The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-4093.htm

IJLM
20,1 Understanding the concept
of supply chain resilience
Serhiy Y. Ponomarov and Mary C. Holcomb
124 Department of Marketing and Logistics, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, Tennessee, USA

Abstract
Purpose – In the emerging disciplines of risk management and supply chain management, resilience
is a relatively undefined concept. The purpose of this paper is to present an integrated perspective on
resilience through an extensive review of the literature in a number of disciplines including
developmental psychology and ecosystems. In addition, the paper identifies and addresses some of the
current theoretical gaps in the existing research.
Design/methodology/approach – Supply chain resilience has been defined by a number of
disciplines. An integrative literature review is conducted in an attempt to integrate existing
perspectives. This review also serves as the basis for the development of a conceptual model.
Findings – The key elements of supply chain resilience and the relationships among them, the links
between risks and implications for supply chain management, and the methodologies for managing
these key issues are poorly understood. Implications for future research advocate testing the proposed
model empirically.
Practical implications – Supply chain disruptions have adverse effect on both revenue and costs.
Resilient supply chains incorporate event readiness, are capable of providing an efficient response, and
often are capable of recovering to their original state or even better post the disruptive event.
Originality/value – Supply chain resilience has yet to be researched from the logistics perspective.
Even in well-developed disciplines the unified theory of resilience is still under development. This
research leverages existing knowledge and advances an interdisciplinary understanding of the
concept.
Keywords Supply chain management, Risk management, Adaptability
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Every activity that a supply chain conducts has inherent risk that an unexpected
disruption can occur. The global reach of supply chains, shorter product life cycles, and
increasing customer requirements have made businesses aware that supply chain
disruptions can cause undesirable operational and financial impact. Disruptions such
as the loss of a critical supplier, a major fire at a manufacturing plant, or an act of
terrorism have the potential to adversely affect both revenue and cost. They can lead to
lost sales and even market share as well as increase costs due to premium and
expedited logistics services. To reduce this risk, supply chains must be designed to
incorporate event readiness, provide an efficient and effective response, and be capable
of recovering to their original state or even better post the disruptive event. This is the
The International Journal of Logistics essence of supply chain resiliency.
Management The concept of resilience is multidimensional and multidisciplinary. On the one
Vol. 20 No. 1, 2009
pp. 124-143 hand, resilience was a subject of scientific research for many years in such disciplines
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-4093
as developmental psychology and ecosystems. On the other hand, it is a subject of
DOI 10.1108/09574090910954873 interest in relatively new emerging disciplines such as risk management and supply
chain management. Even in well-developed disciplines, the existing definitions of Supply chain
resilience are often contradictory and confusing, and the unified theory of resilience is resilience
still under development. In order to justify the need for resilient supply chains, one
needs to have an operational definition of the phenomenon of resilience as well as an
understanding of the key elements and capabilities that characterize it. This research
attempts to address that knowledge gap through a multidisciplinary integrative
review of the different perspectives to identify current gaps in the supply chain 125
resilience literature. This review provides the basis for developing a conceptual
framework of the dimensions of supply chain resilience, its antecedents, and its
consequences.
Supply chain disruptions can arise from many sources, including external sources
such as a natural disaster and internal sources such as a failure to integrate all functions
in a supply chain. Very often such events happen rapidly and without warning.
Disruptions can also result from attempts to create a more efficient, cost-conscious
supply chain environment. In many companies logistics activities such as raw materials
supply, component assembly, manufacturing, and even product distribution are
outsourced to partners that are located across the globe. This structure has created a
supply chain-dependent environment in which any disruption can have a much more
pronounced effect as it ripples either upstream or downstream in the supply chain.
As supply chain risks increase, the need also increases for companies to develop
logistics processes and capabilities that can enable them to be ready (capable) of
providing an efficient and effective response and continuing with business as planned.
Gaining a better understanding of resiliency in supply chains is not possible, therefore,
without the consideration of logistics capabilities. The conceptual model presented in
this study proposes a link between logistics capabilities and supply chain resilience.

Defining resilience and its scope

The study of resilience has its origins in development theory of social psychology and
is an emerging theory in its own right. The concept of resilience is directly related to
important issues such as ecological and social vulnerability, the politics and
psychology of disaster recovery, and risk management under increasing threats. While
there are commonly used definitions in each all of these areas they are
discipline-specific. In many cases the domain covered by the resilience construct
lacks clarity. Thus, in order to understand the phenomena of resilience, we need to first
consider different perspectives and approaches from the various streams of literature.
After an initial literature review, the following perspectives were identified as the most
related and appropriate for the understanding of the phenomena of resilience.

Resilience from an ecological perspective

The Canadian ecologist Holling (1973) was one of the first researchers to note that
systems have two distinct properties: resilience and stability. Resilience determines the
ability of systems to absorb changes, and stability is the capacity of systems to return
to an equilibrium state after a temporary disturbance. The faster a system returns to
equilibrium, the greater its stability. There is an implicit assumption of stability in the
system; without stability there would be no presumed return to the pre-disturbance
state, but rather an adjustment to some new equilibrium level that could be better or
worse than the previous state (Clapham, 1971).
IJLM The concept of resilience has changed considerably since Holling’s (1973) seminal
20,1 paper. Several important dimensions of ecosystems resilience have been summarized
by Westman (1986). The widely accepted definitions of resilience and its components
from the ecological perspective are presented in Table I (Westman, 1986).
Gunderson and Holling (2001) defined resilience as the capacity of a system to
experience disturbance and maintain it functions and controls. Carpenter et al. (2001)
126 extended the research by examining the magnitude of disturbance that a system could
tolerate before it fundamentally changes into a different region with a different set of
controls. They expanded the concept of resilience through the introduction of the
notion of the adaptive cycle. According to adaptive cycle theory dynamic systems do
not tend towards a stable or equilibrium state. Instead they evolve through four
states – rapid growth and exploitation, conservation, creative destruction, and renewal
or reorganization – adapting to the disturbance(s). Carpenter et al. (2001) concluded
that resilience has three primary properties:
(1) The amount of change that a system can undergo while retaining the same
controls on structure and function.
(2) The degree to which the system is capable of organizing itself without
disorganization or force from external factors.
(3) The degree to which a system develops the capacity to learn and adapt in
response to disturbances.

Dovers and Handmer (1992) also stress the importance of this adaptive capacity while
describing proactive resilience that accepts the inevitability of change and tries to
create a system that is capable of adapting to new conditions and imperatives.
The ecological perspective presents a nondeterministic view of human behavior
that declares behavior is not considered the outcome of a single cause but the result of
multiple, complex person-environment exchanges over time (Gunderson, 2000).
Because this point of view affords a holistic picture of life processes, ecological
concepts are often used in conjunction with a resilience approach in social sciences.

Definition

Resilience Degree, manner, and pace of restoration of initial structure and function in
an ecosystem after disturbance (Westman, 1978; Clapham, 1971)
Components of resilience
Elasticity Rapidity of restoration of a stable state following disturbance (Orians,
1975; Westman, 1978)
Amplitude The zone of deformation from which the system will return to its initial
state (Orians, 1975; Westman, 1978)
Hysteresis The extent to which the path of degradation under chronic disturbance,
and a recovery when disturbance ceases, are not mirror-images of each
other (Westman, 1978, 1986)
Malleability Degree to which the steady state established after disturbance differs from
Table I. the original steady-state (Westman, 1978)
Components of resilience: Damping The degree and manner by which the path of restoration is altered by any
ecological perspective forces that change the normal restoring force (Clapham, 1971)
Social, psychological, and economic perspectives of resilience Supply chain
The concept of resilience has been explored within the social sciences in three primary resilience
branches: social, psychology, and economics. In general, resilience has been used to
describe the behavioral response of communities, institutions, and economies.
Timmerman (1981) was one of the first to define resilience of a society as the measure
of a system’s capacity to absorb and recover from the occurrence of a hazardous event.
The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (United Nations, 127
2005) offers a more comprehensive definition. Resilience is defined as the capacity of a
system, community or society potentially exposed to hazards to adapt, by resisting or
changing in order to reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning and structure.
This is determined by the degree to which the social system is capable of organizing
itself to increase its capacity for learning from past disasters for better future protection
and to improve the effectiveness of risk reduction measures. System capacity is defined as
the combination of all the strength, resources, and capabilities available within a
community, society or organization that contribute to reducing the level of risk, or the
effects of a disaster. Capacity, which may also be described as capability, can include
physical, institutional, social, or economic resources and means, as well as skilled personal
or collective attributes such as leadership and management that a community can bring to
bear on management hazards. In addition to linking system capacity to resilience,
previous research has identified several common levels of social resilience. These levels
include: individual, family, tribe or clan, locality, or neighborhood, community, social
associations (such as clubs and faith congregations), organization (such as a bureaucracy
or a private sector firm), and systems (such as environmental and economic systems). This
same hierarchal structure can be adapted in the study of supply chain resilience to reflect
the multiple echelons that are found in the firm and across the supply chain.

Psychological perspective
The psychological perspective on resilience is well researched and widely represented
in the literature. It has its roots in developmental theory that deals with the
examination of people’s behavior across the life span, and encompasses an
understanding of biopsychological factors as well as the spiritual realm (Conrad,
1999). The specific area of study that addresses resilience is called developmental
psychopathology, an examination of developmental differences in people’s response to
stress and adversity. Research in this area explores factors that serve as buffers, or
prevents or moderates adverse reactions to stress.
In a recent paper, Reich (2006) examines three psychological principles of resilience
that occur as a result of natural or human-made disasters:
(1) Control (direction, regulation, and coordination of activities).
(2) Coherence (enhancing meaning, direction and understanding during the worst
times; processes and procedures needed to reduce uncertainty).
(3) Connectedness (behavior to bend together; systematic coordination of efforts to
avoid duplication and wastefulness of services).

Reich concluded that incorporating these key psychological principles of resilience into
disaster planning would lead to a more comprehensive response resulting in improved
effectiveness. That is, control, coherence, and connectedness are key components of
resilience’s efficient response.
IJLM These principles are underlying themes in other research as well. Stewart et al.
20,1 (1997) through an extensive literature research discovered several common premises
related to psychological aspects of resilience:
.
Resilience is a dynamic process that depends on life context.
.
Resilience is a complex interplay between certain characteristics of individuals
and their broader environments.
128 .
Decreasing negative risk factors increases resilience.
. Resilience is developmental and most important during life transitions.

Grotberg (1995) reinforced the idea that the capacity to be resilient is not limited to
individuals. Resilience is a “universal” capacity that spans multiple levels from
individuals to communities to plan, respond, and recover from adversity.

Economic perspective
In general, static economic resilience refers to the ability or capacity of a system to
absorb or cushion against damage or loss (Holling, 1973; Perrings, 1994). A more
general definition that incorporates dynamic considerations is the ability of a system to
recover from a severe shock or stress. A systems theory assumption is that systems try
to maintain their stability even as they change. Ross (2004) distinguishes two types of
resilience:
(1) Inherent. Ability under normal circumstances (e.g. the ability to substitute other
inputs for those damaged by an external shock, or the ability of markets to
reallocate resources in response to price signals).
(2) Adaptive. Ability in crisis situations due to ingenuity or extra effort (e.g.
increasing input substitution possibilities in individual business operations, or
strengthening the market by providing information to match suppliers with
customers).

Ross also identified three levels at which resilience can take place – microeconomic
(individual); mesoeconomic (sector, market, or cooperative group); and macroeconomic
(all individual units and markets combined). These levels mirror the social system
perspective and are applicable at the firm and supply chain level.
The ultimate goal of resilience according to Hamel and Valikangas (2003) is to
create a company that has the capability to quickly evolve without adverse effects to
the organization. They also argue that resilience is not just concerned with recovery,
flexibility, or crisis preparedness; it implies that there is a capacity for continuous
innovation based on an analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.
In order to build a decisive advantage, however, a company must be faster at
generating options and realigning resources than its competitors.

Resilience from an organizational perspective

From the organizational perspective resilience has been defined in terms of adjustment
to capacities or abilities. Definitions that are relevant to this research include:
.
the capacity to adjust and maintain desirable functions under challenging or
straining conditions (Weick et al., 1999; Bunderson and Sutcliffe, 2002;
Edmondson, 1999);
 .
a dynamic capacity of organizational adaptability that grows and develops over Supply chain
time (Wildavsky, 1988); and resilience
.
the ability to bounce back from disruptive events or hardship (Sutcliffe and
Vogus, 2003).

The ability to recover from disruptive events was also examined by Mitroff and
Alpasan (2003). They state that resilient organizations are proactive and recover better 129
from hardship. However, resilience is more than just recovery; it also implies a certain
level of flexibility and ability to adapt to both positive and negative influences of the
environment. To summarize, the organizational perspective emphasizes important
aspects of resilience such as adaptability, flexibility, maintenance, and recovery.
Another important aspect discussed in the organizational context is dealing with
the outcomes of resilience. Hamel and Valikangas (2003) stress that resilience is not
just concerned with recovery, flexibility, or crisis preparedness. It is also a distinct
source of sustainable competitive advantage. Coutu (2002) indicates that resilience is a
critical capability for success. Focusing on resilience as a distinctive organizational
capability, Stoltz (2004) stated that resilience is the key to developing a strategic plan
that is sustainable and capable of producing results that are better than less resilient
competitors. All of the above findings are extremely important for understanding the
phenomena of resilience in general, and supply chain resilience in particular.

Resilience in emerging interdisciplinary research streams

Emergency management and sustainable development perspective
Emergency management is an interdisciplinary field that draws upon bodies of
knowledge in the physical and social sciences. The relatively recent disaster recovery
stream of emergency management research presents a learning perspective of
resilience. Lindell et al. (2007) suggest that a disaster resilient community learns from
its experience, supports sustainable development policies, mobilizes the government,
and demands that effective policies be implemented. They identify four stages of
emergency management, including hazard mitigation, disaster preparedness
(readiness), emergency response, and disaster recovery. These stages are directly
related to the phases of supply chain resilience discussed later. They also emphasize
the learning perspective. For example, the vulnerability of infrastructure could be
decreased during the recovery stage (e.g. a bridge destroyed by an earthquake could be
replaced by a new one with a better, more robust design). In addition, one of the most
difficult parts of recovery is restoring social routines and economic activities. The
process of recovery involves restoring people’s psychological stability. It also involves
learning positive lessons from the experience. In terms of logistics, Esper et al. (2007)
note that the learning capability is a primary contributor to sustainable advantage that
is achieved through competitive logistics strategy.
From the event management perspective, resilience is also referred to as one of the
prerequisites for sustainable economic development that parallels the previously
discussed organizational view of resilience as a source of competitive advantage. As an
example, Folke et al. (2003) cite special interest groups in the Grand Canyon that have
developed an “Adaptive Management Work Group” to learn more about enhancing the
resilience of that ecosystem. This is contrasted to special interest groups in the Florida
Everglades who do not seemingly understand how to build flexibility for adaptive
IJLM change that leads to resilience. These groups have not developed a culture for
20,1 institutional learning that is necessary for sustainable economic development.

Supply chain risk management perspective

If emergency management deals with the issues of risks, disruptions, and recovery at
the macro level of communities, societies, and humanity in general, risk management
130 looks at the same issues from a business perspective. Supply chain management has
been an established research area for at least ten years now and risk management for
much longer than that. In recent years, we have evidenced the growing importance of
risk management research, and supply chain risk management is at the forefront of this
growing interest. This new research area has developed at the intersection of supply
chain management and risk management (Paulsson, 2004). Supply chain resilience
deals with multiple types of risks at multiple stages of the risk management process at
the supply chain unit of analysis. Because resilience is one of the core elements of
supply chain risk management this perspective must also be examined to determine
how it should be incorporated into the resilience conceptual framework.
Today there is no generally agreed definition of supply chain risk management.
Norrman and Lindroth (2004) suggest that supply chain risk management involves the
collaborative application of risk management process tools for the purpose of dealing
with uncertainties related to logistics activities. This definition introduces some
important aspects, such as collaboration, a process-based view and the importance of
logistics elements into the domain of supply chain risk management. A more widely
accepted definition was proposed by Jüttner et al. (2003) and Jüttner (2005); this
definition was adopted later by other authors in their research (Manuj and Mentzer,
2008). According to this definition, supply chain risk management is defined as, “the
identification of potential sources of risk and implementation of appropriate strategies
through a coordinated approach among supply chain members, to reduce supply chain
vulnerability.” Supply chain risk has also been defined as any risk to the information,
material, and product flow from original suppliers to the delivery of the final product
(Christopher et al., 2003).
A number of major trends contributed to the increased importance of supply chain
risk management during the last decade. Among them are things such as globalization,
outsourcing, transitioning to lean and agile operations, and increased terrorist and
other threats. In fact, many recent research publications deal with classifying all the
risks, threats, and disruptions. For example, Manuj and Mentzer (2008) summarized
the existing literature from supply chain and related disciplines to suggest a five-step
model for global supply chain risk management. Those five steps include
risk identification, risk assessment and evaluation, selection of appropriate risk
management strategies, strategy implementation, and mitigation of supply chain risks.
Manuj and Mentzer (2008) also present a classification of risks in four categories:
supply, operational, demand, and security risks. While the discussion of multiple
supply chain risks is beyond the scope of this review, the framework proposed by
Norrman and Lindroth (2004) demonstrates the complexity of the issues and a growing
potential of supply chain risk management research. Three primary dimensions – unit
of analysis, type of risk/uncertainty, and stage of the risk management process – are
used by Norrman and Lindroth to show the multidimensional nature of supply chain
management risk research.
 After reviewing more than 400 unique articles on supply chain and risk Supply chain
management published in scientific journals, Paulsson (2004) concluded that the area resilience
of supply chain risk management has many sub-areas that have one thing in common:
managing flow-related risks in the supply chain. Richie and Brindley (2004) concluded
that while there are many differing definitions of risk, supply chains, and risk
management the differences are marginal rather than substantive. These differences,
in fact, contribute to the richness and depth of the research, which helps to establish 131
risk management in supply chains as a valid and valuable emerging field of study. It is
also indicative of an emerging discipline that has a need for a unified definition.
Emerging disciplines grow by researching new constructs and building new theories.
Supply chain resilience is one of such constructs for supply chain risk management.
It has been suggested by Christopher and Lee (2004) that one of the best ways to
deal with supply chain risk is to increase confidence in the supply chain. Confidence in
the supply chain cannot be gained unless it has the ability to recover from or adjust
easily to adversity or change. This reflects an element of resilience that was also noted
in the ecological perspective. Christopher and Lee also propose that supply chain
confidence can be increased through visibility and control. One mechanism for
increasing control is event management where pre-determined limits at critical links
and nodes are used to manage material flows across the network. In the event that an
activity exceeds the control limit an alert is sent to the specified supply chain members
to enable corrective action. Event management implies the proper detection, reporting,
and reaction to issues that arise in the supply chain (Stiles, 2002). An effective supply
chain event management system can significantly reduce risk and improve operations
by providing data on changing conditions that would otherwise take longer to
recognize and respond to. A supply chain’s event management strategy is mitigated by
logistics capabilities. These capabilities determine the extent to which the supply chain
is ready and able of responding to unexpected events.

The concept of supply chain resilience

The concept of supply chain resilience proposed in this paper represents a
multidimensional phenomenon. It is a relatively new concept within a broader supply
chain risk management research stream. As such, it requires a clear understanding and
conceptualization. The following definition of supply chain resilience was developed
using multidisciplinary perspectives:
The 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.
This definition borrows several key elements from the previously reviewed disciplines.
Adaptive capability is noted as a critical component of resilient ecosystems. Respond
and recover at the same or better state is a common characteristic across all the
perspectives examined including ecological, social, psychological, economics,
organizational, and emergency management. Retaining (or maintaining) the same
control over structure and function when a disruption occurs is a primary property of
an ecosystem’s resilience. This same theme is found in the organizational perspective,
which states that resilience is the capacity to maintain desirable functions and
outcomes during strain. While not directly specified, the psychological perspective also
IJLM addresses characteristics of resilience that enhance direction and understanding.
20,1 Control, connectedness, and continuity (coherence) are three psychological principles of
resilience that are believed to improve the response when natural or human-made
disasters occur.
A resilient supply chain must be adaptable, as the desired state in many cases is
different from the original one. Christopher (2005) states that resilient processes are
132 flexible and agile and are able to change quickly. The dynamic nature of this adaptive
capability allows the supply chain to recover after being disrupted, returning to its
original state or achieving a more desirable state of supply chain operations.
Christopher’s conceptualization of a resilient supply chain includes elements such a
supply base strategy, collaborative planning, visibility, and factoring risk
considerations into decisions. While it presents an interesting point of view,
unfortunately, no theoretical justification is provided for this model. It is yet another
confirmation of the emerging stages of discipline development, which presents a good
opportunity for further scholarly research.
In general, the literature related to supply chain resilience is sparse. Although
existing studies are informative, they are primarily focused on presenting several
fragmental perspectives of the phenomenon (Sheffi, 2001; Christopher and Lee, 2004;
Christopher et al., 2002; Sheffi et al., 2003). These perspectives provide some
understanding of the importance of the topic for supply chain research. The issues of
risks classification, reliability, and vulnerability of supply chains are covered a little
better. Several formative elements of resilience, such as flexibility, agility, and
visibility are also separately discussed. Some of the related perspectives are
summarized in Table II.
The gap in the research is the holistic conceptual picture. Many key elements, the
relationships among them, the links between risks and implications for supply chain
management, and methodologies to manage these key issues are poorly understood
(Blackhurst et al., 2005). Specifically, the logistical perspective has yet to be researched.
The following sections propose an approach to address this gap in the research.

Linking logistics capabilities and supply chain resilience

The discipline of supply chain management is relatively new, and the concept of
supply chain resilience is even newer. After reviewing all the different perspectives on
resilience and discussing the need for a holistic conceptual framework for supply chain
resilience, it is logical to assume that theory building will be extremely important at
this stage of the discipline development. This means that there are conceptual aspects
that can be borrowed from the related disciplines, readjusted to the supply chain
context and empirically tested to gain a better understanding of the interdisciplinary
phenomenon of resilience. For this research, the following questions are of interest:
.
What are the antecedents of supply chain resilience from the logistics
perspective? What is the link to logistic capabilities?
.
What are some of the outcomes of supply chain resilience? How could it help
companies gain a competitive advantage?

Most of the related research to this point has dealt with defining the concept of supply
chain resilience, and identifying characteristics and components of resilient supply
chains. One of the obvious gaps is the failure to conceptualize the complexity of
 Supply chain
Discussed aspects Relevant research summary
resilience
Agility, responsiveness Christopher (2004) describes agility as one of the most powerful ways
of achieving resilience in the supply chain. Agile supply networks are
capable of more rapid response to changed conditions
Visibility Increasing the visibility of demand information across the supply
chain reduces the risks (Chopra and Sodhi, 2004) 133
Flexibility/redundancy Christopher (2005) states that resilient processes are flexible and agile
and are able to change quickly. Flexibility enables a manufacturer to
respond quickly and efficiently to dynamic market changes
(Swamidass and Newell, 1987). Rice and Caniato (2003) suggested a
hybrid flexibility/redundancy approach for increasing supply chain
resilience
Structure and knowledge Knowledge and understanding of supply chain structures-both
physical and informational-are important elements of supply chain
resilience (Hong and Choi, 2002)
Reduction of uncertainty, van der Vorst and Beulens (2002) view reduction of uncertainty as the
complexity, reengineering way to improve supply chain resilience Christopher (2000) adds
reduction of complexity through business process reengineering
initiatives
Collaboration Collaborative partnerships help to manage risks effectively (Sinha
et al., 2004; Lee, 2004)
Integration, operational In describing the operational capabilities of resilient supply chains, Table II.
capabilities, transparency Smith (2004) emphasized the importance of integrated environment Supply chain resilience:
that provides end-to-end interaction of orders, inventory, summary of selected
transportation and distribution to facilitate supply chain transparency aspects

cause-effect relationships between some related constructs. Answering the above

research questions will contribute to the holistic understanding of the phenomena in
question, its antecedents and consequences. The findings from the reviewed
perspectives on resilience provide a fertile ground for establishing the hypothesized
relationships. While the discussion of the relationship between logistics and supply
chain management is far beyond the scope of this research, the related literature
provides a sufficient theoretical justification for formulating the first research question
presented above. Moreover, the relationships between the researched constructs and
such concepts as flexibility, agility, visibility, and responsiveness should be clarified.
Interestingly, enough, while some authors view them as logistics capabilities, others
consider them as important characteristics of resilient supply chains (Christopher,
2005; Sheffi, 2007).

Logistics capabilities, supply chain resilience and sustainable competitive

advantage
It is the thesis of this paper that the dynamic integration of logistics capabilities
enables supply chain resilience that leads to sustainable competitive advantage. The
resource-based view (RBV) of the firm provides important insights for understanding
how competitive advantage within firms is created and how such advantage is
sustained over time. Briefly, RBV states that firms obtain competitive advantage by
accumulating internal resources and capabilities that are rare, valuable, and difficult to
imitate (Barney, 1991). Thus, one of the main objectives for firms applying a RBV is to
IJLM identify their capabilities and develop them further (Day, 1994). Owing to their
20,1 dynamics and complexity, however, capabilities are often difficult to identify. In
addition, capabilities often span over several functional areas, which makes it even
more challenging. Grant (1991) argues that while some capabilities can be identified
using the standard functional approach, the most important capabilities often arise
from an integration of individual functional capability. Thus, integration and
134 coordination of resources are the key characteristics of capability.
Teece et al. (1997) develop the RBV approach one step further by formulating the
dynamic capabilities perspective. According to their study, the term “dynamic” refers
to the capacity to renew competences so as to achieve congruence with the changing
environment. The term “capabilities” reflects the major role of strategic management in
adapting, integrating, and reconfiguring resources, organizational skills and functional
competencies to respond to the challenges of the external environment. Capabilities or
distinctive competencies consist of those attributes, abilities, organizational processes,
knowledge, and skills that allow a firm to achieve superior performance and sustained
competitive advantage over competitors.
A number of logistics and supply chain-related capabilities leading to improved
firm performance and sustainable competitive advantage are discussed in the existing
literature (Olavarrieta and Ellinger, 1997; Daugherty et al., 1998; Lynch et al., 2000;
Zhao et al., 2001; Mentzer et al., 2004; Esper et al., 2007). Morash et al. (1996) found a
correlation between strategic logistics capabilities and firm performance. The four key
logistics capabilities that were identified – delivery speed, reliability, responsiveness,
and low cost distribution – were significantly related to performance and were noted
as critical components for sustained competitive advantage. Olavarrieta and Ellinger
(1997) show that logistics capability qualifies to be a distinctive capability (the one
leading to sustainable competitive advantage) by reviewing characteristics such as
added value, rarity, and difficulty for imitating. Mentzer et al. (2004) stress that
logistics capabilities play a distinctive role in the integrative strategic process due to
the expected benefits of improving firm efficiency and effectiveness leading to
long-term firm profitability and survival.
In times of uncertainty, however, supply chain resilience also comes into play. It is a
premise of this research that it is a missing link to sustainable competitive advantage.
Dynamic capabilities themselves are often difficult to sustain under the conditions of
uncertainty, especially in high-velocity markets (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). Under
such conditions, the principles of resilience come into play. This suggests that
resilience plays a key role in sustaining dynamic capabilities and maintaining the link
between dynamically integrated capabilities and sustainable competitive advantage.
This aspect is also supported by the nature of supply chain operations under constant
change and uncertainty.
Second, an integrative aspect finds its theoretical justification in the recent stream of
literature on demand-supply integration (Mentzer and Kahn, 1996; Jüttner et al., 2007).
It is also supported by the fact that no single capability alone, however strong it is, is
sufficient for achieving a sustainable competitive advantage. Thus, logistics
capabilities should be considered in appropriate combination rather than stand-alone
abilities. In other words, they should be classified and integrated in order to make a
significant impact on the formation of supply chain resilience and sustainable
competitive advantage. It is proposed that only the integration of dynamic capabilities,
strengthened by the adaptive and coherent nature of supply chain resilience, can lead Supply chain
to a sustainable competitive advantage under the conditions of uncertainty. Also, risk resilience
perceptions of strategic decision-makers within the company and supply chain
orientation are hypothesized to moderate the relationship between integrated logistics
capabilities and supply chain resilience. A generalized macro-level model
incorporating some of the concepts discussed in this section is presented in Figure 1.
This generalized model results in the following research proposition: 135
RP1. The better the dynamic integration of logistic capabilities, the greater the
supply chain resilience.

The supply chain resilience framework

The proposed model addresses the relative importance of specific logistics capabilities
during each of three phases of supply chain resilience: readiness, response, and
recovery. Three psychological principles of resilience defined previously (control,
coherence, and connectedness) are also incorporated as part of the supply chain
resilience framework. The hypothesized relationships between the phases and
elements are presented in Table III.
Selected logistic capabilities are strategically placed within the matrix to reflect
their relative importance at each phase of resilience. These capabilities are also
grouped into three major categories of coherence, connectedness, and control. In the
context of supply chain management, control relates to the direction and regulation of
strategic and tactical actions within the supply chain network. Lambert and Cooper
(2000) state that planning and control of operations is one of nine management
components that are needed for successful supply chain management. Planning and
control are key factors in moving an organization or supply chain in a desired
direction. In their examination of supply chain redesign strategies for food companies,
van der Vorst and Beulens (2002) state that uncertainty will result if decision makers
are unable to accurately determine the impact of control mechanisms on supply chain
Top Supply chain
management Risk analysis
and assessment risk sharing
support

Demand
Logistics learning capability

management P5
capabilities Supply chain resilience P6
Dynamically Sustainable
Supply Event Efficient
integrated Recovery competitive
management readiness response
logistic advantage
capabilities capabilities P1
P2 P4
Information
management Control Connectedness
capabilities P3
Figure 1.
Coherence Conceptual framework of
the relationship between
logistic capabilities and
Risk re-assessment / organizational learning
supply chain resilience
IJLM
Resilience/capabilities
20,1 matrix Readiness Response Recovery

Control Logistic quality, efficiency, Timeliness, Cycle-time reduction,

cost minimization, postponement delivery competency
risk-hedging capabilities,
136 back-ups of systems and
processes
Coherence Effectiveness of logistic Flexibility, Customer service, efficiency
processes, systematic agility, of warehouse operations,
contingency planning risk-sharing knowledge management
Table III. Connectedness Information technology Information Highly integrated systems
Resilience-logistics upgrades, supply chain sharing and processes
capabilities matrix relationship building

behavior, or if the supply chain lacks effective control actions. Perea et al. (2000) found
that the performance of the supply chain is highly sensitive to operational control
mechanisms, and that the control policies should be viewed as trade-offs in
accomplishing the overarching objective. The following relationship of control to
supply chain resilience is proposed:
RP2. The greater the resilience of the supply chain, the better it maintains control of
logistics capabilities when disruptions occur.
Coherence in the emergency management literature is defined as the enhanced
meaning, direction and understanding that results from disruptive events or potential
threats. Reich (2006) discusses the need to have processes and procedures in place to
provide order and structure to reduce uncertainty. A system without this element of
resilience will be unable to prevent or counteract the results of a disruption. Woods et al.
(2002) addressed coherence from the perspective of a value network. Their research
suggests that the goal of the value network is to build supply chain coherence so that
the network has the capability to act and innovate to facilitate new value and
competitive advantage. Tan (2002) examined factors that hinder a supply chain in
achieving the desired level of success. Nine primary concerns were reduced to three
underlying factors including supply chain coherence. Jain et al. (1999) surmise that
the best (or desired) outcomes can only be achieved through coherence which they
define as the systematic or logical integration of diverse elements. According to the
psychological principles of resilience, it is coherence that enables entities to create order
and structure (i.e. desired outcomes) after a disaster occurs to (Reich, 2006). The
various perspectives of coherence can be used to formulate the following proposition:
RP3. The greater the resilience of the supply chain, the better it maintains
coherence of logistics capabilities when disruptions occur.
Connectedness is the third psychological principle of resilience that refers to the
behavior of people to band together during times of disaster. From a supply chain point
of view connectedness is often defined as the extent or degree to which a group of
suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, third-party providers, retailers, and customers
develop an integrated network to enable them to effectively and efficiently coordinate
among the many different entities (Hertz, 2001; Thadakamalla et al., 2004).
The integrated network provides a systematic coordination of efforts to avoid Supply chain
unwarranted replication and wastefulness of resources. A resilient community (or resilience
supply chain) is characterized by this interconnectivity:
RP4. The greater the resilience of the supply chain, the higher the levels of
integration (connectedness) across logistics capabilities when dealing with
disruptions.
137
Sharing both risks and rewards between the members of a supply chain is one of the key
components of effective supply chain management (Mentzer et al., 2001; Faisal et al.,
2006). Such risk sharing requires continuous risk analysis and assessment which is only
possible with the presence of top management support. Supply chains usually operate in
a dynamic business environment where specific risk situations are dependent on
multiple factors. In order to assess supply chain risk exposure supply chain members
need to identify both direct and indirect risks as well as the potential causes and sources
of those risks at every significant link along the supply chain (Christopher et al., 2003;
Norrman and Janson, 2004). Thus, risk assessment and sharing among the members of a
supply chain is an essential element of risk mitigation. The sharing of risk enables more
effective decision making under uncertainty, strengthening the relationships between
integrated logistics capabilities and supply chain resilience:
RP5. The greater the level of risk sharing in a supply chain (based on continual risk
analysis, assessment and top management support) the stronger the
relationship between logistics capabilities and supply chain resilience.
Competitive advantage is created through logistics capabilities which are comprised of
demand, supply and information management capabilities (Fawcett et al., 1997;
Mentzer et al., 2004). Tracey et al. (2005) found that firms that have three types of
capabilities (outside-in, inside-out, and spanning) are able to act on and anticipate
changes in markets. The dynamic nature of global business necessitates that a supply
chain be capable of adjusting to change. Furthermore, it must be capable of efficiently
handling unexpected events or disruptions both small and large. This resilience
differentiates a firm from its competitors. That is, it builds competitive advantage that
is sustainable. It is appropriate, therefore, to examine the role of logistics capabilities in
producing sustainable competitive advantage:
RP6. The greater the supply chain resilience, the greater the sustainable
competitive advantage.
The conceptual framework of the relationship between logistics capabilities and
supply chain resilience presented in Figure 1 also includes the element of
organizational learning. The learning aspects of resilience were discussed earlier
from the perspectives of ecology and social sciences. The capacity to learn from an
unexpected event and develop better preparedness for future disruptions is a principal
property of resilience that is also found in emergency management. From a logistics
viewpoint, Esper et al. (2007) state that learning outcomes are needed to develop new
logistics strategies, tactics, and operations that will support further logistics
capabilities. Organizational learning provides the means for these capabilities to
continuously evolve and develop thereby enabling supply chain resilience to also
advance and grow.
IJLM Suggestions for future research
20,1 As with any relatively new research area, the conceptual model presented in this paper is
just one of the possible views. As such, it is an obvious limitation. This research
contributes to the existing body of knowledge by summarizing several existing
perspectives on the phenomena of resilience (with a specific focus on supply chain
resilience). In addition it identifies gaps in the literature and proposes a framework to
138 address the existing gaps. The logistical aspect of supply chain resilience which is
underrepresented in the existing literature was directly addressed. The idea of
establishing a meaningful linkage between logistics capabilities and supply chain
resilience was a central concept for this research.
The key elements of supply chain resilience and the relationships among them, the
links between risks and implications for supply chain management, and the
methodologies for managing these key issues are poorly understood. Little theoretical
justification exists for current supply chain resilience models that confirm the
emerging state of this topic. Furthermore, the logistical perspective has yet to be
researched. The relationship between logistics capabilities and supply chain resilience
is largely unknown. In order to justify the need for resilient supply chains, one needs to
have an understanding and clear definition of the phenomenon of resilience. The
increased risks that are the result of complex and geographically disperse global
supply chains necessitates that companies gain a better theoretical understanding of
this emerging critical topic in order to effectively manage in this business environment.
There are several implications for managers as well. First, the model provides
additional insight into the area of risk management when managerial decisions are
especially important such as responding to supply chain disruptions. Managers can
use this process knowledge to respond to disruptive events more effectively and with
increased confidence. Second, managers are encouraged to examine logistics
capabilities and supply chain connectedness to ensure more effective structure and
more efficient response. New ways to evaluate logistics performance at the time of
disruption could be used to maintain continuity of supply chain flows. Managers may
also consider proactively addressing issues with logistics capabilities and supply chain
risk sharing prior to the occurrence of supply chain disruptions.
The opportunities for further research are abundant. Further conceptualization
using different research perspectives would be highly recommended. For instance,
knowledge-based theory could help to develop the learning perspective of supply chain
resilience. Different risk assessment paradigms, such as probabilistic choice, systems
theory and the theory of constraints could also be applied to advance the discussed
research topic.
The next phase of research is to test the proposed model empirically. After
operationalizing selected constructs, specific measures should be developed, and the
hypothesized relationships should be tested. Logistics capabilities could be grouped
using exploratory factor analysis procedure, measuring specific logistics capabilities
and exploring their factor loadings on factors such as connectedness, coherence and
control. Performing such a procedure at each stage of supply chain resilience (readiness,
response, and recovery) will determine the relative importance of specific logistics
capabilities at each stage. In addition, supply chain risk assessment, top management
support, and risk sharing were briefly discussed in this paper. The relationship between
these items needs to be examined to gain a better understanding of their link to
integrated logistics capabilities and supply chain resilience. Knowledge-based theory Supply chain
could help to develop the learning perspective of supply chain resilience and its relation resilience
to organizational and logistics learning.
Additional understanding of the phenomenon of interest could be gained by using a
qualitative approach. For example, supply chain resilience could be researched from
the managerial perspective using grounded theory qualitative tradition. This approach
is proven to be useful in generating depth of understanding when not much is known 139
about a phenomenon of interest and when it concerns complex social processes such as
managerial decision-making under uncertainty. Finally, the measurement of supply
chain resilience represents a future potential research stream that will provide
important knowledge regarding the outcomes of this phenomenon. It will be important
to understand how (and if) supply chains can return to an original or different state.
Metrics will need to be developed and tested in future research. Such measurement will
assist firms and their respective supply chains to determine the extent to which
elements and components of supply chain resilience should be developed.

References
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Blackhurst, J., Craighead, C.W., Elkins, D. and Handfield, R.B. (2005), “An empirically derived
agenda of critical research issues for managing supply-chain disruptions”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43 No. 19, pp. 4067-81.
Bunderson, J.S. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2002), “Comparing alternative conceptualizations of
functional diversity in management teams: process and performance effects”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 45, pp. 875-93.
Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, M. and Abel, N. (2001), “From metaphor to measurement:
resilience of what to what?”, Ecosystems, Vol. 4, pp. 765-81.
Chopra, S. and Sodhi, M.S. (2004), “Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown”, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 53-61.
Christopher, M. (2000), “The agile supply chain: competing in volatile markets”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 37-44.
Christopher, M. (2005), “Managing risk in the supply chain”, in Christopher, M. (Ed.), Logistics
& Supply Chain Management, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Harlow, pp. 231-58.
Christopher, M. and Lee, H. (2004), “Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 5,
pp. 388-96.
Christopher, M., Peck, H., Rutherford, C. and Juttner, U. (2003), Supply Chain Resilience, Cranfield
Centre for Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Cranfield, November.
Christopher, M.G., McKinnon, A., Sharp, J., Wilding, R., Peck, H., Chapman, P., Jüttner, U. and
Bolumole, V. (2002), Supply Chain Vulnerability, Report for Department of Transport, Local
Government and the Regions, Cranfield University, Cranfield.
Clapham, W.B. Jr (1971), Natural Ecosystems, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Conrad, A.P. (1999), Professional Tools for Social Work Practice, Human Behavior Theory and
Social Work Practice, 2nd ed., Aldine Transaction, New York, NY, pp. 63-72.
Coutu, D.L. (2002), “How resilience works”, Harvard Business Review, May, pp. 47-55.
IJLM Daugherty, P.J., Stank, T.P. and Ellinger, A.E. (1998), “Leveraging logistics/distribution
capabilities: the effect of logistics service on market share”, Journal of Business Logistics,
20,1 Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 35-51.
Day, G.S. (1994), “The capabilities of market-driven organizations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58
No. 4, pp. 37-52.
Dovers, S.R. and Handmer, J.W. (1992), “Uncertainty, sustainability and change”, Global
140 Environmental Change, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 262-76.
Edmondson, A.C. (1999), “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44, pp. 350-83.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000), “Dynamic capabilities: what are they?”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 21 Nos 10/11, pp. 1105-21.
Esper, T., Fugate, B. and Davis, B. (2007), “Logistics learning capability: sustaining the
competitive advantage gained through logistics leverage”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 57-82.
Faisal, M.N., Banwet, D.K. and Shankar, R. (2006), “Supply chain risk mitigation: modeling the
enablers”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 535-52.
Fawcett, S.E., Stanley, L.L. and Smith, S.R. (1997), “Developing a logistics capability to improve
the performance of international operations”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 101-27.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmquist, T., Holling, C.S. and Walker, B. (2003), “Resilience and
sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations”,
AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 437-40.
Grant, R. (1991), “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage”, California Management
Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-35.
Grotberg, E.H. (1995), “The international resilience project: research, applications and policy”,
paper presented at Symposium International Stress and Violence, Lisbon, September 27-30.
Gunderson, L. (2000), “Ecological resilience – in theory and application”, Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 31, pp. 425-39.
Gunderson, L. and Holling, C.S. (2001), Panarchy: Understanding Transformation in Human and
Natural Systems, Island Press, Washington, DC.
Hamel, G. and Valikangas, L. (2003), “The quest for resilience”, Harvard Business Review,
September, pp. 52-63.
Hertz, S. (2001), “Dynamics of alliances in highly integrated supply chain networks”,
International Journal of Logistics, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 237-51.
Holling, C.S. (1973), “Resilience and stability of ecological systems”, Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics, Vol. 4, pp. 1-23.
Hong, Y. and Choi, T.Y. (2002), “Unveiling the structure of supply networks: case studies in Honda,
Acura and Daimler Chrysler”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20, pp. 469-93.
Jain, A., Murty, M. and Plynn, P. (1999), “Data clustering: a review”, ACM Computing Surveys,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 264-323.
Jüttner, U. (2005), “Supply chain risk management”, International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 120-41.
Jüttner, U., Christopher, M. and Baker, S. (2007), “Demand chain management – integrating
marketing and supply chain management”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 36
No. 3, pp. 377-92.
Jüttner, U., Peck, H. and Christopher, M. (2003), “Supply chain risk management: outlining an Supply chain
agenda for future research”, International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications,
Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 197-210. resilience
Lambert, D.M. and Cooper, M.C. (2000), “Issues in supply chain management”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 29, pp. 65-83.
Lee, H.L. (2004), “The triple a supply chain”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 10, pp. 102-12.
Lindell, M., Prater, C. and Perry, R. (2007), Introduction to Emergency Management, Wiley, 141
Hoboken, NJ, 584 pp.
Lynch, D.F., Keller, S.B. and Ozment, J. (2000), “The effects of logistics capabilities and strategy
on firm performance”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 47-67.
Manuj, I. and Mentzer, J.T. (2008), “Global supply chain risk management”, Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 133-56.
Mentzer, J.T. and Kahn, K.B. (1996), “Logistics and interdepartmental integration”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 6-14.
Mentzer, J.T., Min, S. and Bobbitt, L.M. (2004), “Toward a unified theory of logistics”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 8,
pp. 606-27.
Mentzer, J.T., Dewitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2001),
“Defining supply chain management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22, pp. 1-25.
Mitroff, I.I. and Alpasan, M.C. (2003), “Preparing for the evil”, Harvard Business Review, April,
pp. 109-15.
Morash, E.A., Droge, C.L.M. and Vickery, S.K. (1996), “Strategic logistics capabilities for
competitive advantage and firm success”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 1-22.
Norrman, A. and Jansson, U. (2004), “Ericsson’s proactive supply chain risk management
approach after a serious sub-supplier accident”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 434-56.
Norrman, A. and Lindroth, R. (2004), “Categorization of supply chain risk and risk management”,
in Brindley, C. (Ed.), Supply Chain Risk, Ashgate, London, pp. 14-28.
Olavarrieta, S. and Ellinger, A.E. (1997), “Resource-based theory and strategic logistics
research”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 27
Nos 9/10, pp. 559-87.
Orians, G.H. (1975), “Diversity, stability and maturity in natural ecosystems”, in van Dobben, W.H.
(Ed.), Unifying Concepts in Ecology, W. Junk, The Hague, pp. 64-8.
Paulsson, U. (2004), “Supply chain risk management”, in Brindley, C. (Ed.), Supply Chain Risk,
Ashgate, London, pp. 79-97.
Perea, E., Grossmann, I., Ydstie, E. and Tahmassevi, T. (2000), “Dynamic modeling and classical
control theory for supply chain management”, Computers & Chemical Engineering, Vol. 24,
pp. 1143-9.
Perrings, C. (1994), “Ecological resilience in the sustainability of economic development”, paper
presented at International Symposium on Models of Sustainable Development, Paris,
Vol. II, pp. 27-41.
Reich, J.W. (2006), “Three psychological principles of resilience in natural disasters”, Disaster
Prevention and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 793-8.
Rice, J.B. and Caniato, F. (2003), “Building a secure and resilient supply network”, Supply Chain
Management Review, September/October, pp. 22-30.
IJLM Ritchie, B. and Brindley, C. (2004), “Risk characteristics of the supply chain: a contingency
framework”, in Brindley, C. (Ed.), Supply Chain Risk, Ashgate, London, pp. 28-42.
20,1
Rose, A. (2004), “Economic resilience to disasters: toward a consistent and comprehensive
formulation”, in Paton, D. and Johnston, D. (Eds), Disaster Resilience: An Integrated
Approach, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL, pp. 226-48.
Sheffi, Y. (2001), “Supply chain management under the threat of international terrorism”,
142 The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 1-11.
Sheffi, Y. (2007), The Resilient Enterprise: Overcoming Vulnerability for Competitive Advantage,
MIT Press, Boston, MA.
Sheffi, Y., Rice, J.M., Fleck, J.B. and Caniato, F. (2003), “Supply chain response to global terrorism:
a situation scan”, Proceedings of EUROMA/POMS Conference, Cernobbio, Lake Como,
Vol. 2, pp. 121-30.
Sinha, P.R., Whitman, L.E. and Malzahn, D. (2004), “Methodology to mitigate supplier risk in an
aerospace supply chain”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 154-68.
Smith, R. (2004), “Operational capabilities for the resilient supply chain”, Supply Chain Practice,
Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 24-35.
Stewart, M., Reid, G. and Mangham, C. (1997), “Fostering children’s resilience”, Journal of
Pediatric Nursing, Vol. 12, pp. 21-31.
Stiles, P. (2002), “Demystifying supply chain event management”, Achieving Supply Chain
Excellence through Technology, Vol. 4, pp. 262-4.
Stoltz, P.G. (2004), Building Resilience for Uncertain Times, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Sutcliffe, K.M. and Vogus, T. (2003), “Organizing for resilience”, in Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E.
and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New
Discipline, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, pp. 94-110.
Swamidass, P.M. and Newell, W.T. (1987), “Manufacturing strategy, environmental uncertainty
and performance: a path analytic model”, Management Science, Vol. 33, pp. 509-24.
Tan, K.C. (2002), “Supply chain management: practices, concerns, and performance issues”,
The Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 42-53.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33.
Thadakamalla, H.P., Raghavan, U.N., Kumara, S. and Albert, R. (2004), “Survivability of
multiagent-based supply networks: a topological perspective”, IEEE Intelligent Systems,
Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 24-31.
Timmerman, P. (1981), Vulnerability, Resilience and the Collapse of Society: A Review of Models
and Possible Climatic Applications, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of
Toronto, Toronto.
Tracey, M., Lim, J.S. and Vonderembse, M.A. (2005), “The impact of supply-chain management
on business performance”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10
No. 3, pp. 179-91.
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (2005), UNISDR, New York, NY.
van der Vorst, J. and Beulens, A. (2002), “Identifying sources of uncertainty to generate supply
chain redesign and strategies”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 409-30.
Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M. and Obstfeld, D. (1999), “Organizing for high reliability: processes of
collective mindfulness”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 13-81.
Westman, W.E. (1978), “Measuring the inertia and resilience of ecosystems”, Bioscience, Vol. 28, Supply chain
pp. 705-10.
Westman, W.E. (1986), “Resilience: concepts and measures”, in Dell, B., Hopkins, A.J.M. and
resilience
Lamont, B.B. (Eds), Resilience in Mediterranean-type Ecosystems, W. Junk, Dordrecht,
pp. 5-19.
Wildavsky, A. (1988), Searching for Safety, Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ.
Woods, E.J., Wei, S., Singgih, S. and Adar, D. (2002), “Supply chain management as beyond 143
operational efficiency”, paper presented at International Symposium on Tropical and
Subtropical Fruits, ISHS Acta Hort. (ISHS), Vol. 575, pp. 425-31.
Zhao, M., Droge, C. and Stank, T.P. (2001), “The effects of logistics capabilities on firm
performance: customer-focused versus information-focus capabilities”, Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 91-107.

Further reading
Christopher, M. and Lee, H. (2001), Supply Chain Confidence – the Key to Effective Supply Chains
Through Improved Visibility and Reliability, Vatera, Global Trade Management, White
paper.
Christopher, M. and Peck, H. (2004), “Building the resilient supply chain”, International Journal
of Logistics Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Christopher, M. and Towill, D.R. (2000), “Supply chain migration from lean and functional to agile
and customized”, International Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 5 No. 4,
pp. 206-13.
Cranfield University (2003), Creating Resilient Supply Chains: A Practical Guide, Report produced
by the Centre for Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Cranfield School of
Management, Cranfield.
Frazer, M. (1995), Risk and Resilience in Childhood, NASW Press, Washington, DC.
Garmezy, N. (1993), “Children in poverty: resilience despite risk”, Psychiatry, Vol. 56, pp. 127-36.
Gordon, J.E. (2003), Structures, or Why Things don’t Fall Down, 2nd ed., Da Capo Press,
New York, NY.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Research Project (2003), Supply Chain Response
to Terrorism, Center for Transportation and Logistics, Cambridge, MA.
Rutter, M. (1993), “Resilience: some conceptual considerations”, Journal of Adolescent Health,
Vol. 14, pp. 626-31.
Sheffi, Y. and Rice, J.B. (2005), “A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise”, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 41-8.
Smykay, E.W., Bowersox, D.J. and Mossman, F.H. (1961), Physical Distribution Management,
Macmillan, New York, NY.

Corresponding author
Serhiy Y. Ponomarov can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints