industry.

Case studies

How Microsoft built a new mobility model for cross-border talent

14 May 2024 Gerard Osei Bonsu

Private equity

How GenAI is empowering talent at a PE-backed consumer brand

09 May 2024 EY

Strategy transactions

How carve-outs positioned an automotive giant for future growth

12 Apr 2024 EY

At EY, our purpose is building a better working world. The insights and services we provide help to create long-term value for clients, people and society, and to build trust in the capital markets.

EY congratulates the 23 founders chosen for the EY Entrepreneurial Winning Women™ North America Class of 2024

11 Sep 2024 EY Americas

NASCIO and EY US study reveals majority of states lack data quality programs to support GenAI-ready data

10 Sep 2024 Jennifer Hemmerdinger

EY Mobility Consumer Index shows US less likely to purchase an EV than last year and compared to global consumers

09 Sep 2024 EY Americas

No results have been found

Recent Searches

CIO Survey: will you set the GenAI agenda or follow the leaders?

Get insights on how CIOs will address the challenges and capture the full benefits of GenAI in the 2024 EY CIO Sentiment Survey.

How a flexible supply chain raised the bar for the beverage industry

The client’s goal: better accommodate future growth, predict customer demands, and add agility to inventory and production lines. Learn how we did it.

How can your business go from competitive to cutting edge?

Learn how the EY-Microsoft Alliance delivers AI driven strategies and smart business solutions using cloud technology.

Select your location

Why a reinvented supply chain tastes good to Ajinomoto Foods

Through holistic digital transformation, Ajinomoto Foods North America is saving money and time while getting better results for consumers.

• 1. Better question
• 2. Better answer
• 3. Better working world

How EY can help

The better the question

How can a food producer harvest gains with optimized logistics?

Ajinomoto Foods North America transforms its supply chain through a logistics and operations overhaul.

In today’s rapidly evolving digital world, most executives recognize the importance of embracing digital change; however, new capabilities are often added cautiously and modestly, favoring the enhancement of existing operations over a complete business overhaul.

That has not been the case at Ajinomoto Foods North America (AFNA), which creates and markets foods and spices for consumers under brands such as Ajinomoto, Tai Pei, José Olé and Hondashi. During the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftershocks, executives at AFNA were forced to confront a landscape of disruption: whiplashing consumer preferences, supply chain disruptions, and rising freight and warehousing costs. Understandably, they were initially focused on getting through the crisis — yet instead of trying to achieve “back to normal,” they aspired to transform not just one initiative or one function, but the entire organization.

At the beginning, supply chain consultants with Ernst & Young LLP (EY) conducted “art of the possible” sessions around generating revenue, avoiding costs and saving in supply chain planning. That led to a supply chain assessment that showed great potential for improvement within logistics, adding technology and digital support for greater inventory visibility and optimal deployment, with near-real-time tracking and carrier oversight. New transportation management infrastructure would help build multi-stop and multimodal shipments, auto-select the right carriers, and address cost distribution and invoice verification.

And that was only the beginning of a three-year journey founded on value and trust. Today, AFNA has evolved its supply chain from end to end, making it the standout region for the global Ajinomoto parent company, based in Japan. From planning to logistics, processes have been streamlined and automated wherever possible, digital capabilities have been enabled, and now artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are redefining what’s possible, holistically introduced through the lenses of people, process and technology.

“AFNA’s optimized supply chain can now do much more — and do it faster,” said Srini Muthusrinivasan, EY Technology Leader. “EY was pleased to assist AFNA throughout their logistics transformation and believes the savings and efficiencies achieved will resonate for the organization long into the future.”

The better the answer

A digitized supply chain delivers products and service more effectively

AFNA optimizes its logistics with innovative technology to better serve thousands of locations.

As the COVID-19 pandemic abated, AFNA faced increasing freight and warehousing costs, adding urgency to the project. Executives were looking to lower inventory while improving service and reducing the cost to serve. With those goals in mind, EY’s digital efforts with AFNA spanned the entire supply chain , broadly encompassing:

• Inventory optimization, with plans for deployment based on each product, distribution center, weekly forecast, production schedules, inventory policies and consumer requirements
• Planning that responds to production output compared against the plan and deployment recommendations adjusted accordingly, if necessary
• Load building with recommendations for optimal shipments based on parameters such as weight, pallet, volume and inventory position/requirements
• Process improvement centered on inventory management, order management, demand planning, and sales and operation execution design and implementation

EY first signed on to help achieve quick wins in distribution resource planning and develop a roadmap for a long-term transportation transformation. An initial logistics assessment identified opportunities to reduce costs and improve operations through Blue Yonder , an EY alliance partner whose software synchronizes forecasting and planning to warehousing, transportation and order fulfillment. The deployment was significant, involving over 550 finished goods produced at nine plants and over 25 co-packers, to 34 distribution centers that serve about 1,300 ship-to-customer locations.

Blue Yonder, based in the cloud, works seamlessly with AFNA systems while bringing a consumer products sector focus through templates. It helps plan how products should be sent to each distribution center or warehouse to meet consumer demand, and from there, shipments are tracked until they arrive at each grocery store. The EY team’s experience helped fast-track implementations with an eye toward the entire supply chain while standardizing processes.

Along the multiyear journey with AFNA, EY consultants notched quick wins — for instance, by realigning warehouses to customer demand better. And to right-size inventory, our consultants brought in policies we’ve defined based on real-world engagements with some of the world’s biggest companies, including a nine-point segmentation plan.

Success built upon success along the way, and another quick win focused on acquiring and locking in freight rates in softening truckload and intermodal markets. Just within trucking, EY recommendations consolidated the list of carriers AFNA was using from over 100 to 60 for outbound and inbound, a 40% reduction, which streamlined the distribution and receiving process for 9 AFNA plants, across over 1,000 transportation lanes and 20 co-packers.

The most recent logistics transformation achievement for AFNA involved upgrading its transportation management system with an innovative database management platform through which the company could better manage data, plan orders and shipments, audit and pay invoices, and analyze performance with metrics. AFNA had been using emails and PDFs in its logistics, but through an electronic document interface the company gained a seamless, trackable system for internal and vendor communications, and EY helped onboard carriers to the system.

Casting aside its spreadsheet-driven manual processes, AFNA gained a tremendous boost in productivity. Planners received an actionable dashboard of KPIs with one click instead of 20, improving their sales and operations execution, and saving a tremendous amount of time. The team had always been in reaction mode based on two weeks of orders. Now, they are equipped with a system that automatically recommends where to deploy products — based on business-defined rules, prioritized by customer orders and accounting for forecast demand — with complete visibility into customer preference changes and recommendations. Creating deployment orders now require just one quick approval click.

“Packing recommendations and load consolidations no longer rely on guesswork, because automation accounts for physical dimensions and weight,” said one logistics coordinator. “Building my loads today took me 3.5 hours instead of 2 days; that’s a lot of time saved in my day I can use to pack more loads and boost my productivity.”

Today, warehouse recurring fees and costs to redeploy products to other distribution centers have been slashed by up to 50%. Inventory write-offs have dropped by up to 40%, while on-time delivery performance has climbed. AFNA is now more likely to have the right product, at the right place, at the right time, which ultimately helps the organization serve their valuable consumers even better.

The better the world works

Empowered employees carry AFNA into the future of sustainable foods

Cost savings can be put toward new innovations to create lasting change for customers.

To date, EY has helped AFNA save about $40 million, with an additional $23 million estimated through April 2026, across every functional area touching the supply chain, from planning to logistics.

To sustain the change in ANFA’s newly modernized logistics infrastructure, EY hosted train-the-trainers and created employee playbooks so that employees across the organization adopted the new technology platform and ways of working. Thousands participated, which drove alignment from the bottom up and further enabled AFNA to optimize their operations across freight, delivery and sales — all through the power of their people.

“While technology played a key role, it is to AFNA leadership’s credit that they recognized how people, process and technology interplayed, and how advancements in one domain can be carried forward into another,” said Oksana Chausova, the EY Coordinating Partner for AFNA. “Their supply chain is on its way to becoming best in class thanks to their improved systems and empowered employees, and the global Ajinomoto organization is seeing improvements that could be replicated across their other regions.”

The evolution for AFNA continues. The organization’s upgraded transportation management system (TMS) can now better manage data, orders, shipments, tracking and payment, which has freed up resources for AFNA to invest in new AI innovations and capabilities , which will help the company become even more self-sufficient in areas such as route optimization, metrics tracking, food production and processing.

“Thanks to our logistics transformation with EY, AFNA is now better prepared for the future because we have digitized our planning and operating model so we can effectively get our sustainable products to market,” said Gema Verdin, Ajinomoto Foods Global VP of Supply Chain Management Planning. “Our newly modernized supply chain brings us one step closer to achieving our mission to help customers ‘eat well and live well.’”

Sustainability and ESG

Sustainability is everybody’s business. Explore EY insights to see how your business can reframe sustainability to protect and create new sources of value.

EY Supply Chain Transformation solution

Discover how EY's Supply Chain Transformation solution can help your business move towards fully autonomous, connected supply chains that drive business growth.

Ashutosh Dekhne

Gaurav Malhotra

Explore our case study library

EY Consulting case studies are a window into how we work alongside our clients to deliver strategic, sustainable growth.

• Connect with us
• Our locations
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Legal and privacy
• Accessibility
• Open Facebook profile
• Open X profile
• Open LinkedIn profile
• Open Youtube profile

EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients.

How PwC Unlocked End-to-End Supply Chain Value for Halcor

Operating on a global scale, PwC is recognised as one of the world’s Big Four consulting firms, specialising in audit and assurance, tax and advisory. 

It’s in the latter realm that PwC Greece – part of the organisation’s global network – was primed and ready to carry out end-to-end supply chain diagnostics for Halcor, the copper and alloys extrusion division of ElvalHalcor.

Having outlined areas in which Halcor’s supply chain had potential to transform, PwC has continued to work on a variety of different projects and engagements.

Explaining the partnership’s evolution, Mata Chatzicharalampous, Director Supply Chain at PwC, says: “It started with diagnostics for a problem that Halcor couldn’t quantify. They asked us to provide some insights, data and expertise in certain domains across the supply chain spectrum. 

“Every time we touched on a specific area, there was another step to take. We’ve covered the entire supply chain: planning, production, shop floor, proliferation of the portfolio, uniqueness of the market – and there’s more to come.”

Why select PwC?

PwC competed with numerous other consulting firms in Greece to win Halcor’s business. 

What enabled the company to stand out was its deep expertise and wide range of capabilities within the supply chain domain, while offering a competitive price. 

“One concern Halcor had is that consulting firms have a tendency to strategise without going into detail,” explains Athanasios Spanos, Partner at PwC specialising in supply chain.

“The synthesis within our team meant we could be very pragmatic in our approach, offering tangible benefits with a clear roadmap as to how to achieve and unlock value.”

What also stood out from the get-go was PwC Greece’s use of data analytics, with Athanasios taking responsibility for the firm’s data analytics and AI hub. 

“It’s something that, as a supply chain capability, differentiates us – especially in Greece,” continues Eleni Papandreou, Project Manager for Supply Chain at PwC. “This was another enabler for us to deliver a high-quality service.”

She adds: “Our approach was very hands-on but holistic. We studied Halcor’s supply chain end to end, from production and logistics all the way through to commercial and customer-service departments, taking all parameters into consideration.”

Host of benefits for Halcor

PwC Greece’s approach when starting a supply chain consultancy project is to identify quick wins that can be implemented while more strategic recommendations are being designed. 

Among a host of immediate benefits being enjoyed by Halcor is the fostering of a continuous improvement culture, a reduction in dispatching lead times and increased readiness for future projects thanks to value stream mapping. 

In the long-term, PwC is providing recommendations aimed at enhancing operational efficiencies, such as fine-tuning changeovers within the plant operation to increase machine hours. 

“We covered the whole spectrum, from strategic thinking as to where you want to go with your supply chain and what you will gain, all the way to a tactical level – how to achieve those benefits on a day-to-day basis,” says Athanasios. 

Looking ahead, Mata concludes: “Next, we want to capitalise on our work with Halcor to make sure we see long-term value from our partnership. In that sense we will come together as one team and work towards the same goal.”

Read the full report HERE.

**************

Make sure you check out the latest edition of Supply Chain Digital Magazine and also sign up to our global conference series - Procurement & Supply Chain LIVE 2024

Supply Chain Digital is a BizClik brand ​​​​​​​

• How PwC Unlocked End-to-End Supply Chain Value for Halcor Digital Supply Chain
• How is GM Integrating Sustainability into its Supply Chain? Sustainability
• SAP’s Darcy MacClaren: How AI will impact 2024 Technology
• Sanofi and Marken transform the healthcare supply chain

Featured Articles

Deutsche bahn to sell db schenker to dsv in us$15.8bn deal.

DSV's agreement to buy DB Schenker from Deutsche Bahn forms part of its ambitious plans to create a global market leader in transport and logistics …

P&SC LIVE: The Must-Attend Industry Event- 2 Weeks to Go

Join the leading global summit in London for a comprehensive exploration of procurement and supply chain innovations, strategies, and technologies …

Uber Freight’s Bid to Advance End-to-End Logistics

Uber Freight's latest advancements include a strategic integration with Uber Direct, modular TMS functionality and flexible procurement software …

INVERTO: Red Sea Crisis Forces Christmas Retail Rethink

Major procurement & supply chain speakers at p&sc live.

• Exciting Additions to Procurement & Supply Chain LIVE
• Bayer: Modernising its End-to-End Global Logistics Operation
• P&SC LIVE: Only Four Weeks to go
• Procurement & Supply Chain LIVE London – CPD Accredited
• Analysing Transit Time Delays Along Key Global Trade Routes

• Global (EN)
• Albania (EN)
• Algeria (FR)
• Argentina (ES)
• Armenia (EN)
• Australia (EN)
• Austria (DE)
• Austria (EN)
• Azerbaijan (EN)
• Bahamas (EN)
• Bahrain (EN)
• Bangladesh (EN)
• Barbados (EN)
• Belgium (EN)
• Belgium (NL)
• Bermuda (EN)
• Bosnia and Herzegovina (EN)
• Brasil (PT)
• Brazil (EN)
• British Virgin Islands (EN)
• Bulgaria (EN)
• Cambodia (EN)
• Cameroon (FR)
• Canada (EN)
• Canada (FR)
• Cayman Islands (EN)
• Channel Islands (EN)
• Colombia (ES)
• Costa Rica (ES)
• Croatia (EN)
• Cyprus (EN)
• Czech Republic (CS)
• Czech Republic (EN)
• DR Congo (FR)
• Denmark (DA)
• Denmark (EN)
• Estonia (EN)
• Estonia (ET)
• Finland (FI)
• France (FR)
• Georgia (EN)
• Germany (DE)
• Germany (EN)
• Gibraltar (EN)
• Greece (EL)
• Greece (EN)
• Hong Kong SAR (EN)
• Hungary (EN)
• Hungary (HU)
• Iceland (IS)
• Indonesia (EN)
• Ireland (EN)
• Isle of Man (EN)
• Israel (EN)
• Ivory Coast (FR)
• Jamaica (EN)
• Jordan (EN)
• Kazakhstan (EN)
• Kazakhstan (KK)
• Kazakhstan (RU)
• Kuwait (EN)
• Latvia (EN)
• Latvia (LV)
• Lebanon (EN)
• Lithuania (EN)
• Lithuania (LT)
• Luxembourg (EN)
• Macau SAR (EN)
• Malaysia (EN)
• Mauritius (EN)
• Mexico (ES)
• Moldova (EN)
• Monaco (EN)
• Monaco (FR)
• Mongolia (EN)
• Montenegro (EN)
• Mozambique (EN)
• Myanmar (EN)
• Namibia (EN)
• Netherlands (EN)
• Netherlands (NL)
• New Zealand (EN)
• Nigeria (EN)
• North Macedonia (EN)
• Norway (NB)
• Pakistan (EN)
• Panama (ES)
• Philippines (EN)
• Poland (EN)
• Poland (PL)
• Portugal (EN)
• Portugal (PT)
• Romania (EN)
• Romania (RO)
• Saudi Arabia (EN)
• Serbia (EN)
• Singapore (EN)
• Slovakia (EN)
• Slovakia (SK)
• Slovenia (EN)
• South Africa (EN)
• Sri Lanka (EN)
• Sweden (SV)
• Switzerland (DE)
• Switzerland (EN)
• Switzerland (FR)
• Taiwan (EN)
• Taiwan (ZH)
• Thailand (EN)
• Trinidad and Tobago (EN)
• Tunisia (EN)
• Tunisia (FR)
• Turkey (EN)
• Turkey (TR)
• Ukraine (EN)
• Ukraine (RU)
• Ukraine (UK)
• United Arab Emirates (EN)
• United Kingdom (EN)
• United States (EN)
• Uruguay (ES)
• Uzbekistan (EN)
• Uzbekistan (RU)
• Venezuela (ES)
• Vietnam (EN)
• Vietnam (VI)
• Zambia (EN)
• Zimbabwe (EN)

Your search term was too short.

Search terms must include 3 or more characters.

Our Insights

Trending topics.

In today’s increasingly disruptive world of climate disasters, political conflict and societal inequalities, rapid ESG progress is crucial to achieving a more sustainable future.

AI and Technology

We believe in the transformative power of AI. And that it can only reach its full potential when it is paired with human expertise and ingenuity.

Risk and Regulation

In a complex world where finance, trade, technology and environment intersect in different and evolving ways, we believe conventional approaches to risk and regulatory compliance are no longer  fit for purpose.

Transformation

The world is rapidly changing. And change can create significant opportunities. Yet, from our perspective, seizing those opportunities requires vision, insights and capabilities.

There is an acute labor shortage in many industries around the world, making it a strategic necessity to attract and keep the very best employees.

Value Creation

Whether you are transacting or transforming, you need to ensure you are capturing all the value you can from your assets and investments.

Many organizations are under pressure to do things better, more efficiently, more effectively, at a lower cost, at a higher quality, using fewer resources and at a faster pace. 

Featured insights

Ai in financial reporting and audit: navigating the new era.

Anchoring ESG in governance

Venture Pulse Q2 2024

Explore our Insights

No results found..

We found no results for your search. Please try a different search term.

Server error

A server error prevented us from completing your search. Please try again later.

Subscribe to KPMG newsletters

Receive exclusive content directly from KPMG professionals on current market trends.