Content area
Full Text
Introduction
Today’s supply chains (SCs) are global, complex networks that aim to deliver products in the right quantity, right place and right time in unpredictable markets. Instability in global markets exposes SCs to disruptions (Pettit et al., 2010). A SC’s ability to cope with disruptions is limited to practitioners’ understanding of SC vulnerabilities and risks. However, applying traditional risk management strategies to each link in the global SC for every possible disruption is difficult (Pettit et al., 2010). To address the insufficiency of traditional risk management practices, practitioners now focus on building supply chain resilience (SCRES) strategies that not only identify, monitor and reduce SC risks and disruptions, but also react quickly and cost-effectively (Melnyk et al., 2010). This study reviews the extant literature to understand the concept of SCRES, its factors and outcomes that improve a firm’s competitive position.
The first widespread study on SCRES occurred in the UK following the transportation disruptions from the fuel protests in 2000 (Pettit et al., 2010). Since then, a substantial amount of conceptual work is published that defines SCRES (Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009; Ponis and Koronis, 2012), presents antecedents and consequences of SCRES (Christopher and Peck, 2004; Briano et al., 2010) and offers practical guidelines (Sheffi, 2005b; Sheffi and Rice, 2005). However, there is a lack of consensus over a well-grounded definition of SCRES (Mensah and Merkuryev, 2014; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015; Kamalahmadi and Parast, 2016) and lack of clarity in relationships between SCRES and its constructs (Ali et al., 2017). Hohenstein et al. (2015) explained that this lack of clarity is due to the “divergent concepts from theory building.” To enhance the clarity, researchers use the systematic literature review (SLR) approach and conduct comprehensive reviews of the SCRES (Hohenstein et al., 2015; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015; Kamalahmadi and Parast, 2016; Ali et al., 2017). Although these studies advance the SCRES literature, there is no overarching SCRES typology. This paper develops a typological SCRES framework to classify, synthesize and report on the SCRES literature, and to address the research question:
How can SC capabilities and vulnerabilities create specific outcomes in the contexts of SCRES?
This study makes three key contributions to the SCRES literature. First, the...