Content area
Full Text
1.
Introduction
Research on supply chain resilience (SCRES) has increased substantially over the years, and researchers and practitioners are showing strong interest in it due to its potential impact on business continuity and competitiveness (Christopher and Peck, 2004; Sheffi, 2015). This interest represents a shift in businesses away from traditional risk management thinking, which is insufficient in addressing the increased vulnerabilities, uncertainties and unforeseen disruptions faced by complex global supply chains (Pettit et al. , 2013; Fiksel et al. , 2015). As supply chain networks enter an era of turbulence, new approaches and thinking are needed to design, build and manage supply chains to insulate them from disturbances (Christopher and Holweg, 2011). Building resilience is deemed an essential strategic capability (Sheffi and Rice 2005; Seville et al. , 2015) that enables the supply chain to anticipate, adapt, respond and recover promptly from unpredictable events (Rice and Caniato, 2003; Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009; Blackhurst et al. , 2011; Jüttner and Maklan, 2011). A resilient supply chain is perceived to absorb disturbances, restore its function and "bounce back" from adversity while maintaining a competitive advantage (Sheffi, 2007; Wieland and Wallenburg, 2013; Chopra and Sodhi, 2014). The concept of SCRES can, therefore, be promising when cultivated and implemented effectively in the field of supply chain management (SCM).
Current research on SCRES indicates that, to achieve resilience, it is vital for firms to build certain operational capabilities that must be aligned with supply chain partners to manage both expected and unexpected changes (Christopher and Peck, 2004; Sheffi and Rice, 2005; Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009; Pettit et al. , 2010). However, the published research on SCRES remains fragmented, with too much disparity in the definitions of the concept, inconsistent identification of its constructs and a lack of clarity on the relationships between them. Further theoretical explanation is needed to improve the conceptual clarity. Indeed, many researchers have highlighted these limitations in recent years (Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009; Bhamra et al. , 2011; Blackhurst et al. , 2011; Jüttner and Maklan, 2011; Melnyk et al. , 2014). Despite the growing body of literature on SCRES, few attempts have been made to address these issues.
Recent studies have addressed certain aspects of the gaps outlined above through a systematic review of the...