Supply chain risk management enablers: A framework development through systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2015

Kilubi, Irène; Haasis, Hans-Dietrich Article Supply chain risk management enablers: A framework development through systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2015 International Journal of Business Science & Applied Management (IJBSAM) Provided in Cooperation with: International Journal of Business Science & Applied Management (IJBSAM) Suggested Citation: Kilubi, Irène; Haasis, Hans-Dietrich (2015) : Supply chain risk management enablers: A framework development through systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2015, International Journal of Business Science & Applied Management (IJBSAM), ISSN 1753-0296, International Journal of Business Science & Applied Management, s.l., Vol. 10, Iss. 1, pp. 35-54 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/190660 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/uk/ Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 10, Issue 1, 2015 Supply chain risk management enablers-A framework development through systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2015 Irène Kilubi University of Bremen, Faculty of General Business Administration, Chair of Maritime Business and Logistics, Wilhelm–Herbst–Str. 12, 28359 Bremen, Germany Phone: +49 171 94 38 218 Email: [email protected] Hans–Dietrich Haasis University of Bremen, Faculty of General Business Administration, Chair of Maritime Business and Logistics, Wilhelm–Herbst–Str. 12, 28359 Bremen, Germany Phone: + 49 421 218 66760 Email: haasis@uni–bremen.de Abstract The present paper delivers a robust and systematic literature review (SLR) on supply chain risk management (SCRM) with the purpose to a) review and analyse the literature concerning definitions and research methodologies applied, to b) develop a classificatory framework which clusters existing enablers on SCRM, and to c) examine the linkage between SCRM and performance. The findings reveal that not only is SCRM loosely defined, but that there are various fragmented supply chain risks enablers and that there is a strong need for a clear terminology for its building enablers. In addition to that, the review points to a lack of empirical confirmation concerning the connection between SCRM and performance. This paper contributes an overview of 80 peer-reviewed journal articles on SCRM from 2000 to the beginning of 2015. We offer an overarching definition of SCRM, synthesise and assemble the numerous enablers into preventive and responsive strategies by means of a conceptual framework. Moreover, indicating the social network theory (SNT) as a potential theoretical foundation for SCRM, we further contribute to the supply chain management (SCM) literature by providing propositions that guide future research. Keywords: supply chain risk management, supply chain risk(s), supply chain performance, supply chain disruption(s), systematic literature review, enabler(s), conceptual framework Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org 36 1 INTRODUCTION The demands of the business environment and the progression of emerging markets are leading to the development of dynamic and complex supply chain (SC) networks (Braunscheidel and Suresh, 2009; Manuj and Mentzer, 2008a; Tummala and Schoenherr, 2011; Spekman and Davis, 2004; Zsidisin et al., 2004). Consequently, these effects lead to an increase in risk exposure, for instance due to shorter technology and product life cycles, increased demand for just-in-time (JIT) deliveries, reduced inventory buffers, and e-business (Brindley, 2004; Fawcett et al., 2011; Giunipero and Eltantawy, 2004; Hallikas et al., 2004; Harland et al., 2003; Narasimhan and Talluri, 2009). Fuelled by several well-documented events, such as natural disasters and events (e.g. Tsunami, 2004; Hurricane Katrina, 2005; Taiwan earthquakes, 1999, 2009, and 2010), diseases (e.g. foot- and mouth disease, 2001 in the UK; SARS-pandemic, 2003/2004; Avian influenza, 2005; Swine influenza 2009), and terrorist attacks (e.g. New York, 2001; Madrid, 2004; London, 2005; Jakarta, 2009) (Wagner and Neshat, 2012), the Iceland volcano eruption in 2010, the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, 2011, or Hurricane Sandy in 2012, interest in supply chain risk (SCR) issues has steadily grown. However, the literature on SCRM is highly fragmented hindering a throughout understanding of where research lies and what to research next (Pfohl et al., 2010). Although SCRM has become standard in supply chain management (SCM) research, the term and the concept to establish beneficial SCRM is still ambiguous and lacks adequate understanding. In general, a well-grounded, unified, and universally recognised SCRM definition is presently missing. In the same vein, differing concepts of theory building have headed towards an inconsistent use of terminologies to implement SCRM effectively using terms such as moderators, activities, antecedents, principles, capabilities, and elements. Furthermore, a critical still underexplored subject is the relationship between SCRM and performance (Sodhi et al., 2012). Along with increasing (SCR) due to environmental and economic changes, it is of paramount importance to answer the question of how to reduce SCRs (Chen et al., 2013). For the purpose of the study we embrace the following definition of SCRM: “Supply chain risk management is to [collaborate] with partners in a supply chain apply risk management process tools to deal with risks and uncertainties caused by, or impacting on, logistics related activities or resources” (Norrman and Jansson, 2004, p. 436). We aim to synthesise the existing research findings to provide a clear overview. In addressing this issue, the study at hand offers an SLR on SCRM by adopting a rigorous research approach. The systematic literature review methodology has been recently used in other supply chain management literature reviews as well (e.g. Gimenez and Tachizawa, 2012; Lightfoot et al., 2013; Pilbeam, et al., 2012). Our findings offer essential theoretical contributions to the SCRM literature on strategic responses to adverse events by synthesising the inconsistent and fragmented literature. We aim at creating a classificatory framework and indicating existing gaps to motivate new research that will add to the current knowledge on SCRM. The paper at hand is structured as follows. The proceeding section deals with the elucidation of the rigorous SLR method and emphasises the constitutional research questions including the criteria drawn on in selecting and evaluating journal articles. Next, literature is analysed and synthesised, then succeeded by the description of the principal findings of the review; resulting in a conceptual framework for the enablers of SCRM. Finally, we work out the underlying implications for practitioners and point out possible directions for future research. This research makes three major contributions. A definition of SCRM is established, 12 top SCRM enablers are proposed, and research propositions are created to guide future research. 2 REVIEW METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION The adopted SLR process is inspired by the works of Crossan and Apaydin (2010), Kilubi (2015), Meier (2011), and Wang and Shu (2010) and follows five distinct stages as shown in Figure 1: (1) database selection, (2) journal selection, (3) article selection, (4) article classification, and (5) article analysis. Irène Kilubi and Hans-Dietrich Haasis 37 Figure 1 Research methodology of the present systematic literature review Source: According to Crossan and Apaydin (2010), Kilubi (2015), Meier (2011), Wang and Shu (2010). The defined central research trends focused on are: What is the state of SCRM as presented in academic literature and how mature is the literature? Has a supply chain risk management been adequately defined? What are the major enablers that lead to increased performance and could this help researchers and practitioners to build a more grounded case for the implementation? To respond to the questions the following objectives were defined: a) Review and analyse the literature regarding definitions and research methodologies applied. b) Develop a classificatory framework that clusters existing enablers on SCRM based on preventive and responsive strategies that may be in light of practical advancement, embraced and further developed into measurement constructs in future research. c) Examine the relationship between SCRM and performance. d) Establish a research agenda including research propositions by identifying critical research issues in areas where further research is required. The following databases were drawn on for the retrieval of business-related papers published in the English language in academic journals: Science Direct (Elsevier), SCOPUS, Taylor & Francis Group, Business Source Complete (EBSCO Host), Springer Link, Emerald Insight, and ABI/Inform Global (ProQuest). These databases have been applied in previous SLRs, too (cf. Kilubi, 2015; Natarajarathinam et al., 2009; Nijmeijer et al., 2013; Rashman et al., 2009; Soni and Kodali, 2011). We entered the search phrases “Supply Chain Risk” OR “Supply Chain Risk Management” in the article title (TI) solely along with ‘Performance’ in the abstract (AB), keywords (KW) and title (TI) search. The use of the term ‘Supply Chain Risk Management’ is widely acknowledged in the scholarly literature, which supports the choice. For the article selection process, top-tier peer-reviewed journals with an ABS (associationofbusinessschools.org) ranking of 4 or 3 were determined as further inclusion criteria. First of all, we formed a review panel consisting of one university professor and two research assistants to validate the review process and to enhance quality. We then scanned the selected electronic databases under the terms of our defined search strings, with no time restriction. The search resulted in 3963 articles initially; of what 3605 duplicates were removed and 363 references have been identified and screened on title and abstract. Next, 216 references were excluded after the examination of the abstracts and the conclusions because of not meeting the pre-determined inclusion criteria. The analysis led to an initial article set of 147 articles of which 76 articles have been excluded as they lay beyond of the research scope of the study. Thus, journal articles had to show a clear focus on SCRM and the study’s purpose; remaining 71 articles. Besides, while scanning the citations and bibliographies of every article, the reference check revealed further potential contributions that had not been Step 1: Database selection ScienceDirect, (Elsevier) SCOPUS, Taylor & Francis Group, Business Source Complete (EBSC), Springer Link, Emerald Insight, ABI/Inform (ProQuest’s) Step 2: Journal Selection Based on defined search criteria and search strings Step 3: Article selection (1) conceptual papers, (2) surveys/questionnaires, (3) simulation/modeling, (4) case studies, (5) secondary databases, (6) multiple methods, and (7) literature reviews Step 4: Article classification Preventive and responsive SCRM enablers Step 5: Article analysis Synthesis and evaluation Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org 38 found or overlooked during the initial key search. Here again, their reference lists were in turn scanned; this process was carried forward until no further journal article was identified. Therefore, nine additional items were included through this cross-referencing approach. The end result is a database of 80 peer-reviewed journal articles from 2000 to the beginning of 2015 (first quarter). A detailed schematic presentation of the process employed for selecting and evaluating studies is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Detailed article selection process 3 STUDY FINDINGS The synthesis aims at bringing together the findings on a selected topic, the results of which ought to be used to reach a higher degree of comprehension and attain a level of theoretical or conceptual advance beyond that accomplished in any single empirical research (Campbell et al., 2003). Indeed, the aim was to examine and analyse the SCRM literature while synthesising it into a novel format (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009). 3.1 Descriptive features of reviewed SCRM literature The 80 journal articles identified through the SLR are analysed in this section with respect to the publication year, journal, and the methodological approach in order to understand the trends in the body of literature relevant to SCRM. An analysis of the years in which the 80 selected articles were published manifests that the first articles appeared in 2000. In fact, nearly 89% of the surveyed journal articles (68 out of 80) were published from 2004 onwards. The years 2004 (13%/ n=10), followed by 2012 (each 11%/ n=9), 2011 (9%/ n=7), 2008, 2009, and 2013 (each 8%/ n=6) marked the peaks, providing evidence that research interest in SCRM is still further growing (cf. Table 1). The sample of 80 articles in the present review was published in 27 business-related academic journals. The highest share of articles (45%) were published in the International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management (n=13), International Journal of Production Economics (n = 12), and Supply Chain Management: An International Journal (n=11). 3968 references identified through database searching: • ScienceDirect (Elsevier) n = 501 • SCOPUS n = 1331 • Taylor & Francis n = 132 • Business Source Complete (EBSCO Host) n = 312 • ABI/Inform Global (ProQuest) n = 1.057 • Springer Link n = 554 • Emerald n = 81 3605 duplicates removed 363 references identified and screened on title and abstract abstracts identified and screened 216 references excluded after examination of abstracts and conclusions  not meeting the inclusion criteria 147 full copies retrieved and assessed for eligibility 71 articles included after reading full text 9 additional articles included by reference check 80 articles finally included in the systematic literature review 76 articles excluded after reading the full text  no focus on defined research questions Irène Kilubi and Hans-Dietrich Haasis 39 Table 1 Number of articles per year published by the academic journal (appearing at least twice) Academic Journal 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 No. of articles % European Journal of Operational Research 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 3,75% International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2,50% International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 13 16,25% International Journal of Production Research 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 4 5,00% International Journal of Production Economics 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 2 12 15,00% Journal of Business Logistics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 5,00% Journal of Operations Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 6,25% Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 3,75% Journal of Supply Chain Management 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 3,75% Management Science 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2,50% Omega 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3,75% Production and Operations Management 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 3,75% Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 110 13,75% Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org 40 To assess the research methodologies applied in the selected articles, we looked at seven methodological approaches. Similar to Winter and Knemeyer (2013), we examined methodologies applied in order to compare the existing SCRM research approaches: (1) conceptual papers, (2) surveys/questionnaires, (3) simulation/modeling, (4) case studies, (5) secondary databases, (6) multiple methods, and (7) literature reviews. However, other than Winter and Knemeyer, we chose to leave out delphi methods and include two additional research methodologies as substitutes — since they seem to be prominent in SCRM research (Agrell et al., 2004) — namely conceptual and simulation/modeling papers. We found that simulation/modeling was the primary methodological approach adopted in the reviewed papers (18 out of 80 articles). Furthermore, researchers adopted the case study research design and the survey/questionnaire design (each 16 out of 80 articles), succeeded by conceptual research design (12 out of 80 articles). However, the multiple research design along with literature reviews were only used each in 7 out of 80 articles. Besides, only a small number of papers conducted secondary database research (4 out of 80 articles). 3.2 Defining supply chain risk management In the present SLR, while we were keen on capturing a broad range of perceptions, we tried to avoid subjective bias. Hence, a definition of SCRM had to be explicitly stated by the original author, not merely inferred, for consideration. The findings of this review indicate that the two propositions, namely, coordination and identification have often been mentioned in SCRM definitions. The elements of coordination and vulnerability reduction were first referred to in the definition of Jüttner et al. (2003), who took the first steps to explain risk management within the SCRM context. They posit that the management of risks in the context of SCM represents “the identification and management of risks for the supply chain, through a coordinated approach amongst supply members to reduce supply chain vulnerability as a whole” (p. 124). On the one hand, Norrman and Janssen (2008), as well as Tang (2006), put a primary emphasis on collaboration. On the other hand, Giunipero and Eltantawy (2004) bring forward the argument that SCRM should have a long-term focus and follow a continuous approach, requiring dedication from all supply chain members. It is apparent that only Tang (2006), Manuj and Mentzer (2008b), and the Supply Chain Council included the performance and the cost savings/ profitability dimension in their definition (cf. Table 2). However, Lavastre et al. (2012) adopt another perspective on SCRM taking strategic and operational aspects together with short - and long-term assessment into consideration. Wieland and Wallenberg (2012), likewise, hold a strategic perspective on SCRM, perceiving it as an approach to implement strategies to reduce vulnerability and ensure continuity. Nonetheless, we have found that the SCRM definition of Jüttner et al. (2003) is the most frequently used one in journal articles studying SCRM. Their definition bases on a synthesis of traditional risk management and SCM principles. Next, Norrman and Jansson (2004), Goh et al. (2007), as well as Lavastre et al. (2012) proposed concise and relevant SCRM definitions based on research projects. One comprehensive definition of SCRM was suggested by Manuj and Mentzer (2008b). Their definition builds upon existing literature (cf. Jüttner et al., 2003; Norrman and Jansson, 2004) and on several in-depth interviews. They describe (global) SCRM as “the identification and evaluation of risks and consequent losses in global supply chain and implementation of appropriate strategies through a coordinated approach among supply chain members with the objective of reducing one or more of the following - losses, probability, speed of event, speed of losses, the time for detection of the events, frequency, or exposure - for supply chain outcomes that, in turn, lead to close match of actual savings and profitability with those desired” (p. 205). Closer investigation of the correspondences and dissimilarities revealed that in most of the papers the elements of coordination, collaboration, and identification across organisations formed part of several SCRM definitions (e.g. Goh et al., 2007; Tang, 2006; The Supply Chain Council). However, there seems to be no distinct consensus on the definition of “supply chain risk management” (see Table 2). Indeed, several authors make evident the predominant heterogeneity by either synthesising earlier SCRM definitions to create a new one (e.g. Giunipero and Eltantawy, 2004; Tang, 2006; Wieland and Wallenburg, 2012) or referring to a certain number of different authors (e.g. Tang and Musa, 2011; Trkman and McCormack, 2009; Zhao et al., 2013). Thus, since no core definition synthesising SCRM understanding has been published yet, we apply our obtained cognition to convey an overarching definition of SCRM, which will be presented in Section 4. Irène Kilubi and Hans-Dietrich Haasis 41 Table 2 Definitions of supply chain risk management (SCRM) Author(s) Supply chain risk management definition(s) Jüttner et al. (2003, p. 202) SCRM means “the identification and management of risks for the supply chain through a coordinated approach amongst supply chain members, to reduce supply chain vulnerability as a whole.” Giunipero and Eltantawy (2004, p. 703) “Risk management is a continual process that involves long-term dedication of supply chain members.” Norrman and Jansson (2004, p. 436) “Supply chain risk management is to [collaborate] with partners in a supply chain apply risk management process tools to deal with risks and uncertainties caused by, or impacting on, logistics related activities or resources.“ Tang (2006, p. 453) SCRM is “the management of supply chain risk through coordination or collaboration among the supply chain partners as to ensure profitability and continuity.” Goh et al. (2007, pp. 164-165) SCRM is defined „as the identification and management of risks within the supply network and externally through co-ordinated approach amongst supply chain members to reduce supply chain vulnerability as a whole.” Manuj and Mentzer (2008, p. 205) “Global SCRM is the identification and evaluation of risks and consequent losses in global supply chain and implementation of appropriate strategies through a coordinated approach among supply chain members with the objective of reducing one or more of the following - losses,probability, speed of event, speed of losses, the time for detection of the events, frequency, or exposure - for supply chain outcomes that, in turn, lead to close matching of actual cost savings and profitability with those desired.“ Thun and Hoenig (2011, p. 243) ”Risk management, in general, is described as the identification and analysis of risks as well as their control. A main particularity of Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) contrary to traditional risk management is that it is characterized by a cross-company orientation aiming at the identification and reduction of risks not only on the company level but rather focusing on entire supply chains.“ Wieland and Wallenburg (2012, pp. 890-891) “SCRM is defined as the implementation of strategies to manage both every day and exceptional risks along the supply chain based on continuous risk assessment with the objective of reducing vulnerability and ensuring continuity.” Lavastre et al. (2012, p. 830) “SCRM is the management of risk that implies both strategic and operational horizons for long-term and short-term assessment.” Supply Chain Council “SCRM is the systematic identification, assessment and mitigation of potential disruptions in logistics networks with the objective to reduce their negative impact on the logistics network’s performance.” 3.4 Enablers for an effective supply chain risk management In analysing the enablers to make SCRM work, an inconsistent body of terminologies and wordings in the literature can be noticed. While some refer to SCRM strategies as antecedents (Braunscheidel and Suresh, 2009; Jüttner et al., 2003), or moderators (Manuj and Mentzer, 2008b), others call them activities (Sinha et al., 2004), enablers (Faisal et al. 2006), elements (Christopher and Lee, 2004), capabilities (Chen et al., 2013; Sheffi and Rice, 2005), or principles (Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005). Taking into account that capability terms have various definitions in the literature, the present study remains neutral in its descriptive analysis and uses the term ‘enablers’. Hence, our SLR revealed 12 top enablers across various journal articles. The largest number of studies deal with visibility (n=24) to ensure successful SCRM. Furthermore, researchers also discuss flexibility (n=17) and relationships (n=15). Next, redundancy (n=13), followed by coordination as well as postponement (each n=10), and multiple sourcing (each n=9) were considered as vital by several academics. Finally, collaboration was guided with eight articles (n=8). Table 3 illustrates the top 12 enablers that represent a total share of approximately 65% of the selected articles. Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org 42 Table 3 Analysis of top 12 SCRM enablers in research from 2000 to the beginning 2015 Enabler(s) Frequency Author(s) Visibility 24 Johnson, 2001; Bode et al., 2011; Spekman and Davis, 2004; Finch, 2004; Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005; Faisal et al., 2006; Sinha et al., 2004; Ritchie and Brindley, 2007a, b; Lavastre et al, 2012; Christopher and Lee, 2004; Nooraie and Parast, 2015; Yang and Yang, 2010; Jüttner et al. 2003; Manuj and Mentzer, 2008a, b; Bandaly et al., 2014; Tang, 2006b; Tang and Tomlin, 2008; Wagner and Bode, 2008; Speier et al., 2011; Zsidisin et al., 2004; Khan et al. 2008; Norrman and Jansson, 2004 Flexibility 17 Talluri et al., 2013; Knemeyer et al., 2009; Braunscheidel and Suresh, 2009; Jüttner et al., 2003; Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005; Sinha et al. 2004; Christopher and Holweg, 2011; Sheffi and Rice, 2005; Zsidisin and Wagner, 2010; Skipper and Hanna, 2009; Johnson, 2001; Khan et al., 2008; Tang, 2006b; Knemeyer et al., 2009; Tang and Tomlin, 2008; Thun and Hoenig, 2011; Wieland, 2013 Relationships 15 Groetsch et al., 2015; Giunipero and Eltantawy, 2004; Faisal et al., 2006; Ritchie and Brindley, 2007a, b; Lavastre et al, 2012; Tang 2006b; Speier et al., 2011; Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005; Hallikas et al., 2002; Lavastre et al, 2012; Jüttner et al., 2003; Khan et al. 2008; Spekman and Davis, 2004; Vilko and Hallikas, 2012 Redundancy 13 Marley et al., 2014; Bode et al., 2011; Talluri et al., 2013; Zsidisin et al., 2000; Lavastre et al, 2012; Zsidisin and Ellram, 2003; Tang, 2006b; Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005; Tomlin, 2006; Sheffi and Rice, 2005; Knemeyer et al., 2009; Schmitt and Singh, 2012; Zsidisin and Wagner, 2010 Coordination 10 Braunscheidel and Suresh, 2009; Ritchie and Brindley, 2007a, b; Knemeyer et al., 2009; Ellis et al., 2010; Hallikas et al., 2004; Speier et al., 2011; Lavastre et al., 2012; Sinha et al., 2004; Jüttner et al., 2003 Postponement 9 Manuj et al., 2014; Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005; Yang and Yang, 2010; Jüttner et al. 2003; Manuj and Mentzer, 2008a, b; Bandaly et al., 2014; Tang, 2006b; Tang and Tomlin, 2008; Wagner and Bode, 2008 Multiple sourcing 9 Sinha et al. 2004; Jüttner et al., 2003; Knemeyer et al., 2009; Norrman and Jansson, 2004; Tang, 2006b; Zsidisin and Ellram, 2003; Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005; Ritchie and Brindley, 2007a,b Collaboration 8 Jüttner et al., 2003; Spekman and Davis, 2004; Khan et al. 2008; Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005; Christopher and Holweg, 2011; Lavastre et al., 2012; Vilko and Hallikas, 2012; Chen et al., 2013 Risk Awareness 7 Braunscheidel and Suresh, 2009; Ritchie and Brindley, 2007a, b; Hallikas et al., 2002; Manuj and Mentzer, 2008a, b Agility 7 Faisal et al., 2006; Wieland and Wallenburg, 2012; Braunscheidel and Suresh, 2009; Khan et al., 2008; Wieland, 2013; Jüttner et al., 2003; Lavastre et al., 2012 Avoidance 6 Manuj and Mentzer 2008a, b; Jüttner et al., 2003; Tang, 2006b; Tomlin, 2006; Knemeyer et al., 2009 Contingency planning 6 Finch, 2004; Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005; Norrman and Jansson, 2004; Ellis et al., 2011; Skipper and Hanna 2009; Zsidisin et al. 2000 Risk monitoring 6 Finch, 2004; Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005; Hallikas et al., 2004; Norrman and Jansson, 2004; Hendricks and Singhal, 2005; Hoffmann et al., 2013 Transferring and sharing risks 5 Li et al., 2015; Peck, 2006; Manuj and Mentzer, 2008a, b; Wagner and Bode, 2008; Knemeyer et al., 2009; Finch, 2004 3.5 Grouping and synthesis of enablers The controversy and disparity that surrounds the SCRM definitions also surrounds the SCRM enablers. A good illustration of the discrepancies in expression is the fact that some researchers referred to redundancy, whereas others spoke about holding surplus inventory, safety stocks, strategic stock, or extra stock — although all researchers might have meant the same. Thus, the findings designate that a greater agreement on specific terms regarding key SCRM enablers is required. To group and synthesise the SCRM enablers, we are consistent with other researchers that make a distinction between preventive and responsive risk mitigating methods (e.g. Knemeyer et al., 2009; Tomlin, 2008; Wieland and Wallenburg; 2013; Zsidisin et al., 2000). Preventive methods are cause-related measurement approaches that aim at reducing the probability of risk to occur (Thun and Hoenig, 2011) and responsive methods are meant to minimise the obstacles of adverse events (Tomlin, 2008). Within the preventive approach, we are of the opinion that six enablers may help protect against potential SCRs, 49 achievement of agility. Likewise, Braunscheidel and Suresh (2009) indicate that flexibility is essential in global SCs because it plays an assisting role in the coordination process and offers a unique ability to support companies in managing the high levels of uncertainties inherent in global business operations. According to Fawcett et al. (1996) firms that accomplish higher levels of flexibility leave behind their less flexible competitors. Hence, we propose the following: P3: The higher the level of supply chain flexibility, the greater the ability to mitigate supply chain risks and the higher the firm’s performance and customer value. Accordingly, in light of the identified SCRM performance metrics, we claim that through smooth exchange of information, higher level of collaboration, and greater flexibility firms may improve their organisational performance, and in turn achieve higher customer value. The proposed propositions are in line with suggestions made by Manuj and Mentzer (2008a) who consider among others for instance flexibility, information systems and performance metrics as key enablers in the process of risk management and mitigation. A summary of the propositions is shown in Table 4. Table 4: Summary of research propositions. SUMMARY OF RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS P1 The higher the level of supply chain visibility, the greater the ability to mitigate supply chain risks and the higher the firm’s performance. P2 The higher the level of supply chain collaboration, the greater the ability to mitigate supply chain risks and the better the firm’s performance. P3 The higher the level of supply chain flexibility, the greater the ability to mitigate supply chain risks and the higher the firm’s performance. Secondly, we also suggest investigating best practices for effective risk mitigation. Academics may generate qualitative and quantitative measures to analyse the effect of SCRM enablers on performance to attain new valuable insights. Therefore, several scholars advocate the application of mixed methods in SCM (Connelly et al., 2013; Gammelgaard and Flint, 2012; Taylor and Taylor, 2009). Thirdly, we advise conducting longitudinal research to monitor and evaluate the long-term performance after implementing SCRM. The present study contributes to the SCRM literature in several ways. The paper at hand offers an SLR with the state-of-the-art research with extant knowledge. Its value lies in the ability to synthesise present study and aid understanding of the SCRM phenomenon to provide a solid basis for further enrichment. Hence, the findings presented in the present study reveal the potential for future research endeavours in this significant scientific discipline. We further hope that our SLR will contribute to the adoption of a standard and accepted definition of SCRM. REFERENCES Agrawal, V. and Sheshadri, S. (2000). “Risk intermediation in supply chains.” IIE Transactions, 32(9): 819-831. Agrell, P.J., Lindroth, R. and Norrman, A. (2004). “Risk, information and incentives in telecom supply chains.” International Journal of Production Economics, 90(1): 1–16. Bandaly, D., Satir, A. and Shanker, L. (2014). “Integrated supply chain risk management via operational methods and financial instruments.” International Journal of Production Research, 52(7): 2007-2025. Barry, J. (2004). “Supply chain risk in an uncertain global supply chain environment.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 34(9): 695-697. Bode, C., Wagner, S.M., Petersen, K.J. and Ellram, L.M. (2011). “Understanding responses to supply chain disruptions: Insights from information processing and resource dependency perspectives.” Academy of Management Journal, 54(4): 833-856. Bogataj, D. and Bogataj, M. (2007). “Measuring the supply chain risk and vulnerability in frequency space.” International Journal of Production Economics, 108(1–2): 291–301. Borgatti, S.P. and Halgin, D.S. (2011). “On network theory.” Organization Science, 22(5): 1168-1181. Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J. and Stank, T.P. (2003).“How to master cross–enterprise collaboration.” Supply Chain Management Review, 7(4): 18–27. Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org 50 Braunscheidel, M.J. and Suresh, N.C. (2009). “The organizational antecedents of a firm's supply chain agility for risk mitigation and response.” Journal of Operations Management, 27(2): 119–140. Brindley, C. (2004). “Risk focus towards customers.” In Brindley, C. (Ed.). Supply chain risk. Ashgate Aldershot: Farnham, UK, pp. 66-78. Cavinato, J.L. (2004). “Supply chain logistics risks: From the back room to the board room.” International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 34(5): 383–387. Chang, Y.–C. (2003). “Benefits of co–operation on innovative performance: Evidence from integrated circuits and biotechnology firms in the UK and Taiwan.” R&D Management, 33(4): 425–437. Chen, J., Sohal, A.S. and Prajogo, D.I. (2013). “Supply chain operational risk mitigation: A collaborative approach.” International Journal of Production Research, 51(7): 2186-2199. Chopra, S. and Sodhi, M. (2004). “Managing risk to avoid supply chain breakdown.” MIT Sloan Management Review. 46(3): 53-61. Christopher, M. and Holweg, M. (2011). “Supply Chain 2.0”: Managing supply chains in the era of turbulence.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 41(1): 63-82. Christopher, M. and Lee, H. (2004). “Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 34(5): 388 – 396. Connelly, B.L., Ketchen, D.J. and Hult, G.T.M. (2013). “Global Supply Chain Management: Toward a theoretically driven research agenda.” Global Strategy Journal, 3(3): 227-243. Denyer, D. and Tranfield, D. (2009). “Producing a systematic review.” In Buchanan, D. and Bryman, A. (Eds.). The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. Sage Publications Ltd: London UK, pp. 671– 687. Dyer, J.H. and Chu, W. (2000). “The determinants of trust in supplier-automaker relationships in the U.S., Japan, and Korea.” Journal of International Business Studies, 31(2): 259-285. Ellis, S.C., Shockley, J. and Henry, R.M. (2011). “Making sense of supply disruption risk research: A conceptual framework grounded in enactment theory.” Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47(2): 65- 96. Ellis, S.C., Henry, R.M. and Shockley, J. (2010). “Buyer perceptions of supply disruption risk: A behavioral view and empirical assessment.” Journal of Operations Management, 28(1): 34-46. Faisal, M.N., Banwet, D.K. and Shankar, R. (2006). “Supply chain risk mitigation: Modeling the enablers.” Business Process Management Journal, 12(4): 535–552. Fawcett, S.E., Calantone, R. and Smith, S.R. (1996). “An investigation of the impact of flexibility on global reach and firm performance.” Journal of Business Logistics, 17(2): 167-196. Fawcett, S.E., Wallin, C., Allred, C., Fawcett, A.M. and Magnan, G.M. (2011). “Information technology as an enabler of supply chain collaboration: A dynamic capabilities perspective.” Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47(1): 38–56. Finch, P. (2004). “Supply chain risk management.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(2): 183-196. Galaskiewicz, J. (2011). “Studying supply chains from a social network perspective.” Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47(1): 4-8. Gammelgaard, B. and Flint D. (2012). “Qualitative research in logistics and supply chain management: Beyond the justification for using qualitative methods.”,International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(8/9). Gimenez, C., Elcio, M. and Tachizawa, E.M. (2012). “Extending sustainability to suppliers: A systematic literature review.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(5): 531 – 543. Giunipero, L.C. and Eltantawy, R.A. (2004). “Securing the upstream supply chain: A risk management approach.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 34(9): 698–713. Giunipero, L.C., Hooker, R.E., Joseph-Matthews, S., Yoon, T.E. and Brudvig, S. (2008). “A decade of SCM literature: Past, present and future implications.” Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44(4): 66-86. Goh, M., Lim, J., and Meng, F. (2007). “A stochastic model for risk management in global supply chain networks.” European Journal of Operational Research, 182(1): 64–173. Groetsch, V.M., Blome, C. and Schleper, M.C. (2013). “Antecedents of proactive supply chain risk management -A contingency perspective.“ International Journal of Production Research, 51(10): 2842-2867. Hallikas, J., Karvina, I., Pulkkinen, U., Virolainen, V.-M. and Tuominen, M. (2004). “Risk management process in supplier networks.” International Journal of Production Economics, 90(1): 47-58. 51 Harland, C., Brenchley, R. and Walker, H. (2003). “Risk in supply networks.” Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 9(2): 51–62. Heckmann, I., Comes, T. and Nickel, S. (2015). “A critical review on supply chain risk - Definition, measure and modeling.” Omega, 52(C): 119-132. Hendricks, K.B. and Singhal, V.R. (2005). “An empirical analysis of the effect of supply chain disruptions on long-run stock price performance and equity risk of the firm.” Production and Operations Management, 14(1): 35-52. Hoffmann, P., Schiele, H. and Krabbendam, K. (2012). “Uncertainty, supply risk management and their impact on performance.” Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 19(3): 199-211. Johnson, M.E. (2001).” Learning from toys: Lessons in managing supply chain risk from the toy industry.” California Management Review, 43(3): 106-124. Jones, C., Hesterly, W.S. and Borgatti, S.P. (1997). “A general theory of network governance: exchange conditions and social mechanisms.” Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 911–945. Jüttner, U., Peck, H. and Christopher, M. (2003). “Supply chain risk management: outlining an agenda for future research.” International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 6(4): 197–210. Kern, D., Moser, R., Hartmann, E. and Moder, M. (2012). “Supply risk management: Model development and empirical analysis.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(1): 60–82. Khan, O., M Christopher, M. and Burbes, B. (2008). “The impact of product design on supply chain risk: A case study.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(5): 412-32. Kilubi, I. (2015). “Strategic technology partnering: A framework extension.” The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 26(1): 27–37. Kleindorfer, P.R. and Saad, G.H. (2005). “Managing disruption risks in supply chains.” Production and Operations Management, 14(1): 53-68. Knemeyer, A.M., Zinn, W. and Eroglu, C. (2009). “Proactive planning for catastrophic events in supply chains.” Journal of Operations Management, 27(2): 141–153. Lai, G., Debo, L.G. and Sycara, K. (2009). “Sharing inventory risk in supply chain: The implication of financial constraint.” Omega, 37(4): 811-825. Lapide, L. (2000). “True measures of supply chain performance.” Supply Chain Management Review, 4(3):25- 28. Lavastre, O., Gunasekaran, A. and Spalanzani, A. (2012). “Supply chain risk management in French companies.” Decision Support Systems, 52(4): 828-838. Lee, C., Lee, K. and Pennings, J.M. (2001). “Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: A study on technology–based ventures.” Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7): 615–640. Li, G., Fan, H. Lee, P.K.C. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2015). “Joint supply chain risk management: An agency and collaboration perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 164: 83-94. Lightfoot, H., Baines, T. and Smart, P. (2013). “The servitization of manufacturing: A systematic literature review of interdependent trends.” International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 33(11): 1408-1434. Lockamy III, A. and McCormack, K. (2010). “Analysing risks in supply networks to facilitate outsourcing decisions.” International Journal of Production Research, 48(2): 593-611. Mahapatra, S., Narasimhan, R. and Barbieri, P. (2010). “Strategic interdependence, governance effectiveness and supplier performance: A case study investigation and theory development.” Journal of Operations Management, 28(6): 537–552. Manuj, I. and Mentzer, J.T. (2008a). “Global supply chain risk management.” Journal of Business Logistics, 29(1): 133–155. Manuj, I. and Mentzer, J.T. (2008b). “Global supply chain risk management strategies.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(3): 192-223. Manuj, I., Esper, T.L. and Stank, T.S. (2014). “Supply chain risk management approaches under different conditions of risk.” Journal of Business Logistics, 35(3): 241-258. Marley, K.A., Ward, P.T. and Hill, J.A. (2014). “Mitigating supply chain disruptions – A normal accident perspective.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19(2): 142–152. Melnyk, S.A., Stewart, D.M. and Swink, M. (2004). “Metrics and performance measurement: Dealing with the metrics maze.” Journal of Operations Management, 22(3): 209-218. Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org 52 Natarajarathinam, M., Capar, I. and Narayanan, A. (2009). “Managing supply chains in times of crisis: Review of literature and insights.” International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 39(7): 535-73. Neiger, D., Rotaru, K. and Churilov, L. (2009). “Supply chain risk identification with value-focused process engineering.” Journal of Operations Management, 27(2): 154–168. Nijmeijer, K., Fabbricotti, I.N. and Huijsman, R. (2012). “Making franchising work: A framework based on a systematic review.” The International Journal of Logistics Management, 23(3): 313–339. No. 2, pp. 170-188. Nooraie, S.V. and Parast, M.M. (2015). “A multi-objective approach to supply chain risk management: Integrating visibility with supply and demand risk.” International Journal of Production Economics, 161: 192-200. 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, 34(5): 434-56. Papadakis, I.S. (2006). “Financial performance of supply chains after disruptions: An event study.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 11(1): 25-33. Pfohl, H., Koehler, H. and Thomas, D. (2010). “State of the art in supply chain risk management research: Empirical and conceptual findings and a roadmap for the implementation in practice.” Logistics Research, 2(1): 33-44. Pilbeam, C., Alvarez, G. and Wilson, H. (2012). “The governance of supply networks: A systematic literature review.” Supply Chain Management: An international Journal, 17(4): 358–376. Pujawan, N. and Geraldin, L.H. (2009). “House of risk: A model for proactive supply chain risk management.” Business Process Management Journal, 15(6): 953 –967. Punniyamoorthy, M., Thamaraiselvan, N. and Manikandan, L. (2013). “Assessment of supply chain risk: Scale development and validation.” Benchmarking: An International Journal, 20(1): 79-105. Rajesh, R., Ravi, V. and Rao, R.V. (2015). “Selection of risk mitigation strategy in electronic supply chains using grey theory and digraph-matrix approaches.” International Journal of Production Research, 53(1): 238-257. Rashman, L., Withers, E. and Hartley, J. (2009). “Organizational learning and knowledge in public service organizations: A systematic review of the literature.” International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(4): 463–494. Ritchie, B. and Brindley, C. (2007a). “Supply chain risk management and performance: A guiding framework for future development.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27(3): 303-322. Ritchie, B. and Brindley, C. (2007b). “An emergent framework for supply chain risk management and performance measurement.” Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(11): 1398-1411. Rousseau, D.M., Manning, J. and Denyer, D. (2008). “Evidence in management and organizational science: assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses.” The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1): 475–515. Sanders, N.R. and Primus, R. (2005). “Modeling the relationship between firm IT capability, collaboration, and performance.” Journal of Business Logistics, 26(1): 1-23. Schmitt, A.J. and Singh, M. (2012). “A quantitative analysis of disruption risk in a multi-echelon supply chain”. International Journal of Production Economics, 139(1): 22-32. Schmitt, A.J., Sun, S.A., Snyder, L.V., and Shen, Z.J.M. (2015). “Centralization versus decentralization: Risk pooling, risk diversification, and supply chain disruptions.” Omega, 52: 201-212. Schoenherr, T., Tummala, V.M.R. and 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(2): 100-111. Sheffi, Y. and Rice Jr., J.B. (2005). “A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise.” MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(1): 41-48. Silva, J. and Reddy, S. (2011). “A framework for reducing disaster risks in supply chains.” International Journal of Business Research, 11(4): 112-117. 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, 9(2): 154–168. 53 Sinkovics, R.R. and Roath, A.S. (2004). “Strategic orientation, capabilities, and performance in manufacturer - 3PL relationships.” Journal of Business Logistics, 25(2): 43-64. Skipper, J.B. and Hanna, J.B. (2009). “Minimizing supply chain disruption risk through enhanced flexibility.” International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 39(5): 404-27. Sodhi, M.S. and Lee, S. (2007). “An analysis of sources of risk in the consumer electronics industry.” Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(11): 1430-1439. Sodhi, M.S., Son, B.-G. and Tang, C.S. (2012). “Researchers' perspectives on supply chain risk management.” Production and Operations Management, 21(1): 1–13. Soni, G. and Kodali, R. (2011), “A critical analysis of supply chain management content in empirical research”, Business Process Management Journal, 17(2), pp. 238-266. Speier, C., Whipple, J.M., Closs, D.J. and Voss, M.D. (2011). “Global supply chain design considerations: Mitigating product safety and security risks.” Journal of Operations Management, 29(7-8): 721-736. Spekman, R. and Davis, E. (2004). “Risky business: Expanding the discussion on risk and the extended enterprise.” International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 34(5): 414–433. Stank, T., Keller, S.B. and Closs, D.J. (2001). “Performance benefits of supply chain logistical integration.” Transportation Journal, 41(2/3): 32-46. Swafford, P.M., Ghosh, S. and Murthy, N. (2006). “The antecedents of supply chain agility of a firm: Scale development and model testing.” Journal of Operations Management, 24(2): 170-188. Talluri, S., Kull, T.J., Yildiz, H. and Yoon, J. (2013). “Assessing the efficiency of risk mitigation strategies in supply chains.” Journal of Business Logistics, 34(4): 253-269. Tang, C.S. (2006a). “Perspectives in supply chain risk management.” International Journal of Production Economics, 103(2): 451-488. Tang, C.S. (2006b). “Robust strategies for mitigating supply chain disruptions.” International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 9(1): 33-45. Tang, C.S. and Tomlin, B. (2008). “The power of flexibility for mitigating supply chain risks.” International Journal of Production Economics, 116(1): 12–27. Tang, O. and Musa, S.N. (2011). “Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain risk management.” International Journal of Production Economics, 133(1): 25–34. Taylor, A. and Taylor, M. (2009). “Operations management research: contemporary themes, trends and potential future direction.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 29(12): 1316‐1340. Thun, J.-H. and Hoenig, D. (2011). “An empirical analysis of supply chain risk management in the German automotive industry.” International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1): 242–249. Tomlin, B. (2006). “On the value of mitigation and contingency strategies for managing supply chain disruption risks.” Management Science, 52(5): 639-657. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003). “Towards a methodology for developing evidence informed management knowledge by means of systematic review.” British Journal of Management, 14(3): 207–222. Trkman, P. and McCormack, K. (2009). “Supply chain risk in turbulent environments - A conceptual model for managing supply chain network risk.” International Journal Production Economics, 119(2): 247–258. Tummala, R. and Schoenherr, T. (2011). “Assessing and managing risks using the Supply Chain Risk Management Process (SCRMP).” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 16(6): 474–483. Vanany, I., Zailani, S. and Pujawan, N. (2009). “Supply chain risk management: Literature review and future research.” International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management, 2(1): 16–33. Vilko, J.P.P. and Hallikas, J.M. (2012). “Risk assessment in multimodal supply chains.” International Journal of Production Economics, 140(2): 586–595. Wagner, S.M. and Bode, C. (2008). “An empirical investigation of supply chain performance along several dimensions of risk.” Journal of Business Logistics, 29(1): 307-325. Wagner, S.M., Neshat, N. (2012).” A comparison of supply chain vulnerability indices for different categories of firms.” International Journal of Production Research, 50(11): 2877-2891. Wever, M., Wognum, P.M., Trienekens, J.H. and Omta, S.W.F. (2012). “Supply chain-wide consequences of transaction risks and their contractual solutions: Towards an extended transaction cost economics framework.” Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48(1): 73-91. Wieland, A. (2013). “Selecting the right supply chain based on risks.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 24(5): 652-668. Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org 54 Wieland, A. and Wallenburg, C.M. (2012). “Dealing with supply chain risks: Linking risk management practices and strategies to performance.” International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 42(10): 887-905. Wilson, M.C. (2007). “The impact of transportation disruptions on supply chain performance.” Transportation Research E, 43(4): 295-320. Wong, C., Skipworth, H., Godsell, J. and Achimugu, N. (2012). “Towards a theory of supply chain alignment enablers: A systematic literature review.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(4): 419-437. Wynstra, J.Y.F., Spring, M. and Schoenherr, T. (2015). “Service triads: A research agenda for buyer–supplier– customer triads in business services.” Journal of Operations Management, 35: 1-20. Yang, B. and Yang, Y. (2010). “Postponement in supply chain risk management: A complexity perspective.” International Journal of Production Research, 48(7): 1901-12. Yu, H., Zeng, A.Z., and Zhao, L. (2009). “Single or dual sourcing: Decision-making in the presence of supply chain disruption risks.” Omega, 37(4): 788–800. Yu, M.-C. and Goh, M. (2014). “A multi-objective approach to supply chain visibility.” European Journal of Operational Research, 233(1): 125-130. Zhang, Q., Vonderembse, M.A. and Lim, J.-S. (2002). “Value chain flexibility: A dichotomy of competence and capability.” International Journal of Production Research, 40(3): 561-583. Zhang, Q., Vonderembse, M.A. and Lim, J.S. (2003). “Manufacturing flexibility: Defining and analyzing relationships among competence, capability, and customer satisfaction.” Journal of Operations Management, 21(2): 173-191. Zhao, L., Huo, B., Sun, L. and Zhao, X. (2013). “The impact of supply chain risk on supply chain integration and company performance: A global investigation.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 18(2): 115–131. Zsidisin, G.A. and Ellram, L.M. (2003). “An agency theory investigation of supply risk management.” Journal of Supply Chain Management, 39(3): 15–27. Zsidisin, G.A. and Wagner, S.M. (2010). “Do perceptions become reality? The moderating role of supply risk resiliency on disruption occurrence.” Journal of Business Logistics, 31(2): 1-20. Zsidisin, G.A., Panelli, A. and Upton, R. (2000). “Purchasing organization involvement in risk assessments, contingency plans, and risk management: An exploratory study.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 5(4): 187-202. Zsisdin, G.A., Ellram, L.M., Carter, J.R. and Cavinato, J.L. (2004). “An analysis of supply risk assessment techniques.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 34(5): 397-413.