Resilient Sustainable Supply Chain Management
A Conceptual Framework
Maruf H. Chowdhury, Mohammed Naim A. Dewan and Mohammed A. Quaddus
Curtin Graduate School of Business, Curtin University, Perth, Australia
Keywords: Resilience, Sustainability, Supply Chain, Disruption.
Abstract: A resilient-sustainable supply chain has become a unanimously important research agenda in business as
global supply chain is facing an increased number of risks and disruptions. In such a situation in order to be
competitive and sustainable a supply chain needs to be resilient. Literature related to supply chain
sustainability and resilience in an integrated fashion is sparse, rather issues are presented separately and no
empirical work has yet been done to develop a resilient-sustainable supply chain management (RSSCM)
framework. A resilient-sustainable supply chain management (RSSCM) framework is formulated and
measurement scale for resilience and sustainability is developed in this study. The study combines the
stakeholder theory and resource based view in line with sustainability and resilience in developing a
theoretically grounded, comprehensive framework of resilient-sustainable supply chain management.
1 INTRODUCTION
For a sustainable supply chain, a balance of
economic, social and environmental factors has
emerged enormously important as customers are
demanding sustainable supply chain and products
(Carter and Rogers, 2008). Sustainability in supply
chain is often threatened, as the world business has
become highly competitive and uncertain.
Unforeseen events often disrupt business and the
supply chain which challenge supply chain
continuity (Manuj and Mentzer, 2008; Kleindorfer
and Saad, 2005). In case of disruptions and
uncertainties supply chain needs resilience capacity
to get back to original state after disruptions (pettit et
al., 2010; Christopher and peck, 2004) and more
specifically, to prepare for unexpected events,
respond to disruptions, and recover from them to
continue its operation and to sustain Christoper and
peck, 2004; Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009). In the
situation of frequent disruption in the supply chain
without resilience capacity, sustainability is hard to
achieve (Folke et al., 2002). As a result it is crucial
to investigate whether the supply chains need
resilience to be truly sustainable? A number of
researchers (Carter and Eston, 2011; Pagell and Wu,
2009; Seuring and Muller, 2008) conducted research
on sustainable supply chain management (SSCM)
and on supply chain resilience (Ponomarov and
Holcomb, 2009; Xu, 2008; Christopher and peck,
2004; Pettit et al., 2010; Sheffi and Rice, 2005). It is
chalked out from intensive literature survey on
sustainable supply chain management and supply
chain literature that no comprehensive research has
yet been conducted integrating supply chain
resilience and sustainability though some authors
(Folke et al., 2002; Fiksel, 2003; 2006; Martin,
2004) mentioned conceptually that supply chain
resilience is a precondition for supply chain
sustainability without any clear framework. In this
theoretical lacuna the basic premise of the research
is to show the relationship between supply chain
resilience and supply chain sustainability through a
framework which we termed as resilient sustainable
supply chain management (RSSCM) model. The
model will help a supply chain to be both sustainable
and resilient. Further, it is important to develop
measurement of resilience and sustainability
indicators because without measurement one cannot
get better control (Kaplan and Norton, 1996). Hence,
the major research questions in this background are:
Q1. What constitutes the RSSCM framework?
Q2. How to measure the elements of RSSCM
framework?
2 METHODOLOGY
The aim of the research is to formulate a RSSCM
165
H. Chowdhury M., Naim A. Dewan M. and A. Quaddus M..
Resilient Sustainable Supply Chain Management - A Conceptual Framework.
DOI: 10.5220/0004015801650173
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Communication Networking, e-Business and Optical Communication Systems (ICE-B-2012),
pages 165-173
ISBN: 978-989-8565-23-5
Copyright
c
2012 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
model to make a supply chain resilient and
sustainable as there is no model in this regard.
Moreover, in supply chain management literature
there are few initiatives for theory and concept
development (Carter and Ellram, 2003). Conceptual
theory building method is a way that can create a
balance between inductive and deductive research
(Meredith, 1993), a good way of building theory
through a set of interrelated propositions leading to
testable hypothesis (Meredith, 1993). This paper is
an attempt to develop a conceptual framework and
termed as RSSCM framework through some
important propositions derived from literature
survey.
The data collection to support this methodology
occurred through a rigorous key-word search of the
literature on specific terminology such as
sustainability, resilience, sustainable supply chain
management. The conceptualization as described
above was a systematic process of reading scientific
papers, additional collection of literature, synthesis,
and refinement of framework over a period of nine
months. Concepts of two major theories namely
stakeholder theory and resource based view have
been used to establish the foundation of different
links and relationship among the variables in the
model. The results of our conceptualization will be
presented to 20 supply chain managers of ready-
made garments manufacturing and textile companies
in Bangladesh to further ensure the validity of our
framework as per the process suggested by Yin
(1994). Then the refined model will be tested by
quantitative analysis of survey data using structural
equation modelling.
3 THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND
The world has experienced numerous uncertainties
arising from climate changes, frequent natural
disaster, epidemics, terrorist attacks, resource crisis,
regulation and economic ups and downs. These sorts
of uncertainties create disruptions and risks in
discharging the regular activities of supply chains
(Svensson, 2000; Hendricks and Singhal, 2003). In
an environment of disruptions developing a
sustainable system has become challenging and a
good alternative is to develop systems resilience to
resist and overcome disruptions effectively (Fiksel,
2003; Fiksel, 2006; Gunderson, 2002). Resilience is
echoed when the issue of sustainability is discussed
(Martin, 2004) because resilience enhances the
sustainability in a turbulent environment (Folk et
al., 2002). So, existing literature supports that
resilience is a precondition for sustainability.
Dragging the concept to supply chain it can also be
proposed that in order to develop a sustainable
supply chain, supply chain resilience is
indispensable. This proposition is the basis of
proposed RSSCM model and justified by
stakeholder theory and resource based view (RBV).
RBV argues that firms achieve sustainable
competitive advantages by deploying its bundle of
resources and capabilities which are unique and
internal to the firm (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1986,
1991; Grant, 1991). Further, in an environment of
uncertainty and disruptions, organizations can be
successful in the competition by overcoming threats
and uncertainties effectively (Wernerfelt, 1984).
Researchers of the RBV advocated for inclusion of
the ability to overcome disruption and contingency
as organizational resources and capabilities (Barney,
2001; Priem and Butler, 2001). Correa and Sharma
(2003) in their “contingent resource based view (C-
Rbv) of proactive corporate environmental strategy”
argue that organization’s proactive environmental
attempt to mitigate environmental uncertainties and
complexities is a valuable dynamic capability of a
firm and firms need to invest in achieving its
tangible and intangible resources for developing
capabilities in uncertain business environments.
Integrating natural resource based view (N-Rbv) and
stakeholder theory Markley and Davis (2007)
advocate the need for a capability to mitigate and
reduce the environmental uncertainties in supply
chain for reducing negative environmental and
social impact and to retain higher stakeholder value
for high performing sustainable supply chain. This
type of dynamic capability is needed for developing
a resilient sustainable supply chain management
(RSSCM) framework to overcome the uncertain and
disruptive events.
Stakeholder theory holds the idea that managers
shall take decision considering the interest and
impact of all stakeholders. If a balance among the
conflicting interests and claims of stakeholders
cannot be ensured organizational sustainability will
be questioned (Freeman, 1984). As the time passes
the attention and interest of all stakeholders is
converging towards sustainability of the
organization in terms of economic, social and
environmental factors (Wheeler et. al., 2003). A
sustainable organization tries to maximize
economic, social and environmental performance for
a sustainable and value based stakeholder relation
(Perrini and Tencati, 2006). In order to develop a
sustainable supply chain management,
ICE-B 2012 - International Conference on e-Business
166
organizations’ supply chain shall fulfil economic,
social and environmental expectations (Carter and
Rogers, 2008; Carter and Easton, 2011) as the
sustainable supply chain has now become customer,
government and stakeholder requirement (Seuring
and Muller, 2008). To Freeman (1984 p. 13-27),
with the passage of time organizations are
experiencing different types of internal and external
changes and challenges from a customers, suppliers,
government, competitor, pressure groups and so on.
In such situation organizations need the capacity to
change of concept, strategy to respond to the
environment in an inactive or reactive, proactive or
interactive way for managing the environmental
uncertainties positively so that it can reduce
uncertainties and vulnerabilities (Freeman, 1984 p
13-27). Reduction of vulnerabilities or increase in
capability to reduce impact of vulnerabilities which
is also termed as resilience (Pettit et al., 2010) is a
unique resource for organizations as per the
advocates of resource based view (Barney, 2001;
Priem and Butler, 2001).
Based on the above theoretical support it can be
proposed that supply chains with high resilience are
more sustainable in the light of economic, social and
environmental aspects and vice versa.
Proposition 1: Supply chains with high resilience
are more sustainable in the light of economic, social
and environmental aspects and vice versa.
4 LITERATURE REVIEW
4.1 Supply Chain Resilience
Resilience is a multidisciplinary concept. Holling
(1973) was one of the prime researchers to identify
resilience as the ability of system to absorb changes.
After that many authors echoed the concept of
resilience as system’s ability to recover and get back
to the original state (Mitroff and Alpasan, 2003;
Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009; Christopher, 2004).
Resilience “is an adaptive capability of the supply
chain to prepare for unexpected events, respond to
disruptions, and recover from them by maintaining
continuity of operations at the desired level of
connectedness and control over structure and
function” Ponomarov and Hollcomb (2009).
To develop a resilient system it is important to
understand measurement of resilience because the
degree of resilience a system needs is context
dependent (Carpenter, 2001). Researchers in
different disciplines emphasized on capabilities such
as adaptability, diversity, flexibility, efficiency,
cohesion, control, connectedness to measure
resilience (Pettit et al., 2010; Fiksel, 2003). In
supply chain management Pettit et al. (2010) is the
first to develop resilience measurement scale based
on fourteen major capabilities such as adaptability,
flexibility, efficiency, pro-activeness, control etc.
and seven major vulnerabilities such as turbulence,
supplier disruption, customer disruption etc. But
these capabilities and vulnerabilities are antecedents
and actually are promoters or inhibitors of resilience
of a system and not the actual measures of
resilience. Resilience shall be measured by the
relative degree such as high resilience or low
resilience based on the extent of systems departure
from desired state (Holling, 1973; Ludwig, 1996)
based on recovery time after disaster or disruptions
(Neubert and Caswell, 1997; Ortiz and Wolff, 2002;
Falasca et al., 2008), based on reduction of
consequences through resistance (Falasca et al.,
2008, Masten and Powell, 2003; and based on cost
of recovery (Martin, 2004; Vugrin, 2009). The
measurement items of supply chain resilience are
shown in table 1. In real world scenario it is not
possible to have 100% resilience of a system. Again
there is no system with zero resilience.
Table 1: Supply chain resilience measurement.
Construct
Item
Reference
Resilience
Departure from
desired state
Holling, 1973; Ludwig,
1996; Carpenter, 2001.
Recovery time
Neubert & Caswell, 1997;
Matsinos & Troumbis,
2002; Ortiz & Wolff, 2002.
Reduction of
consequences
through resistance
Masten & Powell, 2003;
Falasca et al., 2008.
Cost of recovery
Martin, 2004; Vugrin, 2009.
4.1.1 Supply Chain Disruption
Maintaining an eective supply chain has become
challenging and difficult as the business supply
chains are facing an overwhelming complexities and
unexpected disruptions. The experience of
disruptions may take different forms such as delay
during transportation, port stoppages, frequent
occurrence of natural disasters, weak
communication, supply shortages, Demand
volatility, quality problem, operational issues and
terrorism are few among the lot (Colicchia et al.,
2010; Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005; blackhurst et al.,
2008). Kleindorfer and Saad (2005) classified three
main categories of supply chain disruption: 1stly,
operational disruption which envelops equipment
Resilient Sustainable Supply Chain Management - A Conceptual Framework
167
malfunctions and systemic failures, abrupt
discontinuity of supply, bankruptcy, fraud, or labor
strikes; 2ndly, natural hazards which include
earthquakes, hurricanes, storms; and 3rdly, terrorism
or political instability. In this way a number of
researchers such as Chirstopher and Peck (2004);
Sheffi (2005), Wu et al. (2006), Blackhurst et al.
(2008), Kleindorfer and Saad (2005) and others
discussed about supply chain disruptions and risks
which can be better understood from table 2 (see
appendix). Supply chain disruptions may be a cause
of huge loss for a company and whole supply chain
if those are not handled properly and in appropriate
time because it may be the result of significant
supply chain delays magnifying the rate of stock-
outs, failed to meet the demand of customers on time
and customer dissatisfaction cost (Rice and Caniato,
2003, p 22). Disruptions in the supply chain are
sometimes beyond the direct control of supply chain
managers. Some disruptions can be assessed in
advance and some are not. Supply chain managers
need to be proactive to get signal of disruptions in
advance and to develop resilience capacity for
mitigating the disruptions (Peck, 2005). Based on
the above literature:
Proposition 2: Existence of high disruptions and
vulnerabilities in the supply chain leads to lower
resilience and vice versa
4.1.2 Supply Chain Capability
Supply chains need to have capabilities to create
resilience against disruptions (Christopher and Peck,
2004). Researchers in different disciplines
emphasized on capabilities such as adaptability,
diversity, flexibility, efficiency, cohesion, control,
connectedness to measure resilience (Pettit et al.,
2010; Fiksel, 2003; Ponomarov and Hollcomb,
2009). In an uncertain condition dynamic
capabilities are difficult to sustain and resilience is
inevitable in such condition to achieve sustainability
(Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). Esper et al. (2007)
enumerated a number of supply chain capabilities
that lead to improved firm performance and
sustainable competitive advantage. In the same way
Sheffi (2005), Christopher and Peck (2004),
ponomarov and Holcomb (2009), Pettit et al. (2010),
Tomlin (2006), and others mentioned a number of
supply chain capabilities for developing supply
chain resilience which is shown by table 3 (see
appendix). Based on the above literature it can be
proposed that:
Proposition 3: existence of higher capabilities in the
supply chain leads to higher resilience and vice
versa.
4.1.3 Supply Chain Orientation
Without having a supply chain orientation it is not
possible perform the supply chain functions (Min
and Mentzer, 2004). So, in order to develop supply
chain resilience the capability of smooth conduction
of supply chain functions by reducing disruptions,
supply chain orientation is very important. Min and
Mentzer (2004) mention it is important to have trust,
commitment, cooperation, compatability and top
management support to implement changes in
supply chain in a supply chain oriented organization
which is beter understood by table-4. Again, it is
important to have top management support and
approval of initiatives for disruption risk mitigation
(Buehler and Pritsch, 2003). It is possible when
there is a supply chain orientation of the
organization because supply chain orientation
ensures a formal organizational structure strategy
and clear policy framework for supply chain
activities (Esper et al., 2010).
Table 4: Elements of supply chain orientation.
Construct
Items
Reference
Supply
chain
orientation
Top management
support
Buehler & Pritsch
(2003); Min & Mentzer
(2004)
Trust
Min & Mentzer (2004)
commitment
Min & Mentzer (2004)
cooperation
Faisal et al. (2006); Min
& Mentzer
(2004)Tomlin (2006);
compatibility
Min & Mentzer (2004)
Proposition 4: Supply chains with high level of
supply chain orientation have higher resilience and
vice versa.
4.1.4 Supply Chain Design
Supply chain design decision can be illustrated as
the decision regarding supply chain node density,
complexity and criticality (Craighead et al., 2007;
Falasca et al., 2008).
When there are a large number of nodes in a
limited area the supply chain is said to have a high
density level (Craighead et al., 2007; Falasca et al.,
2008). In the research of Craighead et al. (2007) and
Falasca et al. (2008) it is evidenced that increased
density in the supply chain creates more
vulnerability.
A less complex supply chain would have fewer
nodes and or fewer interconnections between nodes
ICE-B 2012 - International Conference on e-Business
168
(Craighead et al., 2007; Falasca et al., 2008). Node
complexity also depends on number of nodes both
forward and backward chain for example existence
of supplier’s supplier and sub-supplier increases
node complexity and vulnerability (Craighead et al.,
2007). Usually increased complexity in the supply
chain creates more vulnerability (Craighead et al.,
2007; Falasca et al., 2008). However, additional
nodes that create buffer in the supply chain reduce
vulnerability though it causes increased complexity
for example sourcing from multiple suppliers instead
of single supplier increases supply chain node
complexity but reduce vulnerability and enhance
resilience (Falasca et al., 2008).
Node Criticality depends on the relative
importance of a given node or set of nodes within a
supply chain (Craighead et al., 2007). Existence of
node that is very important for example important
distributor or supplier on whom others are highly
dependent in the Supply chain and the number of
such nodes in the supply chain increases supply
chain criticality and vulnerability (Craighead et al.,
2007). Existence of critical transportation hub during
sourcing and distribution for example consolidation
of freight is done in Singapore also creates supply
chain criticality.
Proposition-5: Supply chains with low density, low
complexity and low criticality have higher resilience
and vice versa.
Table 5: Elements of supply chain design.
Item
Reference
Node
density
Craighead et al. (2007); Falasca
et al. (2008)
Node
complexity
Craighead et al. (2007); Falasca
et al. (2008)
Node
criticality
Craighead et al. (2007); Falasca
et al. (2008)
4.2 Sustainable Supply Chain
Management (SSCM)
A sustainable supply chain is one that “manage
material, information and capital flows and
cooperate among all entities in the chain with a view
to achieve the economic, environmental and social
goals deriving from customer and stakeholder
requirements” (Seuring and Muller, 2008).
Sustainable supply chain management has got
substantial interests to academic and corporate body
just over a decade (Corbett and Klassen, 2006;
Steafen and Martin, 2008). There are still
fundamental issues that need to be addressed to
assist business managers and supply chain
professionals to achieve supply chain sustainability
(Pagel and Wu, 2009). The literature related to
supply chain sustainability incorporating economic,
social and environmental aspects in an integrated
fashion is sparse, rather issues are presented
separately (Carter and Rogers, 2008; Carter and
Jennings, 2002; Murphy et al., 1996).
Organizations’ Supply chains are disrupted by
many challenges in this turbulent environment and
eventually may become unsustainable. In this
regard, it needs to develop resilience to face those
uneven and uncertain scenarios (Ponomarov and
Holcomb, 2009). It is interesting that no integrated
study has yet been conducted incorporating these
important antecedent factors for formulating
sustainable supply chain management framework.
4.2.1 Sustainability Measurement
Stakeholders demand for sustainability report
generated the need for measurement of specific
indices. As a result initiatives from different angles
put forward to the development of specific indices
and their measurement scale. Among those GRI,
IchemE, DJSI, TBL and ETHOS corporate social
responsibility indicators are related with business
level sustainability indicators (Delai and Takahashi,
2011). There are differences in the organizations
based on the multitude of product, services and
operations which shapes the requirement of indices
need for the specific organization for example some
customized sustainability indicator sets have been
developed by Labuschagne et al. (2005); Wang
(2005); Vasileiou and Morris (2006); Hutchins and
Sutherland (2008). However, some indicators are
commonly used in most cases. For example,
regarding social sustainability issues such as health
and safety, remuneration, forced and child labour,
absenteeism, child labour and forced labour in the
chain, compliance of health, safety and human rights
by the suppliers. Likewise, regarding environmental
sustainability issues such as emission, human health
effect, water pollutants, solid waste, waste Recycled
or reused, compliance of environmental legislation,
performance of suppliers regarding environmental
issues, environmental impact of products produced
and environmental certification are widely used.
Regarding economic sustainability commonly used
issues are Sales, Net income and Return on average
capital employed.
Resilient Sustainable Supply Chain Management - A Conceptual Framework
169
5 RESILIENT SUSTAINABLE
SUPPLY CHAIN
MANAGEMENT
The RSSCM model bridges the existent theoretical
gap between the relation of Resilience and
sustainable supply chain management and asserts the
importance of resilience for developing a sustainable
supply chain management. Through a wide literature
review mentioned on previous sessions we formulate
the RSSCM framework shown in figure-1 and define
RSSCM as the management of resources with a
view to meeting stakeholders’ expectations so as to
achieve high and subsequent sustainability of
organizations supply chain.
The RSSCM model in figure 1 depicts that a supply
chain needs to be resilient in order to be sustainable.
Here sustainability is measured on the basis of the
economic, social and environmental components
that are said to be the triple bottom lines of
sustainability. Supply chain resilience is influenced
by the antecedents of capability, vulnerability,
supply chain orientation and supply chain design.
Based on the background literature of the model it
can be remarked that a supply chain will be resilient
and sustainable when it have more capabilities, less
vulnerabilities, high supply chain orientation, less
complex and less critical supply chain design
provided that the chain has the balance of economic,
social and environmental components of
sustainability.
Figure 1: RSSCM framework.
6 DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSION
Supply chains need the capacity of resilience in
order to be sustainable which is termed as the
concept of RSSCM. A RSSCM model has been
developed showing the relationship between supply
chain resilience and supply chain sustainability. We
define RSSCM as the management of resources with
a view to meeting stakeholders’ expectations so as to
achieve high resilience and subsequent sustainability
of organizations supply chain. It is expected that the
RSSCM framework will help the supply chain
managers to overcome disruptions and
vulnerabilities in supply chain and thus help to
create a resilient-sustainable supply chain. As the
global business arena has become turbulent and
uncertainties often disrupt supply chain functions
supply chain managers will get ideas regarding
mitigation of disruptions. Managers will know the
relationship among different variables in the model,
how the variables are linked and what are the
antecedents and constructs of Resilience and
sustainability. Moreover, the paper exclusively
discusses the measurement of resilience and
sustainability which will also help the manufacturers
and supply chain managers to get idea about the
degree of resilience and sustainability to set target
and improvement needed in specific area in future to
be truly resilient and sustainable. This RSSCM
model will be refined and different links of the
model will be justified based on the data of ready-
made garments supply chain of Bangladesh in the
subsequent phases of research. Firstly, a field study
will be conducted to collect qualitative data from 20
supply chain managers regarding supply chain
resilience and sustainability. Based on the field
study the model will be refined and then different
hypotheses will be tested based on the survey result
from 300 respondents. A number of future research
areas will be interesting such as which specific
supply chain capabilities are needed for the
mitigation of specific supply chain disruptions?
Along with the triple bottom line elements:
economic, social and environmental which are other
components of supply chain sustainability?
Organizational culture and strategy, supply chain
governance and innovation and learning may be
considered important components of supply chain
sustainability along with triple bottom line
components. Investigation of these areas will be
worthwhile to develop an integrated framework for
supply chain sustainability.
REFERENCES
Barney, J. 1986. Strategic factor markets: Expectations,
luck and business strategy. Management Science 32:
1231.
ICE-B 2012 - International Conference on e-Business
170
Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive
advantage. Journal of management 17, 771
Barney, J. 2001. Is the resource-based "view" a useful
perspective for strategic management research? Yes.
Academy of Management Review 28, 41.
Brush, T. H. 1999. Toward a contingent resource based
theory: the impact of information asymmetry on the
value of capabilities in veterinary medicine. Strategic
Management Journal 20, 223.
Blackhurst, J. B., Scheibe K. P. and Johnson. D. J. 2008.
Supplier risk assessment and monitoring for the
automotive industry. International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management 38, 143.
Blos, M. F., Quaddus, M., Wee, H. M and Watanabe, K.
2009. Supply chain risk management (SCRM): a case
study on the automotive and electronic industries in
Brazil. Supply Chain Management 14 (4): 247.
Buehler, K. S. & Pritsch. G. 2003. Running with Risk. The
McKinsey Quarterly 4: 40
Carter, C. R. 2011. Sustainable supply chain management:
evolution and future directions. International journal
of physical distribution and logistics management 41,
46.
Carter, C. R. 2008. A framework of sustainable supply
chain management: moving toward new theory.
International journal of physical distribution and
logistics management 38, 360.
Carter, C. R. & Ellram, L. 2003. Thirty Five Years of The
Journal of Supply Chain Management: Where Have
We Been and Where are We Going? The journal of
supply chain management, 39, 27.
Carpenter, S., Brian Walker, & Eries, J. M. & Abel, N.
2001. From metaphor to measurement: resilience of
what to what? Ecosystems, 4, 765
Christopher, M. & Peck., H. 2004. Building the resilient
supply chain. International Journal of Logistics
Management, 15, 1.
Christopher, M., Peck, H. Rutherford, C & Juttner. U.
2003. Supply Chain Resilience. Cranfield Centre for
Logistics and Supply Chain Management. Cranfield.
Corbett, C. J., & Klassen, R. D. 2006. Extending the
horizons: Environmental excellence as a key to
improving operations. Manufacturing and service
operations management 8 (1): 5.
COLICCHIA, C., DALLARIA, F. & MELACINI, M.
2010. Increasing supply chain resilience in a global
sourcing context. Production planning and control,
21, 680.
Correa, A. A., & Sharma, S. 2003. A contingent resource-
based view of proactive corporate environmental
strategy. Academy of Management Review 28, 71.
Craighead, C. W., J. Blackhurst, M. J. Rungtusanatham, &
R. B. Handfield. 2007. The severity of supply chain
disruptions: design characteristics and mitigation
capabilities. Decision Sciences 38 (1): 131.
Delai, I & Takahashi, S. 2011. Sustainability measurement
system: a reference model proposal. Social
responsibility Journal. 7 (3): 439
Epstein, M. J., & Wisner. P. S. 2001. Using a balanced
scorecard to implement sustainability. Environmental
quality management. (Winter): 1.
Esper, T. L., A. E. Ellinger. T. P. Stank. D. J. Flint & M.
Moon. 2010. Demand and supply integration: a
conceptual framework of value creation through
knowledge management. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science. 38 (1): 275.
Faisal, M. N., D. K. Banwet, & R. Shankar. 2006.
Mapping supply chains on risk and customer
sensitivity dimensions. Industrial management + data
systems 106 (6): 878
Falasca, M., C. W. Zobel & D. Cook. 2008. A Decision
Support Framework to Assess Supply Chain
Resilience. Proceedings of the 5
th
International
ISCRAM Conference.Washington DC, USA.
Fiksel, J. 2006. Sustainability and resilience: toward a
systems approach. Sustainability: Science, Practice,
and Policy. 2 (2): 14.
Fiksel, J. 2003. Designing resilient, sustainable systems.
Environmental Science and Technology 37(23): 5330.
Folke, C., S. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, C.
Holling & B. Walker. 2002. Resilience and
Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity
in a World of Transformations. Ambio 31 (5): 437.
Freeman R. E. 1984. Strategic Management: a
Stakeholder Approach. Boston. MA: Pitman
Grant, R. M. 1991. The resource-based theory of
competitive advantage. California Management
Review 33(3): 114.
Gunderson, L., & L. J. Protchard. 2002. Resilience and the
Behavior of Large-Scale Systems. Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Hutchins M J & Sutherland J W. 2008. An exploration of
measures of social sustainability and their application
to supply chain decisions. Journal of cleaner
production 16: 1688.
Holling C S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological
systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics.
4:1.
Islam, M. A., & C. Deegan. 2008. Motivations for an
organisation within a developing country to report
social responsibility information: Evidence from
Bangladesh. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal 21 (6): 850.
Jin, B. 2004. Apparel industry in East Asian newly
industrialized countries: Competitive advantage,
challenge and implications. Journal of fashion
marketing and management 8 (2): 230.
Kaplan R S & Norton D P. 1996. Using the Balanced
Scorecard as a Strategic Management System. Harvard
Business Review 74: 75.
Kleindorfer, P. R., & G. H. Saad. 2005. Managing
Disruption Risks in Supply Chains. Production and
operations management 14 (1): 53.
Kolk, A. 2006. Sustainability, accountability and corporate
governance: exploring multinationals reporting
practices. Business Strategy and the Environment 17
(1): 1.
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A. C. & Erck, R. P. G. 2005.
Assessing the sustainability performances of
industries. Journal of Cleaner Production 13: 373.
Resilient Sustainable Supply Chain Management - A Conceptual Framework
171
Ludwig, D., B. Walker, & C S. Holling. 1996.
Sustainability, stability and resilience. Conservation
Ecology 1:1.
Manuj, I. & Mentzer, J. T. 2008. Global supply chain risk
management strategies. International journal of
physical distribution and logistics management, 38,
192.
Martin, S. 2004. The cost of restoration as a way of
defining resilience: a viability approach applied to a
model of lake eutrophication. Ecology and society, 9,
8.
Meredith, J. 1993. Theory building through conceptual
methods. International journal of operations and
production management 13, 3.
Mittelbach, G. G. 1995. Perturbation and resilience: a
long-term, whole-lake study of predator extinction and
reintroduction. Ecology 76, 2347.
Murphy, P. R., Poist, R. F. & Braunschwieg, C. D. 1996.
Green logistics: comparative views of environmental
progressives, moderates, and conservatives. Journal of
Business Logistics 17, 191.
Neubert, M. G. 1997. Alternatives to resilience for
measuring the responses of ecological systems to
perturbations. Ecology 78, 653.
Ortiz, M. 2002. Dynamical simulation of mass-balance
trophic models for benthic communities of north-
central Chile: assessment of resilience time under
alternative management scenarios. Ecological
modelling 148, 277.
Pagell, M. & Wu, Z. 2009. Building a more complete
theory of sustainable supply chain management using
case studies of 10 exemplars. The journal of supply
chain management, 45, 37.
Pettit, T. J., Fiksel, J. & Croxton, K. L. 2010. Ensuring
supply chain resilience: Development of a conceptual
framework. Journal of Business Logistics 31, 1.
Perrini F & Tencati A. 2006. Sustainability and
stakeholder management: the need for new corporate
performance evaluation and reporting systems.
Business Strategy and the Environment 15: 296.
Ponomarov, S. Y. 2009. Understanding the concept of
supply chain resilience. International Journal of
Logistics Management 20 (1): 124.
Priem. R. L., & Butler, J. E. 2001. Is the resource-based
"view" a useful perspective for strategic management
research? Academy of Management Review 26, 22.
Seuring, S. 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual
framework for sustainable supply chain management.
Journal of cleaner production 16, 1699.
Sheffi, Y. 2005. A supply chain view of the resilient
enterprise. MIT Sloan management review 47, 41.
Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K. & Dikshit, A. K.
2009. An overview of sustainability assessment
Methodologies. Ecological Indicators. 9. 189.
Schoenherr T, Rao Tummala V. M. & Harrison T. P.
2008. Assessing supply chain risks with the analytic
hierarchy process: Providing decision support for the
offshoring decision by a US manufacturing company.
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 14:
100.
Svensson, G. 2000. A conceptual framework for the
analysis of vulnerability in supply chains,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management. 30 (9): 731.
Tang, C. S. 2006. Robust strategies for mitigating supply
chain disruptions. International journal of logistics 9,
33.
Tomlin B. (2006) On the Value of Mitigation and
Contingency Strategies for Managing Supply Chain
Disruption Risks. Management Science 52: 639.
Vugrin, E. D., Camphouse, R. C. & Sunderland, D. 2009.
Quantitative Resilience Analysis Through Control
Design. New Mexico: SandIA REPORT for the
United States Department of Energy.
Veeramani, 2007. Sources of India's Export Growth in
Pre- and Post-Reform Periods. Economic and Political
Weekly 42, 2419.
Weick, K. E. 1999. Conclusion: Theory construction as
disciplined reflexivity: Tradeoffs in the 90s. The
Academy of Management review 24, 797.
Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource based view of the firm.
Strategic Management Journal 5, 171
Wheeler, D. 2003. Focusing on value: Reconciling
corporate social responsibility, sustainability and a
stakeholder approach in a network world. Journal of
general management 28 (3): 1.
Wu T, Blackhurst J & Chidambaram V. 2006. A model for
inbound supply risk analysis. Computers in Industry
57: 350-365.
Xu, J. 2008. Managing the Risk of Supply Chain
Disruption: Towards a Resilient Approach of Supply
Chain Management. ISECS International Colloquium
on Computing, Communication, Control, and
Management.
Yin, R. K. 1994. Case Study Research, 2nd ed., Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zsidisin, G. A. Melnyk, S. A. & Ragatz, G. L. 2005. An
institutional theory perspective of business continuity
planning for purchasing and supply management.
International journal of production research 43 (16):
3401
ICE-B 2012 - International Conference on e-Business
172
APPENDIX
Table 2: Supply chain disruptions.
Supply chain disruptions
Reference
Natural disasters
Christopher & Peck (2004); Sheffi (2005); Kleindorfer & Saad (2005); Schoenherr
(2008); Wu et al (2006); Blackhurst et al (2008); Xu (2008)
Fluctuations in currencies,
Peck (2005); Blackhurstet et al. (2008); Manuj & Mentzer (2008)
Economic downturn
Xu (2008)
Fluctuation of raw material price
Xu, (2008)
Piracy and theft
Peck (2005); Sheffi (2005); Colicchia (2010); Blackhurst et al. (2008)
Labor disputes, strikes, sabotage
Peck (2005); Sheffi (2005); Kleindorfer & Saad (2005); Wu et al. (2006); Blackhurst et al.
(2008); Xu (2008)
Political and regulatory factors both home and
host country (political instability)
Peck (2005); Kleindorfer & Saad (2005); Wu et al. (2006); Blackhurst et al. (2008)
Product quality (Defection in product, damage,
wrong component or material)
Schoenherr (2008); Wu et al. (2006); Pujawan & Geraldin (2009); Blackhurst et al.
(2008); Manuj & Mentzer (2008)
Competition
Haider (2007; Schoenherr (2008)
Operational failure due to malfunction of
machinery and equipment
Kleindorfer & Saad (2005)
Lack of Raw material availability and
Dependence on offshore sourcing
Blackhurst (2006); Wu et al. (2006); Pujawan & Geraldin (2009) ; Haider (2007),
Nuruzzan (2009), Craighead (2007), Peck (2005)
Interrupted Utility supply
Ahmed (2009)
Skill shortage of human resources
Haider (2007); Wu et al. (2006)
Supplier disruption
Peck (2005); Sheffi (2005); Kleindorfer & Saad (2005); Tomlin (2006); Schoenherr
(2008); Wu et al. (2006); Blackhurst et al. (2008); Xu (2008)
Customer disruption
Gaudenzi & Borghesi (2006)
Infrastructure problem
Peck (2005); Schoenherr (2008); Blackhurst et al (2008)
Non-Comply social & environmental factors
Islam & Deegan (2008)
Delay for disruption in port and customs
Colicchia (2010); Blackhurst et al (2008)
Survival (bankruptcy, lawsuit by customer )
Manuj & Mentzer (2008)
Table 3: Supply chain capabilities.
Supply chain capabilities
Reference
Product customization
Ducols (2003)
Supplier contract flexibility regarding time
Fiksel (2003); Peck (2005); Sheffi (2005); Tang (2006)
Multiple sources of supply
Cranfield (2002, 2003); Fiksel (2003); Peck (2005); Tomlin (2006)
Alternate distribution Channels
Peck (2005); Tang (2006); Blackhurst et al. (2005), Klibi (2010),
Customer orientation & shortage response action
Kilbi et al. (2008); Braunscheidel & Suresh (2009); Ji & Zhu (2008)
Production postponement
Ducols (2003)
Backup capacity (materials, assets, utility, labor,
inventory)
Cranfield (2002, 2003); Fiksel (2003); Peck (2005); Sheffi (2005);
Tomlin (2006), Klibi (2010), Christopher & Peck (2004)
Labor productivity
Ahmed (2009)
Quality control and Checking Defection
Kleindorfer & Saad (2005)
Business intelligence
Cranfield (2002, 2003), Sheffi, 2005; Blackhurst et al (2005);
Product and Process Improvement
Fiksel (2003); Peck (2005); Sheffi (2005), Tang (2006)
Collaboration &Real time information exchange
Peck (2005); Blackhurst et al. (2005)
Supplier relation and improvement
Zsidisin & Ellram (2003); Stevenson & Spring (2009)
Forecasting and predictive analysis
Peck (2005); Sheffi (2005), Blackhurst et al. (2005)
Learning orientation and culture
Tang (2006); Braunscheidel & Suresh (2009), Manuj & Mentzer (2008)
Security, monitoring and early warning signals
Peck (2005); Sheffi (2005), Craighead et al. (2007)
Forward and backward integration
Manuj & Mentzer (2008), Ponomarov & Holcomb (2009)
Market share improvement
Pettit et al. (2010)
Compliance of social and environmental issues
Islam & Deegan (2008)
Resilient Sustainable Supply Chain Management - A Conceptual Framework
173