Supply chain risk management: A literature review

William Ho1, Tian Zheng2, Hakan Yildiz3 and Srinivas Talluri3,*

1
Department of Management and Marketing
The University of Melbourne
198 Berkeley Street, Carlton
Victoria 3010, Australia

2
Solution Department
China Merchants Loscam (Shenzhen) Investment Holding Co., Ltd
Room 701-705, Block 3, Fantasia MIC Plaza, 8 Xing Gong Road, Shekou
Shenzhen, China

3
Department of Supply Chain Management
Eli Broad Graduate School of Management
N370 Business Complex, Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824, United States

Abstract
Risk management plays a vital role in effectively operating supply chains in the presence of a
variety of uncertainties. Over the years, many researchers have focused on supply chain risk
management (SCRM) by contributing in the areas of defining, operationalizing, and
mitigating risks. In this paper, we review and synthesize the extant literature in SCRM in the
past decade in a comprehensive manner. The purpose of this paper is three-fold. First, we
present and categorize SCRM research appearing between 2003 and 2013. Second, we
undertake a detailed review associated with research developments in supply chain risk
definitions, risk types, risk factors, and risk management/mitigation strategies. Third, we
analyze the SCRM literature in exploring potential gaps.

Keywords: Supply chain risk management; risk types; risk factors; risk management
methods; literature review

*Corresponding author (E-mail: [email protected])

1 / 55
1. Introduction

In recent years, supply chain disruptions have impacted the performance of companies. The
case of Ericsson is well known in this domain. Due to a fire at a Phillips semiconductor plant
in 2000, the production was disrupted, which eventually led to Ericsson’s $400 million loss
(Chopra and Sodhi, 2004). The earthquake, tsunami, and the subsequent nuclear crisis that
occurred in Japan in 2011 caused Toyota’s production to drop by 40,000 vehicles, costing
$72 million in profits per day (Pettit et al., 2013). The catastrophic Thailand flooding of
October 2011 affected the supply chains of computer manufacturers dependent on hard disks,
and also disrupted the supply chains of Japanese automotive companies with plants in
Thailand (Chopra and Sodhi, 2014). In order to control and mitigate the negative effects
caused by such risks, a significant amount of work in the area of supply chain risk
management (SCRM) is undertaken in both academia and practitioner circles.

In the last decade, five journal articles reviewing the literature in SCRM have been
published. Tang (2006a) reviewed more than 200 journal articles that applied quantitative
models that are published between 1964 and 2005. He classified the articles into four
categories, i.e., supply management, demand management, product management, and
information management for managing supply chain risks. Rao and Goldsby (2009) reviewed
55 journal articles published between 1998 and 2008, and synthesized the diverse literature
into a typology of risk factors, including environmental, industrial, organizational, problem-
specific, and decision-maker related factors. Tang and Musa (2011) adopted the literature
citation analysis on 138 journal articles published between 1995 and first half of 2008, and
identified and classified potential risks associated with material flow, financial flow, and
information flow. Colicchia and Strozzi (2012) also applied the citation network analysis on
55 journal articles published between 1994 and 2010, and identified the evolutionary patterns
and emerging trends in SCRM. Sodhi et al. (2012) reviewed 31 journal articles published
between 1998 and 2010 to formulate their own perception of diversity in SCRM. They also
conducted open-ended surveys with two focus groups of supply chain researchers, and
subsequently a close-ended survey with more than 200 supply chain researchers to present
three gaps in SCRM: definition gap (lack of clear consensus on the definition of SCRM),
process gap (inadequate coverage of responses to risk incidents), and methodology gap
(insufficient use of empirical methods).

Although the aforementioned review articles make significant contributions to SCRM,

there are three significant knowledge gaps that motivate us to carry out this study. First, each
of these review articles focuses on a particular topic of SCRM as summarized in Table 1,
such as risk classification (Tang and Musa, 2011), risk factor analysis (Rao and Goldsby,
2009), risk management methods (Tang, 2006a), or research gap identification (Colicchia and
Strozzi, 2012). None of these review articles cover all the SCRM topics. As illustrated in
Table 1, the articles published between 2003 and 2013 applying qualitative risk management
methods were never reviewed. Besides, certain topics in particular years were also not
covered as represented by the shaded cells in Table 1. In addition, none of these review
2 / 55
articles are recent enough to cover many new studies published after 2010. More specifically,
170 out of 224 journal articles reviewed in this paper were not studied in extant review
articles, including 93 journal articles published after 2010 plus 77 journal articles published
between 2003 and 2010. Finally, all but two of these papers reviewed only a relatively small
number of articles. More specifically, Sodhi et al. (2012) reviewed 31 articles, and Rao and
Goldsby (2009) and Colicchia and Strozzi (2012) reviewed 55 articles given the focal area of
interest. In order to fill these gaps, this paper presents a comprehensive review of all relevant
journal articles in the area of SCRM appearing between 2003 and 2013, and undertakes an
effective classification scheme. Our work also proposes a new definition for SCRM by
classifying supply chain risk types, risk factors, and risk management methods. Finally, we
analyze the literature in exploring potential gaps contributing towards risk management in
supply chains.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an introduction

to the research methodology and develops a conceptual framework for classifying the supply
chain risks. Section 3 summarizes the existing definitions of supply chain risks and SCRM,
and proposes new definitions. Sections 4, 5, and 6 present supply chain risk types, risk
factors, and risk management methods, respectively. Section 7 discusses the research
analyses and observations. Section 8 identifies gaps in the area of SCRM and recommends
future research directions, and finally, section 9 concludes the paper.

2. Research methodology

There is a continuous growth in the number of articles focusing on SCRM in the past few
years as seen in Figure 1. In view of this, we reviewed the journal articles published between
2003 and 2013. The research methodology, as illustrated in Figure 2, is as follows. First, the
search terms were defined. The keywords used in the search process were “supply chain” and
“risk”. Second, various academic databases were utilized to identify the journal articles
including EBSCOhost, Emerald, IEEExplore, Ingenta, Metapress, ProQuest, ScienceDirect,
Springer, Taylor and Francis, and Wiley. To achieve the highest level of relevance, only peer-
reviewed articles written in English and published in International Journals were selected,
whereas conference papers, master and doctoral dissertations, textbooks, book chapters, and
notes were excluded in this review. As opposed to Tang and Musa (2011), we have not
imposed a restriction on the list of journals to ensure that we capture every relevant study
regardless of the journal it was published in. Third, several criteria were determined and used
to filter the articles. With respect to the criteria, abstracts of articles were examined to check
if they cover one or more of the SCRM topics, including supply chain risk types, risk factors,
risk management methods, and research gaps identification. The articles were excluded if
they do not meet one of these filtration criteria. Fourth, the reference lists of the shortlisted
articles were also carefully evaluated to ensure that there were no other articles of relevance
which were omitted in the search. Finally, the content of each article was thoroughly
reviewed to ensure that the article fits into the context of SCRM and studies at least one of
the SCRM topics. This analysis resulted in 224 journal articles.
3 / 55
 In order to classify and analyze these articles, we develop a conceptual framework of
supply chain risks as shown in Figure 3. In synthesizing various points of views from the
literature, we discover that supply chain risks can be divided into two categories – macro
risks and micro risks (referred as catastrophic and operational by Sodhi et al. (2012);
disruption and operational by Tang (2006a)). Macro risks refer to adverse and relatively rare
external events or situations which might have negative impact on companies. Macro risks
consist of natural risks (e.g., earthquakes, weather related disasters) and man-made risks (e.g.,
war and terrorism, and political instability). On the other hand, micro risks refer to relatively
recurrent events originated directly from internal activities of companies and/or relationships
within partners in the entire supply chain. Generally, macro risks have much greater negative
impact on companies in relation to micro risks. Furthermore, micro risks can be divided into
four sub-categories: demand risk, manufacturing risk, supply risk, and infrastructural risk.
Manufacturing risk refers to adverse events or situations within the firms that affect their
internal ability to produce goods and services, quality and timeliness of production, and
profitability (Wu et al., 2006). Demand and supply risks refer to adverse events at the
downstream and upstream partners of a firm, respectively (Zsidisin, 2003; Wagner and Bode,
2008). In order to ensure the healthy functioning of a supply chain, information technology
(Chopra and Sodhi, 2004), transportation (Wu et al., 2006), and financial systems (Chopra
and Sodhi, 2004; Wu et al., 2006), are also of critical importance. Any disruptions in these
systems can also lead to serious problems in a supply chain. Therefore, we classify the risks
relating to these three systems as infrastructural risk.

3. Definitions

There is no consensus on the definition of “supply chain risk” and “supply chain risk
management” (Sodhi et al., 2012; Diehl and Spinler, 2013). Without a common
understanding and clear definition, researchers would find it difficult to communicate with
practitioners and gain access to industry to carry empirical studies. Moreover, a consistent
definition helps researchers identify and measure the likelihood and impact of the entire set of
supply chain risks, and evaluate the effectiveness of supply chain risk management
methodologies. Therefore, it is imperative to obtain a clear definition of these terms (Sodhi et
al., 2012; Diehl and Spinler, 2013). Sections 3.1 and 3.2 summarize the existing definitions of
supply chain risk and SCRM and also propose new definitions.

3.1. Supply chain risk

Several researchers provided different definitions for supply risk (Zsidisin, 2003; Ellis et al.,
2010), and supply chain risk (Jüttner et al., 2003; Wagner and Bode, 2006; Bogataj and
Bogataj, 2007) as summarized in Table 2. Although these definitions have applicability in
specific domains, such as supply risk (Zsidisin, 2003; Ellis et al., 2010), information flow
risk, material flow risk, and product flow risk (Jüttner et al., 2003), they focus on a specific
function or a part of a supply chain, and do not span across the entire chain. Given this, and
according to the conceptual framework in Figure 3, we define supply chain risk as: “the
4 / 55
likelihood and impact of unexpected macro and/or micro level events or conditions that
adversely influence any part of a supply chain leading to operational, tactical, or strategic
level failures or irregularities”.

3.2. Supply chain risk management

Several researchers provided definitions for SCRM, which are summarized in Table 3. While
all these definitions have emphasized collaboration with supply chain partners, some of the
limitations are related to their focus on specific elements of SCRM and their lack of spanning
the SCRM processes in their entirety, type of SCRM methods, and types of events. Given
this, and based on the conceptual framework in Figure 3, we define SCRM as: “an inter-
organizational collaborative endeavour utilizing quantitative and qualitative risk management
methodologies to identify, evaluate, mitigate, and monitor unexpected macro and micro level
events or conditions, which might adversely impact any part of a supply chain”.

4. Supply chain risk types

Among the 224 reviewed journal articles, 20 articles discussed supply chain risk types as
presented in Table 4. Eleven of these articles simply identified the risk types without
classification (Harland et al., 2003; Cavinato, 2004; Chopra and Sodhi, 2004; Bogataj and
Bogataj, 2007; Blackhurst et al., 2008; Manuj and Mentzer, 2008; Tang and Tomlin, 2008;
Wagner and Bode, 2008; Tang and Musa, 2011; Tummala and Schoenherr, 2011; Samvedi et
al., 2013). Six of these articles classified the risk types into two categories, such as internal
and external (Wu, 2006; Trkman and McCormack, 2009; Kumar et al., 2010; Olson and Wu,
2010), or operational and disruption (Tang, 2006a; Ravindran et al., 2010). In addition, three
of these articles divided supply chain risk types into three categories with a similar idea but
used different terms (Jüttner et al., 2003; Christopher and Peck, 2004; Lin and Zhou, 2011).
The three categories are organizational risk or internal risk (e.g., process and control risks),
network-related risk or risk within the supply chain (e.g., demand and supply risks), and
environmental risk or risk in the external environment (e.g., natural disasters, war and
terrorism, and political instability).

Among the 20 articles discussed above, only two articles classified the supply chain
risk types according to the degree of the negative impact on companies (Tang, 2006a;
Ravindran et al., 2010). Note that macro risks, discussed in Section 2, are akin to disruption
risks (Tang, 2006a) and Value-at-risk (VaR) (Ravindran et al., 2010), whereas micro risks are
similar to operational risks (Tang, 2006a) and Miss-the-target (MtT) (Ravindran et al., 2010).
Besides, some micro risks (demand, manufacturing, and supply risks) have been extensively
proposed and studied. Comparatively, other risks (information, transportation, and financial
risks) have been paid much less attention. Most importantly, our conceptual framework for
the supply chain risk classification, illustrated in Figure 3, is believed to be unique and more
comprehensive given that it considers a holistic set of risk types with various degrees of
impact (macro and micro risks), in both external and internal supply chain (demand,

5 / 55
manufacturing, and supply risks), and different types of flow (information, transportation,
and financial risks). This holistic risk classification has not been proposed by the previous
studies.

5. Supply chain risk factors

Among the 224 reviewed journal articles, 14 articles discussed supply chain risk factors. Risk
factors are various events and situations that drive a specific risk type. The first group of
scholars (8 out of 14 articles) identified risk factors of multiple risk types (Chopra and Sodhi,
2004; Cucchiella and Gastaldi, 2006; Wu et al., 2006; Manuj and Mentzer, 2008; Tuncel and
Alpan, 2010; Wagner and Neshat, 2010; Tummala and Schoenherr, 2011; Samvedi et al.,
2013). For example, Chopra and Sodhi (2004) explored several risk factors, as shown in
Table 5, for various risk types as shown in Table 4. The second group of scholars (3 out of 14
articles) explored factors of specific risk types. For example, Zsidisin and Ellram (2003)
considered five supply risk factors. Kull and Talluri (2008) also focused on supply risk, and
considered somewhat similar factors. Tsai (2008) focused on time related factors imposing
significant influences on the cash flow risk. The last group of scholars (3 out of 14 articles)
merely showed a list of potential risk factors without classification (Gaudenzi and Borghesi,
2006; Schoenherr et al., 2008; Hahn and Kuhn, 2012a).

Majority of the risk factors discussed in these 14 articles can be classified into five
categories according to our conceptual framework, as shown in Table 5, including macro,
demand, manufacturing, supply, and infrastructural (information, transportation, and
financial) factors. First, we found that some of the identified risk factors are vague, and it’s
more appropriate to consider them as risk types rather than risk factors, e.g., risks affecting
suppliers, risks affecting customers (Manuj and Mentzer, 2008); demand risk, logistics risk,
supplier risk, transportation risk (Schoenherr et al., 2008). We excluded such risk factors in
Table 5, and only included the relevant factors. Second, consistent with the findings in
Section 4, demand, manufacturing, and supply risks have attracted the most attention. There
exists an abundant set of factors, which would give rise to demand, manufacturing, and
supply risks. Comparatively, there are less factors suggested for macro, information,
transportation, and financial risks. Third, according to our definition of supply chain risk in
Section 3.1, different supply chain risk types would have different levels of negative impact
and would lead to operational, tactical, or strategic level failures. Similarly, different risk
factors within the same risk type would also have different levels of negative impact.
Nevertheless, these articles simply identified and/or classified the potential risk factors
without quantifying and assessing the degrees of negative impact.

Table 5 shows the risk factors proposed by particular authors (i.e., which articles
proposed which risk factors). As there are many duplicated factors in Table 5, it is
synthesized into Table 6 so as to help readers identify factors of particular risk types
efficiently, and differentiate between macro and micro risk factors more easily. Note that
some of these risk factors are associated with generic risk types, such as inbound supply risk
6 / 55
(Wu et al., 2006) while some others are factors of specific risk types, such as cash flow risk
(Tsai, 2008). Before incorporating such risk factors listed in Table 6 into a particular supply
chain, industrial characteristics and features of supply chain should be taken into account.

6. SCRM methods

In the past decade, a number of qualitative and quantitative methods and tools have been
developed and applied to manage supply chain risks. Section 6.1 presents the research
studying specific or individual SCRM process, such as risk identification, risk assessment,
risk mitigation, and risk monitoring. Section 6.2 discusses other research focusing on more
than one process or integrated management. Note that some sections are relatively lengthy
because those areas have attracted more attention, whereas some other sections are relatively
concise, which means that they have been under-researched. The following sub-sections help
in understanding whether individual or integrated management process has attracted more
attention, and which SCRM process has been the most prevalently studied.

6.1. Individual SCRM process

6.1.1. Risk identification

Risk identification is the first step in the SCRM process. It involves the identification of risk
types, factors, or both. The first group of researchers developed qualitative or quantitative
methods for identifying potential supply chain risks, such as the analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) method (Tsai et al., 2008), a supply chain vulnerability map (Blos et al., 2009), and a
conceptual model (Trkman and McCormack, 2009). Another group of researchers focused on
risk factor identification using the AHP (Gaudenzi and Borghesi, 2006) and the hazard and
operability analysis method (Adhitya et al., 2009). Some other scholars proposed qualitative
tools to identify both risk types and risk factors, such as a qualitative value-focused process
engineering methodology (Neiger et al., 2009) and a supply chain risk identification system,
based on knowledge-based system approach (Kayis and Karningsih, 2012).

Most of the above articles applied qualitative methods for risk identification (Adhitya et
al., 2009; Blos et al., 2009; Neiger et al., 2009; Trkman and McCormack, 2009; Kayis and
Karningsih, 2012). They did not prioritize nor quantify the negative impact of neither risk
types nor risk factors.

6.1.2. Risk assessment

Risk assessment is associated with the probability of an event occurring and the significance
of the consequences (Harland et al., 2003). In the past decade, a number of risk assessment
methods have emerged, especially for supply risk assessment. Owing to the abundant
published articles in this area, we classify them according to the risk types studied in the
conceptual framework, including macro and micro risk assessments.

7 / 55
6.1.2.1. Macro risk assessment

Ji and Zhu (2012) evaluated the salvable degrees of the affected areas in a destructive
earthquake by the extension technique. They developed a bi-objective optimization model
with the urgent relief demand time-varying fill rate maximization and distribution time-
varying window minimization to distribute supplies to the identified affected area sets. The
methodology was illustrated with a hypothetical numerical example.

6.1.2.2. Demand risk assessment

A number of researchers analyzed the impact of demand volatility on inventory management

(Ballou and Burnetas, 2003; Cachon, 2004; Talluri et al., 2004; Betts and Johnston, 2005;
Sodhi, 2005; Xiao and Yang, 2008; Radke and Tseng, 2012). Some of them provided useful
insights on safety stock reduction. Ballou and Burnetas (2003) compared a traditional
inventory planning approach with one that is based on filling customer demand from any one
of several stocking locations, referred to as cross filling, while considering the dispersion of
demand among stocking locations. It was revealed that cross filling can help reducing safety
stocks. Talluri et al. (2004) developed a safety stock model and benchmarked it with existing
models for managing make-to-stock inventories under demand and supply variations. Based
on a case study at an over-the-counter pharmaceutical company, the proposed safety stock
model performed well in terms of cost savings. Betts and Johnston (2005) presented the
multi-item constrained inventory model to compare just-in-time (JIT) replenishment with
component substitution under stochastic demand. The analysis showed that JIT replenishment
is more effective than component substitution because of less investment in safety stock.

Some other scholars analyzed the impact of demand visibility and bullwhip effect on
supply chain performance. Smaros et al. (2003) used a discrete-event simulation model to
show that a partial improvement of demand visibility can improve production and inventory
control efficiency. Reiner and Fichtinger (2009) developed a dynamic model to evaluate
supply chain process improvements under consideration of different forecast methods. They
pointed out that dampening of the order variability decreases the bullwhip effect and the
average on-hand inventory but with the problem of a decreasing service level. Sucky (2009)
suggested that the variability of orders increases as they move up the supply chain from
retailers to wholesalers to manufacturers to suppliers. He concluded that the bullwhip effect is
overestimated if a simple supply chain is assumed and risk pooling effects are present.

A common limitation of the above articles is that most of the proposed methods were
not implemented in real industrial cases (Ballou and Burnetas, 2003; Smaros et al., 2003;
Cachon, 2004, Betts and Johnston, 2005; Sodhi, 2005; Xiao and Yang, 2008; Reiner and
Fichtinger, 2009; Sucky, 2009; Radke and Tseng, 2012). Lack of actual implementation and
verification would make the potential users doubtful about the effectiveness and efficiency of
the proposed methods. Besides, several of the above articles simplified the studied problems
with stylized supply chains (Ballou and Burnetas, 2003; Smaros et al., 2003; Cachon, 2004).

8 / 55
6.1.2.3. Manufacturing risk assessment

There exist three research studies on manufacturing risk assessment. They applied different
methods to assess different manufacturing risks in different supply chains. Cigolini and Rossi
(2010) proposed the fault tree approach to analyze and assess the operational risk at the
drilling, primary transport, and refining stages of an oil supply chain. They concluded that
different stages are affected by various operational risks according to the differences in
plants. Therefore, each plant should be provided with a specifically conceived risk
management process. Dietrich and Cudney (2011) applied a Pugh method adaption to assess
risk coupled with manufacturing readiness level for emerging technologies in a global
aerospace supply chain. They revealed that executive management can evaluate the entire
emerging technology portfolio more effectively with the proposed methodology. Tse and Tan
(2011) constructed a product quality risk and visibility assessment framework using the
margin incremental analysis for a toy manufacturing company. They argued that better
visibility of risk in supply tiers could minimize the quality risk.

There exist limitations in the above articles. Cigolini and Rossi (2010) only focused on
three stages of an oil supply chain, while ignoring operational risk assessment at some other
crucial stages (e.g., design, construction, and outsourcing). The risk assessment matrix
proposed by Dietrich and Cudney (2011) is fairly simplistic as it is based on only three levels
(i.e., “green”, “yellow”, and “red”). Tse and Tan (2011) neither quantified risks and their
factors, nor proposed any mitigating actions for the identified manufacturing risk.

6.1.2.4. Supply risk assessment

Supply risk assessment has attracted much attention. Most of the articles studied the supplier
evaluation and selection problem while considering a variety of supply risks, such as poor
quality (Talluri and Narasimhan, 2003; Talluri et al., 2006), late delivery (Talluri and
Narasimhan, 2003; Talluri et al., 2006), uncertain capacity (Kumar et al., 2006;
Viswanadham and Samvedi, 2013), dispersed geographical location (Chan and Kumar,
2007), supplier failure (Kull and Talluri, 2008; Ravindran et al., 2010; Ruiz-Torres et al.,
2013), supplier’s financial stress (Lockamy III and McCormack, 2010), supply disruption
(Wu and Olson, 2010; Meena et al., 2011), poor supplier service (Wu et al., 2010; Chen and
Wu, 2013), suppliers’ risk management ability and experience (Ho et al., 2011), and lack of
supplier involvement (Chaudhuri et al., 2013). A wide range of quantitative methods have
been proposed to deal with this problem, including mathematical programming and data
envelopment analysis (DEA) approaches (Talluri and Narasimhan, 2003; Kumar et al., 2006;
Talluri et al., 2006; Ravindran et al., 2010; Wu and Olson, 2010; Wu et al., 2010; Meena et
al., 2011), multi-criteria decision making and AHP approaches (Chan and Kumar, 2007;
Blackhurst et al., 2008; Kull and Talluri, 2008; Ho et al., 2011; Chen and Wu, 2013;
Viswanadham and Samvedi, 2013), Bayesian networks (Lockamy III and McCormack,
2010), decision tree approach (Ruiz-Torres et al., 2013), and fuzzy based failure mode and
effect analysis (FMEA) with ordered weighted averaging approach (Chaudhuri et al., 2013).
9 / 55
 In addition to the above supply risks, some other supply risks have also been analyzed
and assessed, such as second-tier supply failure (Kull and Closs, 2008), offshore sourcing risk
(Schoenherr et al., 2008), unreliable dual sourcing network (Iakovou et al., 2010), supplier
non-conformance risk (Wiengarten et al., 2013), supplier incapability (Johnson et al., 2013),
and supplier unreliability (Cheong and Song, 2013).

Different from the above approaches focusing on the assessment of supply risks, the
following articles studied supply risk assessment methods and models. Zsidisin et al. (2004)
examined tools and techniques that purchasing organizations implement for assessing supply
risk within an agency theory context. They indicated that purchasing organizations can assess
supply risk with techniques that focus on addressing supplier quality issues, improving
supplier processes, and reducing the likelihood of supply disruptions. Ellegaard (2008)
applied a case based methodology to analyze the supply risk management practices of 11
small company owners (SCOs). They confirmed that the 11 studied SCOs applied almost the
same supply risk management practices, which can be characterized as defensive. Wu and
Olson (2008) used simulated data to compare three types of risk evaluation models: chance-
constrained programming, DEA, and multi-objective programming models. Results from
three models are consistent with each other in selecting preferred suppliers. Azadeh and Alem
(2010) benchmarked three types of supplier selection models under certainty, uncertainty and
probabilistic conditions, including DEA, Fuzzy DEA, and chance-constrained DEA. Results
from three models are also consistent with each other with respect to the worst suppliers.

Supplier evaluation and selection has attracted the most attention is this category. Many
of these articles focused on conceptual model development and demonstration using
simulated data (Chan and Kumar, 2007; Ravindran et al., 2010; Wu and Olson, 2010; Wu et
al., 2010; Meena et al., 2011; Viswanadham and Samvedi, 2013; Ruiz-Torres et al., 2013).
Thus, the use of real data to test the efficacy of these methods is still missing. Moreover,
some of these articles have other technical limitations. For example, Talluri and Narasimhan
(2003) and Talluri et al. (2006) only utilized a single input measure in the DEA analyses.
Kull and Talluri (2008) assumed current supplier capabilities will remain unchanged into the
future. Lockamy III and McCormack (2010) assumed that all suppliers are willing to share
their accurate and reliable risk profile data with their customers. Ruiz-Torres et al. (2013)
assumed all the input parameters and supplier characteristics to be deterministic.

6.1.2.5. Financial risk assessment

There are four research studies on financial risk assessment. Two of them focused on specific
financial risks. Tsai (2008) modelled the supply chain related cash flow risks by the standard
deviations of cash inflows, outflows, and net flows of each period in a planning horizon.
They recommended the best policy of using asset-backed securities to finance accounts
receivable as a means to shorten the cash conversion cycle and lower the cash inflow risk.
Liu and Nagurney (2011) developed a variational inequality model to study the impact of
foreign exchange risk and competition intensity on supply chain companies that are involved
10 / 55
in offshore-outsourcing activities. Their simulation results indicated that in general the risk-
averse firm has lower profitability and lower risk than the risk-neutral firm.

On the other hand, two of the studies focused on generic financial risk. Franca et al.
(2010) formulated a multi-objective programming model with the Six Sigma concepts to
evaluate financial risk. They showed that the financial risk decreases as the sigma level
increases. Liu and Cruz (2012) studied the impact of corporate financial risk and economic
uncertainty on the values, profits, and decisions of supply chains. They found that suppliers
are willing to sacrifice some profit margins to gain more businesses from manufacturers with
lower financial risk and with lower sensitivity to economic uncertainty. A common drawback
with these approaches is that they focused on simulated data instead of using real case data.

6.1.2.6. Information risk assessment

Durowoju et al. (2012) used discrete-event simulation to investigate the impact of disruption
in the flow of critical information needed in manufacturing operations on collaborating
members. They revealed that the retailer experiences the most uncertainty in the supply chain
while the holding cost constitutes the most unpredictable cost measure when a system failure
breach occurs. In their study, a generic information technology risk was studied, and no risk
factors were identified nor quantified.

6.1.2.7. General risk assessment

Articles that do not assess specific risk types are described in this section. The topics of these
articles are diversified, and there are four major categories. First, a number of researchers
attempted to evaluate, assess, and quantify generic supply chain risks. Brun et al. (2006)
developed a so-called supply network opportunity assessment package methodology to
evaluate advanced planning and scheduling and supply chain management implementation
projects with risk analysis. Bogataj and Bogataj (2007) used parametric linear programming
model to measure the costs of risk based on the net present value of activities. Wu et al.
(2007) proposed a disruption analysis network approach to determine how changes or
disruptions propagate in supply chains and calculated their impact on the supply chain
system. Kumar et al. (2010) applied the artificial bee colony technique, genetic algorithms,
and particle swarm optimization to identify operational risk factors, their expected value and
probability of occurrence, and associated additional cost. Khilwani et al. (2011) proposed the
hybrid Petri-net approach for modelling, performance evaluation, and risk assessment of a
supply chain. Olson and Wu (2011) used DEA and the Monte-Carlo simulation to identify
various risk performance measures for outsourcing and compared expected performance of
vendors under risk and uncertainty in a supply chain. Wang et al. (2012) applied fuzzy AHP
to assess risk of implementing various green initiatives in the fashion industry. Samvedi et al.
(2013) applied fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approaches to quantify the risks in a supply
chain, and aggregated the values into a comprehensive risk index.

11 / 55
 The second category is concerned with the assessment of relationship between supply
chain risks and strategies. Craighead et al. (2007) suggested that the best practices in
purchasing, including supply base reduction, global sourcing, and sourcing from supply
clusters might have negative impact on the severity of supply chain disruptions. Laeequddin
et al. (2009) suggested that the supply chain members should strive to reduce the membership
risk levels to build trust rather than striving to build trust to reduce the risk. Tomlin (2009)
found that contingent sourcing is preferred to supplier diversification as the supply risk
increases, while diversification is preferred to contingent sourcing as the demand risk
increases. Hult et al. (2010) studied supply chain investment decisions when facing high
levels of risk uncertainty. They extended real options theory to the supply chain context by
examining how different types of options are approached relative to supply chain project
investments. Wang et al. (2011) applied the unconstrained and constrained mathematical
programming models to assess the relationship between various supply chain strategies and
the regulatory trade risk. They established that the direct and split strategy profits increase in
the non-tariff barriers price variance but decrease in the mean price.

Third, Jüttner and Maklan (2011) and Pettit et al. (2013) both evaluated the supply
chain resilience. Jüttner and Maklan (2011) revealed that knowledge management seems to
enhance the supply chain resilience by improving flexibility, visibility, velocity, and
collaboration capabilities of the supply chain. Pettit et al. (2013) suggested a correlation
between increased resilience and improved supply chain performance.

Fourth, Wagner and Neshat (2010) and Berle et al. (2013) both assessed supply chain
vulnerability. Wagner and Neshat (2010) concluded that if supply chain managers were more
capable of measuring and managing supply chain vulnerability, they could reduce the number
of disruptions and their impact. Berle et al. (2013) argued identifying the “vulnerability
inducing bottlenecks” of transportation systems allows for realizing more robust versions of
these systems in a cost-effective manner.

While to above mentioned methods addressed a variety of issues, they are not devoid of
limitations. Brun et al. (2006) considered the deterministic characteristics of projects in their
risk analysis. Kumar et al. (2010) focused on a single-product supply chain network. Wagner
and Neshat (2010) claimed that the applicability of their proposed approach heavily depends
on the availability of data that quantifies the factors of supply chain vulnerability. Khilwani et
al. (2011) indicated that the proposed method is incapable of modelling the changes
performed in the network during the risk management process. Wang et al. (2012) pointed
out that the functionality of their model is heavily dependent on the knowledge, expertise,
and communication skills of assessors. Berle et al. (2013) studied a simplified version of a
real transportation system. Samvedi et al. (2013) emphasized that their risk index is simply
generic rather than industry-specific.

6.1.3. Risk mitigation

12 / 55
In this section, we classify risk mitigation methods in a similar manner as the risk assessment
methods are discussed in Section 6.1.2.

6.1.3.1. Macro risk mitigation

Hale and Moberg (2005) used a five-stage disaster management framework for secure site
location selection. The framework consists of planning, mitigation, detection, response, and
recovery. However, the proposed set covering location model minimizes the number of
secure site locations rather than the level of risk exposure. In order to help firms succeed
before, during, and after a major disruption, Tang (2006b) presented nine strategies to
manage the inherent fluctuations efficiently and make the supply chains more resilient. The
strategies are postponement, strategic stock, flexible supply base, make-and-buy, economic
supply incentives, flexible transportation, revenue management, dynamic assortment
planning, and silent product rollover. However, the proposed mitigation strategies were not
assessed and benchmarked to see which are more effective and efficient.

6.1.3.2. Demand risk mitigation

Significant number of researches focused on demand risk mitigation and supply chain
decision making under stochastic demand. The first group of researchers determined the
optimal order placement and replenishment plan in order to minimize the impact of demand
uncertainty. Various methodologies have been developed and applied, including automatic
pipeline inventory and order based production control system algorithm (Towill, 2005), two-
period financial model (Aggarwal and Ganeshan, 2007), buyer’s risk adjustment model (Shin
and Benton, 2007), multiple regression model (Hung and Ryu, 2008), simulation model
(Schmitt and Singh, 2012), newsvendor model (Arcelus et al., 2012; Tang et al., 2012), and
mathematical programming, such as stochastic integer linear programming model (Snyder et
al., 2007), mixed-integer stochastic programming model (Lejeune, 2008), stochastic linear
programming model (Sodhi and Tang, 2009), and mixed integer nonlinear programming
model (Kang and Kim, 2012).

The second group of researchers analyzed the forecasting techniques to minimize

demand risk. Guo et al. (2006) constructed a macro prediction market model, which can
aggregate information about demand risk to achieve accurate demand forecast sharing in the
supply chain. Datta et al. (2007) modified the forecasting technique called Generalized
Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity (GARCH) to model demand volatility and
better manage risk. Crnkovic et al. (2008) presented a simulation-based decision-support
framework to evaluate and select alternative forecasting methods in uncertain demand
environments. Sayed et al. (2009) presented an improved genetic algorithm to choose the best
weights among the statistical methods and to optimize the forecasted activities combinations
that maximize profit, which in turn, balance risk of over-stocking and stockouts.

13 / 55
 The third group of researchers proposed the risk sharing contracts to minimize the loss
due to uncertain demand. Chen et al. (2006), Xiao and Yang (2009), and Chen and Yano
(2010) focused on two-tier supply chains, and proposed risk sharing contracts to minimize the
loss of manufacturer (e.g., overproduction) and the loss of retailers (e.g., overstocking) under
demand uncertainty (Chen et al., 2006; Xiao and Yang, 2009) or weather sensitive demand
(Chen and Yano, 2010). Different from the above, Kim (2013) studied a four-tier supply
chain under dynamic market demands, and proposed the bilateral contracts with order
quantity flexibility. It was revealed that demand fluctuation can be effectively absorbed by
the contract scheme, which enables better inventory management and customer service.

The following articles also focus on demand risk mitigation but do not fall into the
aforementioned subcategories. Rao et al. (2005) showed that a firm can optimize expected
profits by quoting a uniform guaranteed maximum lead time to all customers under demand
uncertainty. Huang et al. (2009) presented a dynamic system model of manufacturing supply
chains, which can proactively manage disruptive events and absorb the demand shock. Ben-
Tal et al. (2011) applied a multi-period deterministic linear programming to generate a robust
logistics plan that can mitigate demand uncertainty in humanitarian relief supply chains.

There are limitations associated with some of the above articles. For example, Rao et al.
(2005) assumed the lead time to all customers for all products are the same. Chen et al.
(2006) and Guo et al. (2006) assumed that retail prices are exogenously set and are the same
for all retailers. Snyder et al. (2007) assumed demand parameters are known with certainty.
Shin and Benton (2007) did not consider all inventory variables, such as safety stock, service
level, and reorder point. Hung and Ryu (2008) used students as surrogates for the actual
purchasing and supply chain managers in a supply chain experiment. Lei et al. (2012)
assumed the relationship between demand and price is linear.

6.1.3.3. Manufacturing risk mitigation

The following articles focused on mitigation of various manufacturing risk factors, including
quality risk (Kaya and Özer, 2009; Hung, 2011; Sun et al., 2012), lead time uncertainty (Li,
2007), random yield risk (He and Zhang, 2008), nonconforming product design (Khan et al.,
2008), capacity inflexibility (Hung, 2011), and machine failures (Kenné et al., 2012). The
methods used are longitudinal case study (Khan et al., 2008), newsvendor model (Li, 2007),
linear programming model (Kaya and Özer, 2009), stochastic dynamic model (Kenné et al.,
2012), P-chart solution model (Sun et al., 2012), unconstrained and constrained mathematical
programming models (He and Zhang, 2008), and integrated methodology, combining analytic
network process (ANP), fuzzy GP, five forces analysis, and VaR (Hung, 2011).

There are limitations associated with some of the above articles. Li (2007) and Kenné et
al. (2012) considered only one type of products in their models. He and Zhang (2008) and
Sun et al. (2012) considered one supplier and one retailer in their analyses. Kaya and Özer
(2009) assumed the demand function to be linear.

14 / 55
6.1.3.4. Supply risk mitigation

A significant amount of work is related to supply risk mitigation. Earlier studies in the review
period carried out empirical studies, which showed that supply risk can be mitigated by
implementing behaviour-based management techniques (Zsidisin and Ellram, 2003), by
building strategic supplier relationships (Giunipero and Eltantawy, 2004; Hallikas et al.,
2005), through early supplier involvement (Zsidisin and Smith, 2005), by adopting business
continuity planning as a formal risk management technique (Zsidisin et al., 2005), and by
reducing supply base complexity (Choi and Krause, 2006).

Most of the attention has been confined to the sourcing decisions. First, some scholars
determined the optimal number of suppliers in the presence of catastrophic risks (Berger et
al., 2004) or supplier failure risks (Ruiz-Torres and Mahmoodi, 2007). It was found that
additional suppliers are needed when the disaster loss increases significantly (Berger et al.,
2004) or the suppliers become less reliable (Ruiz-Torres and Mahmoodi, 2007). Second,
some scholars evaluated single, dual or multiple sourcing strategies. There is a consensus that
a dual sourcing strategy outperforms a single sourcing one in the presence of a supply
disruption (Yu et al., 2009; Li et al., 2010; Xanthopoulos et al., 2012). However, the benefits
of multiple sourcing strategies are not significant. Costantino and Pellegrino (2010) identified
the probabilistic benefits of adopting the multiple sourcing strategy in risky environments for
a specific case. Fang et al. (2013) demonstrated that the addition of a third or more suppliers
brings much less marginal benefits. Third, a number of scholars determined the supplier
selection and order allocation to minimize supply risk using quantitative methods, such as
fuzzy multi-criteria decision making model (Haleh and Hamidi, 2011), newsvendor model
(Giri, 2011), unconstrained and constrained mathematical programming models (Chopra et
al., 2007; Gümüş et al., 2012), stochastic linear programming model (Keren, 2009), multi-
stage stochastic programming model (Shi et al., 2011), mixed integer nonlinear programming
model (Meena and Sarmah, 2013), stochastic mixed integer programming approach (Sawik,
2013a), mixed integer programming model (Sawik, 2013b), and fuzzy stochastic multi-
objective programming model (Wu et al., 2013). It was found that the suppliers with high
disruption probability or with high prices are allocated the lowest fractions of the total
demand or are not selected at all (Sawik, 2013a). Besides, the cost of supplier has more
influence on order allocation than supplier’s failure probability (Meena and Sarmah, 2013).

The following articles also focus on supply risk mitigation but do not fall into the
aforementioned subcategories, such as evaluation and selection of the optimal disruption
management strategy (Tomlin, 2006; Yang et al., 2009; Colicchia et al., 2010; Schmitt,
2011), determination of the optimal inventory level or policies (Schmitt et al., 2010; Glock
and Ries, 2013; Son and Orchard, 2013), investigation of how managers mitigate global
sourcing risks (Christopher et al., 2011; Vedel and Ellegaard, 2013), risk and quality control
of a supplier (Tapiero, 2007), allocation of supplier development investments among multiple
suppliers (Talluri et al., 2010), analysis of the impact of strategic information acquisition and
sharing on supply risk mitigation (Wakolbinger and Cruz, 2011), examination of the
15 / 55
effectiveness of hybrid push–pull strategy for supply risk mitigation (Kim et al., 2012), and
exploration of actions to proactively mitigate supplier insolvency risk (Grötsch et al., 2013).

There are limitations associated with some of the above articles. Berger et al. (2004)
assumed that the probability of the unique event that brings down a particular supplier is the
same for all suppliers. Zsidisin and Smith (2005) only conducted a single case study. Ruiz-
Keren (2009) studied a simple supply chain with two tiers in a single period environment.
Yang et al. (2009), Schmitt (2011), Meena and Sarmah (2013), and Son and Orchard (2013)
assumed the demand to be deterministic. Yu et al. (2009) assumed the supplier’s capacity to
be infinite. Talluri et al. (2010) suggested that their model is inappropriate for selecting new
candidate suppliers for supplier development. Christopher et al. (2011) only considered the
perspectives of the buying firm. Giri (2011) and Xanthopoulos et al. (2012) considered a
single period and a single product in their studies. Glock and Ries (2013) focused on
homogeneous suppliers, which restricts its applicability to industries with homogeneous mass
products. Grötsch et al. (2013) conducted a survey with comparatively small sample size.
Sawik (2013a) did not consider the quality of supplied parts. Vedel and Ellegaard (2013)
analyzed a limited set of in-depth interviews in one industry.

6.1.3.5. Transportation risk mitigation

There is only one study that we identified that relates to transportation risk mitigation.
Hishamuddin et al. (2013) formulated an integer nonlinear programming model to determine
the optimal production and ordering quantities for the supplier and retailer, as well as the
duration for recovery subject to transportation disruption, which yields the minimum relevant
costs of the system. Their results showed that the optimal recovery schedule is highly
dependent on the relationship between the backorder cost and the lost sales cost parameters.
They studied a simple two-tier supply chain with one supplier and one retailer, and assumed
the demand to be deterministic.

6.1.3.6. Financial risk mitigation

Hofmann (2011) discussed the concept of natural hedging in supply chains. They found that
natural hedging of currency and commodity price fluctuations can reduce supply chain
vulnerability. Raghavan and Mishra (2011) constructed a nonlinear programming model to
show that if one of the firms in the supply chain has sufficiently low cash, a joint decision on
the loan amount is beneficial for the lender and the borrowing firms than an independent
decision. Lundin (2012) applied the network flow modelling to mitigate the financial risks in
the cash supply chains. Their results showed that centralization from two to one central bank
storage facilities led to unintended increases in transportation costs and financial risk.

There are limitations associated with the above articles. Hofmann (2011) used a brief
literature review and a conceptual research design in their study. Raghavan and Mishra
(2011) considered a simple two-tier supply chain with one manufacturer and one retailer.

16 / 55
Lundin (2012) only considered transportation and cash opportunity costs, while neglecting
production and warehousing costs.

6.1.3.7. Information risk mitigation

Du et al. (2003) suggested companies to construct attribute correspondence matrices for

databases so that they can share data with both upstream and downstream supply chain
partners without leaking information to competitors. They only considered the vertical
relationships of companies, while neglecting the horizontal relationships of new partners. Le
et al. (2013) examined how data sharing has the potential to create risk for enterprises in
retail supply chain collaboration, and proposed an association rule hiding algorithm to
remove sensitive knowledge from the released database, and minimize the data distortion.

6.1.3.8. General risk mitigation

There exists a broad range of researches focusing on general risk mitigation, and there are
two major categories. First, a number of scholars conducted empirical research or developed
quantitative methods to investigate the effective ways of minimizing supply chain risks. Their
results showed that supply chain risks can be mitigated by increasing flexibility (Tang and
Tomlin, 2008; Manuj and Mentzer, 2008; Skipper and Hanna, 2009; Yang and Yang, 2010;
Chiu et al., 2011; Talluri et al., 2013), building collaborative relationships among supply
chain members (Faisal et al., 2006; Lavastre et al., 2012; Leat and Revoredo-Giha, 2013; He,
2013; Chen et al., 2013), sharing information in the supply chain (Christopher and Lee, 2004;
Faisal et al., 2006), managing suppliers (Xia et al., 2011; Wagner and Silveira-Camargos,
2012), adopting co-opetition (Bakshi and Kleindorfer, 2009), increasing agility
(Braunscheidel and Suresh, 2009), implementing corporate social responsibility activities
(Cruz, 2009; 2013), understanding diverse organization cultures (Dowty and Wallace, 2010),
and applying a new pull system called the multi Kanban system for disassembly (Nakashima
and Gupta, 2012).

Second, several scholars developed quantitative models or framework to mitigate

supply chain risks, such as a so-called super network model that integrates global supply
chain networks with social networks (Cruz et al., 2006), the Supply Chain Risk Structure
Model and the Supply Chain Risk Dynamics Model (Oehmen et al., 2009), the house of risk
that combines the QFD and FMEA (Pujawan and Geraldin, 2009), and a two-stage stochastic
integer programming model (Hahn and Kuhn, 2012b).

There are limitations associated with some of the above articles as well. Cruz et al.
(2006) assumed that the manufacturers are involved in the production of a homogeneous
product. Manuj and Mentzer (2008) focused on internal stakeholders only. Tang and Tomlin
(2006) did not examine the benefits of a combination of different flexibility strategies. Bakshi
and Kleindorfer (2009) and Chiu et al. (2011) studied simple supply chains with only one
supplier and one retailer. Braunscheidel and Suresh (2009) and Skipper and Hanna (2009)

17 / 55
surveyed a limited range of respondents. Xia et al. (2011) assumed exogenous wholesale
prices. Lavastre et al. (2012) used simple statistical tools (average and standard deviation).
He (2013) used the additive demand function instead of the multiplicative demand model.

6.1.4. Risk monitoring

Comparatively, risk monitoring has attracted less attention in the literature. Zhang et al.
(2011) developed an integrated abnormality diagnosis model, combining the fuzzy set theory
and the radial base function neural network, to provide pre-warning signals of production
quality in the food production supply chain. Their simulation results showed that the
proposed pre-warning system can effectively identify abnormal data types, and accurately
determine whether a warning should be issued. The limitations are that the model was not
verified using real data and only quality risk was considered.

6.2. Integrated SCRM processes

In addition to the research discussed in Section 6.1, several researchers focused and studied
integrated SCRM processes.

6.2.1. SCRM conceptual frameworks

A wide variety of qualitative and quantitative based conceptual frameworks have been
proposed to deal with more than one process of SCRM. Majority of these studies focused on
two SCRM processes, such as risk identification and assessment (Peck, 2005; Smith et al.,
2007; Cheng and Kam, 2008; Wagner and Bode, 2008), risk identification and mitigation
(Christopher and Peck, 2004; Oke and Gopalakrishnan, 2009), and risk assessment and
mitigation (Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005; Blome and Schoenherr, 2011; Giannakis and Louis,
2011; Speier et al., 2011; Hahn and Kuhn, 2012a; Kumar and Havey, 2013).

Kern et al. (2012) found that superior risk identification supports the subsequent risk
assessment and this in turn leads to better risk mitigation. As there is a significant relationship
between these three SCRM processes, more focus should be confined to three instead of two
processes. Some researchers developed conceptual framework for the risk identification,
assessment, and mitigation processes (Ritchie and Brindley, 2007; Foerstl et al., 2010;
Bandaly et al., 2012; Kern et al., 2012; Ghadge et al., 2013). The five major components in
their framework are risk identification, risk assessment, risk consequences, risk management
response, and risk performance outcomes.

A common drawback of the above articles is due to the conceptualization of their

frameworks. The frameworks were not verified using real case data or their implementation
was not explicitly described. Besides, there are specific limitations related to some of the
above articles. Peck (2004), Ritchie and Brindley (2007), Oke and Gopalakrishnan (2009),
and Ghadge et al. (2013) all conducted a single case study. Smith et al. (2007) did not
measure the consequences of information technology risks. Speier et al. (2011) did not

18 / 55
examine the supply chain design initiatives from a cost perspective. Kern et al. (2012) used
perceptual data from single informants.

6.2.2. SCRM procedures or approaches

Unlike the articles presented in Section 6.2.1 which are conceptual in nature, the following
articles proposed detailed procedures or approaches for SCRM. Most of these articles applied
qualitative approaches. There are five major steps for SCRM, such as analyze the supply
chains (Harland et al., 2003; Cucchiella and Gastaldi, 2006), identify the risk types and
factors (Harland et al., 2003; Chopra and Sodhi, 2004; Hallikas et al., 2004; Norrman and
Jansson, 2004; Cucchiella and Gastaldi, 2006; Knemeyer et al., 2009; Tummala and
Schoenherr, 2011), assess the likelihood of occurrence and overall impact (Harland et al.,
2003; Hallikas et al., 2004; Norrman and Jansson, 2004; Cucchiella and Gastaldi, 2006;
Knemeyer et al., 2009; Tummala and Schoenherr, 2011), select and implement risk
mitigation strategies (Harland et al., 2003; Chopra and Sodhi, 2004; Hallikas et al., 2004;
Norrman and Jansson, 2004; Cucchiella and Gastaldi, 2006; Knemeyer et al., 2009; Tummala
and Schoenherr, 2011), and continuously improve (Hallikas et al., 2004; Norrman and
Jansson, 2004; Tummala and Schoenherr, 2011). Comparatively, risk identification,
assessment, and mitigation have attracted the most attention as found in section 6.2.1. More
focus should be confined to pre-SCRM (analyze the supply chains) and post-SCRM
(continuously improve).

There is relatively less work proposing quantitative approaches for the integrated
SCRM. Also, the quantitative approaches only covered two SCRM processes, such as risk
identification and assessment (Wu et al., 2006), risk assessment and mitigation (Tuncel and
Alpan, 2010), and risk identification and mitigation (Xia and Chen, 2011; Diabat et al.,
2012). Nevertheless, these quantitative approaches have their advantages in terms of
quantifying the likelihood of occurrence and overall impact of risk factors with AHP (Wu et
al., 2006) or the failure mode, effects and criticality analysis technique (Tuncel and Alpan,
2010), and measuring the effectiveness and efficiency of risk mitigation strategies using the
Petri-net based simulation (Tuncel and Alpan, 2010), risk identification and mitigation via
ANP approach (Xia and Chen, 2011) and interpretive structural modelling (Diabat et al.,
2012).

A limitation associated with the qualitative articles is that most of them mainly explain
the steps or phases of the SCRM approaches but not demonstrate how the approach can be
applied (Chopra and Sodhi, 2004; Hallikas et al., 2004; Cucchiella and Gastaldi, 2006;
Knemeyer et al., 2009; Tummala and Schoenherr, 2011). Only two of them clearly showed
their approaches with the aid of real-life cases. For example, Norrman and Jansson (2004)
demonstrated their four-step SCRM approach using the case of Ericsson. Sinha et al. (2004)
applied their supply chain operations reference (SCOR) model in the aerospace supply
chains. Along the same lines, there are also drawbacks with some of the quantitative articles.
Wu et al. (2006) limited the scope of their model to a single-tier environment. Tuncel and
19 / 55
Alpan (2010) focused only on the point of view of the manufacturer. Diabat et al. (2012)
stated that their model is highly dependent on the judgements of the expert team.

6.2.3. Supply chain network design

A number of articles formulated mathematical programming models for the optimal supply
chain network design problem, which consists of location, production, transportation, and
inventory decisions. The models identified and mitigated various risk types, such as demand
risk (Goh et al., 2007; Poojari et al., 2008; Park et al., 2010; Georgiadis et al., 2011; Qiang
and Nagurney, 2012; Baghalian et al., 2013), manufacturing risk (Qiang and Nagurney, 2012;
Kumar and Tiwari, 2013), supply risk (Mak and Shen, 2012; Baghalian et al., 2013), and
financial risk (Goh et al., 2007; Azaron et al., 2008; Azad and Davoudpour, 2013).

A wide range of mathematical programming models has been developed, including

multi-stage stochastic programming model (Goh et al., 2007), multi-objective stochastic
programming model (Azaron et al., 2008), two-stage stochastic integer programming model
(Poojari et al., 2008), integer nonlinear programming model (Park et al., 2010), mixed integer
linear programming model (Georgiadis et al., 2011), stochastic linear programming model
(Mak and Shen, 2012), linear programming model (Qiang and Nagurney, 2012), convex
mixed integer programming model (Azad and Davoudpour, 2013), stochastic mixed integer
nonlinear programming model (Baghalian et al., 2013), and mixed integer nonlinear
programming model (Kumar and Tiwari, 2013).

A common drawback is that most of the above articles did not apply their proposed
models in real cases but simply used simulated data to prove their effectiveness and
efficiency, except Baghalian et al. (2013) who studied a real-life case in the rice industry of a
country in the Middle East.

7. Observations

Among 224 journal articles reviewed in this paper, 208 articles applied quantitative or
qualitative research methods to deal with the SCRM processes, including risk identification,
risk assessment, risk mitigation, and risk monitoring as discussed in Section 6. Some
observations based on these 208 methodology articles are made in the following sub-sections.

7.1. Quantitative versus qualitative methods

Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of number of journal articles applying quantitative and
qualitative methods between 2003 and 2013. Quantitative methods consist of analytical (e.g.,
mathematical programming, simulation, etc.) and empirical (e.g., exploratory factor analysis,
structural equation modelling, etc.). There are 159 (76.44%) articles using quantitative
methods and 49 (23.56%) applying qualitative methods. It is evident from Figure 4 that the
number of articles using quantitative methods has been increasing since 2004, whereas the
application of qualitative methods is steady. In 2013, the number of articles using quantitative

20 / 55
methods is three times more than those applying qualitative methods. The only year in which
the qualitative methods were more than quantitative methods is 2004. This underscores the
fact that during initial years in the development of any new area, qualitative work plays an
important role in terms of defining concepts, identifying factors, and developing frameworks
followed by quantitative work focusing on assessment and evaluation tools. Most of the
qualitative methods are applied for the risk identification (Cavinato, 2004; Chopra and Sodhi,
2004; Christopher and Peck, 2004) and risk management philosophy (Christopher and Lee,
2004; Giunipero and Eltantawy, 2004; Zsidisin et al., 2004). Thus, it is obvious that the
qualitative methods are mainly used to categorize or identify risk and construct SCRM ideas.

7.2. Applied quantitative methods

Quantitative methods have been developed and applied extensively for SCRM. While some
researchers used a single method, other scholars have focused on integrated approaches,
combining two or more methods. Tables 7 and 8 show the individual and integrated research
methods, respectively. Among 159 quantitative based articles, there are 119 articles using
individual methods, and the number of articles proposing integrated methods is 40, 74.84%
versus 25.16%. According to Table 7, the most popular individual analytical approach is
mathematical programming (47 out of 119 articles or 39.50%), followed by newsvendor
model (10 out of 119 articles or 8.40%) and simulation (10 out of 119 articles or 8.40%).
Besides, the most popular individual empirical approach is multiple regression model (3 out
of 119 articles or 2.52%). Obviously, the empirical methods have attracted much less
attention than the analytical methods, 7 vs. 112. One of the key reasons is that it is difficult
for researchers to communicate with practitioners and gain access to industry to carry out
empirical studies as mentioned in Section 3.

From Table 8, it is evident that the most prevalent integrated analytical approach is
fuzzy based multi-objective mathematical programming (3 out of 40 articles or 7.50%),
followed by Fuzzy AHP (2 out of 40 articles or 5.00%) and Fuzzy TOPSIS (2 out of 40
articles or 5.00%). Among the integrated analytical methods, we see that fuzzy methods,
AHP, and DEA are the most common methods used along with others. This is not surprising
as these methods are useful to tackle the difficulty of quantifying risk as it is inherently
intangible in many cases. Similarly, the application of empirical methods is not as prevalent
as that of analytical methods, 4 vs. 36.

Although the integrated methods have attracted less attention in the literature, certain
techniques can be integrated to overcome the limitations or enhance the performance of the
original methods. For instance, fuzzy set theory can be used to overcome the limitation of
deterministic nature and exact value characteristic of multi-objective mathematical
programming (Kumar et al., 2006; Wu et al., 2010; Ji and Zhu, 2012). In addition, AHP can
be incorporated into a QFD approach in order to ensure consistency of judgments (Ho et al.,
2011). Therefore, integrated methods will play a vital role in the area of SCRM in the future.

21 / 55
7.3. SCRM processes

All of the 208 quantitative and qualitative based articles are classified according to the four
major SCRM processes in Table 9. This classification clearly identifies the most widely
studied process, and more importantly, depicts the relationships between particular research
methods and SCRM processes. First, Table 9 clearly shows that the majority of researchers
studied the individual process (143 quantitative plus 28 qualitative based articles, 171 articles
in total or 82.21%) rather than the integrated processes (16 quantitative plus 21 qualitative
based articles, 37 articles in total or 17.79%). Even with the integrated processes, researchers
focused on two SCRM processes generally as revealed in Section 6.2. As there is a
significant relationship between all SCRM processes, more attention should be given to
legitimately integrated processes instead of individual or fragmented processes. Second,
among 171 articles focusing on the individual process, it is evident that the risk mitigation
process (84 quantitative plus 17 qualitative based articles, 101 articles in total or 59.06%) has
attracted the most attention. With respect to the quantitative methods, the application of
analytical methods is much more than that of empirical methods (78 vs. 6 articles). Third, risk
assessment is the second most widely studied process (56 quantitative plus 6 qualitative
based articles, 62 articles in total or 36.26%). Similarly, 54 out of 56 quantitative based
articles applied analytical methods in the risk assessment process. It is not a surprise that the
risk assessment and mitigation processes are widely covered by quantitative methods since
risk assessment includes quantifying the likelihood and impact of risky events. Similarly, the
effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies requires explicit quantification of effectiveness and
efficiency of such strategies. Moreover, risk mitigation naturally lends itself to prediction and
prescription, which quantitative methods focus on. Surprisingly, in the last eleven years,
there is only one article studying the risk monitoring process in a comprehensive manner
(Zhang et al., 2011). Fourth, among 37 articles focusing on the integrated processes, the
application of qualitative methods is slightly more than that of quantitative methods (21 vs.
16 articles). As discussed in Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, the qualitative approaches used in the
integrated processes are conceptual in nature or they simply explain the steps or phases but
do not demonstrate how the approaches can be applied.

7.4. Risk types focused

Among the 208 methodology based articles, 140 of them focused on specific risk types,
whereas 68 of them simply proposed methods to deal with generic risks. Table 10
demonstrates the distribution of 140 articles in terms of risk types. The most widely studied
risk type is the supply risk (70 articles). As mentioned in Sections 6.1.2.4 and 6.1.3.4, most of
the researchers studied the supplier assessment and mitigation problems with risk
considerations. Demand risk (39 articles) and manufacturing risk (13 articles) are the second
and third commonly focused risk types, respectively. This is consistent with the findings in
Section 4 that demand, manufacturing, and supply risks have attracted the most attention.
Besides, the majority of the articles focused on a particular risk type. Only three out of 140

22 / 55
articles studied two risk types simultaneously (Goh et al., 2007; Qiang and Nagurney, 2012;
Baghalian et al., 2013). This is a gap that can be addressed by future work in this domain.

7.5. Application areas

From Table 11, we observe that 18 areas or industries have been studied. The majority of the
articles focused on a particular industry (59 out of 67 articles, or 88.06%). Eight out of 67
articles focused on two or more industries (Zsidisin et al., 2004; Zsidisin et al., 2005; Wagner
and Bode, 2008; Blos et al., 2009; Wagner and Neshat, 2010; Blome and Schoenherr, 2011;
Christopher et al., 2011; Kern et al., 2012). The most popular application area is the
automotive industry (15 articles), followed by electronics industry (12 articles) and aerospace
industry (9 articles). It shows that the SCRM methods have been widely applied to
manufacturing supply chains (84 articles) whereas service supply chains (6 articles) are fairly
unexplored. Given the importance of service supply chains, it is critical for researchers to
place more focus on managing risks in this area. Besides, all the applications are limited to
the private sector, and there is no article focusing on the public sector.

8. Research gaps and recommendations

Opportunities for further research in the area of SCRM are abundant. We find that the supply
risk holds a very large proportion of all risk types, while other risk types received limited
consideration, especially the infrastructural risk. There is clearly a research gap in the domain
of infrastructural risks such as transportation, information, and financial risk as well as macro
risks. Since infrastructure plays a critical role in managing supply chain effectively, the
emphasis on managing and mitigating these types of risks is important as we move forward.
Also, in comparison to demand and supply risks, the area of manufacturing or process risk
has not received much attention, which is another key avenue for future research.

Every organization may face all the five suggested risk types. While focusing on a
particular risk type has its advantages, interdependencies and interrelationships among
various risk types is certainly an issue that needs to be further explored. Investigating the
joint impact of such risks can lead to better management of supply chains than treating each
risk type in isolation. This is an area that we recommend scholars in this domain to consider
as we move forward.

There exists an abundant set of factors, which would give rise to supply chain
disruptions. However, there is lack of research measuring the correlations between risk
factors and corresponding risk types, or the probability of occurrence of particular risk types
associated with their factors. Field and case studies are necessary to investigate and estimate
such correlations and focus on developing methods to evaluate the probabilities of occurrence
of particular risk types so that methods can be developed to appease such risks through
mitigation strategies.

23 / 55
 Although there is an increasing amount of research in the area of SCRM, most of them
are theoretical in nature. For instance, a wide variety of SCRM management methods and
conceptual frameworks have emerged, however, they have not been validated empirically. To
fill this gap, scholars could use primary data to investigate the applicability and effectiveness
of those SCRM models in practical situations. Besides, scholars could also assess the
adaptability and flexibility of the SCRM models by applying them to different companies in
the same or different sectors, and in the same or different countries.

Some sectors have been underrepresented over the past decade. For instance, the public
sector has not been fully investigated. As many governments in the globe are exposed to
various internal and external risks, further knowledge can be contributed. Similarly, the
renewable energy sector has not been a part of any specific research. Specifically, bioenergy
projects are especially vulnerable to risks associated with the biomass supply chain. For
example, the type and reliable supply of biomass is important as not all biomass is compatible
with all boiler systems. The incorrect choice of biomass and supplier can lead to project
failure (Scott et al., 2013).

The majority of scholars focused on manufacturing supply chains (e.g., automotive,

electronics, aerospace, and so on), whereas service supply chains have attracted much less
attention in the past decade. In view of the important role of service industry (e.g., banking,
insurance, health-care, and so on) in present economy, the literature relating to service based
SCRM must be enriched.

It is evident that the risk monitoring process has received the least attention by
researchers compared with the other three processes, including risk identification, risk
assessment, and risk mitigation. Among all 224 articles reviewed, there is only one article
studying early warning monitoring of risks in the food manufacturing supply chains (Zhang
et al., 2011). As a robust risk prevention system is more cost-effective than risk mitigation in
practice, scholars should extend the literature by developing an early warning monitoring
system with adaptive risk indicators for various types of supply chains and validating the
system empirically.

As discussed, risk mitigation has been extensively studied with a wide range of
mitigation strategies proposed. However, there is lack of research in benchmarking these
strategies. Researchers and practitioners have not comprehensively addressed the selection of
the most appropriate strategies in particular scenarios. In most cases, the efficacy of a specific
strategy is investigated in extant research. Although Talluri et al. (2013) attempted to
evaluate seven individual risk mitigation strategies under different scenarios, they did not
consider the joint impact of these strategies. To fill this research gap, scholars could evaluate
and select the best mitigation strategies among various individual and integrated strategies
with respect to both efficiency and effectiveness.

24 / 55
 There exist a number of conceptual frameworks and approaches covering all four
SCRM processes. Besides risk identification, risk assessment, risk mitigation, and risk
monitoring, risk recovery should also be studied and incorporated into the SCRM approaches
so as to enable the supply chain to quickly return to its original state during the occurrence of
a disruption. Although Hishamuddin et al. (2013) studied the recovery aspect, their focus was
on recovery schedule instead of recovery strategies/methods for a simple two-tier supply
chain with one supplier and one retailer. In view of its importance, but scarce studies on risk
recovery, scholars could expand the existing SCRM approaches by incorporating a risk
recovery phase.

Finally, it would be worthwhile to quantify the benefits and costs of SCRM. For
example, scholars could measure the value added to the organizations after implementing
SCRM methods/strategies. Besides, scholars could apply a multiple case study approach to
analyze and benchmark the payoffs or losses between those companies incorporating SCRM
and non-SCRM adopters in the same sector while exposing to similar risk types. These
studies would attract more organizations focusing on SCRM, and also shed light on effective
practices for implementing SCRM to receive the maximum payoff.

9. Conclusions

In this paper, we reviewed 224 international journal articles appearing between 2003 and
2013 targeting the area of SCRM. We categorized all these articles according to definitions,
types, factors, and SCRM methods. This paper made several contributions to the field of
SCRM. First, we provided a new definition to supply chain risk and SCRM. The new
definitions are clearer and more specific than the existing ones, and enable a common
understanding between researchers and practitioners. This will not only help researchers
communicate with practitioners and gain access to industry to conduct empirical studies, but
also help researchers identify and measure the likelihood and impact of the entire supply
chain risks, and evaluate the effectiveness of supply chain risk management methodologies.
Second, we proposed five common risks arising across various types of supply chains,
including macro risk, demand risk, manufacturing risk, supply risk, and infrastructural risk
(information risk, transportation risk, and financial risk). This comprehensive classification
could help researchers and practitioners identify various risk types with differing degrees of
impact that are both external and internal to supply chains. Third, combining various points
of views of scholars, we created a holistic list of potential factors affecting the five common
risk types. This will not only help researchers and practitioners identify and classify the
potential risk factors, but also provide a starting point for creating a supply chain risk index
model. Fourth, we classified both quantitative and qualitative SCRM methods according to
four major SCRM processes, including risk identification, risk assessment, risk mitigation,
and risk monitoring. This will provide useful insights to researchers and practitioners for
SCRM, such as which methods (qualitative vs. quantitative; individual and integrated) are
applicable in particular SCRM processes. Fifth, we revealed ten research gaps and proposed
corresponding potential research directions in the area of SCRM. We hope our
25 / 55
recommendations for further research directions would aid academics conduct more
impactful studies in SCRM, which in turn assists practitioners in managing supply chain risks
more effectively and efficiently via knowledge transfer.

While we have considered a comprehensive evaluation of SCRM work, our research is

not devoid of limitations. There are three main limitations of this paper. First, we only
reviewed international journal articles, while excluding the conference papers, master and
doctoral dissertations, textbooks, book chapters, unpublished articles, and notes. Second, this
paper is solely based on the analyses from the point of view of academics while failing to
incorporate the views of practitioners. Third, the goal of this study was to present and
categorize recent SCRM research and explore potential research gaps. With that in mind, an
overarching question is not posed as usually done in more specific literature reviews. Using
the categorization and summary results of this paper, further studies can delve into specific
areas that have been under-researched and extend studies that have focused on mature areas
of SCRM.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful
and constructive comments, and the financial support received by one of the authors from the
Faculty of Business and Economics, The University of Melbourne.

26 / 55
References

Adhitya, A., Srinivasan, R., Karimi, I.A., 2009. Supply chain risk identification using a
HAZOP-based approach. American Institute of Chemical Engineers 55, 1447–1463.
Aggarwal, P., Ganeshan, R., 2007. Using risk-management tools on B2Bs: An exploratory
investigation. International Journal of Production Economics 108, 2–7.
Arcelus, F.J., Kumar, S., Srinivasan, G., 2012. Risk tolerance and a retailer’s pricing and
ordering policies within a newsvendor framework. Omega 40, 188–198.
Azad, N., Davoudpour, H., 2013. Designing a stochastic distribution network model under
risk. International Journal Advanced Manufacturing Technology 64, 23–40.
Azadeh, A., Alem, S.M., 2010. A flexible deterministic, stochastic and fuzzy data
envelopment analysis approach for supply chain risk and vendor selection problem:
Simulation analysis. Expert Systems with Applications 37, 7438–7448.
Azaron, A., Brown, K.N., Tarim, S.A., Modarres, M., 2008. A multi-objective stochastic
programming approach for supply chain design considering risk. International Journal
of Production Economics 116, 129–138.
Baghalian, A., Rezapour, S., Farahani, R.Z., 2013. Robust supply chain network design with
service level against disruptions and demand uncertainties: A real-life case. European
Journal of Operational Research 227, 199–215.
Bakshi, N., Kleindorfer, P., 2009. Co-opetition and investment for supply-chain resilience.
Production and Operations Management 18, 583–603.
Ballou, R.H., Burnetas, A., 2003. Planning multiple location inventories. Journal of Business
Logistics 24, 65–89.
Bandaly, D., Satir, A., Kahyaoglu, Y., Shanker, L., 2012. Supply chain risk management – I:
Conceptualization, framework and planning process. Risk Management 14, 249–271.
Ben-Tal, A., Chung, B.D., Mandala, S.R., Yao, T., 2011. Robust optimization for emergency
logistics planning: Risk mitigation in humanitarian relief supply chains. Transportation
Research Part B 45, 1177–1189.
Berger, P.D., Gerstenfeld, A., Zeng, A.Z., 2004. How many suppliers are best? A decision-
analysis approach. Omega 32, 9–15.
Berle, Ø., Norstad, I., Asbjørnslett, B.E., 2013. Optimization, risk assessment and resilience
in LNG transportation systems. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
18, 253–264.
Betts, J.M., Johnston, R.B., 2005. Just-in-time component replenishment decisions for
assemble-to-order manufacturing under capital constraint and stochastic demand.
International Journal of Production Economics 95, 51–70.
Blackhurst, J.V., Scheibe, K.P., Johnson, D.J., 2008. Supplier risk assessment and monitoring
for the automotive industry. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 38, 143–165.
Blome, C., Schoenherr, T., 2011. Supply chain risk management in financial crises – A
multiple case-study approach. International Journal of Production Economics 134, 43–
57.

27 / 55
Blos, M.F., Quaddus, M., Wee, H.M., Watanabe, K., 2009. Supply chain risk management
(SCRM): A case study on the automotive and electronic industries in Brazil. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal 14, 247–252.
Bogataj, D., Bogataj, M., 2007. Measuring the supply chain risk and vulnerability in
frequency space. International Journal of Production Economics 108, 291–301.
Braunscheidel, M.J., Suresh, N.C., 2009. The organizational antecedents of a firm’s supply
chain agility for risk mitigation and response. Journal of Operations Management 27,
119–140.
Brun, A., Caridi, M., Salama, K.F., Ravelli, I., 2006. Value and risk assessment of supply
chain management improvement projects. International Journal of Production
Economics 99, 186–201.
Cachon, G.P., 2004. The allocation of inventory risk in a supply chain: push, pull, and
advance-purchase discount contracts. Management Science 50, 222–238.
Cavinato, J.L., 2004. Supply chain logistics risks: From the back room to the board room.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 34, 383–387.
Chan, F.T.S., Kumar, N., 2007. Global supplier development considering risk factors using
fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega 35, 417–431.
Chaudhuri, A., Mohanty, B.K., Singh, K.N., 2013. Supply chain risk assessment during new
product development: A group decision making approach using numeric and linguistic
data. International Journal of Production Research 51, 2790–2804.
Chen, F.Y., Yano, C.A., 2010. Improving supply chain performance and managing risk under
weather-related demand uncertainty. Management Science 56, 1380–1397.
Chen, H., Chen, J., Chen, Y., 2006. A coordination mechanism for a supply chain with
demand information updating. International Journal of Production Economics 103,
347–361.
Chen, J., Sohal, A.S., Prajogo, D.I., 2013. Supply chain operational risk mitigation: A
collaborative approach. International Journal of Production Research 57, 2186–2199.
Chen, P.S., Wu, M.T., 2013. A modified failure mode and effects analysis method for
supplier selection problems in the supply chain risk environment: A case study,
Computers & Industrial Engineering 66, 634–642.
Cheng, S.K., Kam, B.H., 2008. A conceptual framework for analysing risk in supply
networks. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 22, 345–360.
Cheong, T., Song., H.S., 2013. The value of information on supply risk under random yields.
Transportation Research Part E 60, 27–38.
Chiu, C.H., Choi, T.M., Li, X., 2011. Supply chain coordination with risk sensitive retailer
under target sales rebate. Automatica 47, 1617–1625.
Choi, T.Y., Krause, D.R., 2006. The supply base and its complexity: Implications for
transaction costs, risks, responsiveness, and innovation. Journal of Operations
Management 24, 637–652.
Chopra, S., Reinhardt, G., Mohan, U., 2007. The importance of decoupling recurrent and
disruption risks in a supply chain. Naval Research Logistics, 54, 544–555.

28 / 55
Chopra, S., Sodhi, M.S., 2004. Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown. MIT Sloan
Management Review 46, 53–62.
Chopra, S., Sodhi, M.S., 2014. Reducing the risk of supply chain disruptions. MIT Sloan
Management Review 55, 73–80.
Christopher, M., Lee, H., 2004. Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 34, 388–396.
Christopher, M., Mena, C., Khan, O., Yurt, O., 2011. Approaches to managing global
sourcing risk. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16, 67–81.
Christopher, M., Peck, H., 2004. Building the resilient supply chain. The International
Journal of Logistics Management 15, 1–13.
Cigolini, R., Rossi, T., 2010. Managing operational risks along the oil supply chain.
Production Planning & Control 21, 452–467.
Colicchia, C., Dallari, F., Melacini, M., 2010. Increasing supply chain resilience in a global
sourcing context. Production Planning & Control 21, 680–694.
Colicchia, C., Strozzi, F., 2012. Supply chain risk management: A new methodology for a
systematic literature review. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17,
403–418.
Costantino, N., Pellegrino, R., 2010. Choosing between single and multiple sourcing based
on supplier default risk: A real options approach. Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management 16, 27–40.
Craighead, C.W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M.J., Handfield, R.B., 2007. The severity
of supply chain disruptions: Design characteristics and mitigation capabilities. Decision
Sciences 38, 131–156.
Crnkovic, J., Tayi, G.K., Ballou, D.P, 2008. A decision-support framework for exploring
supply chain tradeoffs. International Journal of Production Economics 115, 28–38.
Cruz, J.M., 2009. The impact of corporate social responsibility in supply chain management:
Multicriteria decision-making approach. Decision Support Systems 48, 224–236.
Cruz, J.M., 2013. Mitigating global supply chain risks through corporate social responsibility.
International Journal of Production Research 51, 3995–4010.
Cruz, J.M., Nagurney, A., Wakolbinger, T., 2006. Financial engineering of the integration of
global supply chain networks and social networks with risk management. Naval
Research Logistics 53, 675–696.
Cucchiella, F., Gastaldi, M., 2006. Risk management in supply chain: A real option approach.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 17, 700–720.
Datta, S., Granger, C.W.J, Barari, M., Gibbs, T., 2007. Management of supply chain: An
alternative modelling technique for forecasting. Journal of the Operational Research
Society 58, 1459–1469.
Diabat, A., Govindan, K., Panicker, V.V., 2012. Supply chain risk management and its
mitigation in a food industry. International Journal of Production Research 50, 3039–
3050.

29 / 55
Diehl, D., Spinler, S., 2013. Defining a common ground for supply chain risk management –
A case study in the fast-moving consumer goods industry. International Journal of
Logistics: Research and Applications 16, 311–327.
Dietrich, D.M., Cudney, E.A., 2011. Methods and considerations for the development of
emerging manufacturing technologies into a global aerospace supply chain.
International Journal of Production Research 49, 2819–2831.
Dowty, R.A., Wallace, W.A., 2010. Implications of organizational culture for supply chain
disruption and restoration. International Journal of Production Economics 126, 57–65.
Du, T.C.T., Lee, H.M., Chen, A., 2003. Constructing federated databases in coordinated
supply chains. Decision Support Systems 36, 49–64.
Durowoju, O.A., Chan, H.K., Wang, X., 2012. Entropy assessment of supply chain
disruption. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 23, 998–1014.
Ellegaard, C., 2008. Supply risk management in a small company perspective. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 13, 425–434.
Ellis, S.C., Henry, R.M., Shockley, J., 2010. Buyer perceptions of supply disruption risk: A
behavioral view and empirical assessment. Journal of Operations Management 28, 34–
46.
Faisal, M.N., Banwet, D.K., Shankar, R., 2006. Supply chain risk mitigation: Modeling the
enablers. Business Process Management Journal 12, 535–552.
Fang, J., Zhao, L., Fransoo, J.C., Woensel, T.V., 2013. Sourcing strategies in supply risk
management: An approximate dynamic programming approach. Computers &
Operations Research 40, 1371–1382.
Foerstl, K., Reuter, C., Hartmann, E., Blome, C., 2010. Managing supplier sustainability risks
in a dynamically changing environment – Sustainable supplier management in the
chemical industry. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 16, 118–130.
Franca, R.B., Jones, E.C., Richards, C.N., Carlson, J.P., 2010. Multi-objective stochastic
supply chain modeling to evaluate tradeoffs between profit and quality. International
Journal of Production Economics 127, 292–299.
Gaudenzi, B., Borghesi, A., 2006. Managing risks in the supply chain using the AHP method.
The International Journal of Logistics Management 17, 114–136.
Georgiadis, M.C., Tsiakis, P., Longinidis, P., Sofioglou, M.K., 2011. Optimal design of
supply chain networks under uncertain transient demand variations. Omega 39, 254–
272.
Ghadge, A., Dani, S., Chester, M., Kalawsky, R., 2013. A systems approach for modelling
supply chain risks. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 18, 523–538.
Giannakis, M., Louis, M., 2011. A multi-agent based framework for supply chain risk
management. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 17, 23–31.
Giri, B.C., 2011. Managing inventory with two suppliers under yield uncertainty and risk
aversion. International Journal of Production Economics 133, 80–85.
Giunipero, L.C., Eltantawy, R.A., 2004. Securing the upstream supply chain: A risk
management approach. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 34, 698–713.
30 / 55
Glock, C.H., Ries, J.M., 2013. Reducing lead time risk through multiple sourcing: The case
of stochastic demand and variable lead time. International Journal of Production
Research 51, 43–56.
Goh, M., Lim, J.Y.S., Meng, F., 2007. A stochastic model for risk management in global
supply chain networks. European Journal of Operational Research 182, 164–173.
Grötsch, V.M., Blome, C., Schleper, M.C., 2013. Antecedents of proactive supply chain risk
management – A contingency theory perspective. International Journal of Production
Research 51, 2842–2867.
Gümüş, M., Ray, S., Gurnani, H., 2012. Supply-side story: Risks, guarantees, competition,
and information asymmetry. Management Science 58, 1694–1714.
Guo, Z., Fang, F., Whinston, A.B., 2006. Supply chain information sharing in a macro
prediction market. Decision Support Systems 42, 1944–1958.
Hahn, G.J., Kuhn, H., 2012a. Value-based performance and risk management in supply
chains: A robust optimization approach. International Journal of Production Economics
139, 135–144.
Hahn, G.J., Kuhn, H., 2012b. Designing decision support systems for value-based
management: A survey and an architecture. Decision Support Systems 53, 591–598.
Hale, T., Moberg, C.R., 2005. Improving supply chain disaster preparedness: A decision
process for secure site location. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management 35, 195–207.
Haleh, H., Hamidi, A., 2011. A fuzzy MCDM model for allocating orders to suppliers in a
supply chain under uncertainty over a multi-period time horizon. Expert Systems with
Applications 38, 9076–9083.
Hallikas, J., Karvonen, I., Pulkkinen, U., Virolainen, V.M., Tuominen, M., 2004. Risk
management processes in supplier networks. International Journal of Production
Economics 90, 47–58.
Hallikas, J., Puumalainen, K., Vesterinen, T., Virolainen, V.M., 2005. Risk-based
classification of supplier relationships. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management
11, 72–82.
Harland, C., Brenchley, R., Walker, H., 2003. Risk in supply networks. Journal of Purchasing
& Supply Management 9, 51–62.
He, Y., 2013. Sequential price and quantity decisions under supply and demand risks,
International Journal of Production Economics 141, 541–551.
He, Y., Zhang, J., 2008. Random yield risk sharing in a two-level supply chain. International
Journal of Production Economics 112, 769–781.
Hishamuddin, H., Sarker, R.A., Essam, D., 2013. A recovery model for a two-echelon serial
supply chain with consideration of transportation disruption. Computers & Industrial
Engineering 64, 552–561.
Ho, W., Dey, P.K., Lockström, M., 2011. Strategic sourcing: A combined QFD and AHP
approach in manufacturing. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16,
446–461.

31 / 55
Hofmann, E., 2011. Natural hedging as a risk prophylaxis and supplier financing instrument
in automotive supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16,
128–141.
Huang, H.Y., Chou, Y.C., Chang, S, 2009. A dynamic system model for proactive control of
dynamic events in full-load states of manufacturing chains. International Journal of
Production Research 47, 2485–2506.
Hult, G.T.M., Craighead, C.W., Ketchen, D.J., 2010. Risk uncertainty and supply chain
decisions: A real options perspective. Decision Sciences 41, 435–458.
Hung, K.T., Ryu, S., 2008. Changing risk preferences in supply chain inventory decisions,
Production Planning & Control 19, 770–780.
Hung, S.J., 2011. Activity-based divergent supply chain planning for competitive advantage
in the risky global environment: A DEMATEL-ANP fuzzy goal programming
approach. Expert Systems with Applications 38, 9053–9062.
Iakovou, E., Vlachos, D., Xanthopoulos, A., 2010. A stochastic inventory management model
for a dual sourcing supply chain with disruptions. International Journal of Systems
Science 41, 315–324.
Ji, G., Zhu, C., 2012. A study on emergency supply chain and risk based on urgent relief
service in disasters. Systems Engineering Procedia 5, 313–325.
Jiang, B., Baker, R.C., Frazier, G.V., 2009. An analysis of job dissatisfaction and turnover to
reduce global supply chain risk: Evidence from China. Journal of Operations
Management 27, 169–184.
Johnson, N., Elliott, D., Drake, P., 2013. Exploring the role of social capital in facilitating
supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 18, 324–
336
Jüttner, U., 2005. Supply chain risk management: Understanding the business requirements
from a practitioner perspective. The International Journal of Logistics Management 16,
120–141.
Jüttner, U., Maklan, S., 2011. Supply chain resilience in the global financial crisis: An
empirical study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16, 246–259.
Jüttner, U., Peck, H., Christopher, M., 2003. Supply chain risk management: Outlining an
agenda for future research. International Journal of Logistics: Research and
Applications 6, 197–210.
Kang, J.H., Kim, Y.D., 2012. Inventory control in a two-level supply chain with risk pooling
effect. International Journal of Production Economics 135, 116–124.
Kaya, M., Özer, Ö., 2009. Quality risk in outsourcing: Noncontractible product quality and
private quality cost information. Naval Research Logistics 56, 669–685.
Kayis, B., Karningsih, P.D., 2012. A knowledge-based system tool for assisting
manufacturing organizations in identifying supply chain risks. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management 23, 834–852.
Kenné, J.P., Dejax, P., Gharbi, A., 2012. Production planning of a hybrid manufacturing–
remanufacturing system under uncertainty within a closed-loop supply chain.
International Journal of Production Economics 135, 81–93.
32 / 55
Keren, B., 2009. The single-period inventory problem: Extension to random yield from the
perspective of the supply chain. Omega 37, 801–810.
Kern, D., Moser, R., Hartmann, E., Moder, M., 2012. Supply risk management: Model
development and empirical analysis. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management 42, 60–82.
Khan, O., Christopher, M., Burnes, B., 2008. The impact of product design on supply chain
risk: A case study. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 38, 412–432.
Khilwani, N., Tiwari, M.K., Sabuncuoglu, I., 2011. Hybrid Petri-nets for modelling and
performance evaluation of supply chains. International Journal of Production Research
49, 4627–4656.
Kim, S.H., Fowler, J.W., Shunk, D.L., Pfund, M.E., 2012. Improving the push–pull strategy
in a serial supply chain by a hybrid push–pull control with multiple pulling points.
International Journal of Production Research 50, 5651–5668.
Kim, W.S., 2013. A supply chain contract with flexibility as a risk-sharing mechanism for
demand forecasting, International Journal of Systems Science, 44, 1134–1149.
Kleindorfer, P.R., Saad, G.H., 2005. Managing disruption risks in supply chains. Production
and Operations Management 14, 53–68.
Knemeyer, A.M., Zinn, W., Eroglu, C., 2009. Proactive planning for catastrophic events in
supply chains. Journal of Operations Management 27, 141–153.
Kull, T.J., Talluri, S., 2008. A supply risk reduction model using integrated multicriteria
decision making. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 55, 409–419.
Kull, T., Closs, D., 2008. The risk of second-tier supplier failures in serial supply chains:
Implications for order policies and distributor autonomy. European Journal of
Operational Research 186, 1158–1174.
Kumar, M., Vrat, P., Shankar, R., 2006. A fuzzy programming approach for vendor selection
problem in a supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics 101, 273–
285.
Kumar, S., Havey, T., 2013. Before and after disaster strikes: A relief supply chain decision
support framework. International Journal of Production Economics 145, 613–629.
Kumar, S.K., Tiwari, M.K., 2013. Supply chain system design integrated with risk pooling,
Computers & Industrial Engineering 64, 580–588.
Kumar, S.K., Tiwari, M.K., Babiceanu, R.F. 2010. Minimisation of supply chain cost with
embedded risk using computational intelligence approaches. International Journal of
Production Research 48, 3717–3739.
Laeequddin, M., Sardana, G.D. Sahay, B.S., Waheed, K.A., Sahay, V., 2009. Supply chain
partners’ trust building process through risk evaluation: The perspectives of UAE
packaged food industry. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 14, 280–
290.
Lavastre, O., Gunasekaran, A., Spalanzani, A., 2012. Supply chain risk management in
French companies. Decision Support Systems 52, 828–838.

33 / 55
Le, H.Q., Arch-int, S., Nguyen, H.X., Arch-int, N., 2013. Association rule hiding in risk
management for retail supply chain collaboration. Computers in Industry 64, 776–784.
Leat, P., Revoredo-Giha, C., 2013. Risk and resilience in agri-food supply chains: The case
of the ASDA PorkLink supply chain in Scotland. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal 18, 219– 231.
Lei, D., Li, J., Liu, Z., 2012. Supply chain contracts under demand and cost disruptions with
asymmetric information. International Journal of Production Economics 139, 116–126.
Lejeune, M.A., 2008. Preprocessing techniques and column generation algorithms for
stochastically efficient demand. Journal of the Operational Research Society 59, 1239–
1252.
Li, J., Wang, S., Cheng, T.C.E., 2010. Competition and cooperation in a single-retailer two-
supplier supply chain with supply disruption. International Journal of Production
Economics 124, 137–150.
Li, Q., 2007. Risk, risk aversion and the optimal time to produce. IIE Transactions 39, 145–
158.
Lin, Y., Zhou, L., 2011. The impacts of product design changes on supply chain risk: A case
study. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 41, 162–
186.
Liu, Z., Cruz, J.M., 2012. Supply chain networks with corporate financial risks and trade
credits under economic uncertainty. International Journal of Production Economics
137, 55–67.
Liu, Z., Nagurney, A., 2011. Supply chain outsourcing under exchange rate risk and
competition. Omega 39, 539–549.
Lockamy III, A., McCormack, K., 2010. Analysing risks in supply networks to facilitate
outsourcing decisions. International Journal of Production Research 48, 593–611.
Lundin, J.F., 2012. Redesigning a closed-loop supply chain exposed to risks. International
Journal of Production Economics 140, 596–603.
Mak, H.Y., Shen, Z.J.M., 2012. Risk diversification and risk pooling in supply chain design.
IIE Transactions 44, 603-621.
Manuj, I., Mentzer, J.T., 2008. Global supply chain risk management strategies. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 38, 192–223.
Meena, P.L., Sarmah, S.P., 2013. Multiple sourcing under supplier failure risk and quantity
discount: A genetic algorithm approach. Transportation Research Part E 50, 84–97.
Meena, P.L., Sarmah, S.P., Sarkar, A. 2011. Sourcing decisions under risks of catastrophic
event disruptions. Transportation Research Part E 47, 1058–1074.
Nakashima, K., Gupta, S.M., 2012. A study on the risk management of multi Kanban system
in a closed loop supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics 139, 65–
68.
Neiger, D., Rotaru, K., Churilov, L., 2009. Supply chain risk identification with value-
focused process engineering. Journal of Operations Management 27, 154–168.

34 / 55
Norrman, A., 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, 434–456.
Oehmen, J., Ziegenbein, A., Alard, R., Schönsleben, P., 2009. System-oriented supply chain
risk management. Production Planning & Control 20, 343–361.
Olson, D.L., Wu, D.D., 2010. A review of enterprise risk management in supply chain.
Kybernetes 39, 694–706.
Olson, D.L., Wu, D., 2011. Risk management models for supply chain: A scenario analysis of
outsourcing to China. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16, 401–
408.
Oke, A., Gopalakrishnan, M., 2009. Managing disruptions in supply chains: A case study of a
retail supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics 118, 168–174.
Park, S., Lee, T.E., Sung, C.S., 2010. A three-level supply chain network design model with
risk-pooling and lead times. Transportation Research Part E 46, 563–581.
Peck, H., 2005. Drivers of supply chain vulnerability: An integrated framework. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 35, 210–232.
Pettit, T.J., Croxton, K.L., Fiksel, J., 2013. Ensuring supply chain resilience: Development
and implementation of an assessment tool. Journal of Business Logistics 34, 46–76.
Poojari, C.A., Lucas, C., Mitra, G., 2008. Robust solutions and risk measures for a supply
chain planning problem under uncertainty. Journal of the Operational Research Society
59, 2–12.
Pujawan, I.N., Geraldin, L.H., 2009. House of risk: A model for proactive supply chain risk
management. Business Process Management Journal 15, 953–967.
Qiang, P., Nagurney, A., 2012. A bi-criteria indicator to assess supply chain network
performance for critical needs under capacity and demand disruptions. Transportation
Research Part A 46, 801–812.
Radke, A.M., Tseng, M.M., 2012. A risk management-based approach for inventory planning
of engineering-to-order production. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology 61, 387-
390.
Raghavan, N.R.S., Mishra, V.K., 2011. Short-term financing in a cash-constrained supply
chain. International Journal of Production Economics 134, 407–412.
Rao, S., Goldsby, T.J., 2009. Supply chain risks: A review and typology. The International
Journal of Logistics Management 20, 97–123.
Rao, U.S., Swaminathan, J.M., Zhang, J., 2005. Demand and production management with
uniform guaranteed lead time. Production and Operations Management 14, 400–412.
Ravindran, A.R., Bilsel, R.U., Wadhwa, V., Yang, T., 2010. Risk adjusted multicriteria
supplier selection models with applications. International Journal of Production
Research 48, 405–424.
Reiner, G., Fichtinger, J., 2009. Demand forecasting for supply processes in consideration of
pricing and market information. International Journal of Production Economics 118,
55–62.

35 / 55
Ritchie, B., Brindley, C., 2007. An emergent framework for supply chain risk management
and performance measurement. Journal of the Operational Research Society 58, 1398–
1411.
Ruiz-Torres, A.J., Mahmoodi, F., 2007. The optimal number of suppliers considering the
costs of individual supplier failures. Omega 35, 104–115.
Ruiz-Torres, A.J., Mahmoodi, F., Zeng, A.Z., 2013. Supplier selection model with
contingency planning for supplier failures. Computers & Industrial Engineering 66,
374–382.
Samvedi, A., Jain, V., Chan, F.T.S., 2013. Quantifying risks in a supply chain through
integration of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. International Journal of Production
Research 51, 2433–2442.
Sawik, T., 2013a. Integrated selection of suppliers and scheduling of customer orders in the
presence of supply chain disruption risks. International Journal of Production Research
51, 7006–7022.
Sawik, T., 2013b. Selection of resilient supply portfolio under disruption risks. Omega 41,
259–269.
Sayed, H.E., Gabbar, H.A., Miyazaki, S., 2009. A hybrid statistical genetic-based demand
forecasting expert system. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 11662–11670.
Schmitt, A.J., 2011. Strategies for customer service level protection under multi-echelon
supply chain disruption risk. Transportation Research Part B 45, 1266–1283.
Schmitt, A.J., Singh, M., 2012. A quantitative analysis of disruption risk in a multi-echelon
supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics 139, 22–32.
Schmitt, A.J., Snyder, L.V., Shen, Z.J.M., 2010. Inventory systems with stochastic demand
and supply: Properties and approximations. European Journal of Operational Research
206, 313–328.
Schoenherr, T., Tummala, V.M.R, 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 & Supply Management 14,
100–111.
Scott, J.A., Ho, W., Dey, P.K., 2013. Strategic sourcing in the UK bioenergy industry.
International Journal of Production Economics 146, 478–490.
Shi, Y., Wu, F., Chu, L.K., Sculli, D., Xu, Y.H., 2011. A portfolio approach to managing
procurement risk using multi-stage stochastic programming. Journal of the Operational
Research Society 62, 1958–1970.
Shin, H., Benton, W.C., 2007. A quantity discount approach to supply chain coordination.
European Journal of Operational Research 180, 601–616.
Sinha, P.R., Whitman, L.E., Malzahn, D., 2004. Methodology to mitigate supplier risk in an
aerospace supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 9, 154–
168.
Skipper, J.B., Hanna, J.B., 2009. Minimizing supply chain disruption risk through enhanced
flexibility. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 39,
404–427.
36 / 55
Smaros, J., Lehtonen, J.M., Appelqvist, P., Holmström, J., 2003. The impact of increasing
demand visibility on production and inventory control efficiency. International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 33, 336–354.
Smith, G.E., Watson, K.J., Baker, W.H., Pokorski II, J.A., 2007. A critical balance:
Collaboration and security in the IT-enabled supply chain. International Journal of
Production Research 45, 2595–2613.
Snyder, L.V., Daskin, M.S., Teo, C.P., 2007. The stochastic location model with risk pooling.
European Journal of Operational Research 179, 1221–1238.
Sodhi, M.S., 2005. Managing demand risk in tactical supply chain planning for a global
consumer electronics company. Production and Operations Management 14, 69–79.
Sodhi, M.S., Son, B.G, Tang, C.S., 2012. Researchers’ perspectives on supply chain risk
management. Production and Operations Management 21, 1–13.
Sodhi, M.S., Tang, C.S., 2009. Modeling supply-chain planning under demand uncertainty
using stochastic programming: A survey motivated by asset–liability management.
International Journal of Production Economics 121, 728–738.
Son, J.Y., Orchard, R.K., 2013. Effectiveness of policies for mitigating supply disruptions.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 43, 684–706.
Speier, C., Whipple, J.M., Closs, D.J., Voss, M.D., 2011. Global supply chain design
considerations: Mitigating product safety and security risks. Journal of Operations
Management 29, 721–736.
Sucky, E., 2009. The bullwhip effect in supply chains – An overestimated problem?
International Journal of Production Economics 118, 311–322.
Sun, J., Matsui, M., Yin, Y., 2012. Supplier risk management: An economic model of P-chart
considered due-date and quality risks. International Journal of Production Economics
139, 58–64.
Talluri, S., Cetin, K., Gardner, A.J., 2004. Integrating demand and supply variability into
safety stock evaluations. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 34, 62–69.
Talluri, S., Kull, T.J., Yildiz, H., Yoon, J., 2013. Assessing the efficiency of risk mitigation
strategies in supply chains. Journal of Business Logistics 34, 253–269.
Talluri, S., Narasimhan, R., 2003. Vendor evaluation with performance variability: A max–
min approach. European Journal of Operational Research 146, 543–552.
Talluri, S., Narasimhan, R., Chung, W., 2010. Manufacturer cooperation in supplier
development under risk. European Journal of Operational Research 207, 165–173.
Talluri, S., Narasimhan, R., Nair, A., 2006. Vendor performance with supply risk: A chance-
constrained DEA approach. International Journal of Production Economics 100, 212–
222.
Tang, C.S., 2006a. Perspectives in supply chain risk management. International Journal of
Production Economics 103, 451–488.
Tang, C.S., 2006b. Robust strategies for mitigating supply chain disruptions. International
Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications 9, 33–45.

37 / 55
Tang, C.S., Tomlin, B., 2008. The power of flexibility for mitigating supply chain risks.
International Journal of Production Economics 116, 12–27.
Tang, O., Musa, S.N., 2011. Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply
chain risk management. International Journal of Production Economics 133, 25–34.
Tang, O., Musa, S.N., Li, J., 2012. Dynamic pricing in the newsvendor problem with yield
risks. International Journal of Production Economics 139, 127–134.
Tapiero, C.S., 2007. Consumers risk and quality control in a collaborative supply chain.
European Journal of Operational Research 182, 683–694.
Tomlin, B., 2006. On the value of mitigation and contingency strategies for managing supply
chain disruption risks. Management Science 52, 639–657.
Tomlin, B., 2009. Disruption-management strategies for short life-cycle products. Naval
Research Logistics 56, 318–347.
Towill, D.R., 2005. The impact of business policy on bullwhip induced risk in supply chain
management. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
35, 555–575.
Thun, J., Hoenig, D., 2011. An empirical analysis of supply chain risk management in the
German automotive industry. International Journal of Production Economics 131, 242–
249.
Trkman, P., McCormack, K., 2009. Supply chain risk in turbulent environments – A
conceptual model for managing supply chain network risk. International Journal of
Production Economics 119, 247–258.
Tsai, C.Y., 2008. On supply chain cash flow risks. Decision Support Systems 44, 1031–1042.
Tsai, M.C., Liao, C.H., Han, C.S., 2008. Risk perception on logistics outsourcing of retail
chains: Model development and empirical verification in Taiwan. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 13, 415–424.
Tse, Y.K., Tan, K.H., 2011. Managing product quality risk in a multi-tier global supply chain.
International Journal of Production Research 49, 139–158.
Tummala, R., Schoenherr, T., 2011. Assessing and managing risks using the supply chain
risk management process (SCRMP). Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal 16, 474–483.
Tuncel, G., Alpan, G., 2010. Risk assessment and management for supply chain networks: A
case study. Computers in Industry 61, 250–259.
Vedel., M., Ellegaard, C., 2013. Supply risk management functions of sourcing
intermediaries: An investigation of the clothing industry. Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal 18, 509–522.
Viswanadham, N., Samvedi, A., 2013. Supplier selection based on supply chain ecosystem,
performance and risk criteria, International Journal of Production Research 51, 6484–
6498.
Wagner, S.M., Bode, C., 2006. An empirical investigation into supply chain vulnerability.
Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 12, 301–312.
Wagner, S.M., Bode, C., 2008. An empirical examination of supply chain performance along
several dimensions of risk. Journal of Business Logistics 29, 307–325.
38 / 55
Wagner, S.M., Neshat, N., 2010. Assessing the vulnerability of supply chains using graph
theory. International Journal of Production Economics 126, 121–129.
Wagner, S.M., Silveira-Camargos, V., 2012. Managing risks in Just-in-sequence supply
networks: Exploratory evidence from automakers. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management 59, 52–64.
Wakolbinger, T., Cruz, J.M., 2011. Supply chain disruption risk management through
strategic information acquisition and sharing and risk-sharing contracts. International
Journal of Production Research 49, 4063–4084.
Wang, X., Chan, H.K., Yee, R.W.Y., Diaz-Rainey, I., 2012. A two-stage fuzzy-AHP model
for risk assessment of implementing green initiatives in the fashion supply chain.
International Journal of Production Economics 135, 595–606.
Wang, Y., Gilland, W., Tomlin, B., 2011. Regulatory trade risk and supply chain strategy.
Production and Operations Management 20, 522–540.
Wiengarten, F., Pagell, M., Fynes, B., 2013. The importance of contextual factors in the
success of outsourcing contracts in the supply chain environment: The role of risk and
complementary practices. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 18,
630–643.
Wu, D., Olson, D.L., 2008. Supply chain risk, simulation, and vendor selection. International
Journal of Production Economics 114, 646–655.
Wu, D., Wu, D.D., Zhang, Y., Olson, D.L., 2013. Supply chain outsourcing risk using an
integrated stochastic-fuzzy optimization approach. Information Sciences 235, 242–258.
Wu, D.D, Olson, D., 2010. Enterprise risk management: A DEA VaR approach in vendor
selection. International Journal of Production Research 48, 4919–4932.
Wu, D.D., Zhang, Y., Wu, D., Olson, D.L., 2010. Fuzzy multi-objective programming for
supplier selection and risk modeling: A possibility approach. European Journal of
Operational Research 200, 774–787.
Wu, T., Blackhurst, J., Chidambaram, V., 2006. A model for inbound supply risk analysis.
Computers in Industry 57, 350–365.
Wu, T., Blackhurst, J., O’grady, P., 2007. Methodology for supply chain disruption analysis.
International Journal of Production Research 45, 1665–1682.
Xanthopoulos, A., Vlachos, D., Iakovou, E., 2012. Optimal newsvendor policies for dual-
sourcing supply chains: A disruption risk management framework. Computers &
Operations Research 39, 350–357.
Xia, D., Chen, B., 2011. A comprehensive decision-making model for risk management of
supply chain. Expert Systems with Applications 38, 4957–4966.
Xia, Y., Ramachandran, K., Gurnani, H., 2011. Sharing demand and supply risk in a supply
chain. IIE Transactions 43, 451–469.
Xiao, T., Yang, D., 2008. Price and service competition of supply chains with risk-averse
retailers under demand uncertainty. International Journal of Production Economics 114,
187–200.

39 / 55
Xiao, T., Yang, D., 2009. Risk sharing and information revelation mechanism of a one-
manufacturer and one-retailer supply chain facing an integrated competitor. European
Journal of Operational Research 196, 1076–1085.
Yang, B., Yang, Y., 2010. Postponement in supply chain risk management: A complexity
perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 48, 1901–1912.
Yang, Z.B., Aydın, G., Babich, V., Beil, D.R., 2009. Supply disruptions, asymmetric
information, and a backup production option. Management Science 55, 192–209.
Yu, H., Zeng, A.Z., Zhao, L., 2009. Single or dual sourcing: Decision-making in the presence
of supply chain disruption risks. Omega 37, 788–800.
Zhang, K., Chai, Y., Yang, S.X., Weng, D., 2011. Pre-warning analysis and application in
traceability systems for food production supply chains. Expert Systems with
Applications 38, 2500–2507.
Zsidisin, G.A., 2003. A grounded definition of supply risk. Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management 9, 217–224.
Zsidisin, G.A., Ellram, L.M., 2003. An agency theory investigation of supply risk
management. The Journal of Supply Chain Management 8, 15–26.
Zsidisin, G.A., Ellram, L.M., Carter, J.R., Cavinato, J.L., 2004. An analysis of supply risk
assessment techniques. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 34, 397–413.
Zsidisin, G.A., Melnyk, S.A., Ragatz, G.L., 2005. An institutional theory perspective of
business continuity planning for purchasing and supply management. International
Journal of Production Research, 43(16), 3401–3420.
Zsidisin, G.A., Smith, M.E., 2005. Managing supply risk with early supplier involvement: A
case study and research propositions. The Journal of Supply Chain Management 11,
44–57.

40 / 55
Figure 1. Distribution of number of journal articles over the last 11 years.

Define the search terms

Identify the databases

Determine and apply

criteria for inclusion
and exclusion

Refer to the reference

lists of the shortlisted
articles

Ensure that the

resulting articles are
representative

Figure 2. Flowchart of the research methodology.

41 / 55
 Figure 3. Conceptual framework of supply chain risks.

Figure 4. Distribution of number of quantitative and qualitative methods over the last 11 years.

42 / 55
Table 1. A summary of topics covered by previous SCRM review articles.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Quantitative

Risk classification Tang and Tang and Tang and Tang and Tang and Tang and
Musa Musa Musa Musa Musa Musa
(2011) (2011) (2011) (2011) (2011) (2011)
Risk factor analysis Rao and Rao and Rao and Rao and Rao and Rao and
Goldsby Goldsby Goldsby Goldsby Goldsby Goldsby
(2009) (2009) (2009) (2009) (2009) (2009)
Risk management methods Tang Tang Tang
(2006a) (2006a) (2006a)
Risk gap identification Colicchia Colicchia Colicchia Colicchia Colicchia Colicchia Colicchia Colicchia
and and and and and and and and
Strozzi Strozzi Strozzi Strozzi Strozzi Strozzi Strozzi Strozzi
(2012) (2012) (2012) (2012) (2012) (2012) (2012) (2012)
Qualitative

Risk classification Tang and Tang and Tang and Tang and Tang and Tang and
Musa Musa Musa Musa Musa Musa
(2011) (2011) (2011) (2011) (2011) (2011)
Risk factor analysis Rao and Rao and Rao and Rao and Rao and Rao and
Goldsby Goldsby Goldsby Goldsby Goldsby Goldsby
(2009) (2009) (2009) (2009) (2009) (2009)
Risk management methods

Risk gap identification Colicchia Colicchia Colicchia Colicchia Colicchia Colicchia Colicchia Colicchia
and and and and and and and and
Strozzi Strozzi Strozzi Strozzi Strozzi Strozzi Strozzi Strozzi
(2012) (2012) (2012) (2012) (2012) (2012) (2012) (2012)

43 / 55
Table 2. Definitions of supply chain risk given by researchers.
Authors Definitions of supply chain risk Scopes
Zsidisin (2003, p. 222) “The probability of an incident associated with Supply risk only
inbound supply from individual supplier failures or
the supply market occurring, in which its outcomes
result in the inability of the purchasing firm to meet
customer demand or cause threats to customer life
and safety.”
Jüttner et al. (2003, p. “Any risks for the information, material and product Information, material,
200) flows from original suppliers to the delivery of the and product flow risks
final product for the end user.”
Wagner and Bode (2006, “The negative deviation from the expected value of a General risks
p. 303) certain performance measure, resulting in negative
consequences for the focal firm.”
Bogataj and Bogataj “The potential variation of outcomes that influence General risks
(2007, p. 291) the decrease of value added at any activity cell in a
chain.”
Ellis et al. (2010, p. 36) “An individual’s perception of the total potential loss Supply risk only
associated with the disruption of supply of a
particular purchased item from a particular supplier.”

Table 3. Definitions of SCRM given by researchers.

Authors Definitions of SCRM Scopes
Jüttner et al. (2003, p. “The identification and management of risks for the Identification and
201) and Jüttner (2005, p. supply chain, through a co-ordinated approach management processes
124) amongst supply chain members, to reduce supply
chain vulnerability as a whole.”
Norrman and Jansson “To collaborate with partners in a supply chain apply Generic processes
(2004, p. 436) risk management process tools to deal with risks and
uncertainties caused by, or impacting on, logistics
related activities or resources.”
Tang (2006a, p. 453) “The management of supply chain risks through Generic processes
coordination or collaboration among the supply chain
partners so as to ensure profitability and continuity.”
Goh et al. (2007, p. 164- “The identification and management of risks within Identification and
165) the supply network and externally through a co- management processes
ordinated approach amongst supply chain members
to reduce supply chain vulnerability as a whole.”
Thun and Hoenig (2011, “Characterized by a cross-company orientation Identification and
p. 243) aiming at the identification and reduction of risks not mitigation processes
only at the company level, but rather focusing on the
entire supply chain”

44 / 55
Table 4. Supply chain risk types identified by researchers.
Authors Risk types

Harland et al. (2003) Strategic, operations, supply, customer, asset impairment, competitive, reputation, financial,
fiscal, regulatory, and legal risks
Jüttner et al. (2003)  Environmental risk
 Network-related risk
 Organizational risk
Cavinato (2004) Physical, financial, informational, relational, and innovational risks

Chopra and Sodhi (2004) Disruptions, delays, systems, forecast, intellectual property, procurement, receivables,
inventory, and capacity risks
Christopher and Peck  External to the network: environmental risk
(2004)  External to the firm but internal to the supply chain network: demand and supply risks
 Internal to the firm: process and control risks
Tang (2006a)  Operational risks: uncertain customer demand, uncertain supply, and uncertain cost
 Disruption risks: earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, terrorist attacks, economics crises
Wu et al. (2006)  Internal risks: internal controllable, internal partially controllable, internal uncontrollable
 External risks: external controllable, external partially controllable, external uncontrollable
Bogataj and Bogataj (2007) Supply, process (production or distribution), demand, control, and environmental risks
Blackhurst et al. (2008) Disruptions/disasters, logistics, supplier dependence, quality, information systems, forecast,
legal, intellectual property, procurement, receivables (accounting), inventory, capacity,
management, and security risks
Manuj and Mentzer (2008) Supply, demand, operational, and other risks
Tang and Tomlin (2008) Supply, process, demand, intellectual property, behavioral, and political/social risks
Wagner and Bode (2008) Demand side, supply side, regulatory and legal, infrastructure risk, and catastrophic risks
Trkman and McCormack  Endogenous risks: market and technology turbulence
(2009)  Exogenous risks: discrete events (e.g., terrorist attacks, contagious diseases, workers’
strikes) and continuous risks (e.g., inflation rate, consumer price index changes)
Kumar et al. (2010)  Internal operational risks: demand, production and distribution, supply risks
 External operational risks: terrorist attacks, natural disasters, exchange rate fluctuations
Olson and Wu (2010)  Internal risks: available capacity, internal operation, information system risks
 External risks: nature, political system, competitor and market risks
Ravindran et al. (2010)  Value-at-risk (VaR): labor strike, terrorist attack, natural disaster
 Miss-the-target (MtT): late delivery, missing quality requirements
Lin and Zhou (2011)  Risk in the external environment
 Risk within the supply chain
 Internal risk
Tang and Musa (2011) Material flow, financial flow, and information flow risks
Tummala and Schoenherr Demand, delay, disruption, inventory, manufacturing (process) breakdown, physical plant
(2011) (capacity), supply (procurement), system, sovereign, and transportation risks
Samvedi et al. (2013) Supply, demand, process, and environmental risks

45 / 55
Table 5. Classification of supply chain risk factors identified by researchers into the conceptual framework.
Factors Macro factors Micro factors

Demand factors Manufacturing factors Supply factors Information factors Transportation factors Financial factors
Authors
Zsidisin and Inability to handle volume
Ellram (2003) demand changes; failures to
make delivery
requirements; cannot
provide competitive pricing;
technologically behind
competitors; inability to
meet quality requirements
Chopra and Natural disaster; Inaccurate forecasts; Labor dispute; rate of Supplier bankruptcy; Information Excessive handling Exchange rate;
Sodhi (2004) war and terrorism bullwhip effect or product obsolescence; Dependency on a single infrastructure due to border financial strength of
information distortion; inventory holding cost; source of supply; the breakdown; system crossings or to change customers
demand uncertainty cost of capacity; capacity capacity and integration or in transportation
flexibility responsiveness of extensive systems modes
alternative suppliers; high networking;
capacity utilization at E-commerce
supply source; inflexibility
of supply source; poor
quality or yield at supply
source; global outsourcing;
percentage of a key
component or raw material
procured from a single
source; industrywide
capacity utilization; long-
versus short-term contracts;
supply uncertainty
Cucchiella and Political Manufacturing yield Available capacity; Supplier quality Information delays Price fluctuations;
Gastaldi (2006) environment internal organization stochastic cost
Gaudenzi and Customer fragmentation; Short life time products; Narrow number of Lack of information Lack of outbound
Borghesi high level of service linked phases in intermediate suppliers; low transparency between effectiveness; transport
(2006) required by customers; manufacturing; stock intermediate suppliers’ logistics and marketing providers’
serious forecasting driven supply chain; integration; lack of fragmentation; lack of
errors; short lead times warehouse and production integration with final- transport providers’
disruption product supplier; lack of integration; damages
intermediate suppliers’ in transport; no
visibility; lack of final- transport solution
product suppliers’ visibility alternatives

46 / 55
Wu et al. Fire accidents; Sudden shoot-up Quality; production Supplier management; Internet security On-time delivery; Cost; financial and
(2006) External legal demand; capabilities/capacity; supplier market strength; accidents in insurance issues; loss
issues; production flexibility; continuity of supply; transportation; of contract; low
political/economic technical/knowledge second-tier supplier maritime pirate attack; profit margin; market
stability resources; employee remote high-way theft growth; market size
accidents; labor strikes
Kull and Talluri Delivery failure; cost
(2008) failure; quality failure;
flexibility failure; general
confidence failure
Manuj and Demand variability; Inventory ownership; Supplier opportunism; Currency
Mentzer (2008) forecast errors; asset and tools ownership; inbound product quality; fluctuations; wage
competitor moves product quality and safety transit time variability rate shifts
Schoenherr et Sovereign risk; ANSI compliance; Wrong partner; supplier’s On-time/on-budget Product cost
al. (2008) natural product quality; supplier management delivery
disasters/terrorists engineering and
innovation
Tsai (2008) Lead time for
internal processing
and the timing of its
related cash
outflows; credit
periods for accounts
receivable to its
customers and the
pattern of early
collection of
accounts receivable;
credit periods for
accounts payable
from its suppliers and
the pattern of early
payment of accounts
payable
Tuncel and Deficient or missing Operator absence; strikes; Monopoly; contractual Stress on crew; lack of
Alpan (2010) customer relation dissatisfaction with work; agreements; technological training; long working
management function; insufficient maintenance; changes; low technical times; negligently
high competition in the instable manufacturing reliability maintenance; old
marketplace process; loss of technology; selected
motivation; lack of delivery modes and
experience or training; period
insufficient breaks;
working conditions
Wagner and Short products’ life Lean inventory; Small supply base; Global sourcing

47 / 55
Neshat (2010) cycles; customers’ centralized storage of suppliers’ dependency; network; supply chain
dependency; low in- finished products single sourcing complexity
house production
Tummala and Natural disasters; Order fulfilment errors; Labor disputes; costs of Single source of supply; Information Excessive handling Rate of exchange
Schoenherr terrorism and inaccurate forecasts; holding inventories; rate capacity and responsiveness infrastructure due to border crossings
(2011) wars; regional information distortion; of product obsolescence; of alternative suppliers; breakdowns; lack of or change in
instability; demand uncertainty poor quality; lower supply uncertainty; supplier effective system transportation mode;
government process yields; higher fulfilment; quality of integration or extensive port capacity and
regulations product cost; design service, including system networking; congestion; custom
changes; lack of capacity responsiveness and delivery lack of compatibility in clearances at ports;
flexibility; cost of performance; supplier IT platforms among transportation
capacity fulfilment errors; selection supply chain partners breakdowns;
of wrong partners; high paperwork and
capacity utilization at scheduling; port
supply source; inflexibility strikes; late deliveries;
of supply source; poor higher costs of
quality or process yield at transportation;
supply source; supplier dependency on
bankruptcy; percentage of a transportation mode
key component or raw chosen
material procured from a
single source
Hahn and Kuhn Demand uncertainty Resource breakdown; Supply uncertainty; supplier Interest rate level;
(2012a) quality issues solvency exchange rates
Samvedi et al. Terrorism; Sudden fluctuations; Machine failure; labor Outsourcing; supplier
(2013) political market changes; strike; quality problems; insolvency; quality; sudden
instability; natural competition changes; technological change hike in costs
disasters; forecast errors
economic
downturns; social
and cultural
grievances

48 / 55
Table 6. Summary of supply chain risk factors.
Macro risk factors Micro risk factors

Demand risk factors Manufacturing risk factors Supply risk factors Infrastructural risk factors
Information risk factors Transportation risk factors Financial risk factors
 Natural disaster  Inaccurate demand  Labor disputes/strikes  Inability to handle volume  Information infrastructure  Excessive handling due to  Exchange rate
 War and terrorism forecasts  Employee accidents demand changes breakdown border crossings or change  Currency fluctuations
 Fire accidents  Serious forecasting  Operator absence  Failures to make delivery  System integration or in transportation modes  Interest rate level
 Political instability errors  Dissatisfaction with work requirements extensive systems  Lack of outbound  Wage rate shifts
 Economic  Bullwhip effect or  Lack of experience or  Cannot provide networking effectiveness  Financial strength of
downturns information distortion training competitive pricing  E-commerce  Transport providers’ customers
 External legal  Demand uncertainty  Insufficient breaks  Technologically behind  Information delays fragmentation  Price fluctuations
issues  Sudden shoot-up  Working conditions competitors  Lack of information  No transport solution  Product cost
demand  Inability to meet quality transparency between alternatives
 Sovereign risk  Product obsolescence  Financial and insurance
logistics and marketing  On-time/on-budget
 Regional  Demand variability  Inventory holding cost requirements issues
 Internet security
instability  Customer fragmentation  Stock driven supply chain  Supplier bankruptcy delivery  Loss of contract
 Lack of compatibility in IT
 Government  High level of service  Inventory ownership  Single supply sourcing  Damages in transport  Low profit margin
platforms among supply
regulations required by customers  Lean inventory  Small supply base chain partners  Accidents in transportation  Market growth
 Social and cultural  Customer dependency  Production flexibility  Suppliers’ dependency  Maritime pirate attack  Market size
grievances  Deficient or missing  Production  Supply responsiveness  Remote high-way theft  Lead time for internal
customer relation capabilities/capacity  High capacity utilization  Stress on crew processing and the timing
management function  Products quality and ay supply source  Lack of training of its related cash outflows
 Short lead times safety  Global outsourcing  Long working times  Credit periods for accounts
 Short products’ life  Technical/knowledge  Narrow number of  Negligently maintenance receivable to its customers
cycle resources intermediate suppliers  Old technology and the pattern of early
 Competitor moves  Engineering and  Lack of integration with  Transportation breakdowns collection of accounts
 Competition changes innovation suppliers  Port strikes receivable
 Market changes  Shorter life time products  Lack of suppliers’  Global sourcing network  Credit periods for accounts
 High competition in the  Linked phases in visibility  Supply chain complexity payable from its suppliers
market manufacturing  Supplier management  Port capacity and and the pattern of early
 Low in-house  Warehouse and production  Supplier market strength congestion payment of accounts
production disruption  Supplier opportunism  Custom clearances at ports payable
 Order fulfilment errors  Insufficient maintenance  Monopoly  Paperwork and scheduling
 Instable manufacturing  Selection of wrong partner  Higher costs of
process  Transit time variability transportation
 Centralized storage of  Contractual agreements
finished products  Low technical reliability
 Design changes  Supplier fulfilment errors
 Technological change  Sudden hike in costs

49 / 55
Table 7. Summary of individual quantitative methods.
Methods No. of Authors
articles
1. Analytical methods 112
Mathematical programming 47
 Unconstrained and constrained mathematical 9 Tomlin (2006), Chopra et al. (2007), He and Zhang
programming (2008), Tang and Tomlin (2008), Chen and Yano
(2010), Iakovou et al. (2010), Wang et al. (2011),
Gümüş et al. (2012), Xanthopoulos et al. (2012)
 Linear programming 5 Kaya and Özer (2009), Meena et al. (2011), Schmitt
(2011), Qiang and Nagurney (2012), Radke and Tseng
(2012)
 Nonlinear programming 5 Cruz et al. (2006), Cruz (2009), Raghavan and Mishra
(2011), Kang and Kim (2012), Kim et al. (2012)
 Integer nonlinear programming 4 Baghalian et al. (2013), Hishamuddin et al. (2013),
Kumar and Tiwari (2013), Meena and Sarmah (2013)
 Stochastic linear programming 4 Sodhi (2005), Keren (2009), Sodhi and Tang (2009),
Mak and Shen (2012)
 Stochastic integer linear programming 3 Snyder et al. (2007), Lejeune (2008), Sawik (2013a)
 Max-mix linear programming 2 Talluri and Narasimhan (2003), Yang et al. (2009)
 Mixed integer linear programming 2 Georgiadis et al. (2011), Sawik (2013b)
 Multi-objective mixed integer linear programming 2 Ravindran et al. (2010), Wakolbinger and Cruz (2011)
 Multi-stage stochastic programming 2 Goh et al. (2007), Shi et al. (2011)
 Two-stage stochastic integer programming 2 Poojari et al. (2008), Hahn and Kuhn (2012b)
 Convex mixed integer programming 1 Azad and Davoudpour (2013)
 Integer linear programming 1 Hale and Moberg (2005)
 Multi-objective stochastic programming 1 Azaron et al. (2008)
 Multi-period deterministic linear programming 1 Ben-Tal et al. (2011)
 Parametric linear programming 1 Bogataj and Bogataj (2007)
 Quadratic programming 1 Talluri et al. (2010)
 Stochastic dynamic programming 1 Kenné et al. (2012)
Newsvendor model 10 Cachon (2004), Rao et al. (2005), Chen et al. (2006), Li
(2007), Tomlin (2009), Giri (2011), Xia et al. (2011),
Arcelus et al. (2012), Tang et al. (2012), Cheong and
Song (2013)
Simulation 10 Smaros et al. (2003), Crnkovic et al. (2008), Kull and
Closs (2008), Colicchia et al. (2010), Durowoju et al.
(2012), Schmitt and Singh (2012), Berle et al. (2013),
Glock and Ries (2013), Kim (2013), Son and Orchard
(2013)
Analytic hierarchy process 3 Wu et al. (2006), Gaudenzi and Borghesi (2006),
Schoenherr et al. (2008)
Game theory 3 Xiao and Yang (2008), Xiao and Yang (2009), Li et al.
(2010)
Decision tree approach 2 Berger et al. (2004), Ruiz-Torres and Mahmoodi (2007)
Interpretive structural modelling 2 Faisal et al. (2006), Diabat et al. (2012)
Variational inequality model 2 Liu and Nagurney (2011), Cruz (2013)
Analytic network process 1 Xia and Chen (2011)
Automatic pipeline inventory and order based 1 Towill (2005)
production control system algorithm
Association rule hiding algorithm 1 Le et al. (2013)
Approximate dynamic programming algorithm 1 Fang et al. (2013)
Bayesian networks 1 Lockamy III and McCormack (2010)
Buyer’s risk adjustment quantity discount model 1 Shin and Benton (2007)
Cash conversion cycle 1 Tsai (2008)
Comparisons of chance-constrained programming, data 1 Wu and Olson (2008)

50 / 55
envelopment analysis, and multi-objective programming
models
Constrained multi-item (Q, r) inventory model 1 Betts and Johnston (2005)
Disruption analysis network approach 1 Wu et al. (2007)
Dynamic system model 1 Huang et al. (2009)
Expected profit functions 1 Yu et al. (2009)
Fault tree approach 1 Cigolini and Rossi (2010)
Federated databases 1 Du et al. (2003)
Harsanyi–Selten–Nash bargaining framework 1 Bakshi and Kleindorfer (2009)
Hybrid Petri-net 1 Khilwani et al. (2011)
Margin incremental analysis 1 Tse and Tan (2011)
Macro prediction market model 1 Guo et al. (2006)
Mean–variance analysis 1 Chiu et al. (2011)
Multi-criteria scoring models 1 Blackhurst et al. (2008),
Multi Kanban system for disassembly 1 Nakashima and Gupta (2012)
Network flow modelling 1 Lundin (2012)
Pugh method adaption 1 Dietrich and Cudney (2011)
Principal-agent model 1 Lei et al. (2012)
P-chart solution model 1 Sun et al. (2012)
Random yield model 1 He (2013)
Safety stock evaluation method 1 Talluri et al. (2004)
Single stochastic period approximation 1 Schmitt et al. (2010)
Specifying sources of risk vulnerabilities, assessment and 1 Kleindorfer and Saad (2005)
mitigation framework
Stochastic economic order quantity model 1 Ballou and Burnetas (2003)
Supply network opportunity assessment package 1 Brun et al. (2006)
methodology
Supply chain resilience assessment and management 1 Pettit et al. (2013)
Two-period financial modelling 1 Aggarwal and Ganeshan (2007)
2. Empirical methods 7
Multiple regression model 3 Hung and Ryu (2008), Laeequddin et al. (2009),
Skipper and Hanna (2009)
Partial least squares analysis 1 Kern et al. (2012)
Quantitative survey analysis 1 Speier et al. (2011)
Real options theory 1 Hult et al. (2010)
Statistical analysis 1 Lavastre et al. (2012)
Total 119

51 / 55
Table 8. Summary of integrated quantitative methods.
Methods No. of Authors
articles
1. Analytical methods 36
Fuzzy set theory; Multi-objective mathematical programming 3 Kumar et al. (2006), Wu et al.
(2010), Ji and Zhu (2012)
Analytic hierarchy process; Fuzzy set theory 2 Chan and Kumar (2007), Wang et
al. (2012)
Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process; Fuzzy technique for order preference by 2 Samvedi et al. (2013),
similarity to the ideal solution Viswanadham and Samvedi
(2013)
Analytic hierarchy process; Goal programming 1 Kull and Talluri (2008)
Analytic hierarchy process; Quality function deployment 1 Ho et al. (2011)
Analytic hierarchy process; A modified failure mode and effect analysis 1 Chen and Wu (2013)
Analytic network process; Fuzzy goal programming; Five forces analysis; 1 Hung (2011)
Value-at-risk
Artificial bee colony technique; Genetic algorithms; Particle swarm 1 Kumar et al. (2010)
optimization
Chance-constrained data envelopment analysis; Non-linear programming 1 Talluri et al. (2006)
Data envelopment analysis; Fuzzy data envelopment analysis; Chance- 1 Azadeh and Alem (2010)
constrained data envelopment analysis; Monte Carlo simulation
Data envelopment analysis; Monte Carlo simulation 1 Olson and Wu (2011)
Data envelopment analysis; Value-at-risk 1 Wu and Olson (2010)
Data envelopment analysis; Simulation; Nonparametric statistical methods 1 Talluri et al. (2013)
Decision tree approach; Mathematical programming 1 Ruiz-Torres et al. (2013)
Extended dynamic demand forecast and inventory model 1 Reiner and Fichtinger (2009)
Economic Value Added; Stochastic programming 1 Hahn and Kuhn (2012a)
Failure mode, effects and criticality analysis technique; Petri-nets 1 Tuncel and Alpan (2010)
Failure mode and effect analysis; Quality function deployment 1 Pujawan and Geraldin (2009)
Forecasting and statistical techniques 1 Sucky (2009)
Fuzzy set theory; Radial base function neural network 1 Zhang et al. (2011)
Fuzzy set theory; Multi-criteria decision making 1 Haleh and Hamidi (2011)
Fuzzy set theory; Stochastic multi-objective programming 1 Wu et al. (2013)
Fuzzy set theory; Failure mode and effect analysis; Ordered weighted 1 Chaudhuri et al. (2013)
averaging
Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity; Vector Auto 1 Datta et al. (2007)
Regression
Genetic algorithm; Statistical methods 1 Sayed et al. (2009)
Graph theory; Supply chain vulnerability index 1 Wagner and Neshat (2010)
Lagrangian relaxation; Integer nonlinear programming model 1 Park et al. (2010)
Monte Carlo simulation; Real options approach; Sensitivity analysis 1 Costantino and Pellegrino (2010)
Multi-objective optimization; Six Sigma 1 Franca et al. (2010)
Neyman–Pearson theory; Statistical quality control 1 Tapiero (2007)
Supply chain risk structure model; Supply chain risk dynamics model 1 Oehmen et al. (2009)
Variational inequality model; Capital asset pricing model; Net present 1 Liu and Cruz (2012)
value
2. Empirical methods 4
Analytic hierarchy process; Survey; Wards’ and K-mean clustering; 1 Tsai et al. (2008)
Nonparametric Spearman rank correlation test
Cluster analysis; Factor analysis 1 Hallikas et al. (2005)
Exploratory factor analysis; Regression models; Reliability tests 1 Zsidisin and Ellram (2003)
Structural equation modelling technique; Partial least squares analysis 1 Braunscheidel and Suresh (2009)
Total 40

52 / 55
 Table 9. Distribution of number of quantitative and qualitative methods over the individual and integrated SCRM processes.
SCRM processes Qualitative methods Quantitative methods
Individual Identification Adhitya et al. (2009), Blos et al. (2009), Neiger et al. (2009), Trkman Analytical: Gaudenzi and Borghesi (2006)
process and McCormack (2009), Kayis and Karningsih (2012) Empirical: Tsai et al. (2008)
Number: 5 Percentage: 2.40% Number: 2 Percentage: 0.96%
Assessment Zsidisin et al. (2004), Craighead et al. (2007), Ellegaard (2008), Jüttner Analytical: Ballou and Burnetas (2003), Smaros et al. (2003), Talluri and Narasimhan (2003), Cachon (2004), Talluri et
and Maklan (2011), Johnson et al. (2013), Wiengarten et al. (2013) al. (2004), Betts and Johnston (2005), Sodhi (2005), Brun et al. (2006), Kumar et al. (2006), Talluri et al. (2006),
Bogataj and Bogataj (2007), Chan and Kumar (2007), Wu et al. (2007), Blackhurst et al. (2008), Kull and Closs (2008),
Kull and Talluri (2008), Schoenherr et al. (2008), Tsai (2008), Wu and Olson (2008), Xiao and Yang (2008), Reiner and
Fichtinger (2009), Sucky (2009), Tomlin (2009), Azadeh and Alem (2010), Cigolini and Rossi (2010), Franca et al.
(2010), Iakovou et al. (2010), Kumar et al. (2010), Lockamy III and McCormack (2010), Ravindran et al. (2010),
Wagner and Neshat (2010), Wu and Olson (2010), Wu et al. (2010), Dietrich and Cudney (2011), Ho et al. (2011),
Khilwani et al. (2011), Liu and Nagurney (2011), Meena et al. (2011), Olson and Wu (2011), Tse and Tan (2011), Wang
et al. (2011), Durowoju et al. (2012), Ji and Zhu (2012), Liu and Cruz (2012), Radke and Tseng (2012), Wang et al.
(2012), Berle et al. (2013), Chaudhuri et al. (2013), Chen and Wu (2013), Cheong and Song (2013), Pettit et al. (2013),
Ruiz-Torres et al. (2013), Samvedi et al. (2013), Viswanadham and Samvedi (2013)
Empirical: Laeequddin et al. (2009), Hult et al. (2010)
Number: 6 Percentage: 2.88% Number: 56 Percentage: 26.92%
Mitigation Christopher and Lee (2004), Giunipero and Eltantawy (2004), Zsidisin Analytical: Du et al. (2003), Berger et al. (2004), Hale and Moberg (2005), Rao et al. (2005), Towill (2005), Chen et al.
and Smith (2005), Zsidisin et al. (2005), Choi and Krause (2006), Tang (2006), Cruz et al. (2006), Faisal et al. (2006), Guo et al. (2006), Tomlin (2006), Aggarwal and Ganeshan (2007),
(2006b), Khan et al. (2008), Manuj and Mentzer (2008), Dowty and Chopra et al. (2007), Datta et al. (2007), Li (2007), Ruiz-Torres and Mahmoodi (2007), Shin and Benton (2007), Snyder
Wallace (2010), Yang and Yang (2010), Christopher et al. (2011), et al. (2007), Tapiero (2007), Crnkovic et al. (2008), He and Zhang (2008), Lejeune (2008), Tang and Tomlin (2008),
Hofmann (2011), Wagner and Silveira-Camargos (2012), Chen et al. Bakshi and Kleindorfer (2009), Cruz (2009), Huang et al. (2009), Kaya and Özer (2009), Keren (2009), Oehmen et al.
(2013), Grötsch et al. (2013), Leat and Revoredo-Giha (2013), Vedel (2009), Pujawan and Geraldin (2009), Sayed et al. (2009), Sodhi and Tang (2009), Xiao and Yang (2009), Yang et al.
and Ellegaard (2013) (2009), Yu et al. (2009), Chen and Yano (2010), Colicchia et al. (2010), Costantino and Pellegrino (2010), Li et al.
(2010), Park et al. (2010), Schmitt et al. (2010), Talluri et al. (2010), Ben-Tal et al. (2011), Chiu et al. (2011), Giri
(2011), Haleh and Hamidi (2011), Hung (2011), Raghavan and Mishra (2011), Schmitt (2011), Shi et al. (2011),
Wakolbinger and Cruz (2011), Xia et al. (2011), Arcelus et al. (2012), Gümüş et al. (2012), Hahn and Kuhn (2012b),
Kang and Kim (2012), Kenné et al. (2012), Kim et al. (2012), Lei et al. (2012), Lundin (2012), Mak and Shen (2012),
Nakashima and Gupta (2012), Schmitt and Singh (2012), Sun et al. (2012), Tang et al. (2012), Xanthopoulos et al.
(2012), Cruz (2013), Fang et al. (2013), Glock and Ries (2013), He (2013), Hishamuddin et al. (2013), Kim (2013), Le
et al. (2013), Meena and Sarmah (2013), Sawik (2013a), Sawik (2013b), Son and Orchard (2013), Talluri et al. (2013),
Wu et al. (2013)
Empirical: Zsidisin and Ellram (2003), Hallikas et al. (2005), Hung and Ryu (2008), Braunscheidel and Suresh (2009),
Skipper and Hanna (2009), Lavastre et al. (2012)
Number: 17 Percentage: 8.17% Number: 84 Percentage: 40.38%
Monitoring Analytical: Zhang et al. (2011)
Number: 0 Percentage: 0 Number: 1 Percentage: 0.48%
Integrated processes Harland et al. (2003), Chopra and Sodhi (2004), Christopher and Peck Analytical: Kleindorfer and Saad (2005), Wu et al. (2006), Goh et al. (2007), Azaron et al. (2008), Poojari et al. (2008),
(2004), Hallikas et al. (2004), Norrman and Jansson (2004), Sinha et al. Tuncel and Alpan (2010), Georgiadis et al. (2011), Xia and Chen (2011), Diabat et al. (2012), Hahn and Kuhn (2012a),
(2004), Peck (2005), Cucchiella and Gastaldi (2006), Ritchie and Qiang and Nagurney (2012), Azad and Davoudpour (2013), Baghalian et al. (2013), Kumar and Tiwari (2013)
Brindley (2007), Smith et al. (2007), Cheng and Kam (2008), Wagner Empirical: Speier et al. (2011), Kern et al. (2012)
and Bode (2008), Knemeyer et al. (2009), Oke and Gopalakrishnan
(2009), Foerstl et al. (2010), Blome and Schoenherr (2011), Giannakis
and Louis (2011), Tummala and Schoenherr (2011), Bandaly et al.
(2012), Ghadge et al. (2013), Kumar and Havey (2013)
Number: 21 Percentage: 10.10% Number: 16 Percentage: 7.69%
Total Number: 49 Percentage: 23.56% Number: 159 Percentage: 76.44%

53 / 55
 Table 10. Summary of risk types studied by the quantitative and qualitative SCRM methods.
Risk types No. of References
articles
Supply risk 70 Talluri and Narasimhan (2003), Zsidisin and Ellram (2003), Berger et al. (2004), Giunipero and Eltantawy (2004), Zsidisin et al. (2004), Hallikas et al.
(2005), Zsidisin and Smith (2005), Zsidisin et al. (2005), Choi and Krause (2006), Kumar et al. (2006), Talluri et al. (2006), Tomlin (2006), Wu et al.
(2006), Chan and Kumar (2007), Chopra et al. (2007), Ruiz-Torres and Mahmoodi (2007), Tapiero (2007), Blackhurst et al. (2008), Ellegaard (2008),
Kull and Closs (2008), Kull and Talluri (2008), Schoenherr et al. (2008), Wu and Olson (2008), Keren (2009), Trkman and McCormack (2009), Yang
et al. (2009), Yu et al. (2009), Azadeh and Alem (2010), Colicchia et al. (2010), Costantino and Pellegrino (2010), Foerstl et al. (2010), Iakovou et al.
(2010), Li et al. (2010), Lockamy III and McCormack (2010), Ravindran et al. (2010), Schmitt et al. (2010), Talluri et al. (2010), Wu et al. (2010), Wu
and Olson (2010), Blome and Schoenherr (2011), Christopher et al. (2011), Giri (2011), Haleh and Hamidi (2011), Ho et al. (2011), Meena et al.
(2011), Schmitt (2011), Shi et al. (2011), Wakolbinger and Cruz (2011), Gümüş et al. (2012), Kern et al. (2012), Kim et al. (2012), Mak and Shen
(2012), Xanthopoulos et al. (2012), Baghalian et al. (2013), Chaudhuri et al. (2013), Chen and Wu (2013), Cheong and Song (2013), Fang et al.
(2013), Grötsch et al. (2013), Glock and Ries (2013), Johnson et al. (2013), Meena and Sarmah (2013), Ruiz-Torres et al. (2013), Sawik (2013a),
Sawik (2013b), Son and Orchard (2013), Vedel and Ellegaard (2013), Viswanadham and Samvedi (2013), Wiengarten et al. (2013), Wu et al. (2013)
Demand risk 39 Ballou and Burnetas (2003), Smaros et al. (2003), Cachon (2004), Talluri et al. (2004), Betts and Johnston (2005), Rao et al. (2005), Sodhi (2005),
Towill (2005), Chen et al. (2006), Guo et al. (2006), Aggarwal and Ganeshan (2007), Datta et al. (2007), Goh et al. (2007), Shin and Benton (2007),
Snyder et al. (2007), Crnkovic et al. (2008), Hung and Ryu (2008), Lejeune (2008), Poojari et al. (2008), Xiao and Yang (2008), Huang et al. (2009),
Reiner and Fichtinger (2009), Sayed et al. (2009), Sodhi and Tang (2009), Sucky (2009), Xiao and Yang (2009), Chen and Yano (2010), Park et al.
(2010), Ben-Tal et al. (2011), Georgiadis et al. (2011), Arcelus et al. (2012), Kang and Kim (2012), Lei et al. (2012), Qiang and Nagurney (2012),
Radke and Tseng (2012), Schmitt and Singh (2012), Tang et al. (2012), Baghalian et al. (2013), Kim (2013)
Manufacturing risk 13 Li (2007), He and Zhang (2008), Khan et al. (2008), Kaya and Özer (2009), Cigolini and Rossi (2010), Dietrich and Cudney (2011), Hung (2011), Tse
and Tan (2011), Zhang et al. (2011), Kenné et al. (2012), Qiang and Nagurney (2012), Sun et al. (2012), Kumar and Tiwari (2013)
Financial risk 10 Goh et al. (2007), Azaron et al. (2008), Tsai (2008), Franca et al. (2010), Hofmann (2011), Liu and Nagurney (2011), Raghavan and Mishra (2011),
Liu and Cruz (2012), Lundin (2012), Azad and Davoudpour (2013)
Macro risk 6 Hale and Moberg (2005), Kleindorfer and Saad (2005), Tang (2006b), Knemeyer et al. (2009), Ji and Zhu (2012), Kumar and Havey (2013)
Information risk 4 Du et al. (2003), Smith et al. (2007), Durowoju et al. (2012), Le et al. (2013)
Transportation risk 1 Hishamuddin et al. (2013)

54 / 55
Table 11. Summary of industries studied by the quantitative and qualitative SCRM methods.
Application areas No. of References
articles
Automotive 15 Kumar et al. (2006), Blackhurst et al. (2008), Kull and Talluri (2008), Wagner and Bode (2008), Blos et al. (2009), Trkman and McCormack
(2009), Lockamy III and McCormack (2010), Wagner and Neshat (2010), Blome and Schoenherr (2011), Ho et al. (2011), Hofmann (2011),
Kern et al. (2012), Sun et al. (2012), Wagner and Silveira-Camargos (2012), Grötsch et al. (2013)
Electronics 12 Harland et al. (2003), Zsidisin et al. (2004), Sodhi (2005), Zsidisin et al. (2005), Wagner and Bode (2008), Blos et al. (2009), Huang et al.
(2009), Blome and Schoenherr (2011), Christopher et al. (2011), Kern et al. (2012), Kim et al. (2012), Chen and Wu (2013)
Aerospace 9 Sinha et al. (2004), Zsidisin et al. (2004), Zsidisin and Smith (2005), Zsidisin et al. (2005), Wagner and Bode (2008), Christopher et al. (2011),
Dietrich and Cudney (2011), Kern et al. (2012), Chaudhuri et al. (2013)
Fashion 6 Brun et al. (2006), Khan et al. (2008), Blome and Schoenherr (2011), Christopher et al. (2011), Wang et al. (2012), Vedel and Ellegaard (2013)
Food 6 Wagner and Bode (2008), Laeequddin et al. (2009), Dowty and Wallace (2010), Christopher et al. (2011), Zhang et al. (2011), Diabat et al.
(2012)
Pharmaceutical 6 Talluri and Narasimhan (2003), Talluri et al. (2004), Gaudenzi and Borghesi (2006), Talluri et al. (2006), Wagner and Bode (2008), Kern et al.
(2012)
IT 5 Zsidisin et al. (2004), Wu et al. (2006), Smith et al. (2007), Wagner and Bode (2008), Ravindran et al. (2010)
Agricultural 4 Ritchie and Brindley (2007), Pujawan and Geraldin (2009), Baghalian et al. (2013), Leat and Revoredo-Giha (2013)
Chemical 4 Kleindorfer and Saad (2005), Wagner and Bode (2008), Foerstl et al. (2010), Kern et al. (2012)
Energy 4 Adhitya et al. (2009), Cigolini and Rossi (2010), Blome and Schoenherr (2011), Kern et al. (2012)
Telecommunications 4 Norrman and Jansson (2004), Zsidisin et al. (2004), Wagner and Neshat (2010), Hung (2011)
Logistics 3 Wagner and Bode (2008), Blome and Schoenherr (2011), Berle et al. (2013)
Metal 3 Hallikas et al. (2005), Wagner and Bode (2008), Kern et al. (2012)
Retail 3 Tsai et al. (2008), Oke and Gopalakrishnan (2009), Le et al. (2013)
Banking 2 Blome and Schoenherr (2011), Lundin (2012)
Machinery 2 Wagner and Bode (2008), Kern et al. (2012)
Insurance 1 Blome and Schoenherr (2011)
Toy manufacturing 1 Tse and Tan (2011)

55 / 55