Supply chain risk management research: avenues for further ......risk-adjusting measures are available – experience more supply malfunctions or other adverse consequences. The paper

Int. J. Supply Chain and Operations Resilience, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2016 51

Copyright © 2016 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Supply chain risk management research: avenues for further studies

Irène Kilubi* and Hans-Dietrich Haasis Chair of Maritime Business and Logistics, Faculty of General Business Administration, University of Bremen, Wilhelm-Herbst-Str. 12, 28359 Bremen, Germany Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Abstract: Organisations that are affected by supply chain risks will – if no risk-adjusting measures are available – experience more supply malfunctions or other adverse consequences. The paper at hand paper delivers a systematic review of the existing literature, featuring in-depth analysis and cognition on the ever-expanding supply chain risk management (SCRM) topic. The findings reveal that there is a lack of empirical evidence for the relational linkage between SCRM and performance. However, ‘top’ 24 antecedents for effective SCRM and various SCRM risk sources classified into supply-side, demand-side, external, and internal risks have been identified. The results of these useful insights allow for an identification of gaps to foster further investigations that will offer an advanced understanding of SCRM and its effect on performance. Hence, we contribute to the SCRM research stream by synthesising the highly fragmented and inconsistent literature that currently exists.

Keywords: supply chain risk management; SCRM; supply chain risk(s); supply chain disruption(s); supply chain risk sources; supply chain performance; antecedents; CIMO; systematic review; literature review; literature survey

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Kilubi, I. and Haasis, H-D. (2016) ‘Supply chain risk management research: avenues for further studies’, Int. J. Supply Chain and Operations Resilience, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.51–71.

Biographical notes: Irène Kilubi is an external PhD candidate at the University of Bremen in Germany. She received her Master of Science in Supply Chain and Logistics Management from the University of Warwick in the UK. Her research interests include supply chain risk management, strategic technology partnerships, and international cooperations. Besides pursuing her PhD, she works as a Purchasing Specialist for the BMW Group in Munich and is a Lecturer for SCM and Purchasing at the University of Applied Sciences Munich.

Hans-Dietrich Haasis is a Full Professor in General Business Administration at the Chair of Maritime Business and Logistics at the University of Bremen in Germany. He has published in several managerial and academic outlets and is a member of various scientific advisory councils and brains trust. His primary areas of research interest include innovative cluster structures and processes, sustainable value chains, industry 4.0, international cooperation, value chain management, and supply chain management.

52 I. Kilubi and H-D. Haasis

1 Introduction

Various business trends are leading to dynamic and complex supply chain (SC) networks (e.g., Chen et al., 2013; Cavinato, 2004; Harland et al., 2003; Zsidisin et al., 2004). One consequence is that risk is amplifying among SC networks, therefore, managers need to identify, assess and manage risks from a wider diverse range of contexts and sources (Sodhi et al., 2012; Tang, 2006; Wagner and Bode, 2006). Awareness of risks within SCs seem to have amplified as more partners are involved due to the rise globalisation, offshoring and outsourcing (Braunscheidel and Suresh, 2009). As a result, globalisation fosters risks in SCs since the resulting dependencies might lead to risks of both the supply-side the demand-side (e.g., Talluri et al., 2013; Finch, 2004; Faisal et al., 2006). Against the background of these risks affecting SCs, it can be supposed that SC performance can be negatively affected (Zhao et al., 2013; Thun and Hoenig, 2011). Therefore, many companies have recognised the need to conduct formal risk audits and to seek to manage that risk (Jüttner et al., 2003; Tang and Musa, 2011). Even though risk management in multinational companies has been examined in the past (e.g., Baird and Thomas, 1991; Carter and Vickery, 1989; Miller, 1992), research on risk management received less attention until the last decade when several researchers recreated interest in risk management, specifically addressing global SCs (Giunipero and Eltantawy, 2004; Norrman and Jansson, 2004; Spekman and Davis, 2004; Zsidisin and Ellram, 2003). SCRM is still believed to be a growing and promising field by researchers (e.g., Knemeyer et al., 2009; Lavastre et al., 2012; Bogataj and Bogataj, 2007; Goh et al., 2007) but has numerous open-ended boundaries. SC strategies and their link to business performance are significant fields of research (Lynch et al., 2000; Morash, 2006).

Effective SCRM commences with the identification of possible risk sources that negatively affect performance. Researchers recommend that a risk management process should follow a formal, structured approach to identifying, quantifying, and reducing risks (Jüttner et al. 2003; Tang, 2006). Similarly, Manuj and Mentzer (2008b) indicate that identifying risks is the first iteration in generating efficacious risk management processes. To survive in a risky and turbulent business environment, it is of paramount importance for enterprises to implement SCRM. Thus, risk management is incrementally factored into decision-making today (Xia, 2011). According to Norrman and Jansson (2004), the primary focus of SCRM is the understanding and attempt to avoid or mitigate the detrimental effects that even marginal disruptions can have on SCs. Consequently, SCRM is a research field of growing importance and aims at providing approaches and practices for identifying, assessing, analysing and treating areas of vulnerability, disruption and risks in SC networks (Neiger et al., 2009). Therefore, several researchers are concerned with risk mitigation instruments that maintain resistant and efficient SCs. Furthermore, methods for evaluating potential risk sources to uphold or augment the performance of their organisation are highly demanded (Thun and Hoenig, 2011). Hence, the settings above constitute our motivation to analyse current issues and trends in SCRM linked to performance to identify possible research gaps that need further attention.

Our research is guided by the systematic literature review (SLR) proposed by for instance, Briner et al. (2009), Rousseau et al. (2008) and Dickersin et al. (1994) that is structured and robust. Boote and Bailey (2005) bring forward the argument that in order to promote our shared cognition; scientists must comprehend what has previously been done, the strengths and weaknesses of present research, and their underlying meaning.

Supply chain risk management research 53

Thus, a thorough literature review is a precondition for doing robust, evident, and valid research.

The organisation of the present SLR is as follows. The subsequent section deals with the elucidation of our rigorous SLR and the underlying research questions. Next, we emphasise the constitutional research setting including the criteria drawn on in selecting and evaluating scientific databases, as well as academic journals and articles. The paper closes by discussing the findings, indicating implications for managers and showing paths for further investigation.

2 Research methodology and design

In the present paper, a SLR of the SCRM field is arranged that ensures document reliability that is in line with current calls for greater methodological rigor in management literature reviews (Briner et al., 2009; Mulrow, 2001; Tranfield et al., 2003). In opposition to traditional reviews, reviews that are evidence-based like SLRs stand out because of their underlying principles, i.e., inclusivity, heuristic and explanatory nature as well as their transparency, allowing for a higher objectivity of the search results while eliminating error or bias issues. Rousseau et al. (2008) consider systematic reviews to applying critical interpretation with predefined criteria aiming to deliver the evidentiary value of previous research. Thus, evidence that has been produced from a systematic review using a methodologically rigorous approach has been found to have a high impact on scientific research and can provide a powerful tool.

Figure 1 Research methodology for SLR

Source: Adapted from Denyer and Tranfield (2009)

We adopt the rigorous SLR process suggested by Denyer and Tranfield (2009) for conducting the transparent and solid evidence-informed knowledge investigation as shown in Figure 1. This method is explicit, systematic, and replicable and is applied to identify, analyse, and report the existing confirmation from the SCRM academic literature. This method has been recently used by several other authors that conducted a


systematic literature in SCM and strategic management as well (e.g., Gimenez et al., 2012; Kilubi, 2015; Müller-Seitz, 2012; Pilbeam et al., 2012).

2.1 Formulating the research questions

Denyer and Tranfield (2009, p.682) used the expression context-intervention-mechanisms-outcome (CIMO) to lay down the four distinctive factors to be analysed in order to perform the subsequent processes of a well-designed SLR. To further determine and fix the scope of our examination, we applied the CIMO framework, utilising a series of logical questions such as context (C), interventions (I), mechanism (M), and outcomes (O) to our SLR on review questions that are well-formulated and answerable. Next, the CIMO logic in the context of SCRM is derived.

2.1.1 Context

Claims that we are surrounded by an ever-changing and uncertain world form part of almost every paper in management practice or research. Today’s marketplace is featured by though competitive pressures as well as enormous levels of disturbances and turbulences (Braunscheidel and Suresh, 2009; Christopher and Holweg, 2011). The uncertainty and complexity in a business setting can also augment the so-called termed ‘chaos’ risks within SCs (Christopher and Lee, 2004). In applying the CIMO method, we found ‘the dynamics of a competitive environment’ [Trkman and McCormack, (2009), p.249] as the context of our literature research, in which SC networks operate in an increasingly uncertain, complex and global environment with extremely fast-pacing and highly competitive markets.

2.1.2 Interventions

Researchers and practitioners are concerned with the detrimental effects of SC risks and the ways to mitigate them. Hence, the risk of disruptions triggered both from dynamics within SCs and from external environmental action is of vital interest to both practitioners and researchers (Tummala and Schöherr, 2011). In this connection, branded by an amplified degree of uncertainty and complexity, the interventions are epitomised by disruptions and risks in SCs.

2.1.3 Mechanism

Understanding of the SC risk sources that damage the performance of SC networks and the gravity of their impact can help an organisations design efficient SCRM processes in order to mitigate the detrimental effects caused by these risk sources (Punniyamoorthy et al., 2013). Against this background, we define the mechanism as antecedents within SC networks that enable them to be armed for unexpected disturbances as well as to respond effectively to risks.


2.1.4 Outcomes

SC risks are jeopardising competitiveness and profitability of companies and organisations. Therefore, academics and practitioners are interested in SCRM approaches that assist the persistence and efficiency of their SC networks, as well as in practices for evaluating prospective sources of risk (Fawcett et al., 2011). The intended outcome is, therefore, increased operational and business performance.

Hence, the appointed subjects of focus are uncertainty and complexity (C), disruptions and risks in SCs (I), antecedents of SCRM (M) and increased SC performance and stability (O). Consequently, the SLR aims at answering the following research questions:

RQ1 Which are the risk sources inherent in SCs?

RQ2 What are the antecedents of SCRM suggested in the academic literature?

RQ3 What is the relationship between SCRM and performance?

2.2 Locating the studies

Our purpose was to encompass a broad range of information and sources to capture relevant studies. More specifically, to identify relevant articles that are in alignment with our research questions, our primary source was to scan the major computerised business-relevant databases databases ABI/Inform Global, SCOPUS, Taylor & Francis, Science Direct, and Business Source Complete. This searching procedure is widely accepted and has been utilised in previous literature reviews (e.g., Keller and Ozment, 2009; Winter and Knemeyer, 2013). Apart from using these databases at academic institutions, Google Scholar was used to searching for supplemental articles relevant to the present study. We used the web search option of Google Scholar entering our defined keywords in the search field. Moreover, to test the validity of Google Scholar, a search was conducted in both Google Scholar and EBSCO’s Business Source Complete. Google Scholar included all, and more, of the papers listed on EBSCO’s Business Source Complete. This is accordable with previous studies that have highlighted that Google Scholar is more complete than some other databases; however, it still suffers from limitations such as incomplete references and therefore it was decided not to rely solely on it for the literature search (Kousha and Thelwall, 2007; Walters, 2007). The authors determined a set of keywords during an intensive brainstorming session. At a second meeting, the keywords were revised and critically evaluated by an academic team to enhance the quality of the search. Next, to identify articles for inclusion, a final list of keywords was established. We thereby used the search phrases ‘SC risk’ or ‘SC risk management’ together with performance. Those keywords were selected to identify articles dealing with the relationship between SCRM on performance.

2.3 Selecting and evaluating relevant studies

Following Denyer and Tranfield (2009), a rigorous process was employed to select and retrieve papers:


1 selection of computerised databases

2 identification of keywords for search

3 checking of selected abstracts and conclusions

4 full-text review of selected papers.

Academic journals legitimise and control the nature of what is and ought to be recognised as valid research (Rousseau et al., 2008). Therefore, in place of utilising congress records, books, doctoral theses, or non-peer-reviewed journal articles, pre-prints, working papers, newspaper articles and other ‘grey literature’, we chose to include articles published in academic journals (Light and Pillemer, 1984). The peer-review process is an indicator of quality and aims at assessing the methodological and conceptual rigor of a study (David and Han, 2004). For that reason, we consider that this approach provides a representative and accurate picture of relevant research scholar. For the present analysis only the inclusion of peer-reviewed journals with a VHB ranking of A +, A, B, or C were defined as one inclusion criteria. VHB, the Association of University Professors for Business Research (VHB), the umbrella organisation of German university professors in the field of Business Administration. The VHB ranking is based on an assessment of economically relevant journals by the members of the VHB (Adler and Harzing, 2009). Journals are ranked from A till E, where A is the best category and E the worst one. Thus, we scanned the selected electronic databases under the terms of our defined keywords, with no time restriction. The main principle was that an academic journal article had to contain the phrase ‘SC risk’ in the article search together with at least one of the keywords, for example ‘performance’. Our unit of analysis was SC risk management. In pseudo code, we used the search phrases ‘SC risk(s)’ OR ‘SC risk management’ in the article title (TI) solely as well as together with performance in the abstract (AB), keywords (KW) and title (TI) search. Next, we redefined our search; the necessary criterion was that a paper had to cover the phrase ‘SC’ with at least one of the keywords ‘risk(s)’ OR ‘risk management’; for example, ‘SC’ AND ‘risk(s)’ OR ‘risk management’. Then, every article in each of the previously 20 selected journals (from the beginning of 2000 to the end 2013) was considered. The search resulted in 1,528 articles at first; however, these numbers should not be considered as mutually exclusive as several studies were incorporated into more than one database. In this case, 1,215 duplicates were removed, and 253 articles remained. To assess the relevance of journal articles to SCRM, we read the abstracts and the conclusions. Articles that appeared irrelevant to the required criteria of the review were omitted to ensure consistent focus and reduce bias. In total, we identified 253 appropriate academic papers.

Finally, the last step involved reading all 122 articles in their entirety. All those articles that seemed non-relevant to the necessary criteria of the SLR were taken out to ensure an even focus. Here again, 69 articles excluded after reading the full text. As a result, 53 items were identified after reading the full text. By skimming the reference lists, we noticed a few papers that might be of high relevance but were published under a different term (e.g., logistics) or in an academic journal outside the 21 selected. Therefore, seven additional items were included as part of the cross-referencing approach to guarantee the comprehensiveness of the present literature review. The final result of 60 journal articles on the topic of SCRM was then analysed in-depth to answer the fundamental research questions of the present systematic review (cf. Figure 2).


Figure 2 Schematic article selection process

3 Scope of research: systematic review of the SCRM literature

3.1 Analysing and synthesising the findings

The output of a synthesis is a well-informed elucidation of what the academic evidence says regarding the research questions including its related issues that arose in the process (Rousseau et al., 2008). The sample of 60 selected journals in this SLR was published in 21 interdisciplinary academic journals. In detail, the greatest number of articles appeared in the International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management (n = 12),


Supply Chain Management: An International Journal (n = 9), International Journal of Production Economics (n = 9), International Journal of Production Research, Journal of Operations Management, Production and Operations Management, (each n = 3), Journal of Business Logistics, Management Science, European Journal of Operational Research, International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, (each n = 2). Further contributions come from, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, California Management Review, Business Process Management Journal, Decision Support Systems, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Omega, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Logistics Research, Transportation Research E (n = 1 for each academic journal). Table 1 provides a summary of the published articles linking the number of papers issued per journal and per year (note: only journals appearing at least twice have been displayed).

There are obviously years that yield larger numbers of publications, which may be resulting from the fact that certain academic journals have been releasing call for papers on the topic of SCRM. The development of literature over time shows that the year 2004 (n = 10) marked the peak in number of articles published, followed by 2009 (n = 6), 2012 (n = 6), and finally the years 2006 and 2011 (each n = 5). Against this background, the significance of the SCRM topic and the need for further expanding research in this field is clearly revealed.

Figure 3 Number of articles by journal publications (only those with at least two have been displayed) (see online version for colours)


Table 1 Number of articles per year published by academic journal

Acad

emic

jour

nal

2000

20

01

2002

20

03

2004

20

05

2006

20

07

2008

20

09

2010

20

11

2012

20

13

Num

ber

of

artic

les

Euro

pean

Jou

rnal

of O

pera

tiona

l Res

earc

h 0

0 0

1 0

0 0

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 2

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of L

ogis

tics R

esea

rch

and

Appl

icat

ions

0

0 0

1 0

0 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 2

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of O

pera

tions

and

Pro

duct

ion

Man

agem

ent

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

1

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of P

hysi

cal D

istr

ibut

ion

and

Logi

stic

s M

anag

emen

t 0

0 0

0 7

0 0

0 1

1 0

1 2

0 12

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of P

rodu

ctio

n Re

sear

ch

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

2 0

0 1

3 In

tern

atio

nal J

ourn

al o

f Pro

duct

ion

Econ

omic

s 0

0 0

0 1

0 1

1 1

1 0

2 1

0 8

Jour

nal o

f Bus

ines

s Log

istic

s 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 2

0 0

0 0

1 3

Jour

nal o

f Ope

ratio

ns M

anag

emen

t 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

3 0

0 0

0 3

Jour

nal o

f Pur

chas

ing

and

Supp

ly M

anag

emen

t 0

0 0

1 0

0 0

0 1

0 0

0 1

0 3

Jour

nal o

f Sup

ply

Cha

in M

anag

emen

t 0

0 0

1 0

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 1

0 3

Prod

uctio

n an

d O

pera

tions

Man

agem

ent

0 0

0 0

0 2

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 0

3 Su

pply

Cha

in M

anag

emen

t: An

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

1

0 0

0 2

0 1

0 1

0 0

1 1

1 8


Table 2 Synthesised categories of SC risk sources

Cat

egor

ies o

f ri

sk so

urce

s Su

b-le

vel r

isk

sour

ces

Des

crip

tion

Exam

ples

Fr

eque

ncy

Auth

or(s

)

Supp

ly-s

ide

risks

Supp

ly ri

sks a

re g

roun

ded

on

inst

abili

ties o

f flo

w o

n be

half

of

supp

liers

and

refe

r to

subs

tant

ial

and/

or in

acce

ptab

le le

tdow

ns w

ith

inco

min

g go

ods a

nd se

rvic

es.

Dis

rupt

ion

of sc

hedu

les,

supp

ly, i

nven

tory

, an

d te

chno

logy

acc

ess,

qual

ity p

robl

ems,

capa

city

con

stra

ints

, hig

h ca

paci

ty

utili

satio

n, in

flexi

bilit

y of

supp

ly so

urce

, cu

rren

cy fl

uctu

atio

ns, t

echn

olog

ical

un

certa

inty

, pro

duct

com

plex

ity, e

tc.

14

Zsid

isin

et a

l. (2

000)

, Joh

nson

(200

1), G

oh

et a

l. (2

007)

, Man

uj a

nd M

entz

er (2

008a

, 20

08b)

, Tan

g an

d To

mlin

(200

8), W

agne

r an

d B

ode

(200

8), L

ocka

my

and

McC

orm

ack

(201

0), T

umm

ala

and

Schö

herr

(201

1), Z

sidis

in a

nd W

agne

r (2

010)

, Wev

er e

t al.

(201

2), Z

sidi

sin

and

Smith

(200

5), P

unni

yam

oorth

y et

al.

(201

1), S

chön

herr

et a

l. (2

008)

, Vilk

o an

d H

allik

as (2

012)

D

eman

d-si

de

risks

Dem

and

risks

invo

lve

dist

urba

nces

on

beh

alf o

f the

con

sum

er. T

hose

ris

ks a

re in

terr

elat

ed to

loss

es

caus

ed b

y pr

oces

sing

err

ors,

tech

nica

l fai

lure

s, an

d qu

ality

pr

oble

ms.

New

pro

duct

intro

duct

ions

, var

iatio

ns in

de

man

d, re

puta

tion

risks

, rec

eiva

bles

risk

s, pr

oduc

t sho

rtage

s, pr

oduc

t rec

alls,

in

dust

ry o

r mar

ket r

isks

(e.g

., vo

latil

ity o

f cu

stom

er d

eman

d), e

tc.

10

John

son

(200

1), G

oh e

t al.

(200

7), M

anuj

an

d M

entz

er (2

008a

, 200

8b),

Wag

ner a

nd

Bod

e (2

008)

, Tan

g an

d To

mlin

(200

8),

Wev

er e

t al.

(201

2), T

umm

ala

and

Schö

nher

r (20

11),

Zsid

isin

and

Sm

ith

(200

5), P

unni

yam

oorth

y et

al.

(201

3);

Schö

nher

r et a

l. (2

008)

Ex

tern

al ri

sks

Exte

rnal

risk

s are

all

the

risks

that

lie

out

side

of t

he b

ound

arie

s of

supp

ly c

hain

net

wor

ks a

nd w

hich

ca

nnot

be

dire

ctly

influ

ence

d by

the

orga

nisa

tiona

l act

ors.

Ther

e ar

e th

us

outs

ide

the

cont

rol o

f sup

ply

chai

n en

titie

s. C

onse

quen

tly, t

here

are

in

gene

ral h

arde

r to

cont

rol.

Exte

rnal

risk

sour

ces a

re fo

r ins

tanc

e,

natu

ral r

isks

, soc

ial r

isks

, war

s, po

litic

al

risks

, crim

es, e

cono

mic

uph

eava

l, et

c.

16

Chr

isto

pher

and

Lee

(200

4), L

ocka

my

and

McC

orm

ack

(201

0)

D

isru

ptio

n ris

ks

Dis

rupt

ion

risks

refe

r to

unfo

rese

en

disc

ontin

uitie

s. Th

at c

an b

e ris

ks

aris

ing

from

pol

itica

l and

eco

nom

ic

inst

abili

ty, a

nd o

pera

tiona

l ris

ks

(par

ts a

nd m

ater

ials

shor

tage

s, eq

uipm

ent a

nd m

achi

nery

m

alfu

nctio

ns, a

nd q

ualit

y pr

oble

ms)

.

Exam

ples

for d

isru

ptio

n ris

ks a

re n

atur

al,

sing

le so

urce

of s

uppl

y, la

bour

dis

pute

s, di

sast

ers,

strik

es, e

cono

mic

inst

abili

ty,

natu

ral h

azar

ds, t

erro

rism

and

war

s, hu

man

-rel

ated

issu

es –

from

frau

d to

st

rikes

, dut

ies d

elay

s.

K

lein

dorfe

r and

Saa

d (2

005)

, Tan

g (2

006)

, G

oh e

t al.

(200

7), T

umm

ala

and

Schö

nher

r (2

011)

Po

licy

risks

(in

clud

ing,

fis

cal,

lega

l, an

d bu

reau

crat

ic

risks

)

Expo

ses t

he c

ompa

nies

with

al

tera

tions

in re

gula

tions

der

ogat

ing

the

orga

nisa

tion’

s bus

ines

s, su

ch a

s en

viro

nmen

tal r

egul

atio

n. M

ost

nota

bly,

lega

l alte

ratio

ns a

re o

ften

abru

pt a

nd h

ard

to a

ntic

ipat

e.

Gov

ernm

enta

l bar

riers

(e.g

., cu

stom

s, tra

de re

gula

tions

, dut

ies)

may

lim

it th

e de

sign

and

impa

ct th

e op

erat

iona

l pe

rform

ance

of s

uppl

y ch

ain

netw

orks

.

H

arla

nd e

t al.

(200

3), T

ang

and

Tom

lin

(200

8), W

agne

r and

Bod

e (2

008)

, Man

uj

and

Men

tzer

(200

8a),

Vilk

o an

d H

allik

as

(201

2)


Table 2 Synthesised categories of SC risk sources (continued)

Cat

egor

ies o

f ri

sk so

urce

s Su

b-le

vel r

isk

sour

ces

Des

crip

tion

Exam

ples

Fr

eque

ncy

Auth

or(s

)

En

viro

nmen

tal

risks

cf

. org

anis

atio

nal r

isks

Ex

ampl

es fo

r int

erna

l ris

ks a

re fo

r in

stan

ce, f

inan

cial

inso

lven

cy, l

ack

on

equi

pmen

t, re

sour

ces a

nd e

quip

men

t (se

e al

so o

rgan

isat

iona

l ris

ks).

18

Chr

isto

pher

and

Lee

(200

4), Y

u et

al.

(200

9)

Inte

rnal

risk

s cf

. org

anis

atio

nal r

isks

Ex

ampl

es fo

r int

erna

l ris

ks a

re fo

r in

stan

ce, f

inan

cial

inso

lven

cy, l

ack

on

equi

pmen

t, re

sour

ces a

nd e

quip

men

t (se

e al

so o

rgan

isat

iona

l ris

ks).

18

Chr

isto

pher

and

Lee

(200

4), Y

u et

al.

(200

9)

Pr

oces

s ris

ks

Inte

rnal

ope

ratio

ns (i

nclu

ding

in

- and

out

-logi

stic

s) th

at a

re

susc

eptib

le to

issu

es th

at c

an c

ause

flu

ctua

tions

in e

ffect

ive

capa

city

an

d qu

ality

.

Proc

ess r

isks

spec

ify d

istu

rban

ces w

ithin

an

org

anis

atio

n’s o

pera

tiona

l act

iviti

es

with

rega

rd to

incr

ease

in v

alue

, e.g

., pr

oduc

tion

dela

y or

faili

ng o

pera

ting

reso

urce

s, et

c.

N

orrm

an a

nd Ja

nsso

n (2

004)

, Tan

g an

d To

mlin

(200

8)

O

rgan

isat

iona

l ris

ks

Org

anis

atio

nal r

isks

are

rela

ted

to

risks

that

resi

de w

ithin

or

gani

satio

nal b

ound

arie

s of s

uppl

y ch

ain

mem

bers

.

Org

anis

atio

nal r

isks

rang

e fro

m

IT-s

yste

m in

secu

rity

or o

pera

tions

and

pr

oduc

tion

mal

func

tions

(e.g

., m

achi

ne

failu

re).

Jü

ttner

et a

l. (2

003)

, Fin

ch (2

004)

, Fai

sal

et a

l. (2

006)

O

pera

tiona

l ris

ks

Ope

ratio

nal r

isks

enc

ompa

ss th

e w

ay o

rgan

isat

ions

ope

rate

thei

r bu

sine

ss. T

hose

risk

s are

in

terr

elat

ed to

loss

es c

ause

d by

pr

oces

sing

err

ors,

tech

nica

l fai

lure

s, an

d qu

ality

pro

blem

s cau

sed

by

prod

uctio

n er

rors

.

Bre

akdo

wn

of o

pera

tions

; ina

dequ

ate

proc

essi

ng o

r man

ufac

turin

g ca

pabi

lity;

hi

gh d

egre

es o

f pro

cess

var

iatio

ns;

chan

ges i

n op

erat

ing

expo

sure

; cha

nges

in

tech

nolo

gy, e

tc.

K

lein

dorf

er a

nd S

aad

(200

5), H

offm

ann

et a

l. (2

013)

, Man

uj a

nd M

entz

er (2

008a

, 20

08b)

, Tan

g (2

006)

, Loc

kam

y an

d M

cCor

mac

k (2

010)

, Sod

hi e

t al.

(201

2),

Vilk

o an

d H

allik

as (2

012)

Fi

nanc

ial

(cos

t-rel

ated

) ris

ks

Fina

ncia

l ris

ks re

fer t

o th

e po

ssib

ility

of a

supp

ly c

hain

to

defa

ult o

n its

bon

ds o

r may

als

o en

tail

the

risks

that

the

finan

cial

flo

w o

f an

emitt

er w

ill n

ot b

e su

ffic

ient

to m

eet i

ts fi

nanc

ial

liabi

litie

s.

Inve

stin

g in

wro

ng su

pplie

rs, p

oor

inve

stm

ent d

ecis

ions

, sup

plie

r ban

krup

tcy,

m

isus

e of

fund

s, da

mag

e of

phy

sica

l as

sets

, low

inve

ntor

y tu

rnov

er,

obso

lesc

ence

of g

oods

and

mat

eria

ls a

re

just

a fe

w e

xam

ples

of f

inan

cial

risk

s.

Zs

idis

in e

t al.

(200

0), H

offm

ann

et a

l. (2

013)

, Cav

inat

o (2

004)

, Chr

isto

pher

and

Le

e (2

004)


3.2 Risk sources inherent in SCs

Several scientific researchers have taken on different perceptions in categorising risks in SCs (e.g., Sodhi et al., 2012; Vilko and Hallikas, 2012; Yu et al., 2009; Zsidisin et al., 2000). Most of them classify SC risks as a first step to managing them but do so from widely diverse perspectives (e.g., Manuj and Mentzer, 2008a; Neiger et al., 2009). The categorisation of various kinds of SC risks is a difficult endeavour since each entity of a SC faces different types of risks. Through the identification of potential risks in their SC environment, decision-makers receive awareness about phenomena or events that cause disruptions (Skipper and Hanna, 2009). SC risks can be mitigated by understanding the diversity and interconnectedness of risks in SCs and knowing the elements having an impact on SCs. A synthesis of SC risk sources mentioned in the articles reviewed is described in Table 2.

3.3 SC risk sources

Effective SC risk management starts with the identification of possible risk sources that negatively affect performance. One principal prerequisite is to understand the sources of SC risks sufficiently to establish responsibility for the management of risks. Not accordingly, several inconsistencies were found in terms of terminologies used in the identified literature; 45% (27 out of 60 articles) provided different categories of SC risks. Risks may be grouped into a various of categories as:

a the ones that reside inside the SC or outside the SC

b the ones with short-term or long-term impacts

c the ones with minor or major impact to SC (Waters 2011).

However, many scientific researchers have different perceptions in terms of categorising SC risks (Vilko and Hallikas, 2012; Yu et al., 2009; Sodhi et al., 2012; Ritchie and Brindley, 2007a, 2007b). For example, Faisal et al. (2006) follows the same approach as Jüttner et al. (2003) in categorising SC risks, whereas Johnson (2001) merely classifies SC risk sources as supply-related or demand-related. Spekman and Davis (2004), as well as Tang and Musa (2011), classify SC risk sources into the three distinct SC flows. Finch (2004) takes an entirely different angle grouping risks into three general categories that encompass the three levels of coverage. In the same vein, Hoffmann et al. (2013) assigning risk sources four different dimensions, namely, environmental, financial, operational, and strategic risks. In the present systematic review, we found 27 different classifications of SC risk sources made by several authors. We categorise the SC risk sources into supply-side risks, demand-side risks, external, and internal risks. In particular, the arrangement was guided by the classifications of Norrman and Jansson (2004), Lockamy and McCormack (2010), Yu et al. (2009), and Punniyamoorthy et al. (2013). Each of the SC categories has been assigned their corresponding sub-level SCR sources as presented in Table 3.


Table 3 Summary of research linking SCRM to performance

No. Year Academic journal

Industry studied

Region (country) Focus Research

method Author(s)

1 2005 POM Cross-sectoral Global Financial performance

Event study

Hendricks and Singhal

(2005) 2 2006 SCMJ PC

manufacturer Taiwan Financial

performanceEvent study

Papadikis (2006)

3 2007 TR E Not applicable Not applicable

Supply chain performance

Model/ systems dynamic

simulation

Wilson (2007)

4 2008 JBL Cross-sectoral (e.g., 71.1% industrial,

19.5% service, 8.8 service

firms)

Germany Supply chain performance

Survey, OLS

regression

Wagner and Bode

(2008)

5 2011 IJPE Manufacturing/automotive


Survey, structural equation

modelling

Thun and Hoenig (2011)

6 2012 IJPDLM Manufacturing (e.g., 24% machinery,

22% automotive,

15% electronics)


Survey, path

analytical modelling

Kern et al. (2012)

7 2012 IJPDLM Manufacturing Global Supply chain performance

Survey, structural equation

modelling and case studies

Wieland and

Wallenburg (2012)

3.4 Antecedents of SC risk management

To examine how SC risks can effectively be managed, the present paper found several inconsistencies in terminologies among the selected papers. Some authors refer, for instance, to activities (Sinha et al., 2004), elements (Christopher and Lee, 2004), or principles (Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005). Moreover, academics propose several diverse strategies, processes, approaches, methods, practices, tools and techniques for SCRM (e.g., Skipper and Hanna, 2009; Tomlin, 2006; Yang and Yang, 2010). Taking into account that the expression capability has various meanings in literature, we stay impartial concerning the descriptive analysis. Thus, following Braunscheidel and Suresh (2009), and Jüttner et al. (2003,) we will use term ‘antecedents’ in the following. However, there are numerous diverse antecedents for effective SCRM mentioned in the literature.


We found that the postponement was mentioned 11 articles as a SCRM antecedent, followed by information sharing – guided by nine articles (n = 9), risk assessments and risk monitoring were each mentioned eight times (n = 8). Furthermore, flexibility and multiple sourcing appeared in seven articles followed by risk identification (n = 6). Next, risk integration along with partnerships, relationships, avoidance, and contingency planning were mentioned each five times (n = 5). Moreover, continuity planning, cooperation, responsibilities, risk awareness, transferring risks have also been identified as most frequently used antecedent (each n = 4). Further antecedents named were agility, collaboration, coordination, demand management, flexible supply base, flexible transportation, trust, and visibility (each n = 3). However, softer factors such as the dimension of top Management involvement was only mentioned twice just as corporate social responsibility and commitment, while for example, integration into corporate strategy, training, joint planning, inter-organisational learning, cultural proximity with partners or shared vision were only mentioned in one article, each. Contrariwise the element of trust appeared three times, at least. Some antecedents mentioned are pretty vague, without deeper specifying the domain such as mobility, speculation, imitation, formal procedures, risk acceptance, and training (each n = 1). The following 24 antecedents have been acknowledged as the most repeated ones, namely, postponement (n = 11), information sharing (n = 9), risk assessments (n = 8), flexibility (n = 7), multiple sourcing (n = 7), risk identification (n = 6), avoidance, integration, contingency planning, monitoring, relationships (each n = 5), continuity planning, cooperation, responsibilities, risk awareness, transferring risks (each n = 4), agility, collaboration, coordination, demand management, flexible supply base, flexible transportation, risk monitoring, trust, and visibility (each n = 3) (see Figure 4).

Figure 4 Most frequently mentioned SCRM antecedents (see online version for colours)

3.5 SC management and performance

Hendricks and Singhal (2005) proved that SC disruptions severely impact the health of affected organisations concerning their profitability. They further found out that those


firms concerned do only slowly recover from the detriments caused by those disruptions. Papadakis (2006) examined the impact SC disruptions have on the financial performance of enterprises. His empirical findings proved the decrease in firm’s stock price due to SC risks. He further declares that risk exposure makes it difficult for companies to anticipate SC disruptions, like, for instance, those arising from human-made or natural disasters. Wilson (2007) analysed the effect of disruptions during transportation on SC performance. Briefly, a transportation disruption between the 1st tier supplier and the warehouse has the utmost downside impact on the SC, resulting in a high increase in inventory levels and materials in transit. Wagner and Bode (2008) have executed a large-scale research investigating the impact of SCRs on SC performance. They revealed that 6% of the variance of the performance of SCs is due to the adverse effect of SC risks and concluded that SCRM is of paramount importance in both managing demand- and supply-side risks. In their study, Thun and Hoenig (2011) study revealed that firms with a higher level of SCRM implementation degree yield a superior SC performance and those using preventive SCRM methods show greater flexibility and are better at planning safety stocks. Moreover, Kern et al. (2012) have empirically validated the continuous effect of three basic risk management steps risk identification, risk assessment, and risk mitigation on business performance. Their research clearly demonstrates that firms with high expertise in those three SCRM phases render excellent performance in mitigating SC risks. An investigation conducted by Wieland and Wallenburg (2012) showed that SCRM positively affects organisational performance. Their evidence provides insights on the fact that agility is essential to cope with customer-related risks while robustness is necessary premise to handle supplier-related risks. An overview of the research that studied the relational linkage between SCRM and performance herein reported is presented in Table 3.

3.6 Reporting and using the results

Since our aim is to advance knowledge in the significant topic of SCRM and to contribute to its progression, the present systematic review revealed some inconsistencies and research gaps through in-depth analyses. We noticed that research interest in SCRM was sparked after detrimental natural and industrial disruptions like the USA terror 9/11 in 2001 with a severe impact on the global economy (Barry, 2004). As a result, we can experience a growing number of papers focusing on SCRM. In fact, more than 90% of the surveyed journal articles (52 out of 60) were published from 2003 onwards, providing evidence to the fact that research interest in SCRM is still further growing. Based on the reviewed journal publications, more than 50% of the articles in our systematic review were contributed by the following leading academic journal publishers, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management (n = 12), International Journal of Production Economics (n = 9), and Supply Chain Management: An International Journal (n = 9). This indicates high interest among peer-reviewed academic journals in this highly relevant research domain.

Considering the high number of publications from 2011 onwards a plausible explanation may be that the 9/11 attacks revealed the vulnerability of globally interconnected SCs so that this led to an increase in conducting research on SCRM (Christopher and Peck, 2004; Rice and Caniato, 2003; Sheffi and Rice, 2005). Above all we suppose that many companies exploit many of the available SC principles such as JIT,


outsourcing, lean manufacturing, offshoring and conduct other global activities to gain a competitive advantage and thus improve firm performance (e.g., Lai et al., 2009; Tang and Musa, 2011). But at the same time, those are exactly the reasons for the appearance of disruptions and risks as a consequence of higher vulnerability and complexity (Christopher and Lee, 2004; Narayanan and Raman, 2004). Therefore, strategies to prevent, mitigate, or avoid those harassments are highly demanded (Ritchie and Brindley, 2007a).

4 Practical and theoretical implications

The findings of the present paper clearly manifest the high relevance of the SCRM field for both researchers and practitioners. During the last decades, we have been witnesses of many disruptive events with detrimental effects, such as the economic and financial crisis, natural disasters or supplier bankruptcies which have caused cumulative risk exposures to organisations. As a result, managers are asked to translate the suggestions from the literature into practice whereas scientists may contribute to SCRM research as a business process to further deepen its understanding and its influence on organisational performance. Companies may jeopardise their global competitiveness if they do not learn how to cope with SC risks. There is at least partial evidence that SCRM and performance are positively linked to each other – although we have only identified a few numbers of studies focusing on the relationship between both of them. Indeed, this is an important argument for practitioners who consider the introduction of SCRM and provides them a crucial argument to invest in SCRM initiatives. The design of the SC has an influence on the appropriateness of the different SCRM antecedents. Hence, firms have to make a decision with the help of cost-benefit-analyses what implementation level they desire for their SC. Organisations need fully to comprehend the eligibility of the different antecedents, especially when they are suitable. Thus, they must select among the different antecedents and have to verify which of them they need to activate for mitigating risks and thus in turn improve performance.

As aforementioned, the findings also demonstrate clear implications for academics. We know that risks have strong perceptive elements in managing risk situations and have a significant influence on strategic decision-making (Hallikas et al., 2004). First, behavioural elements such as human/organisational risk propensity can be integrated with the conventional risks models to get more realistic solutions (Ritchie and Brindley, 2007b; Singhal et al., 2011). Second, since SCRM is a multidimensional construct the role of various personality traits, context and experience can also be incorporated into risk management models (Khan and Burnes, 2007; Sodhi et al., 2012). Third, the examination of the systematic review clearly demonstrates a lack of consistency regarding specific terms that may hinder the ability to implement SCRM effectively. Hence, the results indicate that a greater consensus on particular notions and terms concerning SCRM antecedents is undoubtedly required. Fourth, empirical research investigating the relationship between SCRM and performance is certainly on the agenda. Corresponding firms of SCs thus need to establish a common understanding of SC risks and agree upon on a coherent risk assessment and evaluation standard, which enables to evaluate the identified risks irrespective of the company’s specific preparedness to take risks (Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005; Manuj and Mentzer, 2008a). The paper at hand provides a SLR on SCRM including 60 academic journals. It acts as the foundation for an


understanding of the major risk sources, antecedents as well as research on the linkage between SCRM and performance. We hope that our study will motivate to further pursue research on the areas discussed.

References Adler, N.J. and Harzing, A.W. (2009) ‘When knowledge wins: transcending the sense of and

nonsense of academic rankings’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.72–95.

Baird, I.S. and Thomas, H. (1991) ‘What is risk anyway? Using and measuring risk in strategic management’, in Bettis, R.A. and Thomas, H. (Eds.): Risk, Strategy and Management, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

Barry, J. (2004) ‘Supply chain risk in an uncertain global supply chain environment’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34, No. 9, pp.695–697.

Bogataj, D. and Bogataj, M. (2007) ‘Measuring the supply chain risk and vulnerability in frequency space’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 108, Nos. 1–2, pp.291–301.

Boote, D. and Bailey, P. (2005) ‘Scholars before researchers – on the centrality of the literature review in research preparation’, Educational Researcher, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp.3–15.

Braunscheidel, M.J. and Suresh, N.C. (2009) ‘The organizational antecedents of a firm’s supply chain agility for risk mitigation and response’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.119–140.

Briner, R.B., Denyer, D. and Rousseau, D.M. (2009) ‘Evidence-based management: concept cleanup time?’, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.19–32.

Carter, J.R. and Vickery, S.K. (1989) ‘Currency exchange rates: their impact on global sourcing’, Journal of Purchasing & Materials Management, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp.19–25.

Cavinato, J.L. (2004) ‘Supply chain logistics risks: from the back room to the board room’, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp.383–387.

Chen, J., Sohal, A.S. and Prajogo, D.I. (2013) ‘Supply chain operational risk mitigation: a collaborative approach’, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51, No. 7, pp.2186–2199.

Christopher, M. and Holweg, M. (2011) ‘‘Supply Chain 2.0’: managing supply chains in the era of turbulence’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp.63–82.

Christopher, M. and Lee, H. (2004) ‘Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp.388–396.

Christopher, M. and Peck, H. (2004) ‘Building the resilient supply chain’, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.1–13.

David, R.J. and Han, S-K. (2004) ‘A systematic assessment of the empirical support for transaction economics’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.39–58.

Denyer, D. and Tranfield, D. (2009) ‘Producing a systematic review’, in Buchanan, D. and Bryman, A. (Eds.): The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, pp.671–687, Sage Publications Ltd., London.

Dickersin, K., Scherer, R. and Lefebvre, C. (1994) ‘Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews’, BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol. 309, No. 6964, pp.1286–1291.

Faisal, M.N., Banwet, D.K. and Shankar, R. (2006) ‘Supply chain risk mitigation: modeling the enablers’, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.535–552.


Fawcett, S.E., Wallin, C., Allred, C., Fawcett, A.M. and Magnan, G.M. (2011) ‘Information technology as an enabler of supply chain collaboration: a dynamic capabilities perspective’, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp.38–56.

Finch, P. (2004) ‘Supply chain risk management’, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.183–196.

Gimenez, C., Elcio M. and Tachizawa, E.M. (2012) ‘Extending sustainability to suppliers: a systematic literature review’, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp.531–543.

Giunipero, L.C. and Eltantawy, R.A. (2004) ‘Securing the upstream supply chain: a risk management approach’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34, No. 9, pp.698–713.

Goh, M., Lim, J. and Meng, F. (2007) ‘A stochastic model for risk management in global supply chain networks’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 182, No. 1, pp.164–173.

Hallikas, J., Karvonen, I., Pulkkinen, U., Virolainen, V-M. and Tuominen, M. (2004) ‘Risk management process in supplier networks’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 90, No. 1, pp.47–58.

Harland, C., Brenchley, R. and Walker, H. (2003) ‘Risk in supply networks’, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.51–62.

Hendricks, K.B. and Singhal, V.R. (2005) ‘An empirical analysis of the effect of supply chain disruptions on long-run stock price performance and equity risk of the firm’, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.35–52.

Hoffmann, P., Schiele, H. and Krabbendam, K. (2013) ‘Uncertainty, supply risk management and their impact on performance’, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp.199–211.

Johnson, E. (2001) ‘Learning from toys: lessons in managing supply chain risk from the toy industry’, California Management Review, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp.106–124.

Jüttner, U., Peck, H. and Christopher, M. (2003) ‘Supply chain risk management: outlining an agenda for future research’, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp.197–210.

Keller, S.B. and Ozment (2009) ‘Research on personnel issues published in leading logistics journals: what we know and don’t know’, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.378–407.

Kern, D., Moser, R., Hartmann, E. and Moder, M. (2012) ‘Supply risk management: model development and empirical analysis’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp.60–82.

Khan, O. and Burnes, B. (2007) ‘Risk and supply chain management: creating a research agenda’, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.197–216.

Kilubi, I. (2015) ‘Strategic technology partnering: a framework extension’, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.27–37.

Kleindorfer, P.R. and Saad, G.H. (2005) ‘Managing disruption risks in supply chains’, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.53–68.

Knemeyer, A.M., Zinn, W. and Eroglu, C. (2009) ‘Proactive planning for catastrophic events in supply chains’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.141–153.

Kousha, K. and Thelwall, M. (2007) ‘Google scholar citations and Google web/URL citations: a multi-discipline exploratory analysis’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 58, No. 7, pp.1055–1065.

Lai, G., Debo, L.G. and Sycara, K. (2009) ‘Sharing inventory risk in supply chain: the implication of financial constraint’, Omega, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp.811–825.

Lavastre, O., Gunasekaran, A. and Spalanzani, A. (2012) ‘Supply chain risk management in French companies’, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp.828–838.


Light, R.J. and Pillemer, D.B. (1984) Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Lockamy III, A. and McCormack, K. (2010) ‘Analysing risks in supply networks to facilitate outsourcing decisions’, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.593–611.

Lynch, D.E., Keller, S.B. and Ozment, J. (2000) ‘The effects of logistics capabilities and strategy on firm performance’, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.47–67.

Manuj, I. and Mentzer, J.T. (2008a) ‘Global supply chain risk management’, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.133–155.

Manuj, I. and Mentzer, J.T. (2008b) ‘Global supply chain risk management strategies’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp.192–223.

Miller, K.D. (1992) ‘A framework for integrated risk management in international business’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.311–331.

Morash, E.E. (2006) ‘Supply chain strategies, capabilities, and performance’, Transportation Journal, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp.37–54.

Müller-Seitz, G. (2012) ‘Leadership in interorganizational networks: a literature review and suggestions for future research’, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.428–443.

Mulrow, C.D. (2001) ‘Rationale for systematic reviews’, BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol. 309, No. 6954, pp.597–599.

Narayanan, V.G. and Raman, A. (2004) ‘Aligning incentives in supply chains’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82, No. 11, pp.94–102.

Neiger, D., Rotaru, K. and Churilov, L. (2009) ‘Supply chain risk identification with value-focused process engineering’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.154–168.

Norrman, A. and Jansson, U. (2004) ‘Ericsson’s proactive supply chain risk management approach after a serious sub-supplier accident’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp.434–456.

Papadakis, I.S. (2006) ‘Financial performance of supply chains after disruptions: an event study’, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.25–33.

Pilbeam, C., Alvarez, G. and Wilson, H. (2012) ‘The governance of supply networks: a systematic literature review’, Supply Chain Management: An international Journal, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.358–376.

Punniyamoorthy, M., Thamaraiselvan, N. and Manikandan, L. (2013) ‘Assessment of supply chain risk: scale development and validation’, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.79–105.

Rice, J.B. and Caniato, F. (2003) ‘Building a secure and resilient supply network’, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp.22–30.

Ritchie, B. and Brindley, C. (2007a) ‘Supply chain risk management and performance: a guiding framework for future development’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.303–322.

Ritchie, B. and Brindley, C. (2007b) ‘An emergent framework for supply chain risk management and performance measurement’, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 58, No. 11, pp.1398–1411.

Rousseau, D.M., Manning, J. and Denyer, D. (2008) ‘Evidence in management and organizational science: assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.475–515.

Schöenherr, T., Tummala, V.M.R. and Harrison, T.P. (2008) ‘Assessing supply chain risks with the analytic hierarchy process: providing decision support for the offshoring decision by a US manufacturing company’, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.100–111.


Sheffi, Y. and Rice Jr., J.B. (2005) ‘A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise’, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp.41–48.

Singhal, P., Agrarwal, G. and Mittal, M.L. (2011) ‘Supply chain risk management: review, classification and future research directions’, International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.15–42.

Sinha, P.R., Whitman, L.E. and Malzahn, D. (2004) ‘Methodology to mitigate supplier risk in an aerospace supply chain’, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.154–168.

Skipper, J.B. and Hanna, J.B. (2009) ‘Minimizing supply chain disruption risk through enhanced flexibility’, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp.404–427.

Sodhi, M.S., Son, B.G, and Tang, C.S. (2012) ‘Researchers’ perspectives on supply chain risk management’, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.1–13.

Spekman, R. and Davis, E. (2004) ‘Risky business: expanding the discussion on risk and the extended enterprise’, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp.414–433.

Talluri, S., Kull, T.J., Yildiz, H. and Yoon, J. (2013) ‘Assessing the efficiency of risk mitigation strategies in supply chains’, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp.253–269.

Tang, C.S. (2006) ‘Robust strategies for mitigating supply chain disruptions’, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.33–45.

Tang, C.S. and Tomlin, B. (2008) ‘The power of flexibility for mitigating supply chain risks’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 116, No. 1, pp.12–27.

Tang, O. and Musa, S.N. (2011) ‘Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain risk management’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 133, No. 1, pp.25–34.

Thun, J-H. and Hoenig, D. (2011) ‘An empirical analysis of supply chain risk management in the German automotive industry’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 131, No. 1, pp.242–249.

Tomlin, B. (2006) ‘On the value of mitigation and contingency strategies for managing supply chain disruption risks’, Management Science, Vol. 52, No. 5, pp.639–657.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003) ‘Towards a methodology for developing evidence informed management knowledge by means of systematic review’, British Journal of Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.207–222.

Trkman, P. and McCormack, K. (2009) ‘Supply chain risk in turbulent environments – a conceptual model for managing supply chain network risk’, International Journal Production Economics, Vol. 119, No. 2, pp.247–258.

Tummala, R. and Schöherr, T. (2011) ‘Assessing and managing risks using the supply chain risk management process (SCRMP)’, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp.474–483.

Vilko, J.P.P. and Hallikas, J.M. (2012) ‘Risk assessment in multimodal supply chains’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140, No. 2, pp.586–595.

Wagner, S.M. and Bode, C. (2008) ‘An empirical investigation of supply chain performance along several dimensions of risk’, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.307–325.

Walters, W.H. (2007) ‘Google scholar coverage of a disciplinary field’, Information Processing & Management, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp.1121–1132.

Wever, M., Wognum, P.M., Trienekens, J.H. and Omta, S.W.F. (2012) ‘Supply chain-wide consequences of transaction risks and their contractual solutions: towards an extended transaction cost economics framework’, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp.73–91.

Wieland, A. and Wallenburg, C.M. (2012) ‘Dealing with supply chain risks: linking risk management practices and strategies to performance’, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 42, No. 10, pp.887–905.


Wilson, M.C. (2007) ‘The impact of transportation disruptions on supply chain performance’, Transportation Research E, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp.295–320.

Winter, M. and Knemeyer, A.M. (2013) ‘Exploring the integration of sustainability and supply chain management: current state and opportunities for future inquiry’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp.18–38.

Xia, D. (2011) ‘A comprehensive decision-making model for risk management of supply chain’, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp.4957–4966.

Yang, B. and Yang, Y. (2010) ‘Postponement in supply chain risk management: a complexity perspective’, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48, No. 7, pp.1901–1912.

Yu, H., Zeng, A.Z. and Zhao, L. (2009) ‘Single or dual sourcing: decision-making in the presence of supply chain disruption risks’, Omega, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp.788–800.

Zhao, L., Huo, B., Sun, L. and Zhao, X. (2013) ‘The impact of supply chain risk on supply chain integration and company performance: a global investigation’, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.115–131.

Zsidisin, G.A. and Ellram, L.M. (2003) ‘An agency theory investigation of supply risk management’, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp.15–27.

Zsidisin, G.A., Ellram, L.M., Carter, J.R. and Cavinato, J.L. (2004) ‘An analysis of supply risk assessment techniques’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp.397–413.

Zsidisin, G.A., Panelli, A. and Upton, R. (2000) ‘Purchasing organization involvement in risk assessments, contingency plans, and risk management: an exploratory study’, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.187–202.

Zsidisin, G.A. and Smith, M.E. (2005) ‘Managing supply risk with early supplier involvement: a case study and research propositions’, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp.44–57.

Zsidisin, G.A. and Wagner, S.M. (2010) ‘Do perceptions become reality? The moderating role of supply risk resiliency on disruption occurrence’, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.1–20.

Documents

Supply chain risk management research: avenues for further ......risk-adjusting measures are available – experience more supply malfunctions or other adverse consequences. The paper