Resilient Strategies and Sustainability in Agri-Food Supply Chains in the Face of High-Risk Events

[EN] Agri-food supply chains (AFSCs) are very vulnerable to high risks such as pandemics, causing economic and social impacts mainly on the most vulnerable population. Thus, it is a priority to implement resilient strategies that enable AFSCs to resist, respond and adapt to new market challenges. At the same time, implementing resilient strategies impact on the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability. The objective of this paper is twofold: analyze resilient strategies on AFSCs in the literature and identify how these resilient strategies applied in the face of high risks affect the achievement of sustainability dimensions. The analysis of the articles is carried out in three points: consequences faced by agri-food supply chains due to high risks, strategies applicable in AFSCs, and relationship between resilient strategies and the achievement of sustainability dimensions.Authors of this publication acknowledge the contribution of the Project 691249, RUC-APS "Enhancing and implementing Knowledge based ICT solutions within high Risk and Uncertain Conditions for Agriculture Production Systems" (www.ruc-aps.eu), funded by the European Union under their funding scheme H2020-MSCA-RISE-2015.Zavala-Alcívar, A.; Verdecho Sáez, MJ.; Alfaro Saiz, JJ. (2020). Resilient Strategies and Sustainability in Agri-Food Supply Chains in the Face of High-Risk Events. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology. 598:560-570. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62412-5_46S560570598Gray, R.: Agriculture, transportation, and the COVID-19 crisis. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 68, 239–243 (2020)Queiroz, M.M., Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., Fosso Wamba, S.: Impacts of epidemic outbreaks on supply chains: mapping a research agenda amid the COVID-19 pandemic through a structured literature review. Ann. Oper. Res. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03685-7Hobbs, J.: Food supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 68, 171–176 (2020)Shashi, P., Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., Ertz, M.: Managing supply chain resilience to pursue business and environmental strategies. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 29(3), 1215–1246 (2019)Ivanov, D.: Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: a simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) case. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 136, 101922 (2020)Mamani, H., Chick, S.E., Simchi-Levi, D.: A game-theoretic model of international influenza vaccination coordination. Manage. Sci. 59(7), 1650–1670 (2013)Liu, M., Zhang, D.: A dynamic logistics model for medical resources allocation in an epidemic control with demand forecast updating. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 67, 841–852 (2016)Hessel, L.: Pandemic influenza vaccines: meeting the supply, distribution and deployment challenges. Influenza Other Respir. Viruses 3, 165–170 (2009)Orenstein, W., Schaffner, W.: Lessons learned: role of influenza vaccine production, distribution, supply, and demand—what it means for the provider. Am. J. Med. 121, S22–S27 (2008)Büyüktahtakın, I., Des-Bordes, E., Kıbış, E.: A new epidemics–logistics model: Insights into controlling the Ebola virus disease in West Africa. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 26, 1046–1063 (2018)Anparasan, A., Lejeune, M.: Analyzing the response to epidemics: concept of evidence-based Haddon matrix. J. Humanit. Logist. Supply Chain Manag. 7, 266–283 (2017)Anparasan, A.A., Lejeune, M.A.: Data laboratory for supply chain response models during epidemic outbreaks. Ann. Oper. Res. 270, 53–64 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2462-yAnparasan, A., Lejeune, M.: Resource deployment and donation allocation for epidemic outbreaks. Ann. Oper. Res. 283, 9–32 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2392-0Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A.: Viability of intertwined supply networks: extending the supply chain resilience angles towards survivability. A position paper motivated by COVID-19 outbreak. Int. J. Prod. Res. 58, 2904–2915 (2020)Ivanov, D.: Viable supply chain model: integrating agility, resilience and sustainability perspectives—lessons from and thinking beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann. Oper. Res. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03640-6Ekici, A., Keskinocak, P., Swann, J.: Modeling influenza pandemic and planning food distribution. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 16, 11–27 (2014)Miranda, R., Schaffner, D.: Virus risk in the food supply chain. Curr. Op. Food Sci. 30, 43–48 (2019)Magalhães, A., Rossi, A., Zattar, I., Marques, M., Seleme, R.: Food traceability technologies and foodborne outbreak occurrences. Br. Food J. 121, 3362–3379 (2019)Denyer, D., Tranfield, D.: Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan, D., Bryman, A. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, pp. 671–689. SAGE Publications Ltd., London (2009)Christopher, M., Peck, H.: Building the resilient supply chain. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 15, 1–14 (2004)Dolgui, A., Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B.: Ripple effect in the supply chain: an analysis and recent literature. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56, 414–430 (2018)Jüttner, U., Peck, H., Christopher, M.: Supply chain risk management: outlining an agenda for future research. Int. J. Logist. Res. 6, 197–210 (2003)Behzadi, G., O’Sullivan, M., Olsen, T., Zhang, A.: Agribusiness supply chain risk management: a review of quantitative decision models. Omega (United Kingdom) 79, 21–42 (2018)Kleindorfer, P., Saad, G.: Managing disruption risks in supply chains. Pr. Op. Man. 14, 53–68 (2005)Vishnu, C., Sridharan, R., Gunasekaran, A., Ram Kumar, P.: Strategic capabilities for managing risks in supply chains: current state and research futurities. J. Adv. Manag. Res. 17(2), 173–211 (2019)Deaton, B., Deaton, B.: Food security and Canada’s agricultural system challenged by COVID-19. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 68(2), 143–149 (2020)Richards, T., Rickard, B.: COVID-19 impact on fruit and vegetable markets. C. J. Ag. Ec. 68(2), 189–194 (2020)Larue, B.: Labor issues and COVID-19. Can. J. Agric. Econ. Can. d’agroeconomie (2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12233Hollnagel, E.: Epilogue: RAG: the resilience analysis grid. In: Hollnagel, E., Paries, J., Woods, D., Wreathall, J. (eds.) Resilience Engineering in Practice: A Guidebook. Ashgate Pr., pp. 275–296 (2011)Ponomarov, S., Holcomb, M.: Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 20, 124–143 (2009)Wu, T., Huang, S., Blackhurst, J., Zhang, X., Wang, S.: Supply chain risk management: an agent-based simulation to study the impact of retail stockouts. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 60, 676–686 (2013)Schmitt, A., Singh, M.: A quantitative analysis of disruption risk in a multi-echelon supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 139, 22–32 (2012)Vroegindewey, R., Hodbod, J.: Resilience of agricultural value chains in developing country contexts: a framework and assessment approach. Sustainability 10, 916 (2018)Behzadi, G., O’Sullivan, M., Olsen, T., Scrimgeour, F., Zhang, A.: Robust and resilient strategies for managing supply disruptions in an agribusiness supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 191, 207–220 (2017)Bottani, E., Murino, T., Schiavo, M., Akkerman, R.: Resilient food supply chain design: modelling framework and metaheuristic solution approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 135, 177–198 (2019)Meuwissen, M., et al.: A framework to assess the resilience of farming systems. Agric. Syst. 176, 102656 (2019)Dutta, P., Shrivastava, H.: The design and planning of an integrated supply chain for perishable products under uncertainties: a case study in milk industry. J. Model. Manag. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-03-2019-0071Aboah, J., Wilson, M., Rich, M., Lyne, M.: Operationalising resilience in tropical agricultural value chains. Supply Chain Manag. 24, 271–300 (2019)Ravulakollu, A., Urciuoli, L., Rukanova, B., Tan, Y., Hakvoort, R.: Risk based framework for assessing resilience in a complex multi-actor supply chain domain. Supply Chain Forum 19, 266–281 (2018)Das, K.: Integrating lean, green, and resilience criteria in designing a sustainable food supply chain. Proc. Int. Conf. Ind. Eng. Oper. Manag. 2018, 462–473 (2018)Zhu, Q., Krikke, H.: Managing a sustainable and resilient perishable food supply chain (PFSC) after an outbreak. Sustainability 12, 5004 (2020)Rozhkov, M., Ivanov, D.: Contingency production-inventory control policy for capacity disruptions in the retail supply chain with perishable products. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51, 1448–1452 (2018)Yavari, M., Zaker, H.: Designing a resilient-green closed loop supply chain network for perishable products by considering disruption in both supply chain and power networks. Comput. Chem. Eng. 134, 106680 (2020)Ye, F., Hou, G., Li, Y., Fu, S.: Managing bioethanol supply chain resiliency: a risk-sharing model to mitigate yield uncertainty risk. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 118, 1510–1527 (2018)Jabbarzadeh, A., Fahimnia, B., Sheu, J., Moghadam, H.: Designing a supply chain resilient to major disruptions and supply/demand interruptions. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 94, 121–149 (2016)O’Leary, D.: Evolving information systems and technology research issues for COVID-19 and other pandemics. J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer. 30, 1–8 (2020)Zavala-Alcívar, A., Verdecho, M.-J., Alfaro-Saiz, J.-J.: A conceptual framework to manage resilience and increase sustainability in the supply chain. Sustainability 12(16), 6300 (2020)Fahimni, B., Jabbarzadeh, A.: Marrying supply chain sustainability and resilience: a match made in heaven. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 91, 306–324 (2016)Verdecho, M.-J., Alarcón-Valero, F., Pérez-Perales, D., Alfaro-Saiz, J.-J., Rodríguez-Rodríguez, R.: A methodology to select suppliers to increase sustainability within supply chains. CEJOR (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-019-00668-3Bai, C., Sarkis, J.: Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set methodologies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 124(1), 252–264 (2010)Bai, C., Sarkis, J.: Green supplier development: analytical evaluation using rough set theory. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 1200–1210 (2010)Valipour, S., Safaei, A., Fallah, H.: Resilient supplier selection and segmentation in grey environment. J. Clean. Prod. 207, 1123–1137 (2019)Zimmer, K., Fröhling, M., Schultmann, F.: Sustainable supplier management – a review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development. Int. J. Prod. Res. 54, 1412–1442 (2016)Yang, S., Xiao, Y., Kuo, Y.: The supply chain design for perishable food with stochastic demand. Sustainability 9, 1195 (2017)Zahiri, B., Zhuang, J., Mohammadi, M.: Toward an integrated sustainable-resilient supply chain: a pharmaceutical case study. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 103, 109–142 (2017)Duong, L., Chong, J.: Supply chain collaboration in the presence of disruptions: a literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 58, 3488–3507 (2020

Agribusiness supply chain risk management: A review of quantitative decision models

Supply chain risk management is a large and growing field of research. However, within this field, mathematical models for agricultural products have received relatively little attention. This is somewhat surprising as risk management is even more important for agricultural supply chains due to challenges associated with seasonality, supply spikes, long supply lead-times, and perishability. This paper carries out a thorough review of the relatively limited literature on quantitative risk management models for agricultural supply chains. Specifically, we identify robustness and resilience as two key techniques for managing risk. Since these terms are not used consistently in the literature, we propose clear definitions and metrics for these terms; we then use these definitions to classify the agricultural supply chain risk management literature. Implications are given for both practice and future research on agricultural supply chain risk management

A Conceptual Framework to Manage Resilience and Increase Sustainability in the Supply Chain

[EN] The challenges of global economies foster supply chains to have to increase their processes of collaboration and dependence between their nodes, generating an increase in the level of vulnerability to possible impacts and interruptions in their operations that may affect their sustainability. This has developed an emerging area of interest in supply chain management, considering resilience management as a strategic capability of companies, and causing an increase in this area of research. Additionally, supply chains should deal with the three dimensions of sustainability (economic, environmental, and social dimensions) by incorporating the three types of objectives in their strategy. Thus, there is a need to integrate both resilience and sustainability in supply chain management to increase competitiveness. In this paper, a systematic literature review is undertaken to analyze resilience management and its connection to increase supply chain sustainability. In the review, 232 articles published from 2000 to February 2020 in peer-reviewed journals in the Scopus and ScienceDirect databases are analyzed, classified, and synthesized. With the results, this paper develops a conceptual framework that integrates the fundamental elements for analyzing, measuring, and managing resilience to increase sustainability in the supply chain. Finally, conclusions, limitations, and future research lines are exposed.This study was supported by the Valencian Government in Spain (Project AEST/2019/019).Zavala-Alcívar, A.; Verdecho Sáez, MJ.; Alfaro Saiz, JJ. (2020). A Conceptual Framework to Manage Resilience and Increase Sustainability in the Supply Chain. Sustainability. 12(16):1-38. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166300S1381216Roberta Pereira, C., Christopher, M., & Lago Da Silva, A. (2014). Achieving supply chain resilience: the role of procurement. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19(5/6), 626-642. doi:10.1108/scm-09-2013-0346Pettit, T. J., Fiksel, J., & Croxton, K. L. (2010). ENSURING SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE: DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK. Journal of Business Logistics, 31(1), 1-21. doi:10.1002/j.2158-1592.2010.tb00125.xPettit, 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. doi:10.1111/jbl.12009Ponis, S. T., & Koronis, E. (2012). Supply Chain Resilience: Definition Of Concept And Its Formative Elements. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 28(5), 921. doi:10.19030/jabr.v28i5.7234Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699-1710. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020Qorri, A., Mujkić, Z., & Kraslawski, A. (2018). A conceptual framework for measuring sustainability performance of supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 189, 570-584. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.073Verdecho, M.-J., Alarcón-Valero, F., Pérez-Perales, D., Alfaro-Saiz, J.-J., & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, R. (2020). A methodology to select suppliers to increase sustainability within supply chains. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 29(4), 1231-1251. doi:10.1007/s10100-019-00668-3Edgeman, R., & Wu, Z. (2016). Supply chain criticality in sustainable and resilient enterprises. Journal of Modelling in Management, 11(4), 869-888. doi:10.1108/jm2-10-2014-0078Marchese, D., Reynolds, E., Bates, M. E., Morgan, H., Clark, S. S., & Linkov, I. (2018). Resilience and sustainability: Similarities and differences in environmental management applications. Science of The Total Environment, 613-614, 1275-1283. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.086Ahern, J. (2012). Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: the promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 1203-1212. doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9799-zRamezankhani, M. J., Torabi, S. A., & Vahidi, F. (2018). Supply chain performance measurement and evaluation: A mixed sustainability and resilience approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 126, 531-548. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2018.09.054Shashi, Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., & Ertz, M. (2019). Managing supply chain resilience to pursue business and environmental strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), 1215-1246. doi:10.1002/bse.2428Ivanov, D. (2017). Revealing interfaces of supply chain resilience and sustainability: a simulation study. International Journal of Production Research, 56(10), 3507-3523. doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1343507Fahimnia, B., & Jabbarzadeh, A. (2016). Marrying supply chain sustainability and resilience: A match made in heaven. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 91, 306-324. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2016.02.007Ruiz-Benitez, R., López, C., & Real, J. C. (2019). Achieving sustainability through the lean and resilient management of the supply chain. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 49(2), 122-155. doi:10.1108/ijpdlm-10-2017-0320Pavlov, A., Ivanov, D., Pavlov, D., & Slinko, A. (2019). Optimization of network redundancy and contingency planning in sustainable and resilient supply chain resource management under conditions of structural dynamics. Annals of Operations Research. doi:10.1007/s10479-019-03182-6Khot, S. B., & Thiagarajan, S. (2019). Resilience and sustainability of supply chain management in the Indian automobile industry. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 339-348. doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2019.4.002Roostaie, S., Nawari, N., & Kibert, C. J. (2019). Sustainability and resilience: A review of definitions, relationships, and their integration into a combined building assessment framework. Building and Environment, 154, 132-144. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.02.042Davoudabadi, R., Mousavi, S. M., & Sharifi, E. (2020). An integrated weighting and ranking model based on entropy, DEA and PCA considering two aggregation approaches for resilient supplier selection problem. Journal of Computational Science, 40, 101074. doi:10.1016/j.jocs.2019.101074Carvalho, H., Duarte, S., & Cruz Machado, V. (2011). Lean, agile, resilient and green: divergencies and synergies. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 2(2), 151-179. doi:10.1108/20401461111135037Wang, Z., & Zhang, J. (2019). Agent-based evaluation of humanitarian relief goods supply capability. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 36, 101105. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101105Alikhani, R., Torabi, S. A., & Altay, N. (2019). Strategic supplier selection under sustainability and risk criteria. International Journal of Production Economics, 208, 69-82. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.11.018Zahiri, B., Zhuang, J., & Mohammadi, M. (2017). Toward an integrated sustainable-resilient supply chain: A pharmaceutical case study. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 103, 109-142. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2017.04.009Aboah, J., Wilson, M. M. J., Rich, K. M., & Lyne, M. C. (2019). Operationalising resilience in tropical agricultural value chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 24(2), 271-300. doi:10.1108/scm-05-2018-0204Statsenko, L., & Corral de Zubielqui, G. (2020). Customer collaboration, service firms’ diversification and innovation performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 85, 180-196. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.09.013Duong, L. N. K., & Chong, J. (2020). Supply chain collaboration in the presence of disruptions: a literature review. International Journal of Production Research, 58(11), 3488-3507. doi:10.1080/00207543.2020.1712491Bhamra, R., Dani, S., & Burnard, K. (2011). Resilience: the concept, a literature review and future directions. International Journal of Production Research, 49(18), 5375-5393. doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.563826Heckmann, I., Comes, T., & Nickel, S. (2015). A critical review on supply chain risk – Definition, measure and modeling. Omega, 52, 119-132. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2014.10.004Hohenstein, N.-O., Feisel, E., Hartmann, E., & Giunipero, L. (2015). Research on the phenomenon of supply chain resilience. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 45(1/2), 90-117. doi:10.1108/ijpdlm-05-2013-0128Kamalahmadi, M., & Parast, M. M. (2016). A review of the literature on the principles of enterprise and supply chain resilience: Major findings and directions for future research. International Journal of Production Economics, 171, 116-133. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.10.023Ali, 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. doi:10.1108/scm-06-2016-0197Umar, M., Wilson, M., & Heyl, J. (2017). Food Network Resilience Against Natural Disasters: A Conceptual Framework. SAGE Open, 7(3), 215824401771757. doi:10.1177/2158244017717570Stone, J., & Rahimifard, S. (2018). Resilience in agri-food supply chains: a critical analysis of the literature and synthesis of a novel framework. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 23(3), 207-238. doi:10.1108/scm-06-2017-0201Colicchia, C., Creazza, A., Noè, C., & Strozzi, F. (2019). Information sharing in supply chains: a review of risks and opportunities using the systematic literature network analysis (SLNA). Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 24(1), 5-21. doi:10.1108/scm-01-2018-0003Annarelli, A., & Nonino, F. (2016). Strategic and operational management of organizational resilience: Current state of research and future directions. Omega, 62, 1-18. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2015.08.004Behzadi, G., O’Sullivan, M. J., Olsen, T. L., & Zhang, A. (2018). Agribusiness supply chain risk management: A review of quantitative decision models. Omega, 79, 21-42. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2017.07.005Kochan, C. G., & Nowicki, D. R. (2018). Supply chain resilience: a systematic literature review and typological framework. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 48(8), 842-865. doi:10.1108/ijpdlm-02-2017-0099Hosseini, S., Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2019). Review of quantitative methods for supply chain resilience analysis. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 125, 285-307. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2019.03.001Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). 11 Evidence in Management and Organizational Science: Assembling the Field’s Full Weight of Scientific Knowledge Through Syntheses. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 475-515. doi:10.5465/19416520802211651Zimmer, K., Fröhling, M., & Schultmann, F. (2015). Sustainable supplier management – a review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development. International Journal of Production Research, 54(5), 1412-1442. doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1079340Natarajarathinam, M., Capar, I., & Narayanan, A. (2009). Managing supply chains in times of crisis: a review of literature and insights. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39(7), 535-573. doi:10.1108/09600030910996251Tang, C., & Tomlin, B. (2008). The power of flexibility for mitigating supply chain risks. International Journal of Production Economics, 116(1), 12-27. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.07.008Kleindorfer, P. R., & Saad, G. H. (2009). Managing Disruption Risks in Supply Chains. Production and Operations Management, 14(1), 53-68. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2005.tb00009.xChristopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the Resilient Supply Chain. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 15(2), 1-14. doi:10.1108/09574090410700275Wu, T., Huang, S., Blackhurst, J., Zhang, X., & Wang, S. (2013). Supply Chain Risk Management: An Agent-Based Simulation to Study the Impact of Retail Stockouts. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 60(4), 676-686. doi:10.1109/tem.2012.2190986Fang, H., & Xiao, R. (2013). Resilient closed-loop supply chain network design based on patent protection. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, 48(1), 49. doi:10.1504/ijcat.2013.055566Gong, J., Mitchell, J. E., Krishnamurthy, A., & Wallace, W. A. (2014). An interdependent layered network model for a resilient supply chain. Omega, 46, 104-116. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2013.08.002Mari, S., Lee, Y., & Memon, M. (2014). Sustainable and Resilient Supply Chain Network Design under Disruption Risks. Sustainability, 6(10), 6666-6686. doi:10.3390/su6106666Bueno-Solano, A., & Cedillo-Campos, M. G. (2014). Dynamic impact on global supply chains performance of disruptions propagation produced by terrorist acts. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 61, 1-12. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2013.09.005Costantino, F., Gravio, G. D., Shaban, A., & Tronci, M. (2014). Replenishment policy based on information sharing to mitigate the severity of supply chain disruption. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 18(1), 3. doi:10.1504/ijlsm.2014.062119Kristianto, Y., Gunasekaran, A., Helo, P., & Hao, Y. (2014). A model of resilient supply chain network design: A two-stage programming with fuzzy shortest path. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(1), 39-49. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2013.07.009Raj, R., Wang, J. W., Nayak, A., Tiwari, M. K., Han, B., Liu, C. L., & Zhang, W. J. (2015). Measuring the Resilience of Supply Chain Systems Using a Survival Model. IEEE Systems Journal, 9(2), 377-381. doi:10.1109/jsyst.2014.2339552LOH, H. S., & THAI, V. V. (2015). Cost Consequences of a Port-Related Supply Chain Disruption. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 31(3), 319-340. doi:10.1016/j.ajsl.2015.09.001Torabi, S. A., Baghersad, M., & Mansouri, S. A. (2015). Resilient supplier selection and order allocation under operational and disruption risks. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 79, 22-48. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2015.03.005Cardoso, S. R., Paula Barbosa-Póvoa, A., Relvas, S., & Novais, A. Q. (2015). Resilience metrics in the assessment of complex supply-chains performance operating under demand uncertainty. Omega, 56, 53-73. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2015.03.008Salehi Sadghiani, N., Torabi, S. A., & Sahebjamnia, N. (2015). Retail supply chain network design under operational and disruption risks. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 75, 95-114. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2014.12.015Dixit, V., Seshadrinath, N., & Tiwari, M. K. (2016). Performance measures based optimization of supply chain network resilience: A NSGA-II + Co-Kriging approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 93, 205-214. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2015.12.029Liu, F., Song, J.-S., & Tong, J. D. (2016). Building Supply Chain Resilience through Virtual Stockpile Pooling. Production and Operations Management, 25(10), 1745-1762. doi:10.1111/poms.12573Fahimnia, B., Jabbarzadeh, A., & Sarkis, J. (2018). Greening versus resilience: A supply chain design perspective. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 119, 129-148. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2018.09.005Hasani, A., & Khosrojerdi, A. (2016). Robust global supply chain network design under disruption and uncertainty considering resilience strategies: A parallel memetic algorithm for a real-life case study. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 87, 20-52. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2015.12.009Azhmyakov, V., Fernández-Gutiérrez, J. P., Gadi, S. K., & Pickl, S. (2016). A Novel Numerical Approach to the MCLP Based Resilent Supply Chain Optimization. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(31), 137-142. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.12.175Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B., Solovyeva, I., Dolgui, A., & Jie, F. (2016). Dynamic recovery policies for time-critical supply chains under conditions of ripple effect. International Journal of Production Research, 54(23), 7245-7258. doi:10.1080/00207543.2016.1161253Jabbarzadeh, A., Fahimnia, B., Sheu, J.-B., & Moghadam, H. S. (2016). Designing a supply chain resilient to major disruptions and supply/demand interruptions. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 94, 121-149. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2016.09.004Babich, V., Burnetas, A. N., & Ritchken, P. H. (2007). Competition and Diversification Effects in Supply Chains with Supplier Default Risk. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 9(2), 123-146. doi:10.1287/msom.1060.0122Bogataj, D., Aver, B., & Bogataj, M. (2016). Supply chain risk at simultaneous robust perturbations. International Journal of Production Economics, 181, 68-78. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.09.009Wang, X., Herty, M., & Zhao, L. (2015). Contingent rerouting for enhancing supply chain resilience from supplier behavior perspective. International Transactions in Operational Research, 23(4), 775-796. doi:10.1111/itor.12151Zeng, B., & Yen, B. P.-C. (2017). Rethinking the role of partnerships in global supply chains: A risk-based perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 185, 52-62. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.12.004Lücker, F., & Seifert, R. W. (2017). Building up Resilience in a Pharmaceutical Supply Chain through Inventory, Dual Sourcing and Agility Capacity. Omega, 73, 114-124. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2017.01.001Fattahi, M., Govindan, K., & Keyvanshokooh, E. (2017). Responsive and resilient supply chain network design under operational and disruption risks with delivery lead-time sensitive customers. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 101, 176-200. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2017.02.004Kırılmaz, O., & Erol, S. (2017). A proactive approach to supply chain risk management: Shifting orders among suppliers to mitigate the supply side risks. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 23(1), 54-65. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2016.04.002Li, H., Pedrielli, G., Lee, L. H., & Chew, E. P. (2016). Enhancement of supply chain resilience through inter-echelon information sharing. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, 29(2), 260-285. doi:10.1007/s10696-016-9249-3Otto, C., Willner, S. N., Wenz, L., Frieler, K., & Levermann, A. (2017). Modeling loss-propagation in the global supply network: The dynamic agent-based model acclimate. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 83, 232-269. doi:10.1016/j.jedc.2017.08.001Rezapour, S., Farahani, R. Z., & Pourakbar, M. (2017). Resilient supply chain network design under competition: A case study. European Journal of Operational Research, 259(3), 1017-1035. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2016.11.041Ledwoch, A., Yasarcan, H., & Brintrup, A. (2018). The moderating impact of supply network topology on the effectiveness of risk management. International Journal of Production Economics, 197, 13-26. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.12.013Al-Othman, W. B. E., Lababidi, H. M. S., Alatiqi, I. M., & Al-Shayji, K. (2008). Supply chain optimization of petroleum organization under uncertainty in market demands and prices. European Journal of Operational Research, 189(3), 822-840. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2006.06.081Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., & Sokolov, B. (2017). Scheduling of recovery actions in the supply chain with resilience analysis considerations. International Journal of Production Research, 56(19), 6473-6490. doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1401747Das, K. (2019). Integrating Lean, Green, and Resilience Criteria in a Sustainable Food Supply Chain Planning Model. International Journal of Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences, 4(2), 259-275. doi:10.33889/ijmems.2019.4.2-022Das, K. (2018). Integrating resilience in a supply chain planning model. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 35(3), 570-595. doi:10.1108/ijqrm-08-2016-0136Arora, V., & Ventresca, M. (2018). Modeling topologically resilient supply chain networks. Applied Network Science, 3(1). doi:10.1007/s41109-018-0070-7Almeida, J. F. de F., Conceição, S. V., Pinto, L. R., de Camargo, R. S., & Júnior, G. de M. (2018). Flexibility evaluation of multiechelon supply chains. PLOS ONE, 13(3), e0194050. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0194050Mancheri, N. A., Sprecher, B., Deetman, S., Young, S. B., Bleischwitz, R., Dong, L., … Tukker, A. (2018). Resilience in the tantalum supply chain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 129, 56-69. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.018Namdar, J., Li, X., Sawhney, R., & Pradhan, N. (2017). Supply chain resilience for single and multiple sourcing in the presence of disruption risks. International Journal of Production Research, 56(6), 2339-2360. doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1370149Rozhkov, M., & Ivanov, D. (2018). CONTINGENCY PRODUCTION-INVENTORY CONTROL POLICY FOR CAPACITY DISRUPTIONS IN THE RETAIL SUPPLY CHAIN WITH PERISHABLE PRODUCTS. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 51(11), 1448-1452. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.311Sabouhi, F., Pishvaee, M. S., & Jabalameli, M. S. (2018). Resilient supply chain design under operational and disruption risks considering quantity discount: A case study of pharmaceutical supply chain. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 126, 657-672. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2018.10.001Zavitsas, K., Zis, T., & Bell, M. G. H. (2018). The impact of flexible environmental policy on maritime supply chain resilience. Transport Policy, 72, 116-128. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.09.020Mitra, K., Gudi, R. D., Patwardhan, S. C., & Sardar, G. (2009). Towards resilient supply chains: Uncertainty analysis using fuzzy mathematical programming. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 87(7), 967-981. doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2008.12.025Lücker, F., Seifert, R. W., & Biçer, I. (2018). Roles of inventory and reserve capacity in mitigating supply chain disruption risk. International Journal of Production Research, 57(4), 1238-1249. doi:10.1080/00207543.2018.15041

Sustainable supply chain management towards disruption and organizational ambidexterity:A data driven analysis

Balancing sustainability and disruption of supply chains requires organizational ambidexterity. Sustainable supply chains prioritize efficiency and economies of scale and may not have sufficient redundancy to withstand disruptive events. There is a developing body of literature that attempts to reconcile these two aspects. This study gives a data-driven literature review of sustainable supply chain management trends toward ambidexterity and disruption. The critical review reveals temporal trends and geographic distribution of literature. A hybrid of data-driven analysis approach based on content and bibliometric analyses, fuzzy Delphi method, entropy weight method, and fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory is used on 273 keywords and 22 indicators obtained based on the experts’ evaluation. The most important indicators are identified as supply chain agility, supply chain coordination, supply chain finance, supply chain flexibility, supply chain resilience, and sustainability. The regions show different tendencies compared with others. Asia and Oceania, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Africa are the regions needs improvement, while Europe and North America show distinct apprehensions on supply chain network design. The main contribution of this review is the identification of the knowledge frontier, which then leads to a discussion of prospects for future studies and practical industry implementation

Improving green supply chain performance with Operations Research

Due to increasing greenhouse gas emission as a consequence of the production activities in various industries, managing the supply chain has been a big concern between both scholars and practitioners. Green supplier selection and order allocation is among important topics that managers should pay attention to as the majority of the supply chain costs and emission level during production process depends on the procured material by suppliers. Also, investigating the emission abatement regulations, and interactions between regulator and manufacturers is one of the main concerns of supply chain managers that should be figured out. In the present study, green supply chain problems are taken into account for more investigations. First, a green supplier selection and order allocation model in a closed-loop supply chain considering both environmental and economical criteria, is studied. In this study, one of the carbon emission abatement schemes, cap-and-trade mechanism is proposed. The described problem is modeled as a multi-objective robust optimization (RO) model. Second, the cap-and-trade (C\&T) mechanism is further investigated. The goal of this investigation is to find the best strategy for supply chain parties to maximize their utility as well as minimize the carbon emission. To model the described problem, a stochastic three-player game theoretical model is developed. The results show that the developed models can effectively help decision makers select the most appropriate suppliers, allocate the proper amount of order to each selected supplier, and find optimal strategy of C\&T players. Also, the results show that the uncertainty control approaches used in the presented models are capable of handling the model uncertainties from different sources. Furthermore, this study shows that C\&T outperforms the penalty based systems in terms of the total utility of the supply chain. Moreover, the robustness of the results is proved by sensitivity analyses. Another area that is investigated in this study is the disruption effects on supply chain. Disasters and pandemics like COVID-19 can destroy industries by causing huge disruptions in their supply chains. To control these disruptions, decision-makers need to design resilient supply chains. This study proposes a multi-stage, multi-period resilient green supply chain design model considering six resilient strategies. Disruptions are taken into account in both downstream and upstream directions, causing the ripple effect and bullwhip effect, respectively. To control the mentioned disruptions, and handle uncertainties of parameter estimations, a two-stage stochastic optimization approach is applied. The objectives are to minimize the total cost of disruption and $CO_{2}$ emission considering the cap-and-trade mechanism as a government-issued emission regulation. The proposed decision-making framework and solution approach are validated using a numerical experiment followed by a sensitivity analysis. The results show the optimal structure of the supply chain and the best resilient strategies to mitigate the ripple effect. Moreover, the effect of a decrease in capacity of facilities on the optimal solution and the applied resilient strategies is investigated. This study provides managerial insights to help governments set the proper amount of cap and supply chain managers to predict the demand behaviour of essential and non-essential products in the event of disruptions

Resilient and Sustainable Supply Chain Networks: A Case Study of the Perishable Food Industry in the US

Contemporary supply chain management (SCM) issues are multiplex and continually evolving catalysed by complexities and dynamism. The perishable food industry exemplifies this phenomenon, driven by globalisation, technological advancements and a highly competitive business environment. Inescapably, food supply chains are increasingly operating as supply chain networks (SCN). SCNs are typified by a higher level of interdependence and connectivity amongst firms, consequently evolving from dyad and triad relationships, which have dominated SCM research. These changes generate divergent risks and vulnerabilities that perturb perishable food supply chains in unconventional ways. Thus, the purpose of this empirical study is to investigate how firms within a perishable food supply chain network can build resilience and sustainability. The research focuses on advancing the management of fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG). Methodologically, an empirical qualitative study is undertaken within a food manufacturer (focal firm) and 18 independent firms operating across all tiers of its SCN. Applying a pragmatic philosophical positioning, the study draws concepts from key supply chain theories to investigate the phenomena. The investigation uses Nicolini’s Zooming in and Zooming out as an analytical lens. The zooming in and out is established by shifting analytical lenses and re-positioning actors’ praxis, to ensure certain facets of their actions are fore-grounded while others are put in a background position and contrariwise moving the background to the foreground. The purpose of this technique is to draw meaning from everyday practices and trace the actions of actors across the entire SCN. The results uncover four distinct but intertwined main categories; whose subtle and often ignored interplay is crucial in attaining SCN resilience and sustainability. These main categories are Collaboration, Power Dynamics, SCN Culture and Information Systems. Current supply chain literature argues that collaboration is an essential enabler of resilience and sustainability. Building on this, the findings make a significant contribution by teasing out the intangible and predominately unacknowledged antecedents and salient sustaining factors of effective SCN collaboration. Furthermore, the study develops a resilience and sustainability (RS) matrix, which renders different impacts and outcomes of varying levels of SCN collaboration between firms operating in a perishable food SCN. Therefore, this thesis contributes knowledge towards constructing resilient and sustainable perishable food SCNs by proffering pragmatic propositions. These aim to address challenges facing industry stakeholders and ignite pertinent future research avenues for scholars

Supply Chain Resilience: Antecedents and Driver in Global Competition

En el actual entorno altamente competitivo, las empresas de todo el mundo buscan formas innovadoras de incrementar la resiliencia de sus cadenas de suministro sin perder eficiencia operacional y ventaja competitiva. En esta tesis doctoral se analiza la creación de resiliencia atendiendo a dos aspectos. En primer lugar, estudiamos el novedoso concepto de sincromodalidad en el mundo del transporte y su efecto sobre la resiliencia y la eficiencia. En segundo lugar, examinamos el efecto que la Gestión de Riesgos en la Cadena de Suministro(SCRM) tiene sobre la resiliencia, cuantificando la reducción de eventos disruptivos.La sincromodalidad es un concepto de transporte novedoso que integra el uso de diversos modos de transporte en base a información en tiempo real. La sincromodalidad se entiende como un planteamiento operativo para mejorar los objetivos de desempeño en cuanto a eficiencia y resiliencia, con el potencial añadido de generar ventaja competitiva mediante la diferenciación logística. No obstante, el trabajo existente al respecto se encuentra todavía en una etapa incipiente, no existiendo todavía un consenso acerca de los mecanismos que propician el desarrollo de una cadena de suministro sincromodal. Asimismo, sus resultados no se han analizado empíricamente. Para salvar esta brecha, presentamos un análisis pormenorizado de sincromodalidad y de sus dimensiones subyacentes. Mediante la aplicación de una metodología en cuatro etapas, se desarrolla el constructo multidimensional de sincromodalidad, formado por 4 dimensiones (visibilidad, flexibilidad, integración y sistema operativo). Un modelo de ecuaciones estructurales confirma su relación con la diferenciación logística como medida de la ventaja competitiva. Este análisis supone un enfoque del concepto de sincromodalidad respecto a la literatura existente, para comprenderlo mejor desde una perspectiva de gestión de operaciones y sentar las bases de las capacidades de la cadena de suministro que deben desarrollar aquellas empresas que adopten la sincromodalidad.Utilizando esta investigación como punto de partida, analizamos los efectos que la implantación de la sincromodalidad tiene en la cadena de suministro, medidos en términos de eficiencia y resiliencia. Utilizando información proveniente de 157 empresas logísticas que trabajan con expedidores de carga que aplican actualmente la sincromodalidad en Europa, presentamos un modelo de ecuaciones estructurales para analizar la relación entre sincromodalidad, eficiencia y resiliencia. Además, adoptamos un enfoque configuracional y realizamos un análisis de clústeres para seguir avanzando en la comprensión del vínculo eficiencia-resiliencia mediante distintos contextos sincromodales medidos por las cuatro dimensiones de sincromodalidad identificadas. Nuestros hallazgos indican que las empresas que fomentan un entorno sincromodal en sus operaciones no sólo son más eficientes desde el punto de vista de la logística y el transporte, sino que además son menos propensas a las disrupciones. Sin embargo, los niveles de eficiencia y resiliencia difieren según el grado de sincromodalidad alcanzado por la cadena de suministro.En segundo lugar, el estudio de la resiliencia ha suscitado el interés de los investigadores por el análisis de determinadas prácticas de gestión de riesgos en la cadena de suministro, tales como la colaboración y la formalización de procesos. Con todo, son escasas las investigaciones que cuantifican los efectos de estas prácticas, lo que nos animó a examinar en qué medida la Gestión de Riesgos en la Cadena de Suministro (SCRM) colaborativa y formal puede contribuir a reducir la propensión a sufrir un evento disruptivo. Para estimar estos efectos, desarrollamos una metodología de efecto de tratamiento multivariable basada en análisis experimentales y la aplicamos a una base de datos global consistente en 1.461 encuestados procedentes de 69 países. Para terminar, analizamos el efecto moderador que tiene el tamaño de la empresa y el tipo de industria sobre el enfoque de gestión del riesgo adoptado para abordar distintas disrupciones. Nuestra investigación sugiere que los enfoques colaborativos de SCRM son máseficaces en grandes empresas manufactureras que operan en entornos de mercado volátiles, mientras que las estructuras formales de SCRM benefician sobre todo a pequeñas y medianas empresas que afrontan riesgos operativos.In the current highly competitive environment, companies around the globe are looking for innovative ways to increase their supply chain resilience while maintaining their operational efficiency and competitive advantage. In this dissertation, we analyze the creation of resilience focusing on two aspects. First, we study the novel transportation concept of synchromodality and its effect on resiliency and efficiency. Secondly, we explore the resiliency effect Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) quantifying the reduction of disruptive events. Synchromodality is a novel transportation concept that integrates the use of different transport modes based on real time information. Synchromodality is envisioned as an operational approach to improve performance targets in terms of efficiency and resilience, with the added potential to create a competitive advantage through logistics differentiation. However, the existing research is in an incipient stage, there is no consensus on the mechanisms that create a synchromodal supply chain and its results have not been empirically studied. To fill this gap, we present a thorough analysis of synchromodality and its underlying dimensions. Subsequently, using a four-stages methodology, synchromodality is operationalized as a multidimensional construct formed by 4 dimensions (visibility, flexibility, integration and operating system). A structural equation model confirms its relationship with logistics differentiation as a measure of competitive advantage. This analysis provides a holistic approach of the concept of synchromodality, advancing in its understanding from an operations management perspective and setting the foundations of the supply chain capabilities that companies pursuing synchromodality should develop. Building on the developed research of synchromodality, we analyze the effect that its implementation has in the supply chain in terms of efficiency and resilience. Based on data from 157 logistics companies involved with a shipper currently implementing synchromodality in Europe, we present a structural equation model that analyzes the relationship between synchromodality, efficiency and resilience. Additionally, we use a configurational approach and a cluster analysis to further advance on the understanding of the efficiency-resilience relationship based on different synchromodal contexts measured by the four identified dimensions of synchromodality. Our findings indicate that that companies that promote a synchromodal environment in their operations are not only more efficient from a logistics and transportation perspective, but they are also less prone to disruptions. However, the levels of efficiency and resilience will differ based on the level of synchromodality achieved by the supply chain. Secondly, the study of resilience has drove the attention of researchers towards the analysis of certain supply chain risk management practices, such as collaboration and process formalization. However, there is a lack of research presenting a quantification of the effects of these practices, which lead us to explore how collaborative and formal Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) can contribute to a reduction of the propensity to suffer a disruptive event. To estimate these effects, we develop a multivalued treatment effect methodology based on experimental analysis and apply it to global dataset of 1,461 respondents from 69 countries. To conclude, we analyze the moderation effect that firm size and industry type has on the type of risk management approach when dealing with different disruptions. Our research suggests that collaborative SCRM approaches are more effective on large manufacturing firms operating in volatile market environments, while formal SCRM structures benefits the most small and medium companies dealing with operational risks.<br /