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

Lean and green – a systematic review of the state of the art literature

The move towards greener operations and products has forced companies to seek alternatives to balance efficiency gains and environmental friendliness in their operations and products. The exploration of the sequential or simultaneous deployment of lean and green initiatives is the results of this balancing action. However, the lean-green topic is relatively new, and it lacks of a clear and structured research definition. Thus, this paper’s main contribution is the offering of a systematic review of the existing literature on lean and green, aimed at providing guidance on the topic, uncovering gaps and inconsistencies in the literature, and finding new paths for research. The paper identifies and structures, through a concept map, six main research streams that comprise both conceptual and empirical research conducted within the context of various organisational functions and industrial sectors. Important issues for future research are then suggested in the form of research questions. The paper’s aim is to also contribute by stimulating scholars to further study this area in depth, which will lead to a better understanding of the compatibility and impact on organisational performance of lean and green initiatives. It also holds important implications for industrialists, who can develop a deeper and richer knowledge on lean and green to help them formulate more effective strategies for their deployment

Sustainable and resilient supply chain management : scale development

Paper delivered at the 21st Logistics Research Network annual conference 2016, 7th-9th September 2016, Hull. Abstract Purpose: This paper reports on the status of an ongoing empirical study to enhance our understanding of factors contributing to better supply chain performance in the context of sustainable and resilient supply chain management, and updates the literature review and research framework presented in Joradon et al. (2015). That paper operationalized eight firm practices that are now being tested in a quantitative study to investigate how sustainable and resilient supply chain management might improve supply chain performance. Sustainable and resilient supply chain management requires firms to consider supply chain performance within environmental, economic, social, vulnerability, and capability parameters. This paper presents the scale development for this study which will analyse the current level of sustainable and resilient supply chain management practices in firms and help guide them to assess and amend their procedures and processes to become more sustainable and resilient in future. Research approach: The empirical study contains measurement scale and constructs developed according to Churchill (1979) two-phase framework. The first phase was based on data gathered from interviews with nine managers across four electronic companies and two distributors in Thailand using semi-structured interviews. The data from the interviews as well as the extant literature was then used to develop measurement scales and constructs for the next phase, which was a survey with approximately 500 electronic companies in Thailand. Findings and Originality: At the date of writing semi-structured interviews have been conducted and some opportunities to shape the measurement scale and constructs have been identified. The survey is currently being completed and the conference presentation will provide results from analysis to date. While the investigation of sustainable and resilient supply chain management together has yet to be explored in a focused way, this paper is original since it offers an investigation of these two topics and their relationship with supply chain performance. Research Impact: The study will produce new performance measurement scales for sustainable and resilient supply chain management as well as an agenda for future research to validate the findings across other sectors and contexts. Mixed-methodologies were applied in this study to ensure face, content and construct validity. Practical Impact: The study will provide direction for firms to measure their supply chain performance in the context of sustainable and resilient supply chain management practices, as well as a proposed set of measurement scales based on sustainable supply chain management and supply chain resilience management practices to measure the impact of these practices to the firm. The findings will help firms to understand their level of sustainable and resilient supply chain management in order to improve and adjust their procedures to be more sustainable and resilient in future

Performance measurement and its impact on sustainable and resilient supply chain management practices in the Thai electronic industry

Paper originally presented at the 20th Annual Logistics Research Network (LRN) Conference, 9th to 11th Sept 2015, Derby

Performance measurement and its impact on sustainable and resilient supply chain management practices in the Thai electronic industry

Paper originally presented at the 20th Annual Logistics Research Network (LRN) Conference, 9th to 11th Sept 2015, Derby

Building Information Modeling as Tool for Enhancing Disaster Resilience of the Construction Industry

As frequencies of the disasters are increasing, new technologies can be used to enhance disaster resilience performance of the construction industry. This paper investigates the usage of BIM (Building Information Modeling) in enhancing disaster resilience of the construction industry and in the establishment of the resilient built environment. In-depth literature review findings reveal BIM’s contribution to the disaster resilience in the pre-disaster and post-disaster phases especially through influencing the performance of the supply chain, construction process, and rescue operations. This paper emphasises the need for BIM’s integration to the education and training curriculums of the built environment professionals. Policy makers, construction professionals, professional bodies, academics can benefit from this research

Digitalization and artificial knowledge for accountability in SCM: a systematic literature review

Purpose: In this study, the authors examine artificial knowledge as a fundamental stream of knowledge management for sustainable and resilient business models in supply chain management (SCM). The study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of artificial knowledge and digitalization as key enablers of the improvement of SCM accountability and sustainable performance towards the UN 2030 Agenda. Design/methodology/approach: Using the SCOPUS database and Google Scholar, the authors analyzed 135 English-language publications from 1990 to 2022 to chart the pattern of knowledge production and dissemination in the literature. The data were collected, reviewed and peer-reviewed before conducting bibliometric analysis and a systematic literature review to support future research agenda. Findings: The results highlight that artificial knowledge and digitalization are linked to the UN 2030 Agenda. The analysis further identifies the main issues in achieving sustainable and resilient SCM business models. Based on the results, the authors develop a conceptual framework for artificial knowledge and digitalization in SCM to increase accountability and sustainable performance, especially in times of sudden crises when business resilience is imperative. Research limitations/implications: The study results add to the extant literature by examining artificial knowledge and digitalization from the resilience theory perspective. The authors suggest that different strategic perspectives significantly promote resilience for SCM digitization and sustainable development. Notably, fostering diverse peer exchange relationships can help stimulate peer knowledge and act as a palliative mechanism that builds digital knowledge to strengthen and drive future possibilities. Practical implications: This research offers valuable guidance to supply chain practitioners, managers and policymakers in re-thinking, re-formulating and re-shaping organizational processes to meet the UN 2030 Agenda, mainly by introducing artificial knowledge in digital transformation training and education programs. In doing so, firms should focus not simply on digital transformation but also on cultural transformation to enhance SCM accountability and sustainable performance in resilient business models. Originality/value: This study is, to the authors' best knowledge, among the first to conceptualize artificial knowledge and digitalization issues in SCM. It further integrates resilience theory with institutional theory, legitimacy theory and stakeholder theory as the theoretical foundations of artificial knowledge in SCM, based on firms' responsibility to fulfill the sustainable development goals under the UN's 2030 Agenda

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

Sustainable Sourcing of Global Agricultural Raw Materials: Assessing Gaps in Key Impact and Vulnerability Issues and Indicators.

Understanding how to source agricultural raw materials sustainably is challenging in today's globalized food system given the variety of issues to be considered and the multitude of suggested indicators for representing these issues. Furthermore, stakeholders in the global food system both impact these issues and are themselves vulnerable to these issues, an important duality that is often implied but not explicitly described. The attention given to these issues and conceptual frameworks varies greatly--depending largely on the stakeholder perspective--as does the set of indicators developed to measure them. To better structure these complex relationships and assess any gaps, we collate a comprehensive list of sustainability issues and a database of sustainability indicators to represent them. To assure a breadth of inclusion, the issues are pulled from the following three perspectives: major global sustainability assessments, sustainability communications from global food companies, and conceptual frameworks of sustainable livelihoods from academic publications. These terms are integrated across perspectives using a common vocabulary, classified by their relevance to impacts and vulnerabilities, and categorized into groups by economic, environmental, physical, human, social, and political characteristics. These issues are then associated with over 2,000 sustainability indicators gathered from existing sources. A gap analysis is then performed to determine if particular issues and issue groups are over or underrepresented. This process results in 44 "integrated" issues--24 impact issues and 36 vulnerability issues--that are composed of 318 "component" issues. The gap analysis shows that although every integrated issue is mentioned at least 40% of the time across perspectives, no issue is mentioned more than 70% of the time. A few issues infrequently mentioned across perspectives also have relatively few indicators available to fully represent them. Issues in the impact framework generally have fewer gaps than those in the vulnerability framework

Integrating information and knowledge for enterprise innovation

It has widely been accepted that enterprise integration, can be a source of socio-technical and cultural problems within organisations wishing to provide a focussed end-to-end business service. This can cause possible “straitjacketing” of business process architectures, thus suppressing responsive business re-engineering and competitive advantage for some companies. Accordingly, the current typology and emergent forms of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) technologies are set in the context of understanding information and knowledge integration philosophies. As such, key influences and trends in emerging IS integration choices, for end-to-end, cost-effective and flexible knowledge integration, are examined. As touch points across and outside organisations proliferate, via work-flow and relationship management-driven value innovation, aspects of knowledge refinement and knowledge integration pose challenges to maximising the potential of innovation and sustainable success, within enterprises. This is in terms of the increasing propensity for data fragmentation and the lack of effective information management, in the light of information overload. Furthermore, the nature of IS mediation which is inherent within decision making and workflow-based business processes, provides the basis for evaluation of the effects of information and knowledge integration. Hence, the authors propose a conceptual, holistic evaluation framework which encompasses these ideas. It is thus argued that such trends, and their implications regarding enterprise IS integration to engender sustainable competitive advantage, require fundamental re-thinking