research papers on supply chain

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Supply chain management: a review and bibliometric analysis.

1. Introduction

2. data collection and analysis methods, 3.1. contribution of leading research areas, 3.2. contribution of leading journals, 3.3. contribution of leading countries/regions, 3.4. contribution of leading institutions, 3.5. leading authors and corresponding authors who contributed to the scm, 3.6. analysis of yearly most cited papers, 3.7. analysis of author keywords, 4. discussion, 5. conclusions, 6. future prospects and limitations, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Stevens, G.C. Integrating the supply chain. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Mater. Manag. 1989 , 19 , 3–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, H.L.; Billington, C. Managing supply chain inventory: Pitfalls and opportunities. Sloan Manag. Rev. 1992 , 33 , 65–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, H.L.; Billington, C. Material management in decentralized supply chains. Oper. Res. 1993 , 41 , 835–847. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Copacino, W.C. Supply Chain Management: The Basics and Beyond ; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans, G.N.; Towill, D.R.; Naim, M.M. Business process re-engineering the supply chain. Prod. Plan. Control 1995 , 6 , 227–237. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blasmeier, P.W. Supply chain management: A time-based strategy. Ind. Manag. 1996 , 38 , 24–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mentzer, J.T.; DeWitt, W.; Keebler, J.S.; Min, S.; Nix, N.W.; Smith, C.D.; Zacharia, Z.G. Defining supply chain management. J. Bus. Logist. 2001 , 22 , 1–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davis, T. Effective supply chain management. Sloan Manag. Rev. 1993 , 34 , 35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray, J.V.; Skowronski, K.; Esenduran, G.; Johnny Rungtusanatham, M. The reshoring phenomenon: What supply chain academics ought to know and should do. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2013 , 49 , 27–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, S.; Ragu-Nathan, B.; Ragu-Nathan, T.; Rao, S.S. The impact of supply chain management practices on competitive advantage and organizational performance. Omega 2006 , 34 , 107–124. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hervani, A.A.; Helms, M.M.; Sarkis, J. Performance measurement for green supply chain management. Benchmarking Int. J. 2005 , 12 , 330–353. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Croxton, K.L.; Garcia-Dastugue, S.J.; Lambert, D.M.; Rogers, D.S. The supply chain management processes. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2001 , 12 , 13–36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tang, C.S. Perspectives in supply chain risk management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2006 , 103 , 451–488. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jüttner, U.; Peck, H.; Christopher, M. Supply chain risk management: Outlining an agenda for future research. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2003 , 6 , 197–210. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Manuj, I.; Mentzer, J.T. Global supply chain risk management. J. Bus. Logist. 2008 , 29 , 133–155. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ho, W.; Zheng, T.; Yildiz, H.; Talluri, S. Supply chain risk management: A literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2015 , 53 , 5031–5069. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tang, O.; Musa, S.N. Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain risk management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011 , 133 , 25–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Downey, H.K.; Hellriegel, D.; Slocum, J.W., Jr. Environmental uncertainty: The construct and its application. Adm. Sci. Q. 1975 , 20 , 613–629. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simangunsong, E.; Hendry, L.C.; Stevenson, M. Supply-chain uncertainty: A review and theoretical foundation for future research. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2012 , 50 , 4493–4523. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, S.Y.; Hsu, M.H.; Hwang, W.J. The impact of alignment between supply chain strategy and environmental uncertainty on SCM performance. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2009 , 14 , 201–212. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fynes, B.; De Burca, S.; Marshall, D. Environmental uncertainty, supply chain relationship quality and performance. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2004 , 10 , 179–190. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Christopher, M.; Lee, H. Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2004 , 34 , 388–396. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chowdhury, P.; Paul, S.K.; Kaisar, S.; Moktadir, M.A. COVID-19 pandemic related supply chain studies: A systematic review. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2021 , 148 , 102271. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Guan, D.; Wang, D.; Hallegatte, S.; Davis, S.J.; Huo, J.; Li, S.; Bai, Y.; Lei, T.; Xue, Q.; Coffman, D.M. Global supply-chain effects of COVID-19 control measures. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2020 , 4 , 577–587. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sarkis, J. Supply chain sustainability: Learning from the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2020 , 41 , 63–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Queiroz, M.M.; Ivanov, D.; Dolgui, A.; Fosso Wamba, S. Impacts of epidemic outbreaks on supply chains: Mapping a research agenda amid the COVID-19 pandemic through a structured literature review. Ann. Oper. Res. 2020 , 1–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fransoo, J.C.; Wouters, M.J. Measuring the bullwhip effect in the supply chain. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2000 , 5 , 78–89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gupta, A.; Maranas, C.D. Managing demand uncertainty in supply chain planning. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2003 , 27 , 1219–1227. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tang, C.S. Robust strategies for mitigating supply chain disruptions. Int. J. Logist. Res. 2006 , 9 , 33–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ben-Daya, M.; Hassini, E.; Bahroun, Z. Internet of things and supply chain management: A literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019 , 57 , 4719–4742. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marinagi, C.; Trivellas, P.; Sakas, D.P. The impact of information technology on the development of supply chain competitive advantage. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014 , 147 , 586–591. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhong, R.Y.; Xu, X.; Klotz, E.; Newman, S.T. Intelligent manufacturing in the context of industry 4.0: A review. Engineering 2017 , 3 , 616–630. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ivanov, D.; Dolgui, A.; Sokolov, B. The impact of digital technology and Industry 4.0 on the ripple effect and supply chain risk analytics. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019 , 57 , 829–846. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Michael, K.; McCathie, L. The pros and cons of RFID in supply chain management. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobile Business (ICMB’05), Sydney, Australia, 11–13 July 2005; pp. 623–629. [ Google Scholar ]
• Musa, A.; Dabo, A.-A.A. A review of RFID in supply chain management: 2000–2015. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 2016 , 17 , 189–228. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Srivastava, B. Radio frequency ID technology: The next revolution in SCM. Bus. Horiz. 2004 , 47 , 60–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tajima, M. Strategic value of RFID in supply chain management. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2007 , 13 , 261–273. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shen, H.; Tao, Q.; Chen, Y. Supply Chain Management Theory and Method. Chin. J. Manag. Sci. 2000 , 8 , 1–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lummus, R.R.; Vokurka, R.J. Defining supply chain management: A historical perspective and practical guidelines. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 1999 , 99 , 11–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sangari, M.S.; Razmi, J.; Zolfaghari, S. Developing a practical evaluation framework for identifying critical factors to achieve supply chain agility. Measurement 2015 , 62 , 205–214. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cousins, P.D.; Lawson, B.; Squire, B. Supply chain management: Theory and practice–the emergence of an academic discipline? Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2006 , 26 , 697–702. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stentoft, J.; Rajkumar, C. Balancing theoretical and practical relevance in supply chain management research. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2018 , 45 , 504–523. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sweeney, E.; Grant, D.B.; Mangan, D.J. The implementation of supply chain management theory in practice: An empirical investigation. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2015 , 20 , 56–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021 , 133 , 285–296. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nederhof, A.J.; Van Raan, A.F. A bibliometric analysis of six economics research groups: A comparison with peer review. Res. Policy 1993 , 22 , 353–368. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Goyal, K.; Kumar, S. Financial literacy: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2021 , 45 , 80–105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Budd, J.M. A bibliometric analysis of higher education literature. Res. High. Educ. 1988 , 28 , 180–190. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Allen, L.; Jones, C.; Dolby, K.; Lynn, D.; Walport, M. Looking for landmarks: The role of expert review and bibliometric analysis in evaluating scientific publication outputs. PLoS ONE 2009 , 4 , e5910. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dhamija, P.; Bag, S. Role of artificial intelligence in operations environment: A review and bibliometric analysis. TQM J. 2020 , 32 , 869–896. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yin, M.-S. Fifteen years of grey system theory research: A historical review and bibliometric analysis. Expert Syst. Appl. 2013 , 40 , 2767–2775. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fang, H.; Jing, Y.; Chen, J.; Wu, Y.; Wan, Y. Recent trends in sedentary time: A systematic literature review. Healthcare 2021 , 9 , 969. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, L.; Wang, X.; Li, C.; Wan, Y.; Fang, H. Bibliometric analysis of the 100 top-cited articles on immunotherapy of urological cancer. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2022 , 18 , 2035552. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fang, H.; He, L.; He, H.; Wang, X.; Wang, Y.; Ge, H.; Wan, Y.; Chen, C. The 100 most-cited articles in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A bibliometric analysis. J. Men’s Health 2022 , 18 , 3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bai, W.; Fang, H.; Wang, Y.; Zeng, Q.; Hu, G.; Bao, G.; Wan, Y. Academic Insights and Perspectives in 3D Printing: A Bibliometric Review. Appl. Sci. 2021 , 11 , 8298. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, H.; Wan, Y.; Jiang, S.; Cheng, Y. Alzheimer’s disease research in the future: Bibliometric analysis of cholinesterase inhibitors from 1993 to 2012. Scientometrics 2014 , 98 , 1865–1877. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, Y.; Cheng, Y.; Yang, X.; Yu, W.; Wan, Y. Dyslexia: A Bibliometric and Visualization Analysis. Front. Public Health 2022 , 10 , 915053. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Haustein, S.; Larivière, V. The use of bibliometrics for assessing research: Possibilities, limitations and adverse effects. In Incentives and Performance ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 121–139. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahi, P.; Searcy, C.; Jaber, M.Y. Energy-related performance measures employed in sustainable supply chains: A bibliometric analysis. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2016 , 7 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, S.; Zhang, X.; Feng, L.; Yang, W. Disruption risks in supply chain management: A literature review based on bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020 , 58 , 3508–3526. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mishra, D.; Gunasekaran, A.; Papadopoulos, T.; Hazen, B. Green supply chain performance measures: A review and bibliometric analysis. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2017 , 10 , 85–99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Feng, Y.; Zhu, Q.; Lai, K.-H. Corporate social responsibility for supply chain management: A literature review and bibliometric analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 158 , 296–307. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fahimnia, B.; Sarkis, J.; Davarzani, H. Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015 , 162 , 101–114. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Flynn, B.B.; Huo, B.; Zhao, X. The impact of supply chain integration on performance: A contingency and configuration approach. J. Oper. Manag. 2010 , 28 , 58–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sarkis, J.; Zhu, Q.; Lai, K.-h. An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain management literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011 , 130 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Govindan, K.; Soleimani, H.; Kannan, D. Reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chain: A comprehensive review to explore the future. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2015 , 240 , 603–626. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Behzadian, M.; Otaghsara, S.K.; Yazdani, M.; Ignatius, J. A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012 , 39 , 13051–13069. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Oztemel, E.; Gursev, S. Literature review of Industry 4.0 and related technologies. J. Intell. Manuf. 2020 , 31 , 127–182. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saberi, S.; Kouhizadeh, M.; Sarkis, J.; Shen, L. Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019 , 57 , 2117–2135. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kshetri, N. 1 Blockchain’s roles in meeting key supply chain management objectives. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018 , 39 , 80–89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ahi, P.; Searcy, C. A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2013 , 52 , 329–341. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brandenburg, M.; Govindan, K.; Sarkis, J.; Seuring, S. Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management: Developments and directions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2014 , 233 , 299–312. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, G.; Gunasekaran, A.; Ngai, E.W.; Papadopoulos, T. Big data analytics in logistics and supply chain management: Certain investigations for research and applications. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016 , 176 , 98–110. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, H.; Wang, X.; He, L.; Chen, P.; Wan, Y.; Yang, L.; Jiang, S. Chinese energy and fuels research priorities and trend: A bibliometric analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016 , 58 , 966–975. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carter, C.R.; Easton, P.L. Sustainable supply chain management: Evolution and future directions. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2011 , 41 , 46–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seuring, S. A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain management. Decis. Support Syst. 2013 , 54 , 1513–1520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ashby, A.; Leat, M.; Hudson-Smith, M. Making connections: A review of supply chain management and sustainability literature. Supply Chain Manag. Int. 2012 , 17 , 497–516. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Genovese, A.; Acquaye, A.A.; Figueroa, A.; Koh, S.L. Sustainable supply chain management and the transition towards a circular economy: Evidence and some applications. Omega 2017 , 66 , 344–357. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Testa, F.; Iraldo, F. Shadows and lights of GSCM (Green Supply Chain Management): Determinants and effects of these practices based on a multi-national study. J. Clean. Prod. 2010 , 18 , 953–962. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J.; Lai, K.-h. Examining the effects of green supply chain management practices and their mediations on performance improvements. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2012 , 50 , 1377–1394. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Green, K.W.; Zelbst, P.J.; Meacham, J.; Bhadauria, V.S. Green supply chain management practices: Impact on performance. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2012 , 17 , 290–305. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kannan, D.; de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L.; Jabbour, C.J.C. Selecting green suppliers based on GSCM practices: Using fuzzy TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics company. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2014 , 233 , 432–447. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mathiyazhagan, K.; Govindan, K.; NoorulHaq, A.; Geng, Y. An ISM approach for the barrier analysis in implementing green supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2013 , 47 , 283–297. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Treiblmaier, H. The impact of the blockchain on the supply chain: A theory-based research framework and a call for action. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2018 , 23 , 545–559. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meng, W.; Tischhauser, E.W.; Wang, Q.; Wang, Y.; Han, J. When intrusion detection meets blockchain technology: A review. IEEE Access 2018 , 6 , 10179–10188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Galvez, J.F.; Mejuto, J.C.; Simal-Gandara, J. Future challenges on the use of blockchain for food traceability analysis. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2018 , 107 , 222–232. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blossey, G.; Eisenhardt, J.; Hahn, G. Blockchain technology in supply chain management: An application perspective. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, USA, 8–11 January 2019; pp. 6885–6893. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole, R.; Stevenson, M.; Aitken, J. Blockchain technology: Implications for operations and supply chain management. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019 , 24 , 469–483. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Raman, S.; Patwa, N.; Niranjan, I.; Ranjan, U.; Moorthy, K.; Mehta, A. Impact of big data on supply chain management. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2018 , 21 , 579–596. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barbosa, M.W.; Vicente, A.d.l.C.; Ladeira, M.B.; Oliveira, M.P.V.d. Managing supply chain resources with Big Data Analytics: A systematic review. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2018 , 21 , 177–200. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roßmann, B.; Canzaniello, A.; von der Gracht, H.; Hartmann, E. The future and social impact of Big Data Analytics in Supply Chain Management: Results from a Delphi study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2018 , 130 , 135–149. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rozados, I.V.; Tjahjono, B. Big data analytics in supply chain management: Trends and related research. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Operations and Supply Chain Management, Bali, Indonesia, 10–13 December 2014; p. 13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Waller, M.A.; Fawcett, S.E. Data science, predictive analytics, and big data: A revolution that will transform supply chain design and management. J. Bus. Logist. 2013 , 34 , 77–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, D.Q.; Preston, D.S.; Swink, M. How the use of big data analytics affects value creation in supply chain management. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2015 , 32 , 4–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kache, F.; Seuring, S. Challenges and opportunities of digital information at the intersection of Big Data Analytics and supply chain management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2017 , 37 , 10–36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cachon, G.P.; Netessine, S. Game theory in supply chain analysis. Tutor. Oper. Res. 2014 , 200–233. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tian, Y.; Govindan, K.; Zhu, Q. A system dynamics model based on evolutionary game theory for green supply chain management diffusion among Chinese manufacturers. J. Clean. Prod. 2014 , 80 , 96–105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leng, M.; Parlar, M. Game theoretic applications in supply chain management: A review. INFOR Inf. Syst. Oper. Res. 2005 , 43 , 187–220. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mirhedayatian, S.M.; Azadi, M.; Saen, R.F. A novel network data envelopment analysis model for evaluating green supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014 , 147 , 544–554. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al-Ghwayeen, W.S.; Abdallah, A.B. Green supply chain management and export performance: The mediating role of environmental performance. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2018 , 29 , 1233–1252. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beliën, J.; Forcé, H. Supply chain management of blood products: A literature review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2012 , 217 , 1–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahi, P.; Searcy, C. An analysis of metrics used to measure performance in green and sustainable supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2015 , 86 , 360–377. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Z.; Hu, B.; Huang, B.; Lang, L.; Guo, H.; Zhao, Y. Decision optimization of low-carbon dual-channel supply chain of auto parts based on smart city architecture. Complexity 2020 , 2020 , 2145951. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, R.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, N.; Huang, T. An optimization model for green supply chain management by using a big data analytic approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 142 , 1085–1097. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou, Y.; Bao, M.; Chen, X.; Xu, X. Co-op advertising and emission reduction cost sharing contracts and coordination in low-carbon supply chain based on fairness concerns. J. Clean. Prod. 2016 , 133 , 402–413. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hald, K.S.; Kinra, A. How the blockchain enables and constrains supply chain performance. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2019 , 49 , 376–397. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumar, A.; Liu, R.; Shan, Z. Is blockchain a silver bullet for supply chain management? Technical challenges and research opportunities. Decis. Sci. 2020 , 51 , 8–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Queiroz, M.M.; Telles, R.; Bonilla, S.H. Blockchain and supply chain management integration: A systematic review of the literature. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019 , 25 , 241–254. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wamba, S.F.; Queiroz, M.M.; Trinchera, L. Dynamics between blockchain adoption determinants and supply chain performance: An empirical investigation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020 , 229 , 107791. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mishra, D.; Gunasekaran, A.; Papadopoulos, T.; Childe, S.J. Big Data and supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis. Ann. Oper. Res. 2018 , 270 , 313–336. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nguyen, T.; Li, Z.; Spiegler, V.; Ieromonachou, P.; Lin, Y. Big data analytics in supply chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review. Comput. Oper. Res. 2018 , 98 , 254–264. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhong, R.Y.; Newman, S.T.; Huang, G.Q.; Lan, S. Big Data for supply chain management in the service and manufacturing sectors: Challenges, opportunities, and future perspectives. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2016 , 101 , 572–591. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Benzidia, S.; Makaoui, N.; Bentahar, O. The impact of big data analytics and artificial intelligence on green supply chain process integration and hospital environmental performance. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021 , 165 , 120557. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Olan, F.; Liu, S.; Suklan, J.; Jayawickrama, U.; Arakpogun, E.O. The role of Artificial Intelligence networks in sustainable supply chain finance for food and drink industry. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021 , 60 , 4418–4433. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pournader, M.; Ghaderi, H.; Hassanzadegan, A.; Fahimnia, B. Artificial intelligence applications in supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021 , 241 , 108250. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Riahi, Y.; Saikouk, T.; Gunasekaran, A.; Badraoui, I. Artificial intelligence applications in supply chain: A descriptive bibliometric analysis and future research directions. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021 , 173 , 114702. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Choi, T.-M.; He, Y. Peer-to-peer collaborative consumption for fashion products in the sharing economy: Platform operations. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2019 , 126 , 49–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ke, T.T.; Zhu, Y. Cheap talk on freelance platforms. Manag. Sci. 2021 , 67 , 5901–5920. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, W.; Yan, X.; Li, X.; Wei, W. The impacts of market size and data-driven marketing on the sales mode selection in an Internet platform based supply chain. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2020 , 136 , 101914. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, W.; Yan, X.; Wei, W.; Xie, D. Pricing decisions for service platform with provider’s threshold participating quantity, value-added service and matching ability. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2019 , 122 , 410–432. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wei, J.; Lu, J.; Zhao, J. Interactions of competing manufacturers’ leader-follower relationship and sales format on online platforms. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2020 , 280 , 508–522. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xie, J.; Zhu, W.; Wei, L.; Liang, L. Platform competition with partial multi-homing: When both same-side and cross-side network effects exist. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021 , 233 , 108016. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, J.; Liu, Y.H. Operations Management Innovation Enabled by Digitalization and Intellectualization: From Supply Chain to Supply Chain Ecosystem. Manag. World 2021 , 37 , 227–240+14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reier Forradellas, R.F.; Garay Gallastegui, L.M. Digital Transformation and Artificial Intelligence Applied to Business: Legal Regulations, Economic Impact and Perspective. Law 2021 , 10 , 70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Fang, H.; Fang, F.; Hu, Q.; Wan, Y. Supply Chain Management: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Processes 2022 , 10 , 1681. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10091681

Fang H, Fang F, Hu Q, Wan Y. Supply Chain Management: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Processes . 2022; 10(9):1681. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10091681

Fang, Hui, Fei Fang, Qiang Hu, and Yuehua Wan. 2022. "Supply Chain Management: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis" Processes 10, no. 9: 1681. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10091681

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Meta-analysis of Supply Chain Disruption Research

• Original Research
• Open access
• Published: 02 February 2022
• Volume 3 , article number  10 , ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Lydia Novoszel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7956-4893 1 &
• Tina Wakolbinger 1  

7760 Accesses

10 Citations

Explore all metrics

The purpose of this chapter is to provide insights into literature on supply chain disruption research with a specific focus on future research opportunities. A structured meta-literature review approach covering 93 literature reviews was chosen. Quantitative and qualitative content analysis and bibliographic network analysis are applied to highlight trends and research gaps. The meta-analysis shows the current and past academic discourse on supply chain disruptions. Furthermore, this research establishes a research framework and highlights future research opportunities. The research points to research topics that should be addressed in the future. The paper provides a holistic understanding of literature on supply chain disruptions in the commercial and humanitarian context.

Similar content being viewed by others

A Systematic Literature Review on Sustainability and Disruptions in Supply Chains

Supply chain disruptions and resilience: a major review and future research agenda

Managing Disruptions in Supply Chains

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Supply chain disruptions result from unforeseen or unplanned events that interrupt the regular flow of goods within a supply chain [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, supply, demand and distribution disruptions are happening simultaneously [ 4 , 5 ]. First surveys among practitioners indicate strong implications of the crisis for commercial and humanitarian supply chains. Seventy-three percent of commercial supply chains in the USA experienced changes in their supply and 75% in their production and distribution [ 6 ]. Almost all humanitarian organizations applied changes to their operations and 93% got impacted due to actions by authorities [ 7 ]. Forty percent recognized increased needs from beneficiaries [ 8 ].

The global COVID-19 pandemic also sparked and accelerated research on supply chain disruptions. In order to understand the current academic discourse, a meta-review of existing literature reviews is chosen. Based on the analyzed literature reviews, a research framework is developed and future research opportunities are identified.

The paper is structured as follows: The first section describes the research method and study design. The bibliographic information is part of the second section, followed by a keyword analysis. Next, the research framework and research opportunities are presented. The conclusion section summarizes the main insights of the chapter.

2 Research Method and Study Design

This paper uses a systematic literature review [ 9 ] to investigate literature reviews of disruption research. The goal is to synthesize research findings in a systematic, transparent and reproducible way [ 9 ]. The main stages according to Tranfield et al. [ 10 ] are as follows: planning the review, conducting a review and reporting & dissemination. Levitt [ 11 ] describes how to conduct a qualitative meta-analysis based on systematically selected primary literature. The primary findings are labeled by creating categories based on commonalities and distinctions. These labels and their meaning examine the relationships to central insights of the investigated field. This paper applies the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) approach outlined by Moher et al. [ 12 ] to document the research approach. The steps, which lead to the final set of relevant papers that build the sample data for this review, are captured in Fig.  2 .

The research questions have been formulated based on Denyer and Tranfield [ 13 ] using CIMO (context, intervention, method, outcome) logic.

Context (C)

RQ1: What is the supply chain context of the review (commercial, humanitarian or public supply chain)

Interventions (I)

RQ2: Which sources of disruptions are identified? RQ3: Which stages of the supply chain are disrupted?

Methods (M)

RQ4: Are applications of quantitative tools/methods investigated?

Outcomes (O)

RQ5: Is the impact of disruptions on performance considered, if yes how? RQ6: Which research gaps and further research areas are suggested?

The outcome of the database search conducted in June 2021 is outlined in Fig.  1 . Based on the research questions, the search string for the analysis consists of four elements: first, keywords that are linked to disruptions as such (for example disasters, since this term is used in the humanitarian sphere) and pandemic due to the recent COVID-19 challenges. The next components are linked to supply chains and their functional areas, such as supply, procurement, production and transportation. In order to identify literature review publications, the respective filter and identifier was used in the databases. Only peer-reviewed papers in English were searched. Figure  1 shows the details of the used search string, databases, fields and filters.

Search protocol. Databases Proquest ( www.proquest.com/ ), EBSCO ( www.ebsco.com ), and Web of Science (WoS, www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/ ) were chosen for a wide array of publishers of journals and led to initial results between 28 and 340 papers

The systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA flow logic. For illustration of the steps and outcomes, refer to Fig.  2 . The identification step comprises the 644 papers identified through the database search. Removing duplicates (57 papers) led to 587 papers that were reviewed based on title and abstract. Four main exclusion criteria were applied during the screening phase: the research method of the paper (not a literature review—56 publications), medical literature (298 articles), focus on disruptive technology (such as AI and block chain) rather than on supply chain disruptions (36 papers) and the missing link to supply chain (disruption) overall (69 papers). During the eligibility phase, 128 articles were reviewed in detail by reading the full text. Thirty-five further papers were excluded due to the criteria established in the screening phase. Finally, in total 93 literature review papers were included in the analysis of the supply chain disruption research.

Review protocol based on Moher et al. [ 12 ]

2.1 Bibliographic Analysis

In order to understand the structure of the investigated papers and the publication dynamic, a bibliographic and network analysis of the identified 93 papers was conducted. This information is relevant for quantitatively organizing available knowledge within a scientific discipline [ 14 , 15 ]. The selected articles were published between 2006 and June 2021. Since there was no time-constraint used in the search criteria, 2006 marks the first year of a literature review published on supply chain disruption research. The paper from Altay and Green [ 16 ] investigates publications from 1980 on, which references early publications from Sampson and Smith [ 17 ] and Sheffi et al. [ 18 ]. Between 2006 and 2018, 0 to 9 review papers were published yearly. From 2019 publications increased with 21 published review articles in 2020. The database research was conducted until June 2021, with the last paper included from Sharma et al. [ 19 ]. The most citied paper is by Tang [ 20 ], a review on “perspectives in supply chain risk management.” It identifies four basic approaches for managing supply chain risks: supply, demand, information and product management.

Let us highlight that the scope of the review is investigating published literature reviews. The array of articles linked to supply chain disruptions and especially pandemic and COVID-19 is even wider. Papers that apply methodology other than a literature review are not considered in our analysis (Fig.  3 ).

Yearly distribution of publications of literature reviews

In total, 93 literature reviews were published in 56 different journals. Figure  4 shows the list of journals with more than one publication as part of this analysis. The wide array of subjects covered by the journals is an indication for the cross-functionality of supply chain disruption research. The top three journals with respect to the number of literature reviews are SCM (Supply Chain Management: An International Journal) (8 publications), the International Journal of Production Research (7 publications), and European Journal of Operational Research (7 publications).

Journals with more than 1 literature review dealing with supply chain disruptions

2.2 Keyword Analysis

This section focuses on the content of the literature reviews under investigation in this study. A quantitative analysis of (key) words provides insights on the covered topics and used terms.

As baseline for the content analysis, a review of the author picked key words was conducted and visualized with the VOSviewer application [ 21 ], ( https://www.vosviewer.com/ ). Figure  5 highlights the key word usage over time, where resilience and COVID-19 appear more recently (around 2020), whereas risk management seems to have been used earlier on (around 2016).

Author picked keyword overview

In order to visualize words used in the title, author picked keywords and abstracts, a word cloud (see Fig.  6 ) was constructed to get additional insights on the key terms from the literature reviews.

Word cloud of author picked words in titles, keywords, and abstracts

Looking at the word count of this dataset, while eliminating search terms and fill words, the top 5 (out of 250) words used are: risk (count of 206, 1.90% weighted percentage), resilience (190, 1.74%), operations (103, 0.95%), network (102, 0.94%), and humanitarian (74, 0.64%). We would like to emphasize, that these words are the result of the search, since they were not included in the search string (see study design). This indicates that risk, resilience, and humanitarian are closely linked to supply chain disruption research.

2.3 Research Framework

In order to structure supply chain disruption research, we propose the following framework (see Fig.  7 ). It was developed based on the research questions following the CIMO logic from Denyer and Tranfield [ 13 ]. Different supply chain purposes (commercial, humanitarian, public) build the context (C). Disruptions mark interventions (I) to supply chains. On the one hand, disturbances can have natural, man-made and operational causes. On the other side, the implications on supply chains can happen on supply, demand and distribution/infrastructure side. Quantitative and qualitative research methods (mechanisms, M) can be applied to investigate supply can disruption research. The outcome (O) of disturbances on supply chains can be identified by supply chain performance and its different dimensions (such as monetary- and sustainability targets covering also ecological and societal ambitions).

Supply chain disruption research framework with allocated literature reviews

To structure the investigated literature, the different dimensions were clustered according to their appearance and each paper was allocated once. The category “generic” (used in the following dimensions: disruption addressed, implications on supply chain and supply chain performance described) summarizes papers that mention the term, but do not elaborate on specifics. “Not specified” (and analogical “no performance”) indicates that the dimension (disruption, implication, performance) is not covered in the review. We now address each one of the dimensions of the framework in detail.

2.3.1 Context

Differences and similarities between humanitarian and commercial supply chains have been widely researched (e.g., [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. In this paper, we deliberately added keywords, such as “disaster” to incorporate the humanitarian perspective into the meta-review of supply chain disruption research. This allows us to compare insights from the commercial and humanitarian sector. Figure  8 illustrates the suggested framework for supply chain disruption research and allocates the investigated literature reviews based on the humanitarian and commercial context.

Supply chain disruption research framework comparing humanitarian versus commercial approaches

The majority (58) of the investigated literature reviews has a focus on commercial supply chains. These papers mainly address generic (multiple) disruptions, but also highlight (COVID-19) pandemics. Multiple implications on supply chains (such as supply, demand, operations and propagation) are investigated. The “not specific” assignment is higher in the area of disruption sources (such as man-made versus natural disaster) than in the supply chain dimension. This might indicate that the external reason for the disruptions is not as important as the concrete supply chain disruption, which triggers the recovery activities. Both quantitative as well as non-quantitative perspectives are considered in the literature reviews. When considering supply chain performance, the focus is on generic or no performance investigations.

Literature reviews in the context of humanitarian supply chains address generic and multiple disruptions and do not put a specific emphasis on supply chain implications. The methods investigated are mainly quantitative research methods. Supply chain performance seems to be mostly not considered, or rather generic. The set of literature reviews that form the basis for this meta-analysis do not include a literature review with a specific focus on pandemics. However, Queiroz et al. [ 27 ] indicate that humanitarian literature has extensively studied epidemic impacts and identifies a research gap in understanding pandemic impacts in commercial supply chains.

The main difference between humanitarian and commercial context seems to be, that the first one focuses on the external disruptions whereas the later one puts an emphasis on the supply chain implications. Moreover, the implications of supply chain disruptions on performance seem to be more researched within commercial supply chains.

2.3.2 Disruptions Addressed

Disruptions can have natural or man-made causes. Natural disasters refer to events, such as floods, earthquakes, hurricanes or pandemics (e.g., [ 28 , 29 ]. Man-made root causes can link to wars, terrorist- or cyber-attacks or mistakes that lead to operational interruptions. Van Wassenhove [ 30 ] additionally distinguishes between slow- and sudden onset disasters. For the purpose of this study, we categorize the literature reviews into generic/multiple, operational/technical, man-made, natural (excluding pandemics) and pandemic crisis. Due to the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic, it seems of interest to specifically indicate papers with a pandemic focus. Literature reviews, which do not address this kind of root causes, are coded as “not specified” (22).

The majority of the papers can be classified in the category generic/multiple (e.g., [ 31 , 32 , 33 ]. The following literature reviews have a direct link to the COVID-19 pandemic: Black and Glaser-Segura [ 34 ], Cordeiro et al. [ 35 ], Davahli et al. [ 36 ], Gkiotsalitis and Cats [ 37 ], Golan et al. [ 38 ] and Singh et al. [ 39 ]. Lusby et al. [ 40 ], Colicchia et al. [ 41 ] and Christersson and Rothe [ 42 ] investigate operational disruptions. Natural disasters are specifically addressed by Emodi et al. [ 43 ] and Seaberg et al. [ 44 ]. Cyber-attacks are one example of man-made disasters, which are researched by Parn and Edwards [ 45 ] as well as Ghadge et al. [ 46 ].

In summary, overall generic and multiple disruptions are investigated; also, the COVID-19 pandemic is getting attention. Some literature reviews do not indicate root causes for disruptions.

2.3.3 Implications on Supply Chains

Supply chain disruptions are defined as unexpected and unforeseen events or circumstances that disturb the regular flow of goods and materials along the value chain [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. This can happen due to shortage of supply parts, disturbances during operations and distribution or changes from a demand perspective [ 5 , 47 , 48 ]. Suppliers might be impacted in their ability to produce due to lack of raw materials, funds, trained labor or less efficient production processes caused by natural or man-made disasters (examples amid COVID-19 are Attinasi et al. [ 49 ], Keshner [ 50 ] or Souza [ 48 ]. Distribution capacities can be affected due to changes in border controls, availability of transportation infrastructure (e.g., roads, ports, canals, belly freight cargo-space) and available labor capacities. Gossler et al. [ 51 ] have recently highlighted how transportation activities can improve the success of humanitarian operations. Earlier publications (e.g., [ 52 ] provide more comprehensive research on the relevance of transportation networks. On the demand side, changing customer needs lead to disruptions along the value chain [ 53 ]. These shifts in market requirements can be triggered because of psychological phenomena (such as hoarding or behavior changes) or additional application needs. The disturbances in various nodes of the supply chain can spread across the connected value chain network. The propagation of disruptions are described by the ripple effect [ 54 , 55 ] and the bullwhip effect [ 56 ]. These kinds of supply chain disruptions are also investigated during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic [ 4 , 5 ].

The majority of the literature reviews addresses multiple supply chain disruptions. For example, disruptions in the supply and demand stage are considered by Singh et al. [ 39 ] and Manuj and Mentzer [ 57 ]. Hosseini and Ivanov [ 54 ], Hosseini et al. [ 58 ] and Llaguno et al. [ 55 ] investigate the ripple effect. Multiple papers do not explicitly investigate various possible supply chain disruptions, but rather look at general vulnerabilities or variations in value chains (e.g., [ 16 , 38 , 59 , 60 , 61 ]. Some papers do not consider a specific supply chain disruption (for example [ 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 ]. Other reviews can be linked to distribution or infrastructure disturbances (e.g., [ 36 , 40 , 66 ]. Two papers solely highlight supply disruptions in commercial supply chains [ 67 , 68 ]

2.3.4 Methods Described

The search string for the study includes the key word “model.” This was chosen in order to put an emphasis on models described or used in the literature reviews. The majority of the papers (53) focuses on investigating quantitative models.

For example, Caunhye et al. [ 69 ] investigate optimization models in emergency logistics. The literature is structured based on data type (stochastic or deterministic), levels (single-level or bi-level), and (single or multilevel) objectives. Altay and Green [ 16 ] apply the structure of Denizel et al. [ 70 ] to characterize different disaster operations management activities according to the disaster management cycle: model development, theory development, and application (tool) development. In 2019, Hosseini et al. introduce a structured analysis and recommendations concerning which quantitative methods can be used at different levels of capacity resilience. In their 2020 paper, Hosseini and Ivanov specifically focus on Bayesian networks for supply chain risk, resilience, and ripple effect analysis. Within the public context, for example, Bešinović [ 71 ] reviews methods to estimate resilience of railway transport systems, such as mathematical optimization, topological, simulation, optimization, and data-driven approaches.

The other (40) literature reviews do not look into quantitative methods. They focus more on descriptive topics to understand supply chain disruptions and link them to theories, such as supply chain resilience (e.g., [ 34 , 63 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 ], supply chain risk management (e.g., [ 41 , 59 , 62 , 78 , 79 ], and mitigation actions for recovery (e.g., [ 39 , 80 , 81 ].

2.3.5 Supply Chain Performance

This section is based on the 27 literature reviews that discuss performance implications due to supply chain disruptions. Excluded are 66 literature reviews, which have no (33) or very generic (33) performance considerations. Supply chain performance plays a role in evaluating supply chain activities and impacts strategic, tactical and operational planning [ 82 ]. It can have multiple dimensions. Monetary indicators, such as cost or profit, can describe the economic efficiency of supply chain activities [ 83 , 84 ]. Service levels indicate if, for example, time and qualitative expectations are met and thus can stipulate customer satisfaction [ 83 , 84 ]. A more holistic view is attempted with sustainability and triple-bottom-line approaches (for example see Kleindorfer et al. [ 85 ] or Elkington [ 86 ], which also incorporate an environmental and social perspective. During supply chain disruptions, time to react or recover are metrics, which are relevant to understand the duration of the impact on the supply chain, until flow of goods/information/funds is re-established. Figure  9 summarizes which elements (multiple assignments possible) the 27 identified papers cover and how it links back to other dimensions of the framework.

Supply chain disruption research framework focusing on supply chain performance

The most mentioned performance dimension is linked to cost or profit [ 16 , 37 , 40 , 42 , 58 , 59 , 63 , 64 , 67 , 69 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 ] across all contexts (humanitarian, commercial and public). For example, Lusby et al. [ 40 ] investigate minimizing costs in disaster relief distribution models. Heckmann et al. [ 87 ] take monetary figures (profit-, cost-, or cash-flow-oriented) under consideration when describing supply chain risks as the deviation of the affected objective.

Service level and demand implications are described by 13 literature reviews [ 58 , 59 , 63 , 64 , 69 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 91 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 ]. Shen and Li [ 89 ] consider service and demand as part of the supply chain profit function.

Time is mostly considered within public supply chains (such as vaccines, energy and transport infrastructure). Ahmadi et al. [ 92 ] describe quantification of energy system resilience, being a function of time. Within the commercial context, for example, Hosseini et al. [ 58 ] include recovery time as one element of the supply chain resilience objective function. An example of time consideration within the humanitarian supply chain perspective is the literature review by La Torre et al. [ 97 ] that looks into minimum total response time in disaster relief distribution models.

Environmental and social aspects are least considered. Commercial perspectives seem to more often consider environmental targets (for example [ 42 , 93 ]. Whereas, humanitarian supply chain research looks more often into social and humanitarian implications [ 64 , 95 , 96 ]. Gajanayake et al. [ 101 ] elaborate on direct versus indirect impacts and tangible (mainly economic) and intangible (mainly social and environmental) measurements (referring to [ 102 ].

Disaster-related impacts might also have positive side effects in both commercial as well as humanitarian contexts. The COVID-19 pandemic shows, how a global pandemic can trigger product innovation (e.g., vaccine development, refer to, e.g., [ 103 ]), repurposing of resources (e.g., automakers producing ventilators, see [ 104 ]) and acceleration of trends (e.g., digitalization, see [ 105 ]). Gains for communities can result in form of aid flow, increased employment or enhancement of the natural environment [ 101 ].

In summary, literature reviews in this study seem to focus on monetary targets, followed by considerations on service levels and time, when analyzing implications of supply chain disruptions.

2.4 Synthesis of Identified Research Opportunities

The following section provides a synthesis of future research opportunities provided by the 21 papers in the humanitarian context and 58 articles from the commercial perspective. The time-range of these publications is from 2006 up to June 2021. The literature reviews capture trends and academic possibilities over a time span of 15 years, some of which might have been addressed over the course of the time.

2.4.1 Definition and Characteristics of Resilience

Various authors ask for a clear, holistic definition and consideration of supply chain resilience [ 38 , 63 , 76 , 90 , 106 ]. Ponomarov and Holcomb [ 76 ] also highlight the clear definition of the phenomenon of resilience and the relationship between supply chain capabilities and supply chain resilience. Hohenstein et al. [ 63 ] emphasize a strong need for an overarching supply chain resilience definition and a clear terminology for resilience building blocks. Also in most recent publications, a broad up-dated definition of supply chain resilience is requested, with additional details, such as the consideration of different types of disruptions or risks [ 38 , 106 ] and linking the “R” of resilience concept to triple-A [ 107 ] supply chain [ 72 ].

Humanitarian literature reviews highlight the implications of supply chain design on agility and the circumstances of the different disaster management phases [ 108 ]. Oloruntoba and Kovács [ 108 ] also express missing clarity over pursuing agility, resilience, risk reduction or sustainability criteria in long-term (permanent) humanitarian aid supply chains. This links to questions raised concerning the definition of resilience, its implications on performance, and trade-offs with other paradigms. However, future research will show if choices need to be made, or if different concepts can be encompassed together with sustainability targets in mind.

2.4.2 Measurement of Resilience, Impact of Supply Chain Disruptions, and Mitigation Actions on Supply Chain Performance

Along with the quest for a cohesive resilience definition comes the question regarding measurement of supply chain resilience [ 57 , 61 , 63 , 73 , 75 , 76 , 80 , 88 , 90 , 91 , 99 , 109 ]. Hosseini et al. [ 58 ] mention Ojha et al. [ 110 ], who developed a metric to quantify resilience as a measure of service loss in the aftermath of disruption. Resilience can be described as a capability [ 99 ] to combat unforeseen supply chain disruptions due to various causes. Its attempt is to enable supply chains to recover from disturbances, with as little negative effect on performance [ 55 ] as possible. Hence, it is important to understand the relationship between resilience strategies (and mechanisms) and performance [ 63 ] as well as indicators such as recovery time or speed [ 57 ]. New key performance indicators can integrate operability objectives (e.g., resilience, stability, robustness [ 88 ]). Moreover, they could define supply chain objectives for different nodes [ 75 , 81 ] to incorporate into supply chain design decisions. Visibility [ 81 ] and vulnerability [ 19 ] parameters [ 68 ] can be included into a performance management system for supply chain disruption management. Looking into varying demand patterns and studying the effect that disruptions in demand (and sales) have on supply chain performance are mentioned by Llaguno et al. [ 55 ]. It could be of interest to analyze different strategies [ 93 , 99 ], policies and measures to address disruptions and to recover from them [ 55 ]. Another aspect could be investigating the timing of activities [ 57 ], the associated costs [ 93 , 111 ], and how they link to performance outcomes and efficiency [ 93 ] . Opportunities for competitive advantages (or priorities, see e.g. [ 99 ]) under disruptions without compromising performance in everyday situations could also be researched.

2.4.3 Consideration of Sustainability (Triple-Bottom-Line) and Circular Supply Chains

The concepts of sustainability [ 85 ] and triple-bottom-line [ 86 ] enhance the monetary view of supply chain outcomes by considering economical, ecological, and social factors [ 112 ]. The impacts of disruptions on sustainability [ 33 , 55 , 93 , 113 ] and circular supply chains [ 93 ] are investigated. Moreover, sustainability could serve as a potential solution for more resilient responses of supply chains towards disruptions [ 58 , 93 ]. It could be worthwhile to investigate which impact the proactive and reactive measures to combat disruptions have on environmental, economic and social criteria [ 55 ] and how social welfare varies in the presence of disruptions [ 89 ]. Combinations of concepts and paradigms like circular supply chains, sustainability and the ripple effect [ 114 ], as well as studying the interface between green and resilient supply chains [ 58 ] can enhance the understanding of value chain behavior amid disturbances. There is a lack of research on direct and indirect environmental and social impacts of disasters [ 101 ]. The reason could be that a debate exists on how to measure social and environmental impacts. A more holistic view on wider environmental impacts, besides carbon emissions, is encouraged by Gajanayake et al. [ 101 ], which might be beneficial in the future. Within the humanitarian context, reverse logistics flows for recovery such as the debris cleaning problems can bring insights for circular supply chain management under disruptions [ 115 ].

There is still a lack of scientific research that measures environmental and (indirect) social impacts of disruptions [ 101 ]. In the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic, it could be encouraged to obtain a set of economic and technological key performance indicators for vaccine supply chain design (see for example Lemmens et al. [ 116 ]). It would be helpful to capture a holistic view on supply chain performance indicators, to understand the implications of disruptions, prioritize mitigation actions and sustainably develop supply chain strategies, processes and capabilities for the future.

2.4.4 Stronger Consideration of Specifics of Context

The global COVID-19 pandemic is triggering multiple disruptions in the supply and distribution stages (including warehousing and transportation). Furthermore, it leads to increased demand fluctuations. Previous literature reviews already highlight the importance of distinguishing and combing the effects of these disruptions [ 31 , 113 , 117 ]. Different disasters tend to have drastically different characteristics. These aspects gain attention in the most recently published papers as well [ 34 ]. Aldrighetti et al. [ 93 ] suggest to take specifics from COVID-19 into consideration and look at it from a multi-period perspective [ 31 , 97 , 118 ]. It is encouraged to approach supply chain disruptions considering different phases such as response and recovery [ 80 ], proactive and reactive strategies [ 68 ], and incorporating different levels of preparedness [ 34 ] and resilience [ 58 , 109 ].

Supply chain networks [ 89 ] and design [ 62 , 118 , 119 ] might affect implications and propagations of disruptions. It could be worthwhile considering supply chain structural aspects as moderator variables in future research studies. Additionally, other specifics such as industries [ 113 ], market position [ 55 ], size of the organization [ 113 , 119 ], and location [ 119 ] can derive further insights on understanding supply chain disruptions in specific contexts and perhaps contribute to a more detailed understanding of the phenomenon.

Also for humanitarian researchers, contexts of the disruption and the impacted beneficiaries are relevant for further investigations, for example, distinguishing between characteristics of slow-onset versus sudden disasters [ 120 ]. Demands can shift over time and can be distributed unevenly between affected communities and people [ 69 ]. Constraints and service levels can change due to external factors (for instance external traffic and traffic diversions impacting evacuation plans [ 69 ].

Commercial and humanitarian supply chains can benefit from an exchange (see for example Holguín-Veras et al. [ 96 ]). There are learning opportunities for both in terms of strategy, tactical decision making and operational best practices pre, during and post disasters. Examples of successful cooperation also become visible during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic for example with global distribution of vaccines [ 121 ]. Disaster management is characterized as a combination of command/control and improvisation (for example refer to Harrald [ 122 ]). This approach could be also applied and investigated in a commercial context. When disruptions require operational process and strategic changes, a potential question could be linked to temporary versus permanent supply chain setups. This concept is illustrated for example by Jahre et al. [ 123 , 124 ]. Further thinking along this perspective, stakeholders might consider project and resource networks in the future to pool risks and opportunities to combat supply chain disruptions. At the same time, there might be a learning opportunity for humanitarian permanent supply chains, since there is a call for more preparedness activities in humanitarian supply chains [ 125 , 126 ].

2.4.5 Stakeholder Cooperation, Interaction and Human Behavior

Behavioral research can significantly advance theory and practice in supply chain management [ 127 ]. In the context of investigating supply chain disruptions, various levels of behavioral studies [ 28 , 61 , 68 , 72 , 90 , 95 ] are possible: individual, organizational and network relational aspects.

In this context, the individual managers’ perception of resilience and their risk personalities [ 77 ] can provide additional insights. Besides risk neutrality, different personal risk behavior attributes, such as risk aversion can be investigated [ 68 , 87 ]. Organizational behavior regarding management of risks, disruptions, and decision making are under-explored areas in operations research and management science [ 88 , 113 ].

Network relational aspects could bring insights to risk propagation [ 61 ] based on risk behavior of stakeholders [ 128 ]. This might affect decision making [ 28 , 77 ], information flow [ 41 ], and information asymmetry [ 89 ] along the value chain. Perceptions of risk might also vary based on the role of the stakeholder [ 129 , 130 ] within the supply chain. It could be investigated how changes in consumer behavior due to reduced risk perception could affect demand uncertainty [ 131 ]. Cooperative structures promote coordination and integration among supply chain partners (customers, suppliers and other organizations in the network) in critical activities [ 119 ]. Based on their function (for example in public–private partnerships), the distribution of risks varies among project participants [ 67 ] and value chain stakeholders. Within the humanitarian research context, the organization of involved parties [ 69 ], development of partnerships [ 132 ], and consideration of interdependencies between agencies [ 133 ] continue to feed research opportunities.

Additionally, behavioral risks have attracted less attention [ 46 ]. Incorporating the human factor into future extensions of the present research [ 55 ], also amid the COVID-19 pandemic, is an additional level of consideration during the disruption and how it impacts reactions and recovery progress.

2.4.6 Trade-offs (e.g., Between Resilience and Costs)

Trade-offs [ 134 ] describe alternatives that cannot be fully satisfied simultaneously. Common commercial supply chain challenges consider balancing distribution costs with shipment rates, or overall logistics costs and service levels [ 87 ]. Within supply chain disruption research multiple authors mention to consider trade-offs [ 38 , 114 , 135 , 136 ]. Especially balancing investments into resilience [ 75 ], efficiency versus flexibility [ 135 ], activities, and costs [ 55 , 75 ] related to potential risks and mitigation actions should be put in perspective.

2.4.7 Implications of Digitalization

Digitalization can be considered as a threat [ 46 , 54 , 111 ], mitigation action [ 45 ], or as a method in the context of supply chain disruption research [ 34 , 55 , 95 , 106 , 135 ]. Understanding the role of supply chain digitalization with innovative technologies [ 58 ] will highlight new opportunities to address supply chain disruptions. For instance: artificial intelligence [ 131 ], machine learning [ 54 , 78 ], big data analytics [ 64 , 72 , 131 , 135 ], block chain [ 45 ], and e-commerce. Examples for applications could be digital twins [ 55 ], virtual reality-based simulation [ 55 ], additive manufacturing [ 39 , 135 ] and industry 4.0 [ 54 , 72 ]. Additionally, especially humanitarian supply chain literature reviews address the use and role of social media to be better prepared for upcoming disasters [ 29 ].

2.4.8 Quantitative Methods: Longitudinal, Multi-method, Multiple Objectives

The application and details of different quantitative methods, to better describe and understand disruptions in supply chains, are mentioned in the research opportunities of the literature reviews. In general, there is a need for quantitative analysis [ 133 , 137 ], solution methods [ 133 ], and simulation of the disruption phenomenon and uncertainty [ 62 , 118 ].

The concepts of resilience [ 60 , 62 , 75 ], responsiveness [ 118 ], flexibility, trade-offs [ 135 ], and context [ 138 ], as mentioned before, can be incorporated into a quantitative analysis. It is necessary to define relevant supply chain objectives [ 69 , 87 ]. With that, multi-objective models describe the circumstances in more dimensions than single objective analyses [ 58 , 115 ]. This can integrate models that are based on real-world data [ 93 ] in real-time [ 28 ].

Additional elements might be worthwhile incorporating, such as risk [ 33 , 97 ], recovery [ 88 ], disruption, and propagation processes [ 68 , 137 ]. The development of proxy methods [ 139 ] and selecting (proxy) indicators [ 78 ] is proposed.

There are various suggestions by authors for different quantitative methods and techniques, for example: scenario development and sampling [ 118 ], Bayesian networks and Markov chain modeling [ 54 ], heuristic and metaheuristic [ 136 ], game theory [ 44 ], and input–output analysis [ 101 ]. Additionally, variational inequalities [ 140 , 141 ], which are not extensively covered in the reviewed literature reviews, could be further applied. They have a rich history of providing insights with respect to supply chain network disruptions (e.g., [ 142 , 143 ] and could provide a complementary perspective (e.g., [ 144 , 145 ]).

Due to the nature of disruptions, there is an emphasis on longitudinal investigations over multi-periods [ 97 , 118 ] and strategies over time [ 20 , 55 , 75 ]. In order to address the complexity and multiple elements of supply chain disruptions it seems encouraging to use multi-method [ 146 ] approaches and cross-disciplinary work [ 109 ], for example by combining simulation and empirical research [ 114 ].

2.4.9 Qualitative Methods

The topics described earlier can also be investigated from a qualitative perspective [ 74 ], for example resilience, mitigation actions, human and organizational behavior. There seems to be a lack of field studies [ 74 , 90 , 114 ], where the COVID-19 situation could serve as a vivid exploratory setting. It could also be used to explore strategies over time from a longitudinal [  75 , 90 ] perspective. The application of complexity theory [ 114 ], grounded theory [ 76 ], knowledge-based theory [ 76 ] and real-life case studies [ 117 ] can increase the understanding of disruption phenomena. The combination of methods [ 74 , 75 , 109 , 114 , 146 ], together with quantitative approaches, helps to compare and validate [ 61 ] the results. The additional insights can deepen the understanding of supply chain complexity [ 62 ], scenario development [ 72 ], mitigation capabilities [ 62 ], and decision making under uncertainty [ 76 ].

3 Conclusion

A vast array of publications is considering supply chain disruptions in the context of commercial, humanitarian, and public supply chains. This chapter reviews 93 literature reviews, which were published between 2006 and June 2021. Key terms mentioned are risk, resilience, operations and humanitarian. The framework clusters supply chain disruption research based on the CIMO logic into context, source of disruption, implications on supply chain stages (such as supply, distribution, demand and propagation effects), method and supply chain performance.

The research opportunities identified in the literature reviews can be synthesized as follows: definition and characteristics of resilience, measuring the impact of disruptions on supply chains, considering sustainable supply chain performance indicators, taking specific contexts into account, including studies on human behavior and digitalization. The definition and measurement of resilience as well as the impact of disturbances on supply chain performance are of outmost importance. Moreover, the consideration of sustainability in the context of the triple-bottom line and circular supply chains finds attention. A stronger consideration of specific contexts of the disruption and the investigated supply chain node(s) can provide additional insights. Further research in the area of stakeholder cooperation, interaction and human behavior amid disturbances can identify opportunities and hurdles for organizations to cope with supply chain disruptions. Investigating trade-offs between different preparation and recovery activities, as well as their implications on costs might help find balanced decisions. Understanding the implications of digitalization as a threat, mitigation action and method can increase the understanding of its role for supply chains amid disruptions.

Various quantitative and qualitative research methods can be applied to study supply chain disruptions and how to cope with them. Especially real-time, multi-period and mixed-methods can be used to describe, explain and test implications of disruptions on supply chains. Particularly the on-going COVID-19 pandemic brings opportunities for researchers to gather data, test real-time implications of supply chain disruptions and empirically validate scientific theories.

This review has inherent limitations based on the study setup (selection of search-string) and time-frame set. Academic research was published after the dataset of this review was collected and is thus not considered in this paper. This meta-analysis is based on literature reviews. Primary articles and studies might have additional insights, which are not reflected in this paper. However, this chapter hopes to highlight and clarify elements of supply chain disruption research as a baseline for future research.

Hendricks KB, Singhal VR (2005) An empirical analysis of the effect of supply chain disruptions on long-run stock price performance and equity risk of the firm. Product Oper Manag 14(1):35–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2005.tb00008.x

Article   Google Scholar  

Kleindorfer PR, Saad GH (2005) Managing disruption risks in supply chains. Product Oper Manag 14(1):53–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2005.tb00009.x

Svensson G (2000) A conceptual framework for the analysis of vulnerability in supply chains. IJPDLM 30(9):731–750. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030010351444

Ivanov D(2020) Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: a simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) case. Transp Res E Logist Transp Rev 136:101922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.101922

Rodrigue J-P (2020) Coronavirus Impacts on Trade and Supply Chains. METRANS Advisory Board Meeting, April 3 2020. Available online at https://sites.hofstra.edu/jean-paul-rodrigue/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2020/04/Metrans_Covid_Trade_JPR.pdf . Checked on 11/12/2020

Alicke K, Gupta R Trautwein V (2020) Resetting supply chains for the next normal. Available online at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347437401_Resetting_supply_chains_for_the_next_normal/link/5fdb707645851553a0c47cba/download , Checked on 8/2/2021

ACAPS (2020) COVID-19 Impact on humanitarian operations. Available online at https://www.acaps.org/special-report/covid-19-impact-humanitarian-operations , Updated on 10/6/2020, Checked on 8/2/2021

ReliefWeb (2021): International Activity Report 2020 - World. Available online at https://reliefweb.int/report/world/international-activity-report-2020 . Updated on 8/2/2021, Checked on 8/2/2021

Snyder H (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 104:333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British J Manag 14:207–222. Checked on 8/10/2021

Levitt HM (2018) How to conduct a qualitative meta-analysis: tailoring methods to enhance methodological integrity. Psychother Res J Soc Psychother Res 28(3):367–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2018.1447708

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Denyer D, Tranfield D (2009) Producing a systematic-review. In : Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, pp. 671–689. Available online at https://www.cebma.org/wp-content/uploads/Denyer-Tranfield-Producing-a-Systematic-Review.pdf.Checked on 6/21/2021

Merigó JM, Yang J-B (2017) Accounting research: a bibliometric analysis. Australian Account Rev 27(1):71–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12109

Pritchard A (1969) Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. J Doc 25(4). https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026482

Altay N, Green WG (2006) OR/MS research in disaster operations management. Euro J Oper Res 175(1):475–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.05.016

Sampson AR, Smith RL (1982) Assessing risks through the determination of rare event probabilities. Oper Res 30(5):839–866. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.30.5.839

Sheffi Y, Mahmassani H, Powell WB (1982) A transportation network evacuation model. Transport Res Part A Gen 16(3):209–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-2607(82)90022-x

Sharma SK, Srivastava PR, Kumar A, Jindal A, Gupta S (2021) Supply chain vulnerability assessment for manufacturing industry. Annal Oper Res 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04155-4

Tang CS (2006) Perspectives in supply chain risk management. Int J Prod Econ 103(2):451–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.12.006

van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping.  Scientometrics 84(2):523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Kovács G, DiegoV (2021) Humanitarian logistics. In: International Encyclopedia of Transportation: Elsevier 190–194

Olaogbebikan JE,  Oloruntoba R (2019) Similarities between disaster supply chains and commercial supply chains: a SCM process view. Ann Oper Res 283(1–2):517–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2690-1

Holguín-Veras J, Jaller M, van Wassenhove LN, Pérez N, Wachtendorf T (2012) On the unique features of post-disaster humanitarian logistics. J Oper Manag 30(7–8):494–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2012.08.003

Kovács G, SigalaIoanna F (2021) Lessons learned from humanitarian logistics to manage supply chain disruptions. J Supply Chain Manag 57(1):41–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12253

Natarajarathinam M, Capar I, Narayanan A (2009) Managing supply chains in times of crisis: a review of literature and insights. IJPDLM 39(7):535–573. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030910996251

Queiroz MM, Ivanov D, Dolgui A, Fosso Wamba S (2020) Impacts of epidemic outbreaks on supply chains: mapping a research agenda amid the COVID-19 pandemic through a structured literature review. Annal Oper Res 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03685-7

Iliopoulou C, Konstantinidou MA, Kepaptsoglou K L, Stathopoulos A (2020) ITS technologies for decision making during evacuation operations: a review. J Transp Eng A Syst 146(4):4020010. https://doi.org/10.1061/JTEPBS.0000329

Sabbaghtorkan M, Batta R, He Q (2020) Prepositioning of assets and supplies in disaster operations management: Review and research gap identification. Euro J Oper Res 284(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.06.029

Van Wassenhove LN (2006) Humanitarian aid logistics: supply chain management in high gear. J Oper Res Soc 57(5):475–489. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602125

Behzadi G, O’Sullivan MJ, Olsen TL, Zhang A (2018) Agribusiness supply chain risk management: A review of quantitative decision models. Omega 79:21–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2017.07.005

Emenike SN, Falcone G (2020) A review on energy supply chain resilience through optimization. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 134:110088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110088

Fagundes MVC, Teles EO, Vieira de Melo SAB, Freires FGM (2020) Supply chain risk management modelling: a systematic literature network analysis review. IMA J Manag Math 31(4):387–416.  https://doi.org/10.1093/imaman/dpaa019

Black S, Glaser-Segura D (2020) Supply chain resilience in a pandemic: The need for revised contingency planning. Manag Dynamics Know Econ 8(4):325–343. https://doi.org/10.2478/mdke-2020-0021

Cordeiro MC, Santos L, Angelo ACM, Marujo Lino G (2021) Research directions for supply chain management in facing pandemics: an assessment based on bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. Internatl J Logist Res App 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2021.1902487

Davahli MR, Karwowski W, Sonmez S, Apostolopoulos Y (2020) The hospitality industry in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic: Current topics and research methods. Internatl J Environ Res Public health 17 (20). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207366

Gkiotsalitis K, Cats O (2021) Public transport planning adaption under the COVID-19 pandemic crisis: literature review of research needs and directions. Trans Rev 41(3):374–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2020.1857886

Golan MS, Jernegan LH, Linkov I (2020) Trends and applications of resilience analytics in supply chain modeling: systematic literature review in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Environ Syst Decis 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-020-09777-w

Singh SN, Venkatesh VSS, Deoghare AB (2021) A review on the role of 3D printing in the fight against COVID-19: safety and challenges. RPJ 27 (2):407–420. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-08-2020-0198

Lusby RM, Larsen J, Bull S (2018) A survey on robustness in railway planning. Euro J Oper Res 266(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.07.044

Colicchia C, Creazza A, Noè C, Strozzi F (2019) Information sharing in supply chains: a review of risks and opportunities using the systematic literature network analysis (SLNA). SCM 24(1):5–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-01-2018-0003

Christersson M, Rothe P (2012) Impacts of organizational relocation: a conceptual framework. J Corp Real Est 14(4):226–243. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-12-2012-0030

Emodi N, Chaiechi V, Beg T, Rabiul Alam ABM (2019) The impact of climate variability and change on the energy system: A systematic scoping review. Sci Total Environ 676:545–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.294

Seaberg D, Devine L, Zhuang J (2017) A review of game theory applications in natural disaster management research. Nat Hazards 89(3):1461–1483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-3033-x

Parn EA, Edwards D (2019) Cyber threats confronting the digital built environment. ECAM 26(2):245–266. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-03-2018-0101

Ghadge A, Weiß M, Caldwell ND, Wilding R (2019) Managing cyber risk in supply chains: a review and research agenda. SCM 25(2):223–240. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-10-2018-0357

Dudley R (2020) The Amazon Lockdown: How an Unforgiving Algorithm Drives Suppliers to Favor the E-Commerce Giant Over Other Retailers. In ProPublica, 4/27/2020. Available online at https://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tech/2020/04/amazon-lockdown-how-unforgiving-algorithm-drives-suppliers-favor-e-commerce-giant-over-other-retailers/164926/ . Checked on 8/3/2021

Souza K (2020) The Supply Side: Walmart’s 98% OTIF requirement remains a work in progress. In Talk Business & Politics, 11/8/2020. Available online at https://talkbusiness.net/2020/11/the-supply-side-walmarts-98-otif-requirement-remains-a-work-in-progress/ . Checked on 8/3/2021

Attinasi MG, de Stefani R, Frohm E, Gunnella V, Koester G, Tóth M, Melemenidis A (2021) The semiconductor shortage and its implication for euro area trade, production and prices. Available online at https://www.ecb.europa.eu//pub/economic-bulletin/focus/2021/html/ecb.ebbox202104_06~780de2a8fb.en.html

Keshner A (2021) There's a COVID-related bicycle shortage in the U.S. In MarketWatch, 6/4/2021. Available online at https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-is-there-a-bicycle-shortage-its-got-a-lot-to-do-with-why-fireworks-are-scarce-11622751152 . Checked on 8/4/2021

Gossler T, Wakolbinger T, Nagurney A, Daniele P (2019) How to increase the impact of disaster relief: a study of transportation rates, framework agreements and product distribution. Euro J Oper Res 274(1):126–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.09.045

Nagurney A (2000) Sustainable transportation networks: Edward Elgar Publishing

Gupta A, Maranas CD (2003) Managing demand uncertainty in supply chain planning. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 27(8–9), 1219–1227. Comput Chem Eng 27 (8–9):1219–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-1354(03)00048-6

Hosseini S, Ivanov D (2020) Bayesian networks for supply chain risk, resilience and ripple effect analysis: a literature review. Expert Syst App 161:113649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113649

Llaguno A, Mula J, Campuzano-Bolarin F (2021) State of the art, conceptual framework and simulation analysis of the ripple effect on supply chains. Internatl J Product Res 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1877842

Lee HL, Padmanabhan V, Whang S (1997) The bullwhip effect in supply chains. In MIT Sloan management review. Available online at https://sloanreview.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/1997/04/633ecdb037.pdf . Checked on 9/17/2020

Manuj I, Mentzer JT (2008) Global supply chain risk management strategies. IJPDLM 38(3):192–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030810866986

Hosseini S, Ivanov D, Dolgui A (2019) Review of quantitative methods for supply chain resilience analysis. Transport Res Part E: Logist Transport Rev 125:285–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2019.03.001

Fan Y, Stevenson M (2018) A review of supply chain risk management: definition, theory, and research agenda. IJPDLM 48(3):205–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-01-2017-0043

Ribeiro JP, Barbosa-Povoa A (2018) Supply chain resilience: definitions and quantitative modelling approaches – a literature review. Comput Indust Eng 115:109–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.11.006

Duan S, Ayyub BM (2020) Assessment Methods of Network Resilience for Cyber-Human-Physical Systems. ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng Syst Part A: Civ Eng 6 (1):3119001. https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0001021

Colicchia C, Strozzi F (2012) Supply chain risk management: a new methodology for a systematic literature review. SCM 17(4):403–418. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211246558

Hohenstein N-O, Feise E, Hartmann E Giunipero L (2015) Research on the phenomenon of supply chain resilience. A systematic review and paths for further investigation. Internl J Phys Distribut Logist Manag 45 (1/2): 90–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2013-0128

Jeble S, Kumari S, Venkatesh VG, Singh M (2020) Influence of big data and predictive analytics and social capital on performance of humanitarian supply chain. BIJ 27(2):606–633. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-03-2019-0102

Wu D, Olson DL, Dolgui A (2015) Decision making in enterprise risk management: A review and introduction to special issue. Omega 57:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.04.011

Hassan LK, Santos BF, Vink J (2021) Airline disruption management: a literature review and practical challenges. Comput Oper Res 127:105137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2020.105137

Panova Y, Hilletofth P (2018) Managing supply chain risks and delays in construction project. IMDS 118(7):1413–1431. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2017-0422

Snyder LV, Atan Z, Peng P, Rong Y, Schmitt AJ, Sinsoysal B (2016) OR/MS models for supply chain disruptions: a review. IIE Transact 48(2):89–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/0740817X.2015.1067735

Caunhye AM, Nie X, Pokharel S (2012) Optimization models in emergency logistics: A literature review. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 46(1):4–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2011.04.004

Denizel M, Usdiken B, Tuncalp D (2003) Drift or shift? Continuity, change, and international variation in knowledge production in OR/MS. Oper Res 51(5):711–720. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.51.5.711.16750

Bešinović N (2020) Resilience in railway transport systems: a literature review and research agenda. Trans Rev 40(4):457–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2020.1728419

Cohen MA, Kouvelis P (2021) Revisit of AAA excellence of global value chains: Robustness, resilience, and realignment. Prod Oper Manag 30(3):633–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13305

Datta PP (2017) Supply network resilience: a systematic literature review and future research. IJLM 28(4):1387–1424. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-03-2016-0064

Gligor D, Gligor N, Holcomb M, Bozkurt S (2019) Distinguishing between the concepts of supply chain agility and resilience. IJLM 30(2):467–487. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-10-2017-0259

Ali A, Mahfouz A, Arisha A (2017) Analysing supply chain resilience: integrating the constructs in a concept mapping framework via a systematic literature review. SCM 22(1):16–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-06-2016-0197

Ponomarov SY, Holcomb MC (2009) Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience. Int Jrnl Logist Manag 20(1):124–143. https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090910954873

Sawyerr E, Harrison C (2019) Developing resilient supply chains: lessons from high-reliability organisations. SCM 25(1):77–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-09-2018-0329

Schrijvers D, Hool A, Blengini GA, Chen W-Q, Dewulf J, Eggert R et al (2020) A review of methods and data to determine raw material criticality. Resour Conserv Recycl 155:104617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104617

Singh G (2014) Supply chain risk management innovation performance. Int J Organ Innov 7

Chowdhury M, Quaddus M (2016) Supply chain readiness, response and recovery for resilience. SCM 21(6):709–731. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-12-2015-0463

Messina D, Barros AC, Soares AL, Matopoulos A (2020) An information management approach for supply chain disruption recovery. IJLM 31(3):489–519. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-11-2018-0294

Gunasekaran A, Patel C, McGaughey RE (2004) A framework for supply chain performance measurement. Int J Prod Econ 87(3):333–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2003.08.003

Chibba A (2007) Measuring supply chain performance measures - prioritizing performance measures. Available online at http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:990230/FULLTEXT01.pdf , Checked on 7/1/2021

Wagner SM, Bode C (2008) An empirical examination of supply chain performance along several dimensions of risk. J Bus Logist 29(1):307–325. J Bus Logist 29 (1): 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/J.2158-1592.2008.TB00081.X

Kleindorfer PR, Singhal K, van Wassenhove LN (2005) Sustainable operations management. Product Oper Manag 14(4):482–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2005.tb00235.x

Elkington J (2012) Enter the Triple Bottom Line. Adrian Henriques, Julie Richardson (Eds.): The Triple Bottom Line. Does It All Add Up. Hoboken: Earthscan, pp. 23–38. Available online at https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849773348-8/enter-triple-bottom-line-john-elkington

Heckmann I, Comes T, Nickel S (2015) A critical review on supply chain risk – definition, measure and modeling. Omega 52:119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.10.004

Ivanov D, Dolgui A, Sokolov B, Ivanova M (2017) Literature review on disruption recovery in the supply chain. Internatl J Product Res 55(20):6158–6174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1330572

Shen B, Li Q (2017) Market disruptions in supply chains: a review of operational models. Intl Trans in Op Res 24(4):697–711. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12333

Kochan CG, Nowicki DR (2018) Supply chain resilience: a systematic literature review and typological framework. IJPDLM 48(8):842–865. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-02-2017-0099

Shashi, Centobelli P, Cerchione R, Ertz M (2020) Managing supply chain resilience to pursue business and environmental strategies. Bus Strat Env 29(3):1215–1246. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2428

Ahmadi S, Saboohi Y, Vakili A (2021) Frameworks, quantitative indicators, characters, and modeling approaches to analysis of energy system resilience: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 144:110988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110988

Aldrighetti R, Battini D, Ivanov D, Zennaro I (2021) Costs of resilience and disruptions in supply chain network design models: A review and future research directions. Int J Prod Econ 235:108103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108103

Eglese R, Zambirinis S (2018) Disruption management in vehicle routing and scheduling for road freight transport: a review. TOP 26(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11750-018-0469-4

FarahaniZanjirani RR, Lotfi MM, Baghaian A, Ruiz R, Rezapour S (2020) Mass casualty management in disaster scene: A systematic review of OR&MS research in humanitarian operations. Eur J Oper Res 287(3):787–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.03.005

Holguín-Veras J, Pérez N, Jaller M, van Wassenhove LN, Aros-Vera F (2013) On the appropriate objective function for post-disaster humanitarian logistics models. J Oper Manag 31(5):262–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2013.06.002

Torre La, Luis E, de Dolinskaya IS, Smilowitz KR (2012) Disaster relief routing: Integrating research and practice. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 46(1):88–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2011.06.001

Vieira AAC, Dias LMS, Santos MY, Pereira GAB, Oliveira JA (2020) Supply chain data integration: a literature review. InJ Indust Inform Integrat 19:100161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2020.100161

Esmizadeh Y, Mellat Parast M (2021) Logistics and supply chain network designs: incorporating competitive priorities and disruption risk management perspectives. Internatl J Logist Res App 24(2):174–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2020.1744546

Sullivan J, Aultman-Hall L, Novak D (2009) A review of current practice in network disruption analysis and an assessment of the ability to account for isolating links in transportation networks. Transport Lett 1(4):271–280. https://doi.org/10.3328/TL.2009.01.04.271-280

Gajanayake A, Zhang G, Khan T, Mohseni H (2020) Postdisaster impact assessment of road infrastructure: state-of-the-art review. Nat Hazards Rev 21(1):3119002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000343

Merz B, Kreibich H, Schwarze R, Thieken A (2010) Review article “Assessment of economic flood damage.” In Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10(8):1697–1724. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-10-1697-2010

Hopkins, Jared S (2021) To Make More Covid-19 Vaccines, Rival Drugmakers Team Up. In The Wall Street Journal, 2/23/2021. Available online at https://www.wsj.com/articles/to-make-more-covid-19-vaccines-rival-drugmakers-team-up-11614081601 . Checked on 8/12/2021

Liu W, Beltagui A, Ye S (2021) Accelerated innovation through repurposing: exaptation of design and manufacturing in response to COVID-19. R&D Manag. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12460

Rogetzer P, Nowak T, Jammernegg W, Wakolbinger T (2019) Impact of Digitalization on Sustainable Supply Chains. Fred Luks (Ed.): Chancen und Grenzen der Nachhaltigkeitstransformation. Ökonomische und soziologische Perspektiven. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 131–144

Svoboda J, Minner S, Yao M (2021) Typology and literature review on multiple supplier inventory control models. Euro J Oper Res 293(1):1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.11.023

Lee HL (2004) The triple A supply chain. In Harvard Business Review. Available online at http://www.scap.pk/article/SupplyChaindd.pdf . Checked on 11/10/2020

Oloruntoba R, Kovács G (2015) A commentary on agility in humanitarian aid supply chains. SCM 20(6):708–716. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-06-2015-0244

Linnenluecke MK (2017) Resilience in business and management research: a review of influential publications and a research agenda. Internatl J Manag Rev 19(1):4–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12076

Ojha R, Ghadge A, Tiwari MK, Bititci US (2018) Bayesian network modelling for supply chain risk propagation. Internatl J Product Res 56(17):5795–5819. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1467059

Simangunsong E, Hendry LC, Stevenson M (2012) Supply-chain uncertainty: a review and theoretical foundation for future research. Interntl J Prod Res 50(16):4493–4523. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.613864

Gimenez C, Sierra V, Rodon J (2012) Sustainable operations: Their impact on the triple bottom line. Int J Prod Econ 140(1):149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.035

Asgari N, Nikbakhsh E, Hill A, Farahani RZ (2016) Supply chain management 1982–2015: a review. IMA J Manag Math 27(3):353–379. https://doi.org/10.1093/imaman/dpw004

Dolgui A, Ivanov D, Sokolov B (2018) Ripple effect in the supply chain: an analysis and recent literature. Internatl J Product Res 56(1–2):414–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1387680

Gumus AT, Celik E (2017) A comprehensive literatture review for humanitarian relief logistics in disaster operations management. In Istanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. Available online at http://acikerisim.ticaret.edu.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11467/1693/M00876.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y . Checked on 7/7/2021

Lemmens S, Decouttere C, Vandaele N, Bernuzzi M (2016) A review of integrated supply chain network design models: key issues for vaccine supply chains. Chem Eng Res Des 109:366–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2016.02.015

Paul SP, Sarker R, Essam D (2015) Managing risk and disruption in production-inventory and supply chain systems: A review. JIMO 12(3):1009–1029. https://doi.org/10.3934/jimo.2016.12.1009

Klibi W, Martel A, Guitouni A (2010) The design of robust value-creating supply chain networks: A critical review. Euro J Oper Res 203(2):283–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.06.011

Prasad S, Su H-C, Altay N, Tata J (2015) Building disaster-resilient micro enterprises in the developing world. Disasters 39(3):447–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12117

Anuar WK, Lee LS, Pickl S, Seow H-V (2021) Vehicle routing optimisation in humanitarian operations: A survey on modelling and optimisation approaches. Appl Sci 11(2):667. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11020667

DHL (2021) Revisiting pandemic resilience. The race against the virus; what we've learned one year into COVID-19 and how the world's healthcare supply chains will be ready for the next public health emergency. Available online at https://www.dhl.com/content/dam/dhl/global/csi/documents/pdf/Revisiting-Pandemic-Resilience-White-Paper-(English).pdf . Checked on 6/1/2021

Harrald JR (2006) Agility and discipline: critical success factors for disaster response. ANNALS Am Acad Politic Soc Sci 604(1):256–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716205285404

Jahre M, Jensen L-M, Listou T (2009) Theory development in humanitarian logistics: a framework and three cases. Manag Res News 32(11):1008–1023. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170910998255

Jahre M, Kembro J, Rezvanian T, Ergun O, Håpnes SJ, Berling P (2016) Integrating supply chains for emergencies and ongoing operations in UNHCR. J Oper Manag 45(1):57–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2016.05.009

Kovács G, Spens K (2009) Identifying challenges in humanitarian logistics. IJPDLM 39(6):506–528. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030910985848

Tomasini RM, van Wassenhove LN (2009) From preparedness to partnerships: case study research on humanitarian logistics. Internatl Transact Operation Res 16(5):549–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-3995.2009.00697.x

Tokar T (2010) Behavioural research in logistics and supply chain management. Int Jrnl Logist Manag 21(1):89–103. https://doi.org/10.1108/09574091011042197

Kalogeras N, Odekerken-Schröder G, Pennings JME, Gunnlaugsdóttir H, Holm F, Leino O et al (2012) State of the art in benefit-risk analysis: economics and marketing-finance. Food Chem Toxicol Internatl J Publish British Indust Biolo Res Assoc 50(1):56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2011.07.066

Behl A, Dutta P (2019) Humanitarian supply chain management: a thematic literature review and future directions of research. Ann Oper Res 283(1–2):1001–1044. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-2806-2

Yáñez-Sandivari L, Cortés CE, Rey PA (2021) Humanitarian logistics and emergencies management: New perspectives to a sociotechnical problem and its optimization approach management. Internatl J Dis Risk Reduct 52:101952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101952

Baryannis G, Validi S, Dani S, Antoniou G (2019) Supply chain risk management and artificial intelligence: state of the art and future research directions. Internatl J Product Res 57(7):2179–2202. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1530476

Maon F, Lindgreen A, Vanhamme J (2009) Developing supply chains in disaster relief operations through cross-sector socially oriented collaborations: a theoretical model. Supp Chain Mnagmnt 14(2):149–164. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540910942019

Baxter AE, Wilborn LHE, Keskinocak P (2020) Quantitative modeling in disaster management: A literature review. IBM J Res Dev 64 (1/2)3:1–3:13. https://doi.org/10.1147/JRD.2019.2960356

Campbell DE, Kelly JS (1994) Trade-off theory. The Am Econ Rev 84 (2):422–426. Available online at https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117871

Dolgui A, Ivanov D, Sokolov B (2020) Reconfigurable supply chain: the X-network. Internatl J Product Res 58(13):4138–4163. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1774679

Griffis SE, Bell JE, Closs DJ (2012) Metaheuristics in logistics and supply chain management. J Bus Logist 33(2):90–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0000-0000.2012.01042.x

Wang J, Muddada RR, Wang H, Ding J, Lin Y, Liu C, Zhang W (2016) Toward a resilient holistic supply chain network system: concept, review and future direction. IEEE Syst J 10(2):410–421. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2014.2363161

Zamanifar M, Hartmann T (2020) Optimization-based decision-making models for disaster recovery and reconstruction planning of transportation networks. Nat Hazards 104(1):1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04192-5

Bier T, Lange A, Glock CH (2020) Methods for mitigating disruptions in complex supply chain structures: a systematic literature review. Internatl J Product Res 58(6):1835–1856. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1687954

Dupuis P, Nagurney A (1993) Dynamical systems and variational inequalities. Ann Oper Res 44(1):7–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02073589

Nagurney A (1999) Network economics. A variational inequality approach. Rev. 2. ed. Boston: Kluwer Academic (Advances in computational economics, 10)

Qiang Q, Nagurney A, Dong J (2009) Modeling of supply chain risk under disruptions with performance measurement and robustness analysis. In: Wu T, Blackhurst J (eds) Managing supply chain risk and vulnerability. Tools and methods for supply chain decision makers. 1. Aufl. Springer, London, pp 91–111

Wakolbinger T, Cruz JM (2011) Supply chain disruption risk management through strategic information acquisition and sharing and risk-sharing contracts. Int J Prod Res 49(13):4063–4084. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2010.501550

Nagurney A (2021a) Optimization of supply chain networks with inclusion of labor: Applications to COVID-19 pandemic disruptions. Int J Prod Econ 235:108080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108080

Nagurney A, Salarpour M, Dong J Dutta P (2021b) Competition for medical supplies under stochastic demand in the Covid-19 pandemic: a generalized Nash equilibrium framework. Nonlinear Analys Global Opt 331–356

Kovacs G, Moshtari M (2019) A roadmap for higher research quality in humanitarian operations: a methodological perspective. Euro J Oper Res 276(2):395–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.07.052

Download references

Open access funding provided by Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien: Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien, Vienna, Austria

Lydia Novoszel & Tina Wakolbinger

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lydia Novoszel .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Data Availability

Data will be made available on reasonable request.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of Topical Collection on Dynamics of Disasters.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Novoszel, L., Wakolbinger, T. Meta-analysis of Supply Chain Disruption Research. Oper. Res. Forum 3 , 10 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-021-00118-4

Download citation

Received : 06 October 2021

Accepted : 22 December 2021

Published : 02 February 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-021-00118-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Meta-literature review
• Supply chain
• Humanitarian
• Sustainability
• Performance

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

COVID-19 pandemic related supply chain studies: A systematic review

Priyabrata chowdhury.

a School of Accounting, Information Systems and Supply Chain, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

Sanjoy Kumar Paul

b UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Shahriar Kaisar

Md. abdul moktadir.

c Institute of Leather Engineering and Technology, University of Dhaka, Dhaka 1209, Bangladesh

Associated Data

The global spread of the novel coronavirus, also known as the COVID-19 pandemic, has had a devastating impact on supply chains. Since the pandemic started, scholars have been researching and publishing their studies on the various supply-chain-related issues raised by COVID-19. However, while the number of articles on this subject has been steadily increasing, due to the absence of any systematic literature reviews, it remains unclear what aspects of this disruption have already been studied and what aspects still need to be investigated. The present study systematically reviews existing research on the COVID-19 pandemic in supply chain disciplines. Through a rigorous and systematic search, we identify 74 relevant articles published on or before 28 September 2020. The synthesis of the findings reveals that four broad themes recur in the published work: namely, impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, resilience strategies for managing impacts and recovery, the role of technology in implementing resilience strategies, and supply chain sustainability in the light of the pandemic. Alongside the synthesis of the findings, this study describes the methodologies, context, and theories used in each piece of research. Our analysis reveals that there is a lack of empirically designed and theoretically grounded studies in this area; hence, the generalizability of the findings, thus far, is limited. Moreover, the analysis reveals that most studies have focused on supply chains for high-demand essential goods and healthcare products, while low-demand items and SMEs have been largely ignored. We also review the literature on prior epidemic outbreaks and other disruptions in supply chain disciplines. By considering the findings of these articles alongside research on the COVID-19 pandemic, this study offers research questions and directions for further investigation. These directions can guide scholars in designing and conducting impactful research in the field.

1. Introduction

Business organizations have faced huge challenges due to unprecedented disease outbreaks in recent decades. The scope of the challenges faced by these organizations largely depends on the severity of the outbreaks in question. A widespread public health incident such as an epidemic or pandemic can have substantial negative impacts on businesses and supply chains, including reducing their efficiency and performance ( Guan et al., 2020 , Ivanov, 2020a , Sodhi, 2016 ), and propagating disruptions across the supply chains (known as ripple effects) that affect their resilience and sustainability ( Ivanov, 2020b , Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020a ). Supply chains have encountered many severe disease outbreaks in the recent past; thus far, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported 1438 epidemics just between 2011 and 2018 ( Hudecheck et al., 2020 ). However, the current COVID-19 pandemic is unique. It has had even more severe, diversified, and dynamic impacts than that of previous epidemic outbreaks such as the 2003 SARS epidemic or the 2009 H1N1 epidemic ( Haren and Simchi-Levi, 2020 , Koonin, 2020 ). A report published by Fortune magazine on 21 February 2020, before the WHO reclassified the COVID-19 outbreak as a pandemic on 11 March 2020, revealed that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 94% of the Fortune 1000 companies were facing disruption in their supply chains ( Fortune, 2020 ). Moreover, unlike other previous outbreaks, this pandemic has impacted all the nodes (supply chain members) and edges (ties) in a supply chain simultaneously ( Gunessee and Subramanian, 2020 , Paul and Chowdhury, 2020a ); hence, the flow of the supply chain has been disrupted substantially. For example, the demand for necessary items such as personal protective equipment (PPE), ventilators, and dried and canned foods has increased. Meanwhile, supply, transportation, and manufacturing face numerous challenges that reduce their capacities. These include border closures, lockdown in the supply market, interruption in vehicle movements and international trade, labor shortage, and the maintaining of physical distance in manufacturing facilities ( Paul and Chowdhury, 2020a , Amankwah-Amoah, 2020b ). Due to these multidimensional impacts on supply chains, along with other economic and financial challenges ( Dontoh et al., 2020 ), the pandemic is likely to have a severe effect on world international trade. For example, the world trade organization (WTO) announced that world trade may decline by 13–32% in 2020 due to the COVID-19 crisis ( WTO, 2020 ).

Given the severe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on supply chains, scholars have increasingly turned their attention to the topic. As a result, a significant amount of research on the COVID-19 pandemic in supply chain disciplines has been published since 2020. With the topic becoming more and more important for researchers, it is worth reporting the current state of the literature and outlining future research opportunities at this early stage—in part, to help scholars avoid doing repetitive research in this area ( Chowdhury and Paul, 2020 , Iyengar et al., 2020 ). A systematic literature review can help summarize what we know, how we know it, and what can be done so that, going forward, supply chains can better deal with the impacts of this pandemic ( Tranfield et al., 2003 ). Accordingly, we synthesize here the results of published articles and sketch research agendas that can contribute to the existing body of knowledge in this domain, to provide practitioners and policymakers with better insights in managing the impacts of COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, in this study, we advance the supply chain literature by answering the following research questions.

• i. What are the main themes and contents of the published research on the COVID-19 pandemic in supply chain disciplines?
• ii. What are the opportunities for future research on the COVID-19 pandemic in supply chain disciplines?

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first literature review of studies on the COVID-19 pandemic in supply chain disciplines. Although several review articles on the impacts of disease outbreaks have been published recently, none of them specifically focuses on research on the COVID-19 pandemic in supply chain disciplines. For example, previous literature reviews have synthesized findings concerning the impacts of epidemics (in general) on logistics ( Dasaklis et al., 2012 ), the effects of past epidemics on supply chains ( Queiroz et al., 2020 ), and the causes of panic buying during an epidemic or pandemic ( Yuen et al., 2020 ). In contrast to these studies, our study focused on published articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic in supply chain disciplines. Although the COVID-19 pandemic is an extraordinary supply chain disruptions ( Ivanov, 2020b , Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020b ), we have also reviewed the literature on prior epidemic outbreaks and other disruptions to enhance our findings and to outline unique research opportunities. The findings can help scholars to conduct impactful research on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in the supply chain area, while also helping practitioners and policymakers understand what we already know on this topic so that they can deal with the actual impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the global supply chain. This study also explores the methodologies, contexts, and theoretical lenses used in the studies on COVID-19 pandemic in supply chain disciplines. We expect it can assist academics with issues of research design, such as deciding on the most appropriate methodology and context, in future studies.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides the review methodology for the systematic literature review. The articles themselves are analyzed in section 3. Section 4 provides a review of studies on prior epidemic outbreaks and other disruptions in supply chain disciplines. Based on the analysis and findings, further research opportunities are discussed in section 5. Finally, section 6 concludes the paper.

2. Review methodology

In this review paper, we followed a systematic literature review (SLR) approach. SLR has proven to be a rigorous framework for literature reviews ( Tranfield et al., 2003 ), and we illustrate in Fig. 1 the search methodology we undertook for this study. First, the research theme was finalized to conduct the literature search ( Cooper et al., 2018 ). Second, multiple research databases (Scopus, Google Scholar, and the Web of Science) were used to search for relevant articles. We considered different types of articles, including research articles, opinion pieces, short notes, discussion papers, review articles, and letters to the editor published in scholarly journals. Finally, we conducted a reference check of the included articles to enrich the final list of articles. We considered articles published online, including articles in the press and pre-publication versions of articles, up through our 28 September 2020 cut-off date.

Search methodology for finalizing the articles for analysis.

As depicted in Fig. 1 , initially we searched in Scopus using the keywords “supply chain” and “COVID-19” or “SARS-COV-2” or “coronavirus” both for articles and review papers published since 2020 in English. The search yielded 198 results. We then excluded the irrelevant results by reading titles, abstracts, and full papers; this process excluded 142 articles, leaving 56 papers from the Scopus database. The inclusion criteria were: (i) articles focused on the supply chain in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, and (ii) both the search terms “supply chain” and “COVID-19”, “coronavirus”, or “SARS-COV-2” appeared in the body text. The exclusion criterion was one or more keywords only appearing in reference lists without being discussed in the body text. Then, to enhance the search results we repeated our search in Google Scholar and the Web of Science, and also conducted reference checks of our 56 identified articles. In the process, we identified a further 77 articles; but 38 of these were removed because they duplicated our findings from the previous search. We then read, in full, the remaining 39 articles, of which we included 18 for further consideration and excluded 21 based on the exclusion criterion mentioned before. Finally, we checked the references of the additional 18 articles, and no further articles were identified. The entire process yielded a total of 74 articles for our analysis.

These 74 articles are systematically reviewed and analyzed to synthesize the themes investigated and other aspects, such as the methodologies, contexts, and theories used in these studies. Furthermore, this study analyzes the studies from two closely related fields on prior epidemic outbreaks and other disruptions in supply chain disciplines to provide unique future research opportunities. Similar to the studies on the COVID-19 pandemic in supply chain disciplines, main themes and methodologies, contexts and theories used in the articles on these two fields are explored. Finally, this study discusses future research opportunities and outlines potential research questions by considering the research findings on COVID-19 and studies on prior epidemics and disruptions in supply chain disciplines. The framework of the analysis process of this systematic review paper is illustrated in Fig. 2 .

Framework of the analysis process.

3. Analyzing the reviewed articles on the COVID-19 pandemic in supply chain disciplines

This section investigates the methodologies, contexts, and theoretical underpinnings used in the 74 articles identified through our search methods. It synthesises the main themes investigated in these studies. However, a descriptive analysis is conducted to provide the selected articles' general landscape before this. The analysis uncovers journals that have extensively publish research on the COVID-19 pandemic in supply chain disciplines and the leading subject areas in these articles. The distribution of the identified articles by different source titles, as presented in Table 1 , shows that a wide variety of journals have contributed to the literature in this domain.

Articles by source title.

The selected articles’ different subject areas are presented in Fig. 3 , and show that business, management, and accounting, environmental science, engineering and decision sciences are at the top of the list. The other descriptive analyses of the selected articles are presented in Appendix A ( supplementary material ), which includes the affiliated countries of the authors (Table A1), the affiliated institutions of the authors (Table A2), the authors’ names (Table A3) and word art showing the different keywords used in the articles (Fig. A1). The description of each paper is presented in Appendix B ( supplementary material ).

Subject areas in the analyzed articles.

3.1. Methodologies used

This subsection analyzes the reviewed articles in terms of the methodologies their authors use. For this purpose, we divided the articles into several categories, including empirical (e.g., studies involving interviews, case studies, focus groups, the Delphi technique, and surveys), quantitative (e.g., studies involving mathematical models, simulations, analytical modeling, and multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method), literature reviews (e.g., reviews, analytical reviews, and systematic or structured reviews), and researchers’ opinions (opinion pieces, commentaries, and discussion articles). Table 2 shows the breakdown of methodologies used in the reviewed articles.

Research methodologies used in the reviewed articles.

The analysis reveals that the largest number of articles (31 out of 74) relied on researchers’ opinions as their main method of investigation. More specifically, at the start of COVID-19, researchers provided their perspectives and opinions on the potential impacts of and responses to this pandemic. Among the 31 articles that used researchers’ opinions, 25 of them used the perspective or viewpoint of the researchers themselves, while four of them were discussion and two were conceptual papers. The prevalence of opinion pieces is understandable, considering the sudden occurrence and huge impact of the pandemic, and also the limited time that researchers had to collect and analyze relevant data. However, this pattern also suggests that further research is required, with real-world data, to understand the pandemic’s impacts in different contexts, and to formulate strategies to address them.

Quantitative methods were the second-largest category, accounting for 27 of the 74 reviewed articles. Among the various quantitative techniques, seven studies used simulation modeling to predict the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and to demonstrate the need for real-time visibility and structurally adaptable supply chains during a pandemic. Six studies used mathematical modeling techniques, including game-theoretical modeling ( Gupta et al., 2020 , Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020b , Kargar et al., 2020 ), mixed-integer linear modeling ( Lozano-Diez et al., 2020 ), stochastic optimization ( Mehrotra et al., 2020 ), and non-linear modeling ( Paul and Chowdhury, 2020a ). One of the studies ( Lozano-Diez et al., 2020 ) adopted an integrated mathematical and simulation model to recommend ways to reduce the shortage of medicines. Among the remaining articles, five studies used analytical modeling, nine relied on secondary data analysis including principal component analysis and cluster analysis, and one study applied stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis, which is one of the MCDM methods.

Literature reviews were used as the main research methodology in ten articles. Among them, five were simple review papers that did not employ systematic search and analysis methods. One of these articles ( Iyengar et al., 2020 ) acknowledges this limitation explicitly. Four other literature review articles used a systematic or structured approach in analyzing the articles. However, none of them is confined to the COVID-19 literature specifically. These studies summarize the literature from broad perspectives, considering the supply chain resilience modeling literature published between 2017 and 19 and its implications for COVID-19 ( Golan et al., 2020 ), the effects of past epidemics such as influenza, cholera, Ebola, malaria, and smallpox ( Queiroz et al., 2020 ), the use of AI in the agri-food supply chain ( Vaio et al., 2020 ), and the reasons for panic buying during a health crisis ( Yuen et al., 2020 ). One article ( Craighead et al., 2020 ) used an analytical review to investigate the theoretical underpinnings of response plans formulated by managers during health crises.

Only six of the studies that we reviewed used empirical methods in their research. Among them, three studies are qualitative, using a case study method in collecting and analyzing the data. The other three studies were survey-based and used descriptive statistics to report the findings. The lack of empirical studies confirms that researchers, thus far, have had limited opportunities to collect and analyze real-world data. However, the empirical studies are expected to reveal important supply chain issues and difficulties faced in different contexts, since the pandemic has caused unique challenges for supply chains.

3.2. Context of the studies

This section systematically analyzes the contexts brought into focus by the articles included in our review. The contexts are presented in terms of the location, type, and size of the industries considered in these articles.

3.2.1. National context

The reviewed articles were categorized according to the national contexts on which they focused ( Table 3 ). National context is an important factor for developing customized strategies for dealing with COVID-19, given that different countries have experienced different infection rates and adopted different lockdown strategies to manage the pandemic situation. Hence the industries in those countries faced contrasting challenges. The countries are also classified as developed (D) and developing/emerging (E) economies in our analysis, based on a recent report published by the United Nations ( United Nations, 2019 ). Among the 74 reviewed articles, three narrowed their scope to a particular region: two focused on South Asian countries, such as India and Bangladesh ( Majumdar et al., 2020 ), and the other investigated the context of central European countries, such as Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia ( Veselovská, 2020 ). Five studies considered multiple countries from various continents to demonstrate the global supply chain effects of the COVID-19 pandemic: comparisons included China, New Zealand, the United States, Vietnam, Nigeria, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, Jamaica, and Mongolia ( Guan et al., 2020 ); India, the United States, Germany, Singapore, and the United Kingdom ( Nikolopoulos et al., 2020 ); Brazil, India, the United Kingdom, and the United States ( Okorie et al., 2020 ); the United States and the United Kingdom ( Handfield et al., 2020 ); and the global context of many countries ( Xu et al., 2020a ). In terms of a specific country, four articles center on Canada and India, three on the United States, and one each on Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, Ghana, Iran, Ireland, Mexico, Russia, and Turkey.

The national contexts on which the reviewed articles focused.

3.2.2. Industry context

Our analysis reveals that the major focus of existing research was on the food and healthcare supply chain. This finding makes intuitive sense, given that the healthcare industry is experiencing a major surge in demand, while a severe disruption has been observed in the food supply chain as it struggles to provide everyday essentials and meet high consumer demand. Among the 74 reviewed articles, 30 did not explicitly mention the industries under consideration.

As mentioned previously, the food and healthcare supply chains have received significant attention, with each of these two sectors being addressed in 16 and 14 articles respectively. Six articles reflected multiple industry sectors, such as service, production, transportation, construction, agriculture, and grocery sectors ( Veselovská, 2020 ); transportation, equipment, retail, fast moving consumer goods, food, apparel and technology sectors ( van Hoek, 2020 ); automobile and earth-moving equipment sectors ( Handfield et al., 2020 ); aviation and tourism sectors ( Ibn-Mohammed et al., 2021 ); healthcare, food, clothing, retail, automobile, airline and high-tech industry sectors ( Xu et al., 2020a ); and automobile, personal computer, and home furnishing sectors ( Ishida, 2020 ). Among the rest of the articles, one each focused on the industries of service, oil, electronics, automotive, clothing, retail, aviation, toilet paper manufacturing, and ship-breaking. Table 4 shows a breakdown of the industry sectors in our reviewed articles. It is worth mentioning that only four articles ( Craighead et al., 2020 , Gurbuz and Ozkan, 2020 , Quayson et al., 2020 , Reardon et al., 2020 ) out of the 74 reviewed articles addressed issues faced by SMEs; the rest focused on large industries.

A breakdown of the industry sectors in the reviewed articles.

3.3. Theories used

Although a variety of theoretical frameworks may give rise to strategies for overcoming the challenges of a pandemic ( Craighead et al., 2020 ), the majority of the published studies are not based on any underpinning theory. The analysis reveals that only five articles on COVID-19 and the supply chain are theoretically grounded in this sense. The tenets of the theory of constraint are used in one study to formulate a pandemic management plan ( Baveja et al., 2020 ). Dynamic system theory is used as a methodological principle in another article to design the digital twin necessary for disruption management ( Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020c ). Yet another article ( Ivanov, 2020b ) uses information control and communication theory to explain the relations between resilience and viability. In order to create value for customers, Mollenkopf et al. (2020) used a service-dominant logic paradigm to prepare a supply chain response plan to the current food crisis. The behavioral decision theory is used to understand how organizations behave and make decisions during ambiguous events such as the COVID-19 pandemic ( Gunessee and Subramanian, 2020 ).

On the other hand, several studies suggest conducting research grounded by theoretical lenses. For example, Craighead et al. (2020) urge scholars and managers to use theoretical lenses to better understand the supply chain phenomena in play during a pandemic like COVID-19. Their study discusses how ten well-established and emergent theories, such as (i) the awareness–motivation–capability framework, (ii) event systems theory, (iii) game theory, (iv) institutional theory, (v) prospect theory, (vi) real options theory, (vii) resource dependence theory, (viii) resource orchestration theory, (ix) structural inertia, and (x) tournament theory, can all be used productively in this connection. Another study ( Ketchen and Craighead, 2020 ) further suggests the use of the resource orchestration theory in future research on the COVID-19 pandemic; this could provide valuable insight into how organizational resources could be deployed for enhancing various capabilities, such as online distributions, and how such deployment may affect performance during the disruption. Similarly, Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020b , Queiroz et al., 2020 also urge researchers to conduct studies underpinned by operations research/management theories, such as network theory, complexity theory, graph theory and systems dynamics theory as well as empirical theories such as contingency theory, resource/knowledge-based views, dynamic capabilities models, and information processing theory.

3.4. Main themes in the existing research: A synthesis

Our analysis revealed that these studies focus on four broad areas (see Fig. 4 ). While several articles discuss only one of these four themes, others touch on two or more of the four themes. Among the themes, exploring and reporting the various impacts of COVID-19 on supply chains is the most frequently discussed, appearing in 60 articles. Many of these articles (47) also discuss and report potential resilience strategies to reduce the impacts and to enable affected firms to make a quick recovery. Thirteen (13) of the included articles discuss the role of technology in the implementation of resilient strategies. Finally, 17 of the articles discuss issues of sustainability in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The following sub-sections summarize each of these four themes.

Themes of the reviewed articles.

3.4.1. Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic

The majority (60) of the reviewed articles discuss the impacts of COVID-19 on supply chains. The reviewed articles report several impacts of COVID-19 related to various supply chain areas, as outlined in Table 5 .

List of impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on supply chains.

In the area of demand management, researchers mention demand fluctuation and firms’ ability to manage such changes in demand. COVID-19 has affected the pattern of consumers’ purchasing behavior for both essential and non-essential products ( Hakovirta and Denuwara, 2020 , Mollenkopf et al., 2020 ). The demand for essential products (e.g., food, medicine and ventilators) increased sharply ( Paul and Chowdhury, 2020a , van Hoek, 2020 ), leading to temporary product shortages ( Deaton and Deaton, 2020 , van Barneveld et al., 2020 ). Further, there have been delays in delivering products to customers via online and traditional distribution channels ( Ivanov and Das, 2020 ), causing the loss of security concerning essential items, such as food ( Siche, 2020 ). The reasons for such demand spikes include panic buying, uncertainty about the future, and stockpiling behaviors ( Hobbs, 2020 , Richards and Rickard, 2020 ). One study ( Yuen et al., 2020 ) explored the causes of such panic buying and found that several factors, such as perceived threats, fear of the unknown, the copying of others’ behavior, and other social psychological factors are in play. As a solution, one study ( Zhu and Krikke, 2020 ) suggests that information that may lead to panic buying should not be disseminated to the public. At the same time, non-essential products have seen downward demand, because the income of customers has declined and they prefer to save money for an uncertain future ( Abhishek et al., 2020 , Chiaramonti and Maniatis, 2020 ). More generally, many industries, including aerospace, tourism, oil, gas, and apparel, are bearing the brunt of this extraordinary crisis ( Majumdar et al., 2020 ). The sudden fluctuation in demand creates ambiguity and uncertainty for supply chains, affecting both forecasting and decision-making ( Gunessee and Subramanian, 2020 ). Moreover, this also affects the price of the products. While the price of the essential products has increased ( Farias and Araújo, 2020 ), the price of non-essential products has declined.

In the area of supply management, governments have imposed full or partial lockdowns around the world, restricting vehicle movements to control the spread of the virus; such measures have substantially affected suppliers’ ability to deliver products on time to customers ( Ivanov and Das, 2020 ). In the modern globalized world, companies are sourcing materials from all parts of the globe. Even if the direct suppliers of a company are from the domestic market, its tier 2 or tier 3 suppliers are likely to be located overseas. As a result, the sudden closure of international suppliers’ operations, in line with local restrictions created by lockdowns, have caused supply disruptions for manufacturers.

In the production management area, suppliers' failures create severe production disruptions and backlog for companies ( Richards and Rickard, 2020 ). Moreover, the production capacity of the companies has been reduced due to several policy decisions, such as reduced office hours and having employees work on alternative days to maintain social distancing in the office ( Leite et al., 2020 ). Because of these social distancing and safety measures, employees have been unable to work full time, causing a workforce shortage ( Trautrims et al., 2020 ). Moreover, limited operations in the factory also resulted in the obsolescence and impairment of machinery and capital assets ( Dente and Hashimoto, 2020 ).

In the areas of transportation and logistics management, different modes of transportation, including ocean shipping, air freight, trucking, and rail, have all been disrupted because of the restriction in vehicle movement ( Gray, 2020 ). These transportation disruptions have created delays and negatively affected the smooth flow of products ( Chiaramonti and Maniatis, 2020 ), while also disrupting international trade ( Deaton and Deaton, 2020 ). Distribution and logistics patterns are shifting rapidly. While for many years physical channels were the main distribution mode, the pandemic has forced many companies to shift their business fully online, or to undertake a blended online-offline model. Moreover, physical distribution channels are either closed or have limited operations due to the restrictions ( Dente and Hashimoto, 2020 ). Despite the efforts of companies to increase their capacity in the area of online sales, the loss or limited operations of physical channels has caused huge negative impacts on the flow of supply chains. Moreover, the sudden surge in online sales also outstripping the ability of the supply chains to cope. For example, while some retailers have developed ‘dark-warehouses’—a distribution center designed to serve online customers exclusively—others are struggling to quickly implement logistical solutions to meet the new demand ( Mollenkopf et al., 2020 ).

The COVID-19 pandemic has also impacted supply chain relationship management. The limited scope of social interactions among supply chain partners is reported in one study ( Baveja et al., 2020 ). This decline in interactions causes information incompleteness, which can lead to information ambiguity and a lack of clarity and precision ( Gunessee and Subramanian, 2020 ). Moreover, this has reduced supplier engagement, making it harder for companies to develop a collaborative approach by integrating all the parties involved ( van Hoek, 2020 ). Opportunistic behaviors might also increase, as Gupta et al. (2020) noted, and non-disrupted suppliers may charge higher prices if they see that other suppliers have been affected by disruptions.

Several of the impacts described in the studies are not related to a particular area of the supply chain, but rather linked to the entire supply chain management area. The activities in a supply chain are interconnected; hence, disruption in one of the functions leads to a ripple effect encompassing other functions ( Gunessee and Subramanian, 2020 , Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020b ). This finding suggests that overall operations are disrupted when one segment does not function properly ( Queiroz et al., 2020 ). The combination of these effects on demand, supply, production, transportation, logistics, and relationships can cause the total collapse of supply chains ( Yuen et al., 2020 ). Moreover, supply chain partners, including manufacturers and their suppliers and distributors, may keep their facility centers closed or limit their operations, in line with government policies and guidelines ( Quayson et al., 2020 ).

In the performance or financial management area, reductions in supply chains’ financial performance ( Ivanov and Das, 2020 ) and overall cash inflow ( Hakovirta and Denuwara, 2020 ) are reported in the reviewed articles. Two studies ( Guan et al., 2020 , Ivanov, 2020a ) also investigate how these losses increase or decrease based on other factors, such as restriction measures and their duration. The findings suggest that the extent of financial losses largely depends on the number of countries placing the lockdown or restriction measures into effect, and the duration of such measures rather than their strictness ( Guan et al., 2020 ). The extent of losses also depends on the timing of facilities’ closing and reopening at the different levels of a supply chain ( Ivanov, 2020a ). As a result of such performance reductions, the overall global gross domestic product is expected to decrease by 12.6 percent in 2020, which may rise to 26.8 percent because of the global lockdown ( Guan et al., 2020 ).

The final set of impacts reported in the articles is related to sustainability management. In general, researchers found that the sustainability focus (both social and environmental) has been negatively affected, as companies struggle to survive ( Sharma et al., 2020a ). Likewise, creating a healthy and safe working environment has been given less priority since the pandemic began ( Trautrims et al., 2020 ). Companies are also less committed to developing green and low-carbon energy ( Hosseini, 2020 ). Furthermore, because of the transportation delays and demand variations, businesses dealing with food or other perishables are often left with large amounts of unsellable products and waste ( Dente and Hashimoto, 2020 , Trautrims et al., 2020 ). Moreover, transportation and labor crises would significantly increase recyclable materials and products. For example, Rahman et al. (2021) suggest that in the ship-breaking industry alone, there are expected to be around 300 million gross tonnages of recyclable material generated in the next five years, which would cost around $20 billion if they are not recycled.

In addition to citing these impacts, many of the studies that we reviewed agreed these impacts are likely to be long-lasting ( Ivanov, 2020b , Ivanov, 2020a , Ivanov and Das, 2020 , Veselovská, 2020 ). As such, Gunessee and Subramanian (2020) report that COVID-19 affects almost all existing supply chain decisions and suggests developing better strategies for resilience.

3.4.2. Resilience strategies

In the pre-COVID-19 era, in studies about supply chain resilience strategies, if researchers considered issues related to an epidemic or pandemic, they focused on a specific disruption scenario such as one involving supplier selection ( Golan et al., 2020 ). However, these studies remained silent about the “unknown unknowns” of a pandemic like the current COVID-19 crisis, neglecting to consider, for example, how the effects of a disrupted node might be propagated throughout the supply chain. As a result, supply chains are not as resilient as they should be. In response to the current vulnerability, several studies (47) suggested various strategies for minimizing the impacts of COVID-19, recovering from the current pandemic, and preparing for future pandemics. By closely reviewing the arguments presented in these articles, we identified the range of strategies that have been proposed. To this end, we focused on three main dimensions of supply chain resilience, namely preparedness, response, and recovery ( Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2016 ). A strategy is considered effective for preparedness if it is preemptive for future disruption readiness; for the response, if it can help members of the supply chain respond quickly to minimize the immediate impacts; and for recovery, if it can help the supply chain return to its original or even a better state ( Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2016 , Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009 ). Table 6 summarizes the resilience strategies proposed in the articles we reviewed, and indicates which of the three dimensions of supply chain resilience they aim to enhance.

Resilience strategies for managing the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the current pandemic, shortages of essential food products and medicines are widely reported. To minimize the impacts of this problem and to ensure the supply of essential products, various strategies have been suggested in the literature. Among them, ramping up production early by taking rapid decisions, to minimize shortfalls, is suggested in various studies ( Lozano-Diez et al., 2020 , Mehrotra et al., 2020 , Veselovská, 2020 ). In this connection, the optimal timing for ramping up production is a critical consideration, and should be determined by analyzing relative costs and benefits ( Mehrotra et al., 2020 ). Further, supply chains can allocate resources from non-priority areas, and re-direct staff from non-critical activities while also hiring students and retired persons to accelerate their response ( Leite et al., 2020 ).

Supply chains may also need to increase their production capacity ( Paul and Chowdhury, 2020a ). Given that pandemic-caused spikes in demand are for the short run, researchers have proposed building temporary capacities by removing non-essential operations, rather than increasing the permanent capacities ( Leite et al., 2020 ), and using distributed manufacturing systems ( Shokrani et al., 2020 ). In general, establishing geographically-dispersed manufacturing facilities with the necessary logistical supports is considered effective as a proactive readiness strategy. At the same time, acknowledging the need to increase production capacities, a number of the studies have suggested strategies for modifying product features, such as their basic quality and size, to serve more customers with existing resources ( Paul and Chowdhury, 2020b ). To improve the responsiveness and diversified needs of the supply chain, some studies proposed redesigning and improving logistics, such as redesigning production facilities and diversifying their locations to accommodate emergency items, especially PPE items ( Rowan and Laffey, 2020 ), and improving transportation routes for this purpose. The implementation of faster delivery modes, such as air transport, has also been recommended ( Deaton and Deaton, 2020 ). Generally, the demand for services from the various entities involved in the supply chain will peak at different points; hence, resource sharing among these entities has been proposed, as a strategy for minimizing the impacts and recovering from this extraordinary disruption ( Mehrotra et al., 2020 ).

It is neither practical nor possible to increase production if there is a shortage of raw materials. In their study, Paul and Chowdhury (2020a) reported that an Australian hand sanitizer company had to stop the production process due to a lack of raw materials. As a response to such issues, several studies suggested strategies for increasing upstream resilience. For example, Ivanov & Dolgui (2020a) proposed enhancing visibility by mapping supply networks, to predict potential disruptions and their consequences. This mapping can be useful for formulating node/supplier-specific strategies. Another recommendation is for supply chains to diversify suppliers across different locations, to avoid production breakdowns while a given location is under lockdown ( van Hoek, 2020 ). Moreover, the use of emergency sourcing at times of crisis has been suggested as a strategy for responding to and recovering from the impacts of the COVID-19 outbreak ( Paul and Chowdhury, 2020b ).

Strategies related to logistics and supply chain restructuring, including location and size, have been proposed both as a way of minimizing current impacts and as a way of ensuring a more resilient supply chain in the post-COVID-19 era. Several studies ( Cappelli and Cini, 2020 , Deaton and Deaton, 2020 , van Hoek, 2020 ) have suggested nearshoring or back shoring production facilities to increase domestic capabilities for dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. In the pre-COVID-19 era, many firms adopted the offshoring strategy and set up production plants with necessary logistic supports in developing countries to minimize production costs. However, COVID-19 shows that during a pandemic it is harder to transport products from various locations. Therefore, even if companies decide to outsource products from overseas, they will still need to strike a balance between domestic production and international trade to reduce vulnerability ( Deaton and Deaton, 2020 ). Designing short supply chains by reducing the number of partners can also be effective in accelerating recovery and preparing for the next disruption ( Farias and Araújo, 2020 ). Other studies suggested improving IT capability in supply chains. The popularity and requirements of mobile services have increased substantially, with consumers now preferring to receive services at their doorstep ( Choi, 2020a , Richards and Rickard, 2020 ). Hence, firms should now use home delivery, online sales, and mobile services; and by the same token, digitalization and the use of information technology are required to monitor the supply chain and to reduce the impacts of disruption ( Ibn-Mohammed et al., 2021 , van Hoek, 2020 ). Several disruptive technologies such as cloud computing, 3-D printing, Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), and big data analytics are suggested in this regard. Further, with the current social distancing measures, only a limited number of employees can work in the factory. To boost the production capacity despite limited staff, researchers have suggested automating the production system such that it can function with less human intervention ( Ivanov and Das, 2020 ). Moreover, in line with the safety measures, it is recommended that companies develop and implement contactless payment systems, especially at the retail store level ( Mollenkopf et al., 2020 ). Likewise, to deal with the shortage of capital for purposes of restructuring the supply chain and digitalization, Deaton and Deaton (2020) proposed easing capital flow.

Along with implementing restructuring strategies, supply chains need to develop new supply chain partnerships to smooth the flow of products and services ( Veselovská, 2020 ). For example, while a company re-shores its production facility, it may need to find and build partnerships with new suppliers to ensure locational proximity. Improved supply chain relationships and collaborations can also safeguard companies from negative impacts, allowing for quick recovery as well as preparation for future events ( Hobbs, 2020 , Paul and Chowdhury, 2020a , Sharma et al., 2020a ). Being connected drives supply chain partners to meet the requirements of each other; they can thereby reduce the impacts of disruptions. Knowledge management via sharing important information, ideas, and expertise ( Jabbour et al., 2020 ), as well as synchronization of strategic processes ( Sharma et al., 2020a ), are also reported as helpful in dealing with the impacts of COVID-19. Such information and knowledge exchange can reduce information ambiguity, which is a significant problem for businesses during a pandemic or any other major disruption ( Gunessee and Subramanian, 2020 ). The integration of shops and warehouses at various levels—such as central, state and district-level warehouses—is also necessary for maintaining responsiveness to and meeting demand during a pandemic ( Singh et al., 2020 ). Focusing on the example of toilet paper, one study ( Paul and Chowdhury, 2020b ) suggested horizontal collaboration among similar types of producers at a national level to ensure the supply of necessary products during this crisis ( Paul and Chowdhury, 2020b , Paul and Chowdhury, 2020b ). Along with steps taken to bolster relationships, a focus on strengthening contracts is also helpful, to prevent supply chain partners from engaging in opportunistic behaviors in the future ( Gupta et al., 2020 ).

While developing resilience strategies, supply chains need to ensure real-time flexibility, or dynamic responses ( Hobbs, 2020 , Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020c ). Proactive and flexible strategies can help make supply chains less sensitive to external disruptions ( Ivanov and Das, 2020 ). Focusing specifically on low-demand items, Chiaramonti and Maniatis (2020) urged firms to reduce the price of products, this being a common economic strategy for managing demand reduction. Several strategies for increasing sustainable practices have also been suggested, given the importance of sustainability for supply chain resilience. For example, the implementation of all appropriate safety measures for the workforce can reduce the probability of the spread of COVID-19 and help ensure the continuity of production/operations ( Rizou et al., 2020 ). Moreover, the cancellation of unauthorized subcontractors ( Majumdar et al., 2020 ), the production of renewable and bio-based energy ( Chiaramonti and Maniatis, 2020 ) and the development of automated waste treatment processes ( Sharma et al., 2020b ) are suggested for the post-COVID-19 era. At the same time, several studies ( Choi, 2020a , Kumar et al., 2020 , Majumdar et al., 2020 ) recognized the need for support from stakeholders such as non-government organizations (NGOs) and the government to help organizations handle the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic; hence, researchers have called for support and subsidy schemes.

In short, developing and implementing a holistic, resilient response plan, which integrates multiple strategies, is crucial—as emphasized in a number of the studies we reviewed ( Baveja et al., 2020 , Ivanov, 2020b , Jabbour et al., 2020 , Leite et al., 2020 ). In the post-COVID-19 era, a viable supply chain, which is simultaneously agile, resilient, and sustainable, is essential, not just to recover from the current crisis but also to prepare well for the next pandemic or other major disruption ( Ivanov, 2020b ).

3.4.3. The role of technology in implementing resilience strategies

Researchers have suggested using a number of technologies, such as digital twins, industry 4.0, 3-D printing technology, artificial intelligence and mobile service operation, for managing supply chains during and after COVID-19 pandemic. Thirteen (13) of the papers we reviewed discussed the use of technology in implementing resilience strategies. They focused on low-tech solutions to the problem of obtaining sufficient quantities of medical equipment in healthcare supply chains ( Armani et al., 2020 ); applications of digital supply chains and industry 4.0 ( Deshmukh and Haleem, 2020 , Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020c , Kumar et al., 2020 , Okorie et al., 2020 , Quayson et al., 2020 ); the use of additive manufacturing methods, such as 3-D printing technology, to meet the extra demand for ventilators and personal protective equipment (PPE) ( Iyengar et al., 2020 , Larrañeta et al., 2020 , Novak and Loy, 2020 ); the use of mobile service operations to bring service directly into people’s homes ( Choi, 2020a ); the use of a drone or hybrid truck-drone for ensuring on-time and contactless delivery ( Quayson et al., 2020 , Singh et al., 2020 ); and the use of artificial intelligence for developing sustainable business models ( Vaio et al., 2020 ). Several studies also suggested that modern and emergent technologies may be helpful for managing the impacts of COVID-19, both during and after the pandemic ( Gurbuz and Ozkan, 2020 , Okorie et al., 2020 ).

With the supply chains for medical products such as PPE and ventilators being especially critical during the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers have suggested the use of 3-D printing technology, one of the concepts of additive manufacturing, to manufacture products for medical/healthcare supply chains ( Iyengar et al., 2020 , Larrañeta et al., 2020 , Novak and Loy, 2020 ). These studies have argued that the use of such technology can help the medical/healthcare supply chains most, given the surge of demand for PPE, ventilators, and other medical equipment during the pandemic. 3-D printing techniques, among other technologies, can help companies design and manufacture those products quickly.

3.4.4. The COVID-19 pandemic and supply chain sustainability

During the COVID-19 pandemic, sustainability practices have been substantially affected. Seventeen (17) of the studies that we reviewed discussed several issues under different dimensions of sustainability. Several of these studies considered environmental and social sustainability along with economic dimensions, including job loss, health and safety issues, the problem of domestic violence, social and health inequality ( Hakovirta and Denuwara, 2020 , Ibn-Mohammed et al., 2021 , Sharma et al., 2020a , Sharma et al., 2020b , van Barneveld et al., 2020 ), the pandemic’s impact on the labor market ( van Barneveld et al., 2020 ), modern slavery risk ( Trautrims et al., 2020 ), the dominant power of a few select brands, ethical violations by organizations ( Majumdar et al., 2020 ), compliance with labor laws and social standards ( Sharma et al., 2020c ), and the broader social cost of the pandemic ( Jabbour et al., 2020 , Queiroz et al., 2020 ).

Several other studies considered issues of environmental sustainability vis-à-vis the current pandemic. These include reversal of the progress that has been made toward embracing green and low-carbon methods of energy generation ( Hosseini, 2020 ); the environmental impact of the life cycle of pharmaceutical products, which has increased during pandemic progress ( Yu et al., 2020 ); the pandemic’s impacts on waste flows, resource use and air pollution ( Dente and Hashimoto, 2020 , Sharma et al., 2020c ); the implementation of environmental sustainability policies ( Amankwah-Amoah, 2020a ); the recyclability of end-of-life products ( Rahman et al., 2021 ); and the increase in medical, plastic, and food waste ( Sharma et al., 2020b ) . Other researchers have suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic will have both positive and negative impacts on environmental sustainability, since both companies and the general population are expected to be more committed to sustainability in the post-COVID-19 era ( Dente and Hashimoto, 2020 , Sarkis et al., 2020 ). The positive environmental impacts include better air quality, low carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions, a decline in energy use, and a decrease in environmental pollution ( Dente and Hashimoto, 2020 , Ibn-Mohammed et al., 2021 , Sarkis et al., 2020 , van Barneveld et al., 2020 ). Table 7 indicates how the studies we reviewed have considered different dimensions and issues of supply chain sustainability in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dimensions and issues of sustainability vis-à-vis the COVID-19 pandemic.

4. Review on prior epidemic outbreaks and disruptions in supply chain disciplines

In this section, we reviewed the articles related to prior epidemic outbreaks and other disruptions in supply chain disciplines, and explored how they might provide unique research opportunities.

4.1. Research on prior epidemic outbreaks

A recent review article ( Queiroz et al., 2020 ) synthesizes the impacts of epidemics—including the COVID-19 pandemic—on logistics and supply chains by reviewing 32 articles. To make our review more streamlined and holistic, we also looked at existing studies on epidemic outbreaks in supply chain disciplines to analyze their main contributions and findings, as well as methodology, industry and country context, and theories used. To find articles, we searched Scopus using the keywords ‘epidemics’ and ‘supply chain management’. Then we read the title, abstract, and full text to select the articles relevant to supply chain disruptions during epidemic outbreaks. Finally, we shortlisted 25 relevant articles, discussing their main finding below and presenting a summary of each article in Table C1 in Appendix C ( supplementary material ).

The majority of the articles (24 out of 25) focused on the different aspects of supply chain resiliency as strategies for managing disruptions. These articles broadly focus on two major areas: (1) allocating resources to increase supply chain capabilities during large-scale disruptions; and (2) redesigning logistics and supply chain networks to reduce vulnerability. In the first area, articles have highlighted resource shortages as a major obstacle during an epidemic ( Enayati and Özaltın, 2020 , Liu et al., 2020 , Parvin et al., 2018 , Rachaniotis et al., 2012 , Savachkin and Uribe, 2012 , Sun et al., 2014 ). Consequently, these studies offered various strategies for allocating minimal or further resources, such as controlling transportation costs and equitable policies ( Savachkin and Uribe, 2012 ); undertaking threshold policy for inventory balancing; optimal area-based trans -shipment policy and planning horizon ( Parvin et al., 2018 ); increasing capacity to manage disruptions ( Hessel, 2009 , Sun et al., 2014 ); implementing cost-sharing contracts ( Mamani et al., 2013 ) or coordinating contracts ( Chick et al., 2008 ); and appropriate capacity setting and the minimum budget ( Liu et al., 2020 ). These studies mostly looked at the influenza epidemic, while a few were focused on outbreaks of ebola and malaria ( Büyüktahtakın et al., 2018 ). Most of the studies have healthcare and pharmaceutical supply chain as their context.

In the area of redesigning logistics and supply chain networks, several articles studied methods for optimizing such networks. These studies suggested several strategies which include reconfiguration of facility location for food distribution ( Ekici et al., 2014 ); designing/redesigning a distribution and logistics network for minimizing the total cost of vaccine supply, when considering the demand backlogs, vaccine shortage, and losses due to an Influenza outbreak ( Hovav and Herbon, 2017 , Orenstein and Schaffner, 2008 ); building isolated areas for animal slaughtering and establishing centrally controlled slaughterhouse facilities ( Khokhar et al., 2015 ); and the use of dynamic logistics concepts for distribution network design, especially for medical products and resources ( Liu and Zhang, 2016 ). One of the studies also suggested the use of flow-down of products to the lowest level in the network, and the permitting of sufficient warm-up to avoid the end of horizon effects for vaccine distribution, to prepare for the potential impacts of an epidemic, (e.g. vaccine shortages, transportation delays, and product losses during distribution, storage, and/or transportation) ( Chen et al., 2014 ). Although not focused on commercial supply chains, Dasaklis et al. (2012) confirmed the importance of logistics operations and their efficient management for handling epidemic disruptions such as polio, smallpox, cholera, and HIV.

Other articles that suggested resilience strategies mainly focused on mitigating the immediate effects of the epidemic. Given that majority of the reviewed articles (16 out of 25) focused on pharmaceutical supply chains, a shortage in product supply was a common obstacle. As a result, these studies highlighted a few strategies to increase immediate product supply. These strategies include the use of emergency sourcing from unaffected parts of the world ( Anparasan and Lejeune, 2018 , Dasaklis et al., 2012 ); use of emergency operations and logistics such as new transportation modes ( Huff et al., 2015 ); use of backup suppliers and contract agreement ( Shamsi et al., 2018 ); outsourcing drugs from third parties to improve access, as well as the use of improved ordering policy, lead time, safety stock and replenishment policy ( Dasaklis et al., 2012 , Paul and Venkateswaran, 2020 ); and use of piggybacking, enabling satellite drug storage facilities, and removing barriers to local and regional trade ( Min, 2012 ). Studies also considered collaborative strategies, such as the design of coordination mechanisms among stakeholders to manage financial losses and increase product availability ( Anparasan and Lejeune, 2018 , Mohan et al., 2009 ), and the use of coordinated supply chains to manage logistics systems more efficiently ( Majić et al., 2009 ). One study suggested training to ensure that staff are capable of handling the immediate impacts of epidemic disruptions and are better equipped to deal with critical infrastructure ( Huff et al., 2015 ).

Several papers discussed the impacts of an epidemic on supply chains; however, we found only one article that mainly focused on the impacts of an influenza outbreak using a literature review-based case study ( Alders et al., 2014 ): it was focused on village poultry production, and listed several impacts of the influenza outbreak, such as adverse effect on employees and increased food insecurity. Several other impacts that were covered in other studies include the shortage of medical items, delays in transportation and distribution, unavailability of skilled manpower, demand backlogs, resource shortage, disruption in the logistics system, market and economic losses, and supply disruptions.

We observed that sixteen articles developed mathematical models. The mathematical models include linear or non-linear programming, integer or mixed-integer programming, game-theoretic modeling, and stochastic programming. Among other articles, four are conceptual studies, two are reviews, and one each used survey, secondary data analysis, and system dynamic model. Concerning the contexts of these studies, diverse national contexts were considered. However, the majority of the articles considered pharmaceutical/medicinal supply chains. We also noticed that among the twenty-five articles, only one study considered SMEs ( Khokhar et al., 2015 ), and no study used theories for conceptualizing or investigating the problems. Table C1 in Appendix C ( supplementary material ) presents details about the relevant epidemic outbreaks, findings, methodology, context, and theories used.

5. Research on supply chain disruptions

Research on disruption management has received increased attention in the recent past ( Bier et al., 2020 ). With the increase in the numbers of available articles, several studies have also rigorously or systematically reviewed the published literature in this area and summarized the current knowledge. To avoid repetition while comprehensively reporting the state of the literature, we carefully identified and thoroughly reviewed 15 review articles that rigorously synthesize and report the findings of studies published until 2019 (presented in Table D1 in Appendix D under supplementary material ). To ensure rigor and comprehensiveness, we also searched Scopus for articles published since 2020 using the keyword ‘supply chain disruption’, and found and reviewed another 26 articles (presented in Table D2 in Appendix D under supplementary material ). The main observations of the review are described as follows.

Several studies investigated the potential types of disruptions in a supply chain, and ranked them in order to understand which disruptions could be the most critical ( Fan and Stevenson, 2018 , Fartaj et al., 2020 , Ho et al., 2015 ). These studies detailed how various types of disruptions may occur, such as natural disruptions including earthquakes, floods, cyclones, and extreme weather; man-made and discrete events including disease, labor strikes, port/traffic congestion, theft, and fire; system failure including machine or technology breakdown, utility failure, and obsolescence; and financial disruptions including fluctuation of exchange rates and bank interests, and import/export restrictions. While such a wide variety of disruptions have been identified, the literature also suggests that such disruptions are difficult for a supply chain to predict given that they occur suddenly. As such, a recent study suggested adding agility to the data in predicting supply chain disruptions ( Brintrup et al., 2020 ).

Assessments of disruptions show that the relative criticality of disruption depends on the context (both industry and country); because of this, different studies produced different rankings. For example, two recent studies looked at the transportation disruptions of two industries in Bangladesh: one pharmaceutical ( Paul et al., 2020 ) and the other automotive ( Fartaj et al., 2020 ). Several disruption assessment tools have been developed to support practitioners ( Snyder et al., 2016 ), as it has been found they tend to underestimate disruptions if proper assessment tools are not available ( Tang, 2006 ). While several studies assessing the disruption factors can be found in various contexts, these studies mostly identified or assessed disruption factors for a particular area/activity in a supply chain such as supply, demand, production, or transportation ( Fartaj et al., 2020 ). However, thus far, research identifying or investigating supply chain network-wide disruptions (i.e., assessing all disruptions simultaneously across various areas in a supply chain) is limited ( Baryannis et al., 2019 , Greening and Rutherford, 2011 ). For example, a recent review ( Duong and Chong, 2020 ) reported that 64.9 percent of studies reviewed consider either supply disruptions or demand disruptions.

Several studies investigated and reported the impacts of supply chain disruptions ( Ivanov et al., 2017 ), since Hendricks and Singhal (2003) confirmed a decrease in shareholder value, Hendricks and Singhal (2005a) reported a decrease in stockholder return, and Hendricks and Singhal (2005b) reported a decline in operating income, return on asset, and return on sales due to supply chain disruptions. These studies have confirmed the negative impacts of supply chain disruptions on several financial and non-financial performance indicators including, but not limited to, financial performance, supply chain performance, productivity, brand value, and reputation ( Bier et al., 2020 , Duong and Chong, 2020 , Greening and Rutherford, 2011 , Paul et al., 2016 ). However, the impacts of disruptions on supply chains differ based on differences in the network structures such as density, centrality, network tie, and structural holes ( Greening and Rutherford, 2011 ). Moreover, disruptions cause structural dynamics leading to a ripple effect in the supply chain ( Bier et al., 2020 , Duong and Chong, 2020 , Ivanov et al., 2017 , Xu et al., 2020b ). This ripple effect intensified with the complexity of supply chains ( Birkie and Trucco, 2020 ). Given that majority of the studies in this area investigated disruptions in each area/function of a supply chain in isolation, it is still not clear how disruptions in one area are propagated to another in a supply chain ( Ho et al., 2015 , Snyder et al., 2016 ). A recent study, comparing the impacts of disruptions in the upstream and downstream part of supply chains, reports that the latter has more impacts on supply chain performance than the former ( Olivares-Aguila and ElMaraghy, 2020 ).

The formulation of appropriate strategies for managing disruptions such as supply, demand, production, and transportation disruptions was the main focus of a vast number of studies ( Albertzeth et al., 2020 , Wu et al., 2020 ). These strategies include supply chain planning for disruptions, response plans for minimizing impacts, and action plans for quick recovery.

As a preparedness plan, various supply chain and logistics network design-oriented strategies such as network redesign ( Fattahi et al., 2020 , Fattahi and Govindan, 2020 , Tolooie et al., 2020 ), optimal network design ( Yan and Ji, 2020 ), supply chain flexibility ( Shekarian et al., 2020 ), and careful selection of facility locations ( Sundarakani et al., 2020 ) are suggested. A recent systematic review article examines various logistics and supply chain network types, such as hub-and-spoke, cross-docking, pick-up and delivery, and hybrid network design and evaluates their effectiveness for disruption management ( Esmizadeh and Parast, 2020 ). While each network has its advantages, the hub-and-spoke network with flexibility (also known as routing flexibility) was more effective for disruption management. The research and development (R&D) investments are also important for identifying and preparing for potential disruptions ( Parast, 2020 ). In particular, upstream supply disruptions formalized processes for supplier selections, lot sizing, and scheduling ( Mohammadi, 2020 ) along with optimum inventory level ( Islam et al., 2020 ). For downstream demand disruptions, demand planning is effective as it can reduce the disruptions in the downstream supply chain via proactive strategies ( Swierczek, 2020 ). Moreover, supply chain coordination is critical for managing demand disruptions ( Zhao et al., 2020 ). To enhance supply chain coordination with the downstream supply chain members, a linear quantity discount contract is more effective than a revenue-sharing contract ( Zhao et al., 2020 ).

Strategies are also developed for reducing impacts and quick recovery when supply chains experience a disruption ( Birkie and Trucco, 2020 ). Four strategies such as collaboration, redundancy, flexibility and agility are the main suggestions for managing disruptions ( Shekarian and Parast, 2020 ). Among these four, various collaboration practices are frequently suggested in the literature and are considered the most appropriate strategy for managing disruptions ( Shekarian and Parast, 2020 , Wu et al., 2020 ). A recent review ( Duong and Chong, 2020 ) identified seven collaboration practices that were used by commercial supply chains for responding and recovering from supply chain disruptions: (i) contractual and economics practices; (ii) joint practices; (iii) relationship management; (iv) technological and information sharing practices; (v) governance practices; (vi) assessment practices; and (vii) supply chain design (integrated operations). The necessity of ensuring visibility in supply chains through gathering, processing, and sharing information among the partners is highlighted in the disruption management literature ( Messina et al., 2020 , Tao et al., 2020 ). Having timely information about second-tier suppliers from immediate suppliers is also important for disruption management ( Yoon et al., 2020 ).

Other redundancy strategies typically considered for disruption management include inventory or capacity buffers, backup suppliers, flexibility strategies such as dual or multiple sourcing, and product and process flexibility ( Albertzeth et al., 2020 , Choi, 2020b , Gaur et al., 2020 , Ivanov et al., 2017 ). While redundancy strategies are suggested more frequently than flexible strategies ( Ivanov et al., 2017 ), the latter is applicable across various types of supply chains ( Gaur et al., 2020 , Tao et al., 2020 ). For example, flexibility in the procurement plan by considering sourcing, pricing, consumption, and delivery pattern is effective for managing the impacts of disruption in cruise ship supply chains ( Rodrigue and Wang, 2020 ). Ensuring agility –the ability to respond rapidly to disruptions by quickly modifying product development cycle time, lead time, and customer services – is also suggested in the literature. In fact, the ability to respond rapidly (agility) is more effective than long-term or fundamental changes (flexibility) in reducing the effect of a disruption ( Shekarian et al., 2020 ). Due to the sudden nature of disruptions, risk acceptance ( Albertzeth et al., 2020 ) and risk transfer such as undertaking insurance are also suggested ( Fan and Stevenson, 2018 ).

With such strategies in place and supply chains’ involvement in business continuity management ( Azadegan et al., 2020b ) and relevant business continuity programs ( Azadegan et al., 2020a ), supply chains can contain the damage of disruptions. However, in formulating the strategies, these studies mostly ignored complexity in supply chain network structures and investigated disruptions and network structure separately; hence, the disruption-structure-interfaces remain unclear ( Bier et al., 2020 ). Similar to disruption identification, assessment, and impact analysis, strategies were developed by considering disruptions in only one area of supply chains ( Duong and Chong, 2020 , Paul et al., 2016 ). As such, firms use different strategies to manage supply, demand, and production during a major disruption ( Tang, 2006 , Tang and Musa, 2011 ). Of the disruptions in various areas of supply chains, demand disruptions received the greatest attention for strategy development ( Shekarian and Parast, 2020 ). This may be because demand disruptions have greater impacts or are more closely linked to revenue than other disruptions ( Olivares-Aguila and ElMaraghy, 2020 ).

One of the common observations in almost all of the literature review articles is that studies on supply chain disruptions predominantly used a quantitative modeling approach ( Baryannis et al., 2019 , Bier et al., 2020 , Duong and Chong, 2020 ). The quantitative modeling approach includes mathematical, simulation, and analytical modeling. Looking at the high amount of research using quantitative modeling or management science models, the main focus of four review articles ( Fahimnia et al., 2015 , Ivanov et al., 2017 , Paul et al., 2016 , Snyder et al., 2016 ) was to synthesize the quantitative models used for managing supply chain disruptions. These studies suggested that there has been rapid development of quantitative modeling for supply chain disruptions and these models are used widely for a variety of purposes such as evaluating disruptions, developing strategic decisions under disruptions, and assessing various disruption management strategies (including recovery strategies). However, these studies mostly considered single disruption, i.e., supply or demand or production or transportation, compared to dual or multiple disruptions when designing recovery models ( Paul et al., 2016 ).

6. Research opportunities

The analysis of the articles reveals abundant opportunities for research on the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of supply chains. While several articles have been published since the COVID-19 pandemic began, studies that are systematic, methodologically sound, and well-grounded in theoretical tenets are still scarce. Based on the thematic synthesis of the articles provided in Section 3 and considering existing literature on prior epidemic outbreaks and other disruptions in supply chain management disciplines, in this section, we suggest some key areas that still need to be investigated. Table 8 highlights key future research questions and opportunities in different areas.

Summary of research questions and opportunities.

6.1. Impact focus

Several studies have discussed, as reported in Section 3.4.1 , the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on supply chains. Earlier research on epidemic outbreaks and other disruptions also reported several impacts on the operations in supply chains. However, no study thus far comprehensively explored all the potential short-term, medium-term, and long-term impacts of disruptions, including COVID-19 pandemic or other epidemics, on a particular supply chain (whether a supply chain for a high-demand or a low-demand item) to guide policymakers in this regard. Given that the impacts of a pandemic like COVID-19 are different for different types of products ( Paul and Chowdhury, 2020b ), future studies should explore these impacts by considering various product types. Prior studies on disruptions indicate that the impacts of disruption are likely to vary due to differences in network complexity, such as the number of nodes and edge (ties), network characteristics such as high vs low density and network ties, and structural holes ( Bier et al., 2020 ). Therefore, the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic should be explored with consideration for the complexity in the network structures. Reviewing the literature on COVID-19 pandemic, epidemics and other disruptions, we observe that there is a lack of articles investigating supply chain network-wide impacts, considering all potential disruptions simultaneously ( Baryannis et al., 2019 , Duong and Chong, 2020 , Greening and Rutherford, 2011 ). As such, the complex relationships between the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and how disruptions propagated throughout the supply chain is not yet clear ( Xu et al., 2020b ) and should be investigated. Investigating the relationships between the impacts, such as revealing the cause group and effect group, would also enable understanding of the most critical impacts; this would provide information to aid prioritization of the resilience strategies.

The literature on epidemic outbreaks and COVID-19 pandemic suggest that the sudden spikes in demand and reduction of production capacity are likely to cause a huge bullwhip effect for supply chains ( Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020b ). Hence, we suggest research questions on this issue to better understand these impacts. The research also should be carried out to investigate the impacts on SMEs as the previous studies in this area mostly ignored SMEs. For example, our review of 25 studies on epidemics and 26 studies on other disruptions published in 2020 shows that only one article in each category has considered SMEs along with large firms. Likewise, we found that only four studies thus far have discussed the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on SMEs. Yet small firms are the companies that have been most substantially impacted by this pandemic ( Quayson et al., 2020 ). Another study ( Ketchen and Craighead, 2020 ) stressed that it is hard to conceptualize the full impacts on SMEs without proper investigation. Hence, further studies are needed to understand the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on SMEs, which are the most common type of business in the world and the main contributor to economies worldwide ( Chowdhury et al., 2019 ).

6.2. Resilience focus

As noted in Section 3.4.2 , studies have also outlined several resilience strategies designed to deal with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some of the resilience strategies we found in Section 3.4.2 are also suggested in previous studies on epidemic outbreaks or other supply chain disruptions. For example, resource allocation, restructuring supply chains, and developing collaboration and relationships are suggested in the research on COVID-19, other epidemics, or supply chain disruptions. This denotes that some of the existing strategies to improve supply chain resilience can be useful during a global crisis like the current pandemic. However, it is also clear that the current COVID-19 pandemic has severely impacted almost all supply chains, highlighting the vulnerability of supply chains and requiring better resilience strategies. Therefore, further investigations are needed to understand the extent and how the strategies provided in previous studies helped supply chains handle issues related to COVID-19 and the best combination of strategies to deal with the impacts of the pandemic. Hence, by considering the findings and strategies suggested in studies on epidemics and other disruptions, we suggest several research questions that need to be explored to develop better resilience strategies for managing the impacts.

We noticed that most articles on disruptions only investigate one strategy in their studies ( Snyder et al., 2016 ). However, a single strategy may not be able to safeguard supply chains from all impacts of a pandemic and ensure a quick recovery. Hence, selecting an optimal combination of strategies that can ensure better resilience is important and should be explored. In this regard, future studies should map impacts using the strategies, i.e., outline which strategy can deal most effectively with which impact. A study of this sort can help policymakers to formulate a recovery plan. Our analysis of the studies on COVID-19 revealed that most of the studies focus on high-demand essential and medical products, as reported in Section 3.3.2. A similar observation is also noted from the review of studies on prior epidemic outbreaks, as discussed in Section 4.1 . Low-demand items, such as textiles, oil, and automobiles, are bearing the brunt of this pandemic as sales of these products—and thus cash inflow and profit—have decreased substantially ( Majumdar et al., 2020 ). Given that customized strategies are needed by firms in various industries ( Ishida, 2020 ), future studies exploring how supply chains for these low-demand items can survive during this pandemic, and recover in the post-COVID-19 era, are needed. As complexity-disruption-interfaces are not explored in the previous studies, we also suggest considering this in future studies on designing resilience strategies.

Future studies should also explore the challenges and requirements associated with implementing resilience strategies. For example, a number of studies of both COVID-19 pandemic and other epidemics suggest restructuring of logistics and supply chains by using techniques such as nearshoring, re-shoring, and back-shoring ( Deaton and Deaton, 2020 , van Barneveld et al., 2020 ). None of the articles, however, discussed the specific challenges to relocating production facilities in this manner, or what kinds of capabilities are required to do so. Restructuring supply chains along with implementing short supply chains will potentially affect the global supply chain. For example, current popular sourcing destinations and associated logistics networks will be affected by the restructuring, hence this issue should also be explored. It is also important to explore the role of various stakeholders, such as government policymakers, NGOs, firms, and supply chain partners, in implementing strategies for creating resilience. Exploring the roles of stakeholders in implementing such strategies would guide not only practitioners but also national policymakers when it comes time to formulate the necessary strategies. For example, to re-shore the production of medicines, a country may need to develop internal capabilities for supplying active pharmaceutical ingredients as well as required skillsets for the workforce. To develop such capabilities, active support from the government and policymakers is needed, and future studies should consider the mechanisms that might be used to obtain such support. Those studies should also explore how supply chains can collaborate with governments and policymakers to implement the needed strategies. Two previous literature reviews on supply chain disruptions identify the types of logistics and supply chain networks ( Esmizadeh and Parast, 2020 ) and collaboration practices ( Duong and Chong, 2020 ). It would be insightful if further studies could explore which of the logistics and supply chain networks and collaboration practices are most suitable during a large-scale global disruption like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Moreover, future studies should investigate how supply chains can be safeguarded if the current demand mismatch causes the bullwhip effect mentioned previously. In line with a recent study ( Lemke et al., 2020 ), we also suggest exploring the role of social networks of various supply chain players, such as transportation providers or truckers, in achieving supply chain resilience. Previous studies on epidemic outbreaks and other disruptions suggest that flexibility and agility in resilience strategies (e.g., being able to customize the plan quickly) is critical for achieving a quick recovery. This should be further explored to better understand the extent that the plant should be customized during a pandemic and how to achieve that. During COVID-19, it seems that supply chains were not able to utilize the pre-warning signals to minimize the potential impacts, although several reports warned supply chains at the beginning. This suggests that a more robust disruption monitoring framework is needed. Indeed, disruption monitoring is received the least attention in the supply chain disruption literature ( Fan and Stevenson, 2018 , Ho et al., 2015 ). We suggest further research on SMEs to improve their resilience and understand which large firm resilience strategies SMEs can adapt.

6.3. Technology focus

In the literature on the COVID-19 pandemic, as reported in Section 3.4.3 , several studies suggested that technologies such as 3-D printing, digital supply chains, and industry 4.0 be used to manage the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. These studies argue that such technologies can help the healthcare supply chain immediately ramp up the production of PPE, ventilators, and other needed items. In the long term, investigation of the use of other emergent technologies such as blockchain, AI, the Internet of things (IoT), data analytics, robotics, and so on could help improve supply chain resiliency and sustainability. Such investigations would enable us to understand how technologies and data analytics help manage pandemic disruptions ( Choi, 2021 ). Investigating the applicability and benefits of using emergent technology to manage the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic is, we suggest, an important research topic. The previous research on epidemics in commercial supply chains has not focused on the use of emergent technologies in the recovery process. Moreover, two recent literature reviews on supply chain disruptions ( Baryannis et al., 2019 , Xu et al., 2020b ) highlighted that studies investigating the use of recent and emerging technologies for managing disruption and ensuring resilience are particularly rare. As a result, how the supply chain can use technologies for flexibility and rapid response remains unclear.

We noticed that 3-D printing is suggested for producing and maintaining the supply of essential medical items. It would be insightful to investigate to what extent 3-D printing can support in this regard. We noticed a lack of research investigating how the disruptive and sophisticated technologies can help in the last mile of delivery associated with supply chains during a pandemic or epidemic; hence, future studies should investigate how the technologies can be used to manage such last-mile delivery during a pandemic to achieve greater responsiveness and reliability. A specific potential research area is the use of drones or drone integration with other transportation modes to ensure the supply of essential products while maintaining social distancing. Moreover, future studies can investigate the use of omni-channels by retailers to improve responsiveness during a pandemic or other crisis. Finally, future studies can explore the roles of technologies in overcoming the challenges that complex supply chain networks face in formulating and implementing resilience strategies during a pandemic.

6.4. Sustainability focus

As reported in Section 3.4.4 , studies have reported that the focus on sustainability practices has reduced during the current COVID-19 pandemic. It is worthwhile to investigate the underlying reasons behind such reduction of focus. We suggest the impacts on sustainable practices during the current COVID-19 pandemic should be explored rigorously to understand how disruptions impact sustainability. This is an area that is not explored well in previous studies on epidemics or general supply chain disruptions. Therefore, future studies could explore the changes in stakeholder pressure, focus and support for sustainable practices. Moreover, no study investigated the relationships between sustainable supply chain strategies and supply chain performance during a pandemic or epidemic disruption. Therefore, it would be valuable to analyze the impact of practising sustainable strategies on firms’ performance and resiliency, so as to manage more effectively the impacts of large-scale disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic. A number of studies have reported that a higher level of waste has been created during the COVID-19 pandemic as the distribution systems of perishable and other products have been heavily affected. As such, we suggest exploring how the circular economy concept or closed-loop supply chain contribute to waste management during a pandemic like COVID-19.

6.5. Other aspects

In our analysis, as reported in Section 3.1 , we found that only six out of 74 studies used empirical methods to collect and analyze data, while many articles (31) were based on researchers’ opinions, as given via perspective pieces, commentary, and discussion papers. Meanwhile, another 27 articles used quantitative modeling without using any empirical data. The lack of empirical focus is a concern reported in almost all the reviews on supply chain disruptions or epidemic outbreaks ( Esmizadeh and Parast, 2020 , Greening and Rutherford, 2011 , Ho et al., 2015 , Shekarian and Parast, 2020 , Tang and Musa, 2011 ), which is also reported in our findings in Section 4 . Opinion-based and quantitative studies with simulated data can provide valuable information at the start of an unprecedented crisis like the current pandemic. Still, it is now time to go one step further and conduct rigorous studies using empirical data to demonstrate real-world scenarios of how the COVID-19 pandemic impacts various issues related to supply chains, and how such impacts can be managed using the evidence of the practices that real-world supply chains have adopted. Research with evidence-based empirical data can strengthen the overall acceptability of the strategies proposed in those articles. In this regard, researchers can use both exploratory empirical methods, such as case studies, focus groups, and the Delphi technique, as well as empirically-based quantitative methods, such as survey-based modeling. It should also be pointed out that none of the six studies that employed empirical methods used inferential statistics to analyze the data. As such, we urge researchers to use inferential statistics such as regression and structural equation modeling to analyze the causal relationships among the various factors, i.e., resilience strategies and firm performance. In this way, future research can improve the generalizability of the relevant findings.

We acknowledge that the studies reviewed here have considered diverse geographical locations, as reported in Section 3.2.1 . Having said that, some of them just take the context as an example, without collecting any primary empirical data, as mentioned before. Therefore, we suggest diversifying the range of national and industry contexts considered in future work. The review of supply chain disruptions in Section 4.2 also suggests that the impacts of disruptions vary in different contexts. We also suggest conducting comparative studies of developed and developing countries. Such studies can provide valuable information about whether the impacts of this pandemic vary in different contexts, where organizational and technological set-ups are different. This would also enable us to understand how contextual factors influence the impacts of COVID-19 pandemic.

Finally, we found that only five studies, as reported in Section 3.3 , used theoretical tenets as the basis for the research reported. The lack of theory in the research is another concern reported in previous literature on epidemic disruptions ( Queiroz et al., 2020 ) and other supply chain disruptions ( Majumdar et al., 2020 ). In our review, we noticed that only six studies on supply chain disruptions were published in 2020 and none of the studies on epidemics applied a theory. In line with the suggestions of recent studies ( Craighead et al., 2020 , Ketchen and Craighead, 2020 , Queiroz et al., 2020 ), we call for more studies grounded in theory. It is important to ensure that arguments and analyses fit with the lenses of theory; in this way, studies can enhance the theoretical base and lead to new theory building in the field of disruption management. We, therefore, suggest that researchers should use theory more deliberately in conceptualizing, designing their studies and in discussing the results.

7. Conclusions

In this review, we have systematically identified and critically analyzed 74 articles that addressed supply chain issues arising from COVID-19. Moreover, we have reviewed the studies on prior epidemic outbreaks and disruptions in supply chain disciplines to make the findings comprehensive and provide unique and impactful research opportunities. Our analysis reveals that the main focus of the published articles relates to the impacts of this pandemic along with creating resilience strategies to manage those impacts. We observed that high-demand essential items and medical products received the highest attention and that most of the published articles are opinion-based, lack an empirical focus, and are not grounded in theory. Overall, we believe our efforts will help researchers and practitioners obtain an overview of the existing literature on pandemic management in the supply chain, identify areas that require further investigation, and guide their future research.

This is the first study, to the best of our knowledge, which systematically identifies and analyzes the existing research in the area of COVID-19 pandemic and supply chains. This study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, we synthesized the findings of the reviewed studies by grouping them into four main themes impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on supply chains, strategies for dealing with those impacts, the role of technology in implementing such strategies for resilience, and sustainable practices during this pandemic. The synthesis reports what we already know in the area of COVID-19 and supply chains. Second, the study categorizes the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic to demonstrate how various supply-chain-related issues, such as demand, production, sourcing, transportation and logistics, relationships, performance, and sustainability have been affected. This aspect of the article promises to illuminate the impacts of COVID-19 on supply chains. Third, we reported how each of the suggested strategies can help in achieving the three main dimensions of supply chain resilience: namely, preparedness, response, and recovery. In this way, we attempt to improve understandings of the strategies in question, i.e., which strategy is useful for which dimension, and provide a guide for future studies in this area. Fourth, in addition to summarizing what we know about COVID-19 and supply chains, we summarized how we know (methodology), and in which contexts the knowledge applies. These findings can help shape decisions about methodology and context in future work. Fifth, focusing on an issue that has not been discussed in most of the previous systematic literature reviews in the area of supply chain risk and disruption management ( Fan and Stevenson, 2018 ), we considered the theories used by the researchers whose studies we reviewed. Sixth, we reviewed the literature on disruptions and prior epidemic outbreaks in supply chain disciplines to comprehensively report the findings and provide unique research opportunities. Finally, we identified research gaps in the domain of inquiry and suggested unique research questions and opportunities for impactful future research to fill those gaps.

While the research thus contributes substantially to this area of inquiry, it also has some limitations. First, we considered only journal articles published on or before 28 September 2020, and only those written in English. Thus, book chapters, books, conference papers, and unpublished works were not considered in this research. As a result, the summary provided in this research may not reflect complete knowledge on the topic. Second, we used Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to search for articles, but did not search for relevant studies via the websites maintained by individual publishers such as Emerald and Elsevier. We may also have missed some other articles that were not included in the databases that we did use. Finally, we conducted our study by focusing on the academic point of view, without involving practitioners in our research.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Priyabrata Chowdhury: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Sanjoy Kumar Paul: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Shahriar Kaisar: Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Md. Abdul Moktadir: Formal analysis, Writing - original draft.

Appendices Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2021.102271 .

Appendices. Supplementary data

The following are the Supplementary data to this article:

• Abhishek B.V., Gupta P., Kaushik M., Kishore A., Kumar R., Sharma A., Verma S. India ’ s food system in the time of COVID-19. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 2020; 55 :12–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Albertzeth G., Pujawan I.N., Hilletofth P., Tjahjono B. Mitigating transportation disruptions in a supply chain: a cost-effective strategy. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2020; 23 :139–158. doi: 10.1080/13675567.2019.1648640. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alders R., Awuni J.A., Bagnol B., Farrell P., De Haan N. Impact of avian influenza on village poultry production globally. Ecohealth. 2014 doi: 10.1007/s10393-013-0867-x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amankwah-Amoah J. Stepping up and stepping out of COVID-19: new challenges for environmental sustainability policies in the global airline industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2020; 271 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123000. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amankwah-Amoah, J., 2020. Note: Mayday, Mayday, Mayday! Responding to environmental shocks: Insights on global airlines’ responses to COVID-19. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 143, 102098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.102098. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Anparasan A.A., Lejeune M.A. Data laboratory for supply chain response models during epidemic outbreaks. Ann. Oper. Res. 2018; 270 :53–64. doi: 10.1007/s10479-017-2462-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Armani A.M., Hurt D.E., Hwang D., McCarthy M.C., Scholtz A. Low-tech solutions for the COVID-19 supply chain crisis. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2020; 5 :403–406. doi: 10.1038/s41578-020-0205-1. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azadegan A., Parast M.M., Lucianetti L., Nishant R., Blackhurst J. Supply chain disruptions and business continuity: an empirical assessment. Decis. Sci. 2020; 51 :38–73. doi: 10.1111/deci.12395. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azadegan A., Syed T.A., Blome C., Tajeddini K. Supply chain involvement in business continuity management: effects on reputational and operational damage containment from supply chain disruptions. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 2020; 25 :747–772. doi: 10.1108/SCM-08-2019-0304. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baryannis G., Validi S., Dani S., Antoniou G. Supply chain risk management and artificial intelligence: state of the art and future research directions. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019; 57 :2179–2202. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1530476. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baveja A., Kapoor A., Melamed B. Stopping Covid-19: a pandemic-management service value chain approach. Ann. Oper. Res. 2020; 289 :173–184. doi: 10.1007/s10479-020-03635-3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bier T., Lange A., Glock C.H. Methods for mitigating disruptions in complex supply chain structures: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020; 58 :1835–1856. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1687954. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birkie S.E., Trucco P. Do not expect others do what you should! Supply chain complexity and mitigation of the ripple effect of disruptions. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2020; 31 :123–144. doi: 10.1108/IJLM-10-2018-0273. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brintrup A., Pak J., Ratiney D., Pearce T., Wichmann P., Woodall P., McFarlane D. Supply chain data analytics for predicting supplier disruptions: a case study in complex asset manufacturing. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020; 58 :3330–3341. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1685705. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Büyüktahtakın, E., des-Bordes, E., Kıbış, E.Y., 2018. A new epidemics–logistics model: Insights into controlling the Ebola virus disease in West Africa. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 265, 1046–1063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.08.037.
• Cappelli A., Cini E. Will the COVID-19 pandemic make us reconsider the relevance of short food supply chains and local productions? Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020; 99 :566–567. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2020.03.041. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen S.I., Norman B.A., Rajgopal J., Assi T.M., Lee B.Y., Brown S.T. A planning model for the WHO-EPI vaccine distribution network in developing countries. IIE Trans. (Institute Ind. Eng. 2014; 46 :853–865. doi: 10.1080/0740817X.2013.813094. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chiaramonti D., Maniatis K. Security of supply, strategic storage and Covid19: which lessons learnt for renewable and recycled carbon fuels, and their future role in decarbonizing transport? Appl. Energy. 2020; 271 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115216. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chick S.E., Mamani H., Simchi-Levi D. Supply chain coordination and influenza vaccination. Oper. Res. 2008; 56 :1493–1506. doi: 10.1287/opre.1080.0527. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Choi T.M. Innovative “Bring-Service-Near-Your-Home” operations under Corona-Virus (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) outbreak: Can logistics become the Messiah? Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2020; 140 doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2020.101961. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Choi T.-M. Risk analysis in logistics systems: A research agenda during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2021; 145 doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2020.102190. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Choi T.M. Facing market disruptions: values of elastic logistics in service supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Res. ahead-of-print. 2020; 1–16 doi: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1722861. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chowdhury M.M.H., Quaddus M. Supply chain readiness, response and recovery for resilience. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 2016; 21 :709–731. doi: 10.1108/SCM-12-2015-0463. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chowdhury P., Lau K.H., Pittayachawan S. Operational supply risk mitigation of SME and its impact on operational performance: a social capital perspective. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2019; 39 :478–502. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chowdhury P., Paul S.K. Applications of MCDM methods in research on corporate sustainability: a systematic literature review. Manag. Environ. Qual. An Int. J. 2020; 31 :385–405. doi: 10.1108/MEQ-12-2019-0284. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper C., Booth A., Varley-Campbell J., Britten N., Garside R. Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2018; 18 :1–14. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0545-3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Craighead C.W., Ketchen D.J., Darby J.L. Pandemics and Supply Chain Management Research: Toward a Theoretical Toolbox*. Decis. Sci. 2020:1–29. doi: 10.1111/deci.12468. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dasaklis T.K., Pappis C.P., Rachaniotis N.P. Epidemics control and logistics operations: a review. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012; 139 :393–410. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.05.023. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deaton B. James, Deaton Brady J. Food security and Canada’s agricultural system challenged by COVID-19. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 2020; 68 :143–149. doi: 10.1111/cjag.12227. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dente S.M.R., Hashimoto S. COVID-19: A pandemic with positive and negative outcomes on resource and waste flows and stocks. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020; 161 doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104979. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Derevyankina E.S., Yankovskaya D.G. The impact of Covid-19 on supply chain management and global economy development. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2020; 9 :765–774. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deshmukh, S.G., Haleem, A., 2020. Framework for manufacturing in post-Covid-19 world order: an Indian perspective. Int. J. Glob. Bus. Compet. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42943-020-00009-1.
• Dontoh A., Elayan F.A., Ronen J., Ronen T. Unfair “Fair Value” in illiquid markets: Information spillover effects in times of crisis. Manage. Sci. ahead-of-print. 2020; 1–31 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3386459. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duong L.N.K., Chong J. Supply chain collaboration in the presence of disruptions: a literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020; 58 :3488–3507. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1712491. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ekici A., Keskinocak P., Swann J.L. Modeling influenza pandemic and planning food distribution. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2014; 16 :11–27. doi: 10.1287/msom.2013.0460. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Enayati S., Özaltın O.Y. Optimal influenza vaccine distribution with equity. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2020; 283 :714–725. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2019.11.025. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Esmizadeh Y., Parast M.M. Logistics and supply chain network designs: incorporating competitive priorities and disruption risk management perspectives. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. ahead-of-print. 2020; 1–25 doi: 10.1080/13675567.2020.1744546. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fahimnia B., Tang C.S., Davarzani H., Sarkis J. Quantitative models for managing supply chain risks: A review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2015; 247 :1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fan Y., Stevenson M. A review of supply chain risk management: definition, theory, and research agenda. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2018; 48 :205–230. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farias, D. de P., Araújo, F.F. de, 2020. Will COVID-19 affect food supply in distribution centers of Brazilian regions affected by the pandemic? Trends Food Sci. Technol. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.05.023. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Fartaj S.R., Kabir G., Eghujovbo V., Ali S.M., Paul S.K. Modeling transportation disruptions in the supply chain of automotive parts manufacturing company. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020; 222 doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.09.032. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fattahi M., Govindan K. Data-driven rolling horizon approach for dynamic design of supply chain distribution networks under disruption and demand uncertainty. Decis. Sci. ahead-of-print. 2020; 1–31 doi: 10.1111/deci.12481. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fattahi M., Govindan K., Maihami R. Stochastic optimization of disruption-driven supply chain network design with a new resilience metric. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020; 230 doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107755. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fortune, 2020. 94% of the Fortune 1000 are seeing coronavirus supply chain disruptions: Report.
• Gaur J., Amini M., Rao A.K. The impact of supply chain disruption on the closed-loop supply chain configuration profit: a study of sourcing policies. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020; 58 :5380–5400. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1657244. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Golan M.S., Jernegan L.H., Linkov I. Trends and applications of resilience analytics in supply chain modeling: systematic literature review in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2020; 40 :222–243. doi: 10.1007/s10669-020-09777-w. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Govindan K., Mina H., Alavi B. A decision support system for demand management in healthcare supply chains considering the epidemic outbreaks: A case study of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2020; 138 doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2020.101967. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray R.S. Agriculture, transportation, and the COVID-19 crisis. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 2020; 68 :239–243. doi: 10.1111/cjag.12235. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greening P., Rutherford C. Disruptions and supply networks: a multi-level, multi-theoretical relational perspective. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2011; 22 :104–126. doi: 10.1108/09574091111127570. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guan D., Wang D., Hallegatte S., Davis S.J., Huo J., Li S., Bai Y., Lei T., Xue Q., Coffman D.M., Cheng D., Chen P., Liang X., Xu B., Lu X., Wang S., Hubacek K., Gong P. Global supply-chain effects of COVID-19 control measures. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2020; 4 :577–587. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0896-8. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gunessee S., Subramanian N. Ambiguity and its coping mechanisms in supply chains lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic and natural disasters. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. ahead-of-print. 2020; 1–23 doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-07-2019-0530. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gupta V., Ivanov D., Choi T.M. Competitive pricing of substitute products under supply disruption. Omega ahead-of-print. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2020.102279. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gurbuz I.B., Ozkan G. Transform or perish: preparing the business for a post-pandemic future. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. ahead-of-print. 2020; 1–6 doi: 10.1109/EMR.2020.3014693. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hakovirta M., Denuwara N. How COVID-19 redefines the concept of sustainability. Sustainability. 2020; 12 :3727. doi: 10.3390/su12093727. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Handfield R.B., Graham G., Burns L. Corona virus, tariffs, trade wars and supply chain evolutionary design. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. ahead-of-print. 2020; 1–12 doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-03-2020-0171. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haren, P., Simchi-Levi, D., 2020. How Coronavirus could impact the global supply chain by mid-March. Harv. Bus. Rev.
• Hendricks K.B., Singhal V.R. An empirical analysis of the effect of supply chain disruptions on long-run stock price performance and equity risk of the firm. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2005; 14 :35–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendricks K.B., Singhal V.R. Association between supply chain glitches and operating performance. Manage. Sci. 2005; 51 :695–711. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendricks K.B., Singhal V.R. The effect of supply chain glitches on shareholder wealth. J. Oper. Manag. 2003; 21 :501–522. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hessel L. Pandemic influenza vaccines: Meeting the supply, distribution and deployment challenges. Influenza Other Respi. Viruses. 2009; 3 :165–170. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2009.00085.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ho W., Zheng T., Yildiz H., Talluri S. Supply chain risk management: a literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2015; 53 :5031–5069. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hobbs J.E. Food supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 2020; 68 :171–176. doi: 10.1111/cjag.12237. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hosseini S.E. An outlook on the global development of renewable and sustainable energy at the time of COVID-19. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020; 68 doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2020.101633. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hovav S., Herbon A. Prioritizing high-risk sub-groups in a multi-manufacturer vaccine distribution program. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2017; 28 :311–331. doi: 10.1108/IJLM-12-2015-0227. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hudecheck M., Siren C., Grichnik D., Wincent J. MIT Sloan Manag; Rev: 2020. How companies can respond to the coronavirus [WWW Document] https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-companies-can-respond-to-the-coronavirus/ (accessed 6.5.20) [ Google Scholar ]
• Huff A.G., Beyeler W.E., Kelley N.S., McNitt J.A. How resilient is the United States’ food system to pandemics? J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2015; 5 :337–347. doi: 10.1007/s13412-015-0275-3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ibn-Mohammed T., Mustapha K.B., Godsell J., Adamu Z., Babatunde K.A., Akintade D.D., Acquaye A., Fujii H., Ndiaye M.M., Yamoah F.A., Koh S.C.L. A critical analysis of the impacts of COVID-19 on the global economy and ecosystems and opportunities for circular economy strategies. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021; 164 doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105169. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ishida S. Perspectives on supply chain management in a pandemic and the post-COVID-19 era. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. ahead-of-print. 2020; 1–11 doi: 10.1109/EMR.2020.3016350. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Islam M.T., Azeem A., Jabir M., Paul A., Paul S.K. An inventory model for a three-stage supply chain with random capacities considering disruptions and supplier reliability. Ann. Oper. Res. ahead-of-print. 2020; 1–26 doi: 10.1007/s10479-020-03639-z. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ivanov D. Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: a simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) case. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2020; 136 doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2020.101922. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ivanov, D., 2020b. Viable supply chain model: integrating agility, resilience and sustainability perspectives—lessons from and thinking beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann. Oper. Res. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03640-6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Ivanov D., Das A. Coronavirus (COVID-19 / SARS-CoV-2) and supply chain resilience : a research note. Int. J. Integr. Supply Manag. 2020; 13 :90–102. doi: 10.1504/IJISM.2020.107780. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ivanov D., Dolgui A. OR-methods for coping with the ripple effect in supply chains during COVID-19 pandemic: managerial insights and research implications. Int. J. Prod. Econ. ahead-of-print. 2020; 107921 doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107921. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ivanov D., Dolgui A. Viability of intertwined supply networks: extending the supply chain resilience angles towards survivability. a position paper motivated by COVID-19 outbreak. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020; 58 :2904–2915. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1750727. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., 2020c. A digital supply chain twin for managing the disruption risks and resilience in the era of Industry 4.0. Prod. Plan. Control ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1768450.
• Ivanov D., Dolgui A., Sokolov B., Ivanova M. Literature review on disruption recovery in the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2017; 55 :6158–6174. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2017.1330572. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Iyengar K., Bahl S., Vaishya Raju, Vaish A. Challenges and solutions in meeting up the urgent requirement of ventilators for COVID-19 patients. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Clin. Res. Rev. 2020; 14 :499–501. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.04.048. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jabbour, A.B.L. de S., Jabbour, C.J.C., Hingley, M., Vilalta-Perdomo, E.L., Ramsden, G., Twigg, D., 2020. Sustainability of supply chains in the wake of the coronavirus (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) pandemic: lessons and trends. Mod. Supply Chain Res. Appl. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/mscra-05-2020-0011.
• Kargar S., Pourmehdi M., Paydar M.M. Reverse logistics network design for medical waste management in the epidemic outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) Sci. Total Environ. 2020; 746 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141183. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ketchen D.J., Craighead C.W. Research at the intersection of entrepreneurship, supply chain management, and strategic management: opportunities highlighted by COVID-19. J. Manage. XX. 2020; 1–12 doi: 10.1177/0149206320945028. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khokhar S.G., Min Q., Su C. Bird flu (H7N9) outbreak and its implications on the supply chain of poultry meat in China. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2015; 24 :215–221. doi: 10.3382/japr/pfv007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koonin L.M. Novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak: now is the time to refresh pandemic plans. J. Bus. Contin. Emer. Plan. 2020; 13 :1–15. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumar M.S., Raut D.R.D., Narwane D.V.S., Narkhede D.B.E. Applications of industry 4.0 to overcome the COVID-19 operational challenges. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Clin. Res. Rev. 2020; 14 :1283–1289. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.07.010. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Larrañeta E., Dominguez-Robles J., Lamprou D.A. Additive manufacturing can assist in the fight against COVID-19 and other pandemics and impact on the global supply chain. 3D Print. Addit. Manuf. 2020; 7 :100–103. doi: 10.1089/3dp.2020.0106. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leite H., Lindsay C., Kumar M. COVID-19 outbreak: implications on healthcare operations. TQM J. ahead-of-print. 2020 doi: 10.1108/TQM-05-2020-0111. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lemke M.K., Apostolopoulos Y., Gallos L.K., Sönmez S. Commercial transport during a pandemic: network analysis to reconcile COVID-19 diffusion and vital supply chain resilience. J. Occup. Environ. Med. ahead-of-print. 2020 doi: 10.1097/jom.0000000000001940. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu M., Xu X., Cao J., Zhang D. Integrated planning for public health emergencies: A modified model for controlling H1N1 pandemic. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2020; 71 :748–761. doi: 10.1080/01605682.2019.1582589. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu M., Zhang D. A dynamic logistics model for medical resources allocation in an epidemic control with demand forecast updating. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2016; 67 :841–852. doi: 10.1057/jors.2015.105. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lozano-Diez J.A., Marmolejo-Saucedo J.A., Rodriguez-Aguilar R. Designing a resilient supply chain: An approach to reduce drug shortages in epidemic outbreaks. EAI Endorsed Trans. Pervasive Heal. Technol. 2020; 6 :1–12. doi: 10.4108/eai.13-7-2018.164260. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Majić Z., Jukić I., Pavlin S. Air transport and logistics in pandemic outbreak of influenza a (H1N1) virus. Promet - Traffic - Traffico. 2009; 21 :425–434. doi: 10.7307/ptt.v21i6.258. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Majumdar A., Shaw M., Sinha S.K. COVID-19 debunks the myth of socially sustainable supply chain: a case of the clothing industry in South Asian countries. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020; 24 :150–155. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2020.07.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mamani H., Chick S.E., Simchi-Levi D. A game-theoretic model of international influenza vaccination coordination. Manage. Sci. 2013; 59 :1650–1670. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1120.1661. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mehrotra S., Rahimian H., Barah M., Luo F., Schantz K. A model of supply-chain decisions for resource sharing with an application to ventilator allocation to combat COVID-19. Nav. Res. Logist. 2020; 67 :303–320. doi: 10.1002/nav.21905. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Messina D., Barros A.C., Soares A.L., Matopoulos A. An information management approach for supply chain disruption recovery. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2020; 31 :489–519. doi: 10.1108/IJLM-11-2018-0294. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Min H. Mapping the supply chain of anti-malarial drugs in Sub-Saharan African countries. Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 2012; 11 :1–23. doi: 10.1504/IJLSM.2012.044047. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohammadi M. Designing an integrated reliable model for stochastic lot-sizing and scheduling problem in hazardous materials supply chain under disruption and demand uncertainty. J. Clean. Prod. 2020; 274 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122621. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohan U., Viswanadham N., Trikha P. Impact of avian influenza in the Indian poultry industry: A supply chain risk perspective. Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 2009; 5 :89–105. doi: 10.1504/IJLSM.2009.021646. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mollenkopf D.A., Ozanne L.K., Stolze H.J. A transformative supply chain response to COVID-19. J. Serv. Manag. ahead-of-print. 2020 doi: 10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-0143. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nikolopoulos, K., Punia, S., Schäfers, A., Tsinopoulos, C., Vasilakis, C., 2020. Forecasting and planning during a pandemic: COVID-19 growth rates, supply chain disruptions, and governmental decisions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.08.001. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Novak J.I., Loy J. A critical review of initial 3D printed products responding to COVID-19 health and supply chain challenges. Emerald Open Res. 2020; 2 :1–14. doi: 10.35241/emeraldopenres.13697.1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Okorie O., Subramoniam R., Charnley F., Patsavellas J., Widdifield D., Salonitis K. Manufacturing in the time of COVID-19: an assessment of barriers and enablers. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 2020; 48 :167–175. doi: 10.1109/EMR.2020.3012112. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olivares-Aguila J., ElMaraghy W. System dynamics modelling for supply chain disruptions. Int. J. Prod. Res. ahead-of-print. 2020; 1–20 doi: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1725171. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Orenstein W.A., Schaffner W. Lessons Learned: Role of Influenza Vaccine Production, Distribution, Supply, and Demand-What It Means for the Provider. Am. J. Med. 2008; 121 doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.05.004. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parast M.M. The impact of R&D investment on mitigating supply chain disruptions: empirical evidence from U.S. firms. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020; 227 doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107671. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parvin H., Beygi S., Helm J.E., Larson P.S., Van Oyen M.P. Distribution of Medication Considering Information, Transshipment, and Clustering: Malaria in Malawi. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2018; 27 :774–797. doi: 10.1111/poms.12826. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul S., Kabir G., Ali S.M., Zhang G. Examining transportation disruption risk in supply chains: A case study from Bangladeshi pharmaceutical industry. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. ahead-of-print. 2020; 1–11 doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100485. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul S., Venkateswaran J. Designing robust policies under deep uncertainty for mitigating epidemics. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020; 140 doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2019.106221. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul S.K., Chowdhury P. A production recovery plan in manufacturing supply chains for a high-demand item during COVID-19. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2020; ahead-of-print :1–22. doi: 10.1108/IJPDLM-04-2020-0127. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul S.K., Chowdhury P. Strategies for managing the impacts of disruptions during COVID-19: an example of toilet paper. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 2020; 21 :283–293. doi: 10.1007/s40171-020-00248-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul S.K., Sarker R., Essam D. Managing risk and disruption in production-inventory and supply chain systems: a review. J. Ind. Manag. Optim. 2016; 12 :1009–1029. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016.12.1009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ponomarov S.Y., Holcomb M.C. Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2009; 20 :124–143. doi: 10.1108/09574090910954873. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Quayson, M., Bai, C., Osei, V., 2020. Digital inclusion for resilient post-COVID-19 supply chains: smallholder farmer perspectives. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2020.3006259.
• Queiroz, M.M., Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., Wamba, S.F., 2020. Impacts of epidemic outbreaks on supply chains: mapping a research agenda amid the COVID-19 pandemic through a structured literature review. Ann. Oper. Res. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03685-7. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Rachaniotis N.P., Dasaklis T.K., Pappis C.P. A deterministic resource scheduling model in epidemic control: A case study. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2012; 216 :225–231. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2011.07.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rahman S.M.M., Kim J., Laratte B. Disruption in circularity? Impact analysis of COVID-19 on ship recycling using Weibull tonnage estimation and scenario analysis method. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021; 164 doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105139. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reardon T., Mishra A., Nuthalapati C.S.R., Bellemare M.F., Zilberman D. Covid-19’s disruption of India’s transformed food supply chains. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 2020; 55 :18–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Richards T.J., Rickard B. COVID-19 impact on fruit and vegetable markets. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 2020; 68 :189–194. doi: 10.1111/cjag.12231. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rizou, M., Galanakis, I.M., Aldawoud, T.M.S., Galanakis, C.M., 2020. Safety of foods, food supply chain and environment within the COVID-19 pandemic. Trends Food Sci. Technol. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.06.008. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Rodrigue J.P., Wang G.W.Y. Cruise shipping supply chains and the impacts of disruptions: The case of the Caribbean. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100551. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowan N.J., Laffey J.G. Challenges and solutions for addressing critical shortage of supply chain for personal and protective equipment (PPE) arising from Coronavirus disease (COVID19) pandemic – Case study from the Republic of Ireland. Sci. Total Environ. 2020; 725 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138532. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarkis J., Cohen M.J., Dewick P., Schröder P. A brave new world: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic for transitioning to sustainable supply and production. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020; 159 doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104894. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Savachkin A., Uribe A. Dynamic redistribution of mitigation resources during influenza pandemics. Socioecon. Plann. Sci. 2012; 46 :33–45. doi: 10.1016/j.seps.2011.05.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamsi G.N., Ali Torabi S., Shakouri G.H. An option contract for vaccine procurement using the SIR epidemic model. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2018; 267 :1122–1140. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2017.12.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharma A., Adhikary A., Borah S.B. Covid-19′s impact on supply chain decisions: strategic insights from NASDAQ 100 firms using Twitter data. J. Bus. Res. 2020; 117 :443–449. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.035. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharma H.B., Vanapalli K.R., Cheela V.S., Ranjan V.P., Jaglan A.K., Dubey B., Goel S., Bhattacharya J. Challenges, opportunities, and innovations for effective solid waste management during and post COVID-19 pandemic. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020; 162 doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105052. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharma M., Luthra S., Joshi S., Kumar A. Developing a framework for enhancing survivability of sustainable supply chains during and post-COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. ahead-of-print. 2020; 1–21 doi: 10.1080/13675567.2020.1810213. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shekarian M., Nooraie S.V.R., Parast M.M. An examination of the impact of flexibility and agility on mitigating supply chain disruptions. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020; 220 doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.07.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shekarian M., Parast M.M. An Integrative approach to supply chain disruption risk and resilience management: a literature review. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. ahead-of-print. 2020; 1–30 doi: 10.1080/13675567.2020.1763935. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shokrani A., Loukaides E.G., Elias E., Lunt A.J.G. Exploration of alternative supply chains and distributed manufacturing in response to COVID-19; a case study of medical face shields. Mater. Des. 2020; 192 doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108749. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siche R. What is the impact of COVID-19 disease on agriculture? Sci. Agropecu. 2020; 11 :3–6. doi: 10.17268/sci.agropecu.2020.01.00. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh S., Kumar R., Panchal R., Tiwari M.K. Impact of COVID-19 on logistics systems and disruptions in food supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Res. ahead of print. 2020:1–16. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1792000. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Snyder L.V., Atan Z., Peng P., Rong Y., Schmitt A.J., Sinsoysal B. OR/MS models for supply chain disruptions: A review. IIE Trans. 2016; 48 :89–109. doi: 10.1080/0740817X.2015.1067735. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sodhi M.S. Natural disasters, the economy and population vulnerability as a vicious cycle with exogenous hazards. J. Oper. Manag. 2016; 45 :101–113. doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2016.05.010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sun L., Depuy G.W., Evans G.W. Multi-objective optimization models for patient allocation during a pandemic influenza outbreak. Comput. Oper. Res. 2014; 51 :350–359. doi: 10.1016/j.cor.2013.12.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sundarakani B., Pereira V., Ishizaka A. Robust facility location decisions for resilient sustainable supply chain performance in the face of disruptions. Int. J. Logist. Manag. ahead-of-print. 2020; 1–29 doi: 10.1108/IJLM-12-2019-0333. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swierczek A. Investigating the role of demand planning as a higher-order construct in mitigating disruptions in the European supply chains. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2020; 31 :665–696. doi: 10.1108/IJLM-08-2019-0218. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tang C.S. Perspectives in supply chain risk management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2006; 103 :451–488. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.12.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tang O., Musa S.N. Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain risk management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011; 133 :25–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.06.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tao Y., Lai X., Zhou S. Information sharing in a transparent supply chain with transportation disruptions and supplier competition. Ann. Oper. Res. ahead-of-print. 2020; 1–23 doi: 10.1007/s10479-020-03724-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tolooie A., Maity M., Sinha A.K. A two-stage stochastic mixed-integer program for reliable supply chain network design under uncertain disruptions and demand. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020; 148 doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2020.106722. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tranfield D.R., Denyer D., Smart P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 2003; 14 :207–222. [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautrims A., Schleper M.C., Cakir M.S., Gold S. Survival at the expense of the weakest? Managing modern slavery risks in supply chains during COVID-19. J. Risk Res. ahead-of-print. 2020 doi: 10.1080/13669877.2020.1772347. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations World economic situation and prospects [WWW Document] 2019. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/WESP2019_BOOK-ANNEX-en.pdf accessed 8.8.20.
• Vaio A. Di, Boccia F., Landriani L., Palladino R. Artificial intelligence in the agri-food system: rethinking sustainable business models in the COVID-19 scenario. Sustainability. 2020; 12 :4851. doi: 10.3390/SU12124851. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Barneveld K., Quinlan M., Kriesler P., Junor A., Baum F., Chowdhury A., Junankar P.N., Clibborn S., Flanagan F., Wright C.F., Friel S., Halevi J., Rainnie A. The COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons on building more equal and sustainable societies. Econ. Labour Relations Rev. 2020; 31 :133–157. doi: 10.1177/1035304620927107. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Hoek R. Research opportunities for a more resilient post-COVID-19 supply chain – closing the gap between research findings and industry practice. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2020; 40 :341–355. doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-03-2020-0165. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Veselovská L. Supply chain disruptions in the context of early stages of the global COVID-19 outbreak. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2020; 18 :490–500. doi: 10.21511/ppm.18(2).2020.40. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• WTO, 2020. Trade set to plunge as COVID-19 pandemic upends global economy. Available at https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres20_e/pr855_e.htm. Accessed on 26 June 2020.
• Wu J., Chen Z., Ji X. Sustainable trade promotion decisions under demand disruption in manufacturer-retailer supply chains. Ann. Oper. Res. 2020; 290 :115–143. doi: 10.1007/s10479-018-2964-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu Z., Elomri A., Kerbache L., Omri A. El. Impacts of COVID-19 on global supply chains: facts and perspectives. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 2020; adead-of-p :1–17. doi: 10.1109/EMR.2020.3018420. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu S., Zhang X., Feng L., Yang W. Disruption risks in supply chain management: a literature review based on bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020; 58 :3508–3526. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1717011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yan S., Ji X. Supply chain network design under the risk of uncertain disruptions. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020; 58 :1724–1740. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1696999. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoon J., Talluri S., Rosales C. Procurement decisions and information sharing under multi-tier disruption risk in a supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020; 58 :1362–1383. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1634296. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yu D.E.C., Razon L.F., Tan R.R. Can global pharmaceutical supply chains scale up sustainably for the COVID-19 crisis? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020; 159 doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104868. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yu K.D.S., Aviso K.B. Modelling the Economic Impact and Ripple Effects of Disease Outbreaks. Process Integr. Optim. Sustain. 2020; 4 :183–186. doi: 10.1007/s41660-020-00113-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yuen K.F., Wang X., Ma F., Li K.X. The Psychological causes of panic buying following a health crisis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020; 17 :1–14. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17103513. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao T., Xu X., Chen Y., Liang L., Yu Y., Wang K. Coordination of a fashion supply chain with demand disruptions. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2020; 134 doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2020.101838. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhu G., Chou M.C., Tsai C.W. Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic exposing the shortcomings of current supply chain operations: a long-term prescriptive offering. Sustainability. 2020; 12 :5858. doi: 10.3390/su12145858. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhu Q., Krikke H. Managing a sustainable and resilient perishable food supply chain (PFSC) after an outbreak. Sustainability. 2020; 12 :5004. doi: 10.3390/su12125004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

At the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics

• Center for Latin-American Logistics Innovation
• Luxembourg Centre for Logistics and Supply Chain Management
• MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics
• Ningbo China Institute for Supply Chain Innovation
• UK Supply Chain and Logistics Excellence Centre
• Zaragoza Logistics Center
• Master's Degree Programs
• GCLOG Certificate
• Master's Program Admissions
• Researchers
• Alumni Benefits & SCALE Credentials

Supply Chain and Logistics Research and Reports

The MIT Global Supply Chain and Logistics Excellence (SCALE) Network strives to develop and disseminate supply chain expertise around the world. Our  researchers work on projects/problems across the full spectrum of supply chain, including:

• How artificial intelligence and machine learning are impacting supply chain management
• How transportation and freight are changing in a global marketplace
• The promises and pitfalls of Blockchain for supply chain and beyond
• Understanding how companies and organizations manage supply chain risk and build resiliency
• Developments in logistics and strategy for the worlds vulnerable populations
• How digitalization is reshaping supply chains and how these changes impact organizations
• How supply chain consumer models are changing in an increasingly complex retail landscape
• How companies and organizations manage supply chain risk and build resiliency
• Managing sustainability in a competitive global landscape

Learn about our Centers' research and projects on their web sites: