View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE SGOXXX10.1177/2158244017717570SAGE OpenUmar et al. research-article71757020172017 provided by Lincoln University Research Archive

Article

SAGE Open July-September 2017: 1­–11 Network Resilience Against Natural © The Author(s) 2017 https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017717570DOI: 10.1177/2158244017717570 : A Conceptual Framework journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo

Muhammad Umar1, Mark Wilson1, and Jeff Heyl1

Abstract We propose a conceptual framework that highlights the importance of , , sourcing, and knowledge in achieving supply chain resilience. This framework is developed after extensive literature review of relief supply chains, supply chain resilience, and management disciplines. This review reveals that our understanding of supply chain resilience for food supply chains in a disaster scenario is still in its infancy. We note the lack of any consolidated framework or generalized theory in this area. Different topics related to resilience are usually discussed in isolation; hence, this research has attempted to combine different concepts drawn from various areas into one framework. We postulate that food supply chains can develop certain capabilities such as agility, adaptability, and alignment within the four supply chain domains of logistics, collaboration, sourcing, and . Supply chain orientation and culture plays the facilitating role in this framework. Adopting this systems approach would allow greater insights into how food supply chains can become more resilient to natural disasters.

Keywords vulnerability, supply chain resilience, disaster management, food supply chain

The term supply chain and the adoption of a system-wide caused by natural disasters. As consequences of natural (supply chain) view is now a generally accepted way for aca- disasters are devastating, enhancing disaster resilience of demia, specialist sectors of industry, and management pro- supply chain is necessary for all the actors of a supply fessionals to discuss and encapsulate the idea of a total chain, especially more for food supply chains when the supply system. More recently, due to number of ripple effects “end consumer” actually depends on the sustenance for of supply chain disruptions on economic activities, supply life. chain management has become a part of the everyday vocab- We note that little work has been done on the resilience of ulary of politicians, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), supply chain with a particular emphasis on food supply chain humanitarian managers, and the general public (Christopher in disaster events. Disasters all over the world, both sudden & Peck, 2004). Multiple management activities are involved onset and slow onset, have demonstrable effects on food sup- in such as sourcing, procurement, ply chains. Less food is produced and prices rise dramati- and logistics management. Planning and execution of all cally due to shortages, thereby increasing the food security these activities is a challenging task which demands efficient concerns all over the world (Edwards et al., 2011). This is a and effective coordination of informational, relational, and major issue for developing and so-called first world coun- financial flows across the boundaries of a single organization tries alike. Hence, in this article, we intend to develop an (Ponomarov, 2012). However, every activity conducted in a integrated framework for food supply chain resilience. Our supply chain has inherent risks which can occur due to some findings will help in the general understanding of food sup- unexpected disruption. ply chain resilience and offer insights to the functions and Natural disasters are major cause of supply chain dis- capabilities that are necessary for improving resilience of ruptions which can result in major breakdowns of distribu- food supply chain. tion links and production nodes, such as the Japanese of 2011 and its effect of the global automotive industry (Handfield, Blackhurst, Elkins, & Craighead, 2007). Managing this rapidly changing risk landscape is 1Lincoln University, New Zealand challenging and it requires that firms, people, and supply chains become more resilient (van Opstal, 2007). The term Corresponding Author: Muhammad Umar, Department of Global Value Chains & Trade, Lincoln disaster resilience can be defined as ability or capacity of University, P.O. Box 85036, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand. an organization or supply chain to absorb the disruptions Email: [email protected]

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open

Literature Review started by assessing the title and abstract. Some of the arti- cles were discarded because of the repetition or essentially Method very similar coverage. The final list of articles were thus The main purpose of this research is to develop an integrated critically reviewed and important points, findings, conclu- framework for food supply chain resilience especially in the sions, and summaries are included in the final draft to iden- advent of natural disasters. Existing knowledge is always the tify research and theoretical issues, and methods in the given foundation of future rigorous research. Thus, a literature domains. Figure 1 portrays the major steps taken in this review is an important tool in generating future knowledge in methodology. a given domain. It summarizes the existing research by iden- tifying the existing patterns and issue about the intended Disaster Management and Relief Supply Chains topic (Seuring, Müller, Westhaus, & Morana, 2005). As the main topic of this study is resilience to disaster events, there- The term disaster refers to a breakdown in the normal func- fore, the discussion will focus on the disciplines of supply tioning of a community that has an adverse impact on the people of a community, their lifestyle, work, and environ- chain management and also resilience. The second important ment. This situation can be a result of natural events or man- focus of the review is “food supply chain,” in particular what made activities. Natural events typically comprise of weather sort of problems do these supply chains face and how they events, such as , hurricanes, biological and others such can improve and ultimately contribute toward the overall as and , and so on. Human activities community resilience. As the context is like wars and terrorism which sometimes are referred to events, we also incorporate literature on humanitarian logis- complex emergencies often lead to mass displacement of tics and relief supply chains. people for longer terms, , and outflows of refugees We started the review process by searching the key words (Pan American Health Organization [PAHO], 2001). The (resilience, supply chain resilience, supply chain risk, and World Economic Forum found that around 250 million peo- resilience) on Google scholar. Initial target was to find out ple are affected by natural disasters every year (Howell, the renowned work in this field. We found that most of the 2013). However, only 3% of relief activities are devoted to work on this topic started after the Cranfield investigation on natural disasters (Van Wassenhove, 2006). Therefore, more this topic supply chain resilience and vulnerability (Peck attention needs to be focused toward natural disasters. There et al., 2003). Second, we observed that there has been an are two main streams of disaster relief: continuous aid work increasing trend in number of studies on resilience from and sudden disaster relief (Thomas & Kopczak, 2005). Our 2008 to 2012. We also scrutinized the resilience concept and proposed research framework will focus only on natural noted resilience is related to events that have a low probabil- disasters, especially, sudden onset disasters (earthquakes and ity but a high impact, in contrast to risk management litera- floods) due to its effect on local food production and distri- ture that seeks to manage events with a high probability but bution chains. a low impact (Sheffi & Rice, 2005). These high impact “Disaster management” is a discipline of avoiding risks events are often related to natural and man-made disasters. before impact of disaster and dealing with risks once disaster We also found that during disasters, food is one of the most has happened. No country or community is immune to the essential elements for relief, with immediate need. Therefore, adverse impacts of disasters. However, disasters can be pre- food supply chains are very important for over all relief of pared for, responded to, and recovered from, and their conse- the victims and community. We extended our search with quences can be mitigated (Haddow, Bullock, & Coppola, related key words for disaster and food supply chain (disaster 2007). Specific phases of disaster management life cycle management, relief supply chains, food supply chain, food vary from research to research. The United Nations supply chain resilience) and focused on the most cited work. Department of Humanitarian Affairs (UNDHA; 1992) has Based on this initial search, a list of key words was prepared talked about two phases of disaster management. The first to further search different online databases (Emerald, Web of phase is disaster mitigation (assessment, prevention, and pre- Science, ABI/INFORM Global, EBSCO, Science Direct, paredness) which deals with situation prior to a disaster. The Taylor & Francis, Springer, JSTOR, and SAGE). We also second phase is response (relief, rehabilitation, and recon- searched in specific journals which were relevant to the top- struction) which obviously deals with the aftermath of a ics such as the Journal of Humanitarian Logistic and Supply disaster. Kovács and Spens (2007) separate the disaster life Chain Management. The inclusion criteria were based on the cycle into three phases: preparedness, response, and recon- publishing years (2000-2015), peer reviewed articles, books, struction. However, a more recent approach has been to reports, and peer reviewed conference papers. Some of the adopt the four phased cyclic model of mitigation, prepared- articles were also included prior to 2000 if they were the ness, response, and recovery (Haghani & Afshar, 2009; basis of some important concepts. The articles were investi- Safran, 2003). We acknowledge the strength of this cyclic gated carefully and with due diligence for their possible model, but opt for a three-phase approach for parsimony inclusion in the review. The first round of deletion was combining mitigation and preparedness. We hence arrive at Umar et al. 3

Figure 1. The search process. Source. Authors. the three main phases for our model of preparation, response, 2011), and logistic support (Holguín-Veras, Jaller, Van and postdisaster rehabilitation. These three phases are also in Wassenhove, Pérez, & Wachtendorf, 2012; Jain, Jain, John, line with the resilience concept that will be discussed in the & Ramesh, 2012; Jensen, 2012; Liberatore, Ortuño, Tirado, coming sections. Vitoriano, & Scaparra, 2014; Sandwell, 2011). We incorpo- As we are interested in food supply chain resilience, we rate these important concepts into our framework. examine the literature for supply chain management within So far, authors have mostly talked about different human- the disaster management discipline. In the humanitarian con- itarian relief organizations and their supply chains such as text, supply chain can be defined as the process of planning, NGOs in a time of crisis (Balcik, Beamon, Krejci, Muramatsu, implementing, and controlling the flow and storage of relief & Ramirez, 2010; Beamon, 2004; Day, Melnyk, Larson, items as well as information and finances from point of ori- Davis, & Whybark, 2012; Kovács & Spens, 2007). Yet, we gin till the point of utilization to remove the suffering of argue that local food supply chains, which in normal condi- people (Thomas & Kopczak, 2005). Although disaster relief tions would be considered as commercial supply chains, supply chains have to deal with special challenges, the basic would also be considered part of the relief/humanitarian philosophies of commercial supply chains often remain effort. These supply chains also face similar kinds of prob- valid. However, there are certain specific characteristics lems as relief agencies during a time of disaster. Although which make relief supply chains unique. In disaster relief there is an increasing trend for research on relief supply supply chain, demand for relief is unpredictable, multiple chains of humanitarian organizations, there is little or no organizations are involved, numbers of volunteers are research on how local commercial food supply chains sur- involved, transportation is incapacitated or limited, and local vive disasters and become part of the relief effort. infrastructure is paralyzed. All these issues make disaster supply chain management very challenging as compared Supply Chain Vulnerability (SCV) and with commercial supply chains (Kovács & Spens, 2007). To Resilience manage relief supply chains effectively, some of the areas which are greatly highlighted in literature are knowledge Supply chains are complex networks of organizations management (Islam & Chik, 2011; Pathirage, Seneviratne, (Hearnshaw & Wilson, 2013) that experience nonstop turbu- Amaratunga, & Haigh, 2012), sourcing decisions (Ertem, lence which create a potential for unpredictable disruptions. Buyurgan, & Rossetti, 2010; Kovács & Spens, 2007), col- According to different executives, the greatest threat to orga- laboration among different supply chain players (Asgary, nizations is supply chains risks (Global, 2007; Micheli, Anjum, & Azimi, 2012; Jahangiri, Izadkhah, & Tabibi, Mogre, & Perego, 2014). Different kinds of turbulence and a 4 SAGE Open

Table 1. Definitions of Supply Chain Vulnerability.

Authors Definitions Singh-Peterson and Lawrence (2014) Degree of a system’s susceptibility to disruptions and its ability to cope with these changes. It aimed to determine systems sensitivity to change and its inability of response to sudden change. Bakshi and Kleindorfer (2009) Probability of occurrence of disruption. This possibility is determined by kind of infrastructure and combination of environmental factors. Asbjørnslett (2009) A concept that characterize supply chain’s lack of resilience with respect to threats from both within and outside systems boundary. Svensson (2000) Condition that is result of time and collaboration dependencies in a firm’s business activities in supply chains. Jüttner, Peck, and Christopher (2003) Tendency of risk sources and drivers to outweigh risk mitigating strategies which result in worst supply chain consequences. Wagner and Bode (2009) Vulnerability of any supply chain is the function of certain supply chain characteristics and the loss a company bears is the result of supply chain vulnerability to a given supply chain disruption. Neil Adger (1999) Degree of loss as a result of disaster. It is exposure of community or individuals to stress as a result of social or natural change. Wisner (2004) Characteristics of an individual or a group in terms of their capacity to foresee, cope with, resist and recover from impact of some disruption. high degree of complexity in supply chains demand a sys- disasters. The ability of a system to cope with disruptions is tems view and coordination among business functions within frequently termed resilience. Hence, “resilience” has become the company as well as interorganizational alignment among a new “buzzword” in literature that promises to reduce risk different players of a supply chain (Slone, Mentzer, & and bring stability in systems such as supply chains. Dittmann, 2007). However, due to environmental changes, Resilience is also associated with robustness and adaptabil- supply chains have become more complex and vulnerable, ity. In the coming section, we will develop the concept of thus adding to potential supply chain disruptions (Pettit, resilience by reviewing literature on vulnerabilities and dif- Fiksel, & Croxton, 2010). Hence, organizations must learn to ferent techniques to foresee, mitigate, and recover from foresee, absorb, and overcome disruptions (Pickett, 2006). disruptions.

Different Methods to Counter Disruptions SCV From the early 19th century, the main strategy to counter Researchers have studied SCV in different ways. Some of supply chain disruptions was by holding inventory. With the them have studied SCV conceptually (Brooks, 2003; Singh- advent of service sector and customer satisfaction in opposi- Peterson & Lawrence, 2014; Svensson, 2000), some have tion to inventory carrying costs, production costs, transporta- studied it analytically (Bakshi & Kleindorfer, 2009; Stecke tion costs, and distribution costs became the focal point of & Kumar, 2009), and some also provided empirical support supply chain managers (Kent & Flint, 1997). To cope with to the concept (Wagner & Neshat, 2012). Table 1 shows increasing customer demands and to mitigate risks associ- some of the definitions of SCV by different authors. Most ated with high inventory levels, quick response mechanisms definitions talk about two main characteristics of SCV, sup- were developed such as vendor-managed inventory (VMI) ply chain design variables, and environmental factors where and just-in-time (JIT; Tan, 2001). However, these quick supply chains are working. Singh-Peterson and Lawrence response systems have increased the vulnerability of supply (2014) define vulnerability as degree of a system’s suscepti- chains to disruptions in that they have seriously reduced buf- bility to disruptions and its ability to cope with these changes. fer and safety stocks. Supply and demand has also become Asbjørnslett (2009) narrates that vulnerability can be closely coupled and while this is desirable in efficiency and assessed by studying supply chain processes, infrastructure, response terms, it becomes a vulnerability in turbulent times and its operations. However, Bakshi and Kleindorfer (2009) leading to more chances of disruption in these supply chains consider vulnerability as combination of infrastructure and (Wagner & Bode, 2009). Similarly, Lean and environmental factors. Whenever a disaster occurs (slow Six Sigma all focus on reducing buffer stocks and more onset or sudden), a supply chain disruption event is trig- closely matching capacity with demand pull systems. Given gered. This trigger event manifests certain expected or unex- that redundancy in inventory and capacity are critical for pected risks but this risk is not the only determinant on final immediate response to natural disasters, we find that these loss. Wagner and Bode (2009) state that susceptibility of the paradigms shed no light on how to cope with disruptions and supply chain to these harms is also very important. Umar et al. 5

For disruptions which have high probability and low con- these nodes, then a warning is sent to all supply chain actors sequences, those can be dealt with risk management (Jüttner, to enable corrective actions. Peck, & Christopher, 2003). However, disruptions with low According to Abe and Ye (2013), firms (retailers, probability and high consequences (e.g., natural disasters) wholesalers, suppliers) can adopt risk reduction strategies require special treatment. That special treatment is the rela- to increase the disaster resilience. They should carefully tively new concept of supply chain resilience. This also consider the balance between supply chain efficiency and implies that vulnerability analysis is an important element of disaster risk preparation. Sourcing from one single sup- resilience concept (Sheffi & Rice, 2005). plier can increase profitability, but it also makes retailers more vulnerable to disasters. On the contrary, multisourc- Supply Chain Resilience ing will considerably increase transaction costs. Hence, firms should conduct a full cost benefit analysis to increase Resilience is the ability of a system to bounce back from a resilience. They should also select suppliers on the basis disturbance (Zakour & Gillespie, 2013). Resilience was orig- of risk reduction criteria rather than on pure cost minimi- inally an ecological concept but now it is increasingly being zation. Supply chain visibility can be increased by the use used in social sciences including disaster and vulnerability of monitoring systems and shortening of supply chain management. In ecology, resilience can be defined as the (disintermediation). A comprehensive assessment of a ability of a system to bounce back from a disruption while company’s vulnerability to disruptions and the impact of a still maintaining integrity, diversity, and processes (Folke disaster on firm’s supply chain can facilitate establish- et al., 2004). Electrical distribution discipline has also ment of risk transfer and mitigation strategies (Abe & Ye, focused on resilience concept frequently as bouncing back to 2013). the normal operations in a timely manner after the break- Adaptability should be a key trait in resilient supply down (Maliszewski & Perrings, 2012; Shan, Felder, & Coit, chains, as the new state after disruption can be very different 2017). Electricity system resiliency focuses on prevention, from the original one. Christopher (2005) reveals that agility protection, mitigation, response, and recovery (Shan et al., and flexibility are key elements of resilient supply chains 2017). Supply chains can be considered as network of these processes. The dynamic nature of adaptive capability makes individual systems (Pettit et al., 2010). Based on this systems it easy for supply chain to bounce back or achieve a more approach, Fiksel (2003) has categorized four important char- appropriate state after disruption. Christopher and Peck acteristics of resilient systems: adaptability, coherence, effi- (2004) have also conceptualized supply chain resilience and cient, and diversity. Resilience in humanitarian supply chain included elements like supply base strategy, risk categoriza- context emphasizes the different approaches a system can tion, supply chain risk management culture, and collabora- respond to natural disasters. It also emphasizes its ability to tion strategies. They have also talked about agility, bounce back from these situations, absorb severe impacts, availability, efficiency, redundancy, and visibility as second- learn from, adapt to, and recover well from disruptions ary factors. Although they point out interesting points of (Berkes, 2007). view, they offer no empirical justification. One of the first comprehensive studies on supply chain Goranson (1999) has differentiated between agility and resilience was conducted by Cranfield University (Peck flexibility, with flexibility being planned adaptations to sud- et al., 2003). The Center of Logistics and Supply Chain den but expected external disruptions. However, agility is Management explored the industrial knowledge base of unplanned adaptation to unexpected external circumstances. United Kingdom. The main aim of this report was to increase At the same time, a few authors consider flexibility as being the resilience of U.K. industry to cope with supply chain– part of agility (Stevenson & Spring, 2007). Similarly, Rice related threats in the business continuity. They emphasized and Caniato (2003) offer two methods, flexibility and redun- that vulnerability analysis and resilience are important busi- dancy, with greater potential to improve resilience. ness functions. They also highlighted the fact that little Redundancy is an excess of capacity or inventory which can research has been done so far on these topics. This report be used to replace the capacity lost during disasters. On the contains recommendations for improving supply chain resil- contrary, flexibility is the previously committed capacity ience noting that different supply chains have different which is redeployed. Similarly, Lee (2004) also suggested mechanisms for resilience (Peck et al., 2003). Christopher that for combating demand and supply uncertainties, supply and Lee (2004) argue that supply chain confidence can be chain processes need to have agility, adaptability, and align- increased by visibility and . Confidence in supply ment to achieve superior performance. Agility means chain is one of the best ways to deal with supply chain dis- responding to short-term changes quickly to handle external ruptions and is gained after the fact by its ability to recover disruptions smoothly. Adjusting the design of the supply from adversity. They argue that one way to increase control chain to meet structural shifts in the market is called adjust- is “event management” where predetermined supply/inven- ment. Alignment means to exchange information and knowl- tory is placed at critical nodes to manage material flow dis- edge frequently with supply chain partners to achieve better ruptions in a whole network. If some disruption occurs at performance. 6 SAGE Open

Resilient supply chain capability, as Park (2011) says, is elements which form resilience like agility, adaptability, and an adaptive capability of supply chains to prepare for disas- flexibility are also separately discussed. Summary of the trous situation, responding to these situations and effectively related topics are shown in Table 2. recovering from it. This preparedness, response, and recov- ery can be done by maintaining required level of process Food Supply Chains continuity at the desired level of control and connectedness over supply chain structure. Park has further classified sup- It is suggested that will trigger more severe ply chain capabilities into readiness capability, response weather events such as monsoons and cyclones that bring capability, and recovery capability. Readiness stage of resil- heavy floods in different countries regularly. Similarly, the ience develops certain capabilities which refer to coordina- ratio from last 10 years is increasing and expected tion of to detect and prevent future disruptions in to rise in the next 50 years. Rising temperature also melts supply chain. Response stage capabilities mostly refer to snow on mountains which results in floods especially near actively dealing with disasters and providing the information river bed areas (Aggarwal, Joshi, Ingram, & Gupta, 2004). related to a particular disruption to all supply chain entities. These floods can badly affect agricultural land. Crops are Finally, recovery stage capabilities deals with interaction destroyed, and infrastructure and transportation also get among all players and sharing of resources to bounce back to badly disrupted. Food prices increase, often dramatically, normal operations. and retailers and other supply chain players do not get sup- Consequently, Craighead, Blackhurst, Rungtusanatham, plies on time, all effecting the local community badly. and Handfield (2007) discuss risk mitigation capabilities in Douglas (2009) urges governments, NGOs, international supply chains and have divided them into two categories. disaster management organizations, and researchers to take The first one is recovery capability which is defined as inter- action because future disaster will damage existing action of different entities and their resources to effectively and for a longer period of time and will deal with disruption. The second is warning capability which affect a wider area. This will make food supplies movement is ability to foresee disruptions. Based on this research, Park more difficult. Longer wet periods will also affect production (2011) propose that these mitigation strategies moderate the and storage of food unless these food supply chains can relationship between supply chain design features in terms of become more resilient. complexity and disruption severity. Nevertheless, flexibility Several studies review food supply chains in general and redundancy are clearly two important concepts for sup- (Acharyulu & Mathew, 2006; Burch & Lawrence, 2007; ply chain resilience, but there are many other capabilities Campbell & MacRae, 2013; Farhat, 2012), and discuss which are necessary. Sometimes, both these capabilities are their problems both in developed and under developed implemented simultaneously to deal with disruptions. It is countries. Yet, few of these studies have talked about these also not clear that to what extent firms need to implement food supply chains in the context of resilience in the pri- these two concepts to deal with disruptions. vate sector (Dani & Deep, 2010; Leat & Revoredo-Giha, On similar grounds, Pettit et al. (2010) have developed a 2013; Vlajic, Van der Vorst, & Haijema, 2012). Even less conceptual framework by combining different dimensions of have actually talked about them in context of disasters in vulnerabilities and capabilities. They proposed that if vulner- developing countries (Keogh, Apan, Mushtaq, King, & abilities are high as compared with capabilities, this will lead Thomas, 2011; Singh-Peterson & Lawrence, 2014). For to unbalanced resilience means which will ultimately lead to example, in 2010, Pakistan faced a severe . This flood excess risk. Similarly, if vulnerabilities are low in contrast to has affected over 17 million acres of most fertile croplands capabilities, then there is still an unbalanced resilience, but it in a country where farming is an economic foundation. The will lead to eroded profitability. However, balanced resil- water killed almost 200,000 livestock and washed away ience can be achieved if the portfolio of vulnerabilities is large quantities of stored commodities. Prices of fresh food matched to the pattern of capabilities, and this can be por- rose to more than double in big cities in first week of flood. trayed in form of high performance. They refined this con- Food retailer associations and government officials ceptual framework through focus groups; however, they expected to see prices rise by multiple of six within few asked for empirical investigation support to theoretically weeks of a disaster. Retailers could not get milk supply for derived proposition. number of days. One of the large milk wholesaler’s inven- On the whole, the literature on supply chain resilience is tories ran out in less than a week and they were supplying scattered. No doubt the existing literature on supply chain packaged milk to 35% of retail market (Ellick, 2010). resilience is very informative; however, it is primarily Concurrently, Peck (2006) argues that food contamination focused on multiple fragmented perspectives of resilience is what retailers and their suppliers are most afraid of (Christopher & Rutherford, 2004; Park, 2011; Peck et al., because it can destroy their brand image (Song & Zhuang, 2003; Pettit et al., 2010; Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009; 2017). As most of the retailers are present within a city, Sheffi & Rice, 2005). These different views highlight the they are most vulnerable to disasters. The transporters, importance of this topic. Similarly, a number of necessary manufacturers, and distributors are also badly affected by Umar et al. 7

Table 2. Summary of the Key Concepts for Resilient Supply Chains.

Discussed aspect References Research summary Risk management Christopher and Lee (2004); Jüttner, Effective risk management culture is an effective Peck, and Christopher (2003) moderator of supply chain resilience. Agility, effectiveness Christopher (2000, 2005); Quick response to disastrous situations can be called Christopher and Rutherford (2004) as resilience which is closely associated with concept of agility. Flexibility, redundancy Goranson (1999); Peck et al. (2003); Flexibility and redundancy have great potential to Rice and Caniato (2003) overcome resilience. Redundancy is excess of capacity which can be used to replace the capacity lost during disasters. Visibility Christopher and Peck (2004) Increasing visibility on both supply and demand side reduce element of uncertainty in supply chains. Supply chain structure, Hearnshaw and Wilson (2013) Knowledge of complex supply chain structure and understanding of supply chain better understanding will surely increase resilience. Knowledge management Pettit, Fiksel, and Croxton (2010) Knowledge management and learning in time of disaster are important element of supply chain resilience. Reduction of uncertainty Berkes (2007) Reduction of uncertainty increases supply chain resilience. Collaboration, coordination Ponomarov and Holcomb (2009) Risk can be managed more effectively through coordination and collaboration. Reduction of complexity, supply Peck et al. (2003) Complexity of supply chain can be reduced through chain reengineering business process reengineering to increase resilience. Adaptability Fiksel (2003); Pettit et al. (2010) For combating demand and supply uncertainties, supply chain processes need to have agility, adaptability, and alignment to achieve superior performance. Alignment Lee (2004) High degree of complexity in supply chains demand an enterprise view with coordination among all business functions within the company as well as interorganizational alignment among different players of supply chain. Contingency planning Tomlin (2006) Contingency plans are necessary to address risks in supply chain. Supply base strategy Christopher and Peck (2004) Single vs. multiple sources and knowledge about supplier’s risk awareness are important element to be considered in resilience. the loss of infrastructure, electricity, and fuel shortages. Conceptual Framework Retail and distribution sites are also sometimes destroyed as a result of a disaster; loss of people (employees who are Based on the literature review of the domain of disaster/relief working for different organizations) can also badly affect supply chain, food supply chain, and supply chain resilience, supply chain operations. this research has derived a framework presented in Figure 2. To improve disaster response, especially in context of Disaster management literature has emphasized on four main food supply chains, Douglas (2009) says that strengthening areas of supply chain which are very important during cer- local community resilience is very important. This resilience tain disaster; these are knowledge management (Islam & can be achieved through local food stocks, through local Chik, 2011; Pathirage et al., 2012), sourcing decisions (Ertem shelter, by supporting local community groups (retailers), et al., 2010; Kovács & Spens, 2007), collaboration among and by making sure of good local governance by authorities. different supply chain players (Asgary et al., 2012; Jahangiri Aggarwal et al. (2004) suggest that strategies to reduce the et al., 2011), and logistic (Holguín-Veras et al., 2012; Jain vulnerability of local food supply chains to disasters need to et al., 2012; Jensen, 2012; Liberatore et al., 2014; Sandwell, be based on technical and policy combinations. For achiev- 2011). We argue that effectively dealing with these areas ing this goal, one should have a deeper understanding of how enhances the resilience of supply chains as activities involved the local food supply chain work in practice and how these in these areas contribute toward achieving agility, adaptabil- supply chains interact with local community as well as with ity, and alignment which are established capabilities of sup- other humanitarian supply chains. ply chain resilience in literature. 8 SAGE Open

Figure 2. Conceptual framework: Food supply chain resilience.

For example, in collaboration area, if organizations are Conclusion sharing information with each other, then this activity con- This framework is offered as an extension to the literature and tributes toward achieving velocity and flexibility which are an attempt to synthesize a number of different literature areas part of supply chain agility and thus resilience (Pettit et al., into a comprehensive systems view of supply chain resilience. 2010). Similarly, it will also help achieving alignment of pro- We have identified the need for more research on supply chain cesses in different organizations which helps in achieving resilience and, in particular, the current lack of research of the resilience. However, these activities demand empirical resilience and performance of food supply chains in areas dis- investigation which is not the scope of this current research. rupted by natural disaster events. This framework will be Similarly, literature talks about the different facilitat- empirically tested in forthcoming research focusing on a num- ing factors which facilitate supply chain capabilities to ber of food supply chains in two regions in New Zealand, one increase resilience. We propose that risk management cul- disrupted by severer annual flooding and the other by major ture and supply chain orientation are facilitating factors earthquakes. This task will provide a real challenge in terms of for creating resilient food supply chains. Relational view quantifying and modeling risk and resilience; hence, another of -based theory as well as resource dependence contribution of this research will be some instruments that will theory asserts that in uncertain times, stronger relation- allow these concepts to be captured. By deriving this frame- ship among organizations allows them to utilize resources work from common commercial definitions and language, we from their partners to sustain and survive (Dyer & Singh, will also be able to study commercial supply chains with 1998). In supply chain context, having strong and close respect to disaster management best practices. There are natu- relationship with suppliers and customers is the basis of rally limitations of this framework especially around the con- surviving the disasters. This strong relationship is only cepts selected for inclusion and the numerous other supply possible if individual organizations recognize the impor- chain and resilience concepts that have been excluded. tance of these relationships. This recognition is called Nevertheless, we believe that this framework will provide supply chain orientation and without this recognition some further empirical and theoretical insights. logistics, collaboration, sourcing, and knowledge man- agement will be not effective. Therefore, this phenome- Declaration of Conflicting Interests non will facilitate these areas. The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect Although resilience is mostly talked about in terms of to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. mega disasters, however, if risk management culture is miss- ing in the supply chain, then organizations cannot achieve Funding resilience. Therefore, we propose that this is the facilitating The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- factor for all four areas we mentioned above. ship, and/or publication of this article. Finally, we have proposed three outcomes of food supply chain resilience based on the literature mentioned above References under food supply chain heading; however, these are only Abe, M., & Ye, L. (2013). Building resilient supply chains against proposed outcomes, but empirical investigation will reveal natural disasters: The cases of Japan and Thailand. Global further insights into these concepts. Business Review, 14, 567-586. Umar et al. 9

Acharyulu, A., & Mathew, A. (2006, June 19-23). Food supply Day, J. M., Melnyk, S. A., Larson, P. D., Davis, E. W., & Whybark, chains and their influence on resurgence in institutions of D. C. (2012). Humanitarian and disaster relief supply chains: A Commons. Paper presented at the 11th Global conference of matter of life and death. Journal of Supply Chain Management, IASCP, Bali, Indonesia. 48, 21-36. Aggarwal, P., Joshi, P., Ingram, J., & Gupta, R. (2004). Adapting Douglas, I. (2009). Climate change, flooding and food security in food systems of the Indo-Gangetic plains to global environ- south Asia. Food Security, 1, 127-136. mental change: Key information needs to improve policy for- Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative mulation. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 487-498. strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advan- Asbjørnslett, B. E. (2009). Assessing the vulnerability of supply tage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 660-679. chains. In G. A. Zsidisin (Ed.), Supply chain risk: A handbook Edwards, F., Dixon, J., Friel, S., Hall, G., Larsen, K., Lockie, S., of assessment, management, and performance (pp. 15-33). . . . Hattersley, L. (2011). Climate change adaptation at the Ritchie: Bob Springer. intersection of food and health. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Asgary, A., Anjum, M. I., & Azimi, N. (2012). Disaster recovery Health, 23(2, Suppl.), 91S-104S. and business continuity after the 2010 flood in Pakistan: Case Ellick, A. (2010, August). Floods could have lasting impact for of small businesses. International Journal of Disaster Risk Pakistan. The New York Times, p. 16. Reduction, 2, 46-56. Ertem, M. A., Buyurgan, N., & Rossetti, M. D. (2010). Multiple- Bakshi, N., & Kleindorfer, P. (2009). Co-opetition and invest- buyer procurement auctions framework for humanitarian ment for supply-chain resilience. Production and Operations supply chain management. International Journal of Physical Management, 18, 583-603. Distribution & Logistics Management, 40, 202-227. Balcik, B., Beamon, B. M., Krejci, C. C., Muramatsu, K. M., & Farhat, R. (2012). Management of logistics and ICT in food supply Ramirez, M. (2010). Coordination in humanitarian relief chain network: A conceptual framework. International Journal chains: Practices, challenges and opportunities. International of Logistics Economics and Globalisation, 4, 163-178. Journal of Production Economics, 126, 22-34. Fiksel, J. (2003). Designing resilient, sustainable systems. Beamon, B. M. (2004, March). Humanitarian relief chains: Issues Environmental Science & Technology, 37, 5330-5339. and challenges. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., 34th International Conference on Computers and Industrial Gunderson, L., & Holling, C. (2004). Regime shifts, resilience, Engineering, San Francisco, CA. and in management. Annual Review of Berkes, F. (2007). Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulner- Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35, 557-581. ability: Lessons from resilience thinking. Natural Hazards, 41, Global, F. (2007). Managing business risk–through 2009 and 283-295. beyond. Windsor, UK: FM Insurance. Brooks, N. (2003). Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: A concep- Goranson, H. T. (1999). The agile virtual enterprise: Cases, met- tual framework. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research rics, tools. Arlington, VA: Greenwood Publishing. Working Paper, 38, 1-16. Haddow, G., Bullock, J., & Coppola, D. P. (2007). Introduction Burch, D., & Lawrence, G. (2007). Supermarket own brands, new to . , LA: Butterworth- and the reconfiguration of agri-food supply chains. In D. Heinemann. Burch & G. Lawrence (Eds.), Supermarkets and agri-food sup- Haghani, A., & Afshar, A. (2009). Supply chain management ply chains: Transformations in the production and consump- in disaster response. North Carolina, USA: Mid-Atlantic tion of foods (pp. 100-128). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Universities Transportation Center. Campbell, A. M., & MacRae, R. (2013). Local food plus: The con- Handfield, R. B., Blackhurst, J., Elkins, D., & Craighead, C. W. nective tissue in local/sustainable supply chain development. (2007). A framework for reducing the impact of disruptions Local Environment, 18, 557-566. to the supply chain: Observations from multiple executives. In Christopher, M. (2000). The agile supply chain: Competing in vola- R. B. Handfield & K. McCormack (Eds.), Supply chain risk tile markets. Industrial , 29, 37-44. management: Minimizing disruption in global sourcing (pp. Christopher, M. (2005). Managing risk in the supply chain. Supply 29-49). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis. Chain Practice, 7(2), 4-21. Hearnshaw, E. J., & Wilson, M. M. (2013). A complex network Christopher, M., & Lee, H. (2004). Mitigating supply chain risk approach to supply chain network theory. International Journal through improved confidence. International Journal of of Operations & Production Management, 33, 442-469. Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 34, 388-396. Holguín-Veras, J., Jaller, M., Van Wassenhove, L. N., Pérez, N., & Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the resilient supply chain. Wachtendorf, T. (2012). On the unique features of post-disas- The International Journal of Logistics Management, 15(2), 1-14. ter humanitarian logistics. Journal of , Christopher, M., & Rutherford, C. (2004, June-August). Creating 30, 494-506. supply chain resilience through agile six sigma. Critical Eye, Howell, W. L. (2013). Global risks 2013 (8th ed.). New York, pp. 24-28. USA: World Economic Forum. Craighead, C. W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M. J., & Islam, S. T., & Chik, Z. (2011). Disaster in Bangladesh and manage- Handfield, R. B. (2007). The severity of supply chain dis- ment with advanced information system. Disaster Prevention ruptions: Design characteristics and mitigation capabilities. and Management, 20, 521-530. Decision Sciences, 38, 131-156. Jahangiri, K., Izadkhah, Y. O., & Tabibi, S. J. (2011). A com- Dani, S., & Deep, A. (2010). Fragile food supply chains: Reacting parative study on community-based disaster management in to risks. International Journal of Logistics Research and selected countries and designing a model for Iran. Disaster Applications, 13, 395-410. Prevention and Management, 20, 82-94. 10 SAGE Open

Jain, V., Jain, P., John, L., & Ramesh, A. (2012). Humanitarian Pettit, T. J., Fiksel, J., & Croxton, K. L. (2010). Ensuring supply supply chain management in India: A SAP-LAP framework. chain resilience: Development of a conceptual framework. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 9, 217-235. Journal of Business Logistics, 31, 1-21. Jensen, L.-M. (2012). Humanitarian cluster leads: Lessons from Pickett, C. (2006). Prepare for supply chain disruptions before they 4PLs. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain hit. Logistics Today, 47(6), 22-25. Management, 2, 148-160. Ponomarov, S. (2012). Antecedents and consequences of supply Jüttner, U., Peck, H., & Christopher, M. (2003). Supply chain chain resilience: A dynamic capabilities perspective (Doctoral risk management: Outlining an agenda for future research. dissertation, University of Tennessee). Retrieved from http:// International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/1338 6, 197-210. Ponomarov, S., & Holcomb, M. C. (2009). Understanding the con- Kent, J. L., & Flint, D. J. (1997). Perspectives on the evolution of cept of supply chain resilience. The International Journal of logistics thought. Journal of Business Logistics, 18, 15-30. Logistics Management, 20, 124-143. Keogh, D. U., Apan, A., Mushtaq, S., King, D., & Thomas, M. Rice, J. B., & Caniato, F. (2003). Building a secure and resilient (2011). Resilience, vulnerability and adaptive capacity of an supply network. Supply Chain Management Review, 7(5), 22- inland rural town prone to flooding: A climate change adapta- 30. tion case study of Charleville, Queensland, Australia. Natural Safran, P. (2003, January 15-17). A strategic approach for disas- Hazards, 59, 699-723. ter and emergency assistance. Contribution to the 5th Asian Kovács, G., & Spens, K. M. (2007). Humanitarian logistics in Disaster Reduction Center International Meeting and the 2nd disaster relief operations. International Journal of Physical UN-ISDR Asian Meeting, Kobe, Japan. Distribution & Logistics Management, 37, 99-114. Sandwell, C. (2011). A qualitative study exploring the challenges of Leat, P., & Revoredo-Giha, C. (2013). Risk and resilience in agri- humanitarian organisations. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics food supply chains: The case of the ASDA PorkLink supply and Supply Chain Management, 1, 132-150. chain in Scotland. Supply Chain Management: An International Seuring, P. D. S., Müller, P. D. M., Westhaus, M., & Morana, R. Journal, 18, 219-231. (2005). Conducting a literature review–The example of sustain- Lee, H. L. (2004). The triple-A supply chain. Harvard Business ability in supply chains. In H. Kotzab, S. Seuring, M. Müller, Review, 82, 102-113. & G. Reiner (Eds.), Research methodologies in supply chain Liberatore, F., Ortuño, M. T., Tirado, G., Vitoriano, B., & management (pp. 91-106). Oldenburg, Germany: Springer. Scaparra, M. P. (2014). A hierarchical compromise model for Shan, X., Felder, F. A., & Coit, D. W. (2017). Game-theoretic mod- the joint optimization of recovery operations and distribution els for electric distribution resiliency/reliability from a multiple of emergency goods in humanitarian logistics. Computers & stakeholder perspective. IISE Transactions, 49, 159-177. Operations Research, 42, 3-13. Sheffi, Y., & Rice, J. B., Jr. (2005). A supply chain view of the resil- Maliszewski, P. J., & Perrings, C. (2012). Factors in the resil- ient enterprise. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(1), 41-48. ience of electrical power distribution infrastructures. Applied Singh-Peterson, L., & Lawrence, G. (2014). Insights into commu- Geography, 32, 668-679. nity vulnerability and resilience following natural disasters: Micheli, G. J., Mogre, R., & Perego, A. (2014). How to choose mit- Perspectives with food retailers in Northern NSW, Australia. igation measures for supply chain risks. International Journal Local Environment, 20, 782-795. of Production Research, 52, 117-129. Slone, R. E., Mentzer, J. T., & Dittmann, J. P. (2007). Are you Neil Adger, W. (1999). Social vulnerability to climate change and the weakest link in your company’s supply chain? Harvard extremes in coastal Vietnam. World Development, 27, 249-269. Business Review, 85(9), 116-128. Pan American Health Organization. (2001). Humanitarian supply Song, C., & Zhuang, J. (2017). Modeling a government-manufac- management and logistics in the health sector. Washington, turer-farmer game for food supply chain risk management. DC: Author. Food Control, 78, 443-455. Park, K. (2011). Flexible and redundant supply chain practices Stecke, K. E., & Kumar, S. (2009). Sources of supply chain disrup- to build strategic supply chain resilience: Contingent and tions, factors that breed vulnerability, and mitigating strategies. resource-based perspectives. Toledo, OH: University of Journal of Marketing Channels, 16, 193-226. Toledo. Stevenson, M., & Spring, M. (2007). Flexibility from a supply chain Pathirage, C., Seneviratne, K., Amaratunga, D., & Haigh, R. perspective: Definition and review. International Journal of (2012). Managing disaster knowledge: Identification of knowl- Operations & Production Management, 27, 685-713. edge factors and challenges. International Journal of Disaster Svensson, G. (2000). A conceptual framework for the analysis Resilience in the , 3, 237-252. of vulnerability in supply chains. International Journal of Peck, H. (2006). Resilience in the food chain: A study of busi- Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 30, 731-750. ness continuity management in the food and drink industry Tan, K. C. (2001). A framework of supply chain management litera- (Final Report to the Department for Environment, Food and ture. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Rural Affairs). Shrivenham, UK: Department of Defence 7, 39-48. Management & Security Analysis, Cranfield University. Thomas, A., & Kopczak, L. R. (2005). From logistics to supply Peck, H., Abley, J., Christopher, M., Haywood, M., Saw, R., chain management: The path forward in the humanitarian sec- Rutherford, C., & Strathern, M. (2003). Creating resilient tor. Fritz Institute, 15, 1-15. supply chains: A practical guide. Cranfield, UK: Centre for Tomlin, B. (2006). On the value of mitigation and contingency strat- Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Cranfield School of egies for managing supply chain disruption risks. Management Management. Science, 52, 639-657. Umar et al. 11

United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs. (1992). Community disaster vulnerability (pp. 55-71). New York, NY: Internationally agreed glossary of basic terms related to disas- Springer. ter management. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. van Opstal, D. (2007). The resilient : Integrating competitive- Author Biographies ness and security. Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness. Muhammad Umar has expertise in supply chain and project man- Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2006). Humanitarian aid logistics: Supply agement discipline. His current area of research is supply chain chain management in high gear†. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57, 475-489. resilience in natural disaster context. Vlajic, J. V., Van der Vorst, J. G., & Haijema, R. (2012). A frame- Mark Wilson specializes in supply chain management and has work for designing robust food supply chains. International over 23 years industry and defense experience in the fields of logis- Journal of Production Economics, 13, 176-189. tics and strategic supply chain management and operations at both Wagner, S. M., & Bode, C. (2009). Dominant risks and risk manage- tactical and senior managerial levels. Currently, he is researching ment practices in supply chains. In G. A. Zsidisin & B. Ritchie humanitarian logistics, complex adaptive systems, network theory, (Eds.), Supply chain risk (pp. 271-290). Zurich, Switzerland: supply chain governance, and collaboration. He has published in Springer. national and international journals. Wagner, S. M., & Neshat, N. (2012). A comparison of supply chain vulnerability indices for different categories of firms. Jeff Heyl expertise resides in business management, economics, International Journal of Production Research, 50, 2877-2891. and operations management. His specific research interests are Wisner, B. (2004). At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and measurement in both manufacturing and and disasters. London, England: Psychology Press. service environments, procurement systems and practices, supply Zakour, M. J., & Gillespie, D. F. (2013). Resilience comple- chain management, and managing process change for complex ments vulnerability. In M. J. Zakour & D. F. Gillespie (Eds.), systems.