The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1741-0398.htm

Antecedents and consequences of Supply chain

resilience
supply chain resilience and
reconfiguration: an empirical study
in an emerging economy
Maryam Al Naimi Received 27 April 2020
Revised 19 August 2020
College of Business and Economics, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar 8 October 2020
Mohd Nishat Faisal and Rana Sobh Accepted 26 October 2020

Department of Management and Marketing, College of Business and Economics,

Qatar University, Doha, Qatar, and
S.M. Fatah Uddin
Galgotias Institute of Management and Technology, Greater Noida, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is twofold: to investigate the antecedents of resilience and to highlight the
importance of resilience in achieving reconfiguration in supply chains.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper draws on literature on supply chain resilience and collects
data from 253 companies in Qatar to understand the influence of the antecedents of supply chain resilience and
the impact of resilience on reconfiguration using partial least squares structural equation modeling.
Findings – The findings show that antecedents like risk management culture, agility and collaboration
positively affect the supply chain resilience. Further, the study establishes that companies can leverage their
supply chain resilience to reconfigure supply chain in case of disruptions.
Practical implications – This study is important for supply chain managers in Qatar, as the country faced
major disruption of supply chains in wake of the blockade imposed by its neighbors with which it had the only
land route and maximum trade. The findings from this study should aid mangers in developing resilient supply
chains.
Originality/value – This paper highlights the role of supply chain resilience in achieving reconfiguration.
Further, novelty of the work reported in this paper lies in its context where supply chains recently faced actual
disruptions.
Keywords Supply chain resilience, Supply chain reconfiguration, Qatar, Emerging economy
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
In today’s consistently changing environment, there is heightened risk of supply chains (SCs)
being disrupted, due to internal and external risk events (Ivanov et al., 2017; Aqlan and Lam
2015). Scholars and practitioners emphasize that SC resilience is one of the solutions to
compete in today’s increasingly turbulent and unpredictable marketplace (Yang et al., 2017).
Having an advanced understanding of SC resilience is becoming a pivotal theme of research
across SC risk management (Adobor, 2018; Datta, 2017; Hohenstein et al., 2015; Ponomarov
and Holcomb, 2009). The SC literature focuses on illustrating the many ways in which
SC resilience links with organizational performance (Liu et al., 2018; Brandon-Jones et al.,
2014), organizational culture (Altay et al., 2018; Mandal, 2017) and organizational risk

The authors would like to express their deep gratitude to the esteemed reviewers, the Editor Professor
Journal of Enterprise Information
Zahir Irani and Associate Editor Dr. Muhammad Mustafa Kamal for their words of appreciation and Management
insightful comments, which have considerably improved the quality of the manuscript from its initial © Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0398
version. DOI 10.1108/JEIM-04-2020-0166
JEIM (Pournader et al., 2016). However, scholars in SC management have only recently begun to
give consideration to SC reconfiguration, rather than focus on building SC resilience in
managing SC disruptions (Ambulkar et al., 2015).
It has been reported that approximately 70% of the organizations witness at least one SC
disruption (Business Continuity Institute, 2016). Researchers posited that within two-
quarters of the announcement of an SC disruption, an organization’s sales and stock returns
drop substantially (Ponormarov and Holcomb, 2009; Hendricks and Singhal, 2005). Few
researchers have also espoused that SC resilience holds both strategic and critical capability
to mitigate the upsetting results of disruptive events on SCs (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014;
Ponormarov and Holcomb, 2009). Hence, majority of the organizations are critically
concerned about their SCs resilience (World Economic Forum, 2013). It is not easy to control
the disruptions caused by natural disasters, but exacerbations due to adoption of strategies
or other disruptions can be reduced by becoming resilient thorough various enablers. This
study is an attempt to explore and test the antecedents of SC resilience and its influence on
reconfiguration in the context of Qatar.
Qatar, as a context of study, is unique and interesting, given the recent blockade and its
potential impact in particular on the upcoming mega-sport event, FIFA World Cup 2022, and
projects like stadiums and Qatar Rail. In 2017, Qatar experienced a disruption of the SCs after
the imposition of the blockade by four countries (UAE, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA),
Bahrain and Egypt). This blockade led to the closure of the land borders that connect Qatar to
Saudi Arabia, along with the airspace and territorial waters. Due to the blockade, the Qatari
stock market lost about 10% in market value in a month (Charfeddine and Refai, 2019). This
had a huge impact on SCs, as most of the service and products in Qatar were imported from
other countries through the KSA and the UAE (Selmi and Bouoiyour, 2020). More
importantly, Qatar is heavily dependent on the KSA for approximately 40% of its food
imports via sea (Selmi and Bouoiyour, 2020). Another alternative for imports might be air
route, but it will cause huge burden on normal Qatar residents due to sudden inflation (BBC,
2017). Situation worsened when due to the severed relations, neighboring countries also
stopped providing airport facilities to Qatar Airways (The Washington Institute, 2017). This
has led to the researchers and practitioners in Qatar to look for strategies to improve
resilience of SCs (Lambert and Bin Hashim, 2017). It has also been opined that, due to size,
Qatar may have received less attention among other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
countries (Elbanna, 2016). However, despite heightened interest in resilience, little is known
about what are the various enablers of SC resilience and, specifically, how these antecedents
effect overall reconfiguration of SCs.
Taking a cue from past studies and relying on a sample of Qatar region, we focus on SC
resilience and its four major enablers: risk management culture (RMC), agility, collaboration
and integration, and the impact of resilience on SC reconfiguration. This study intends to
contribute to the literature on SC resilience and reconfiguration in two ways. First, the study
identifies and explores enablers of SC resilience in the context of Qatar, which to the best of
authors’ knowledge, have not been explored yet in this region. This conceptualization also
enables us to advance the study of resilience antecedents, rather than just contingency
factors. Second, in the same vein, the study formulates and assess the relationship between SC
resilience and reconfiguration, while focusing their interplay in developing economies.
Accordingly, this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 address the literature review.
Section 3 provides the theoretical framework and hypotheses development, followed by
methodology in Section 4. Data analysis and results are shown in Section 5. Section 6
comprises of a discussion, and finally, Section 7 addresses the conclusions, limitations and
scope for future research.
2. Literature review Supply chain
Literature suggests that two types of strategies have been widely discussed to manage risks, resilience
namely: proactive strategy and reactive strategy (J€ uttner and Maklan, 2011). Proactive
strategy deals with the subject of building SC resilience itself, such as learning model,
egocentric network-based strategies, sourcing strategies and technological capabilities
(Mandal and Saravanan, 2019; Scholten et al., 2019; Rajesh, 2017; Bhattacharjya, 2018;
Namdar et al., 2018). Firms that adopt proactive strategies are more likely to plan and prepare
to responds to unexpected SC disruptions (Ali et al., 2017b; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2017). The
reactive strategy addresses the actions that lead to and support organizations to recover from
disruptions. It investigates the processes and factors that an organization implements once
the disruption occurs (Behzadi et al., 2017; Lim-Camachoa et al., 2017; Pournader et al., 2016;
Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2015; Yang and Xu, 2015; Colicchina et al., 2010). Combining the
two resilience strategies could lead to exploring best practices for SC reconfiguration.
“Baladna” can be considered as a good example in the context of Qatar. Baladna, which was
established in 2014 as a goat farm, was transformed into a major dairy farm in 2017. It started
receiving milk cows in huge numbers from Europe in 2017 that were “airlifted” by Qatar
Airways (The Economist, 2018).

2.1 Supply chain resilience

Initially, resilience was conceptualized as an arrangement of relationships within a system
and its ability to absorb changes (Holling, 1973), to move toward a more stable state after
being disturbed (Christopher and Peck, 2004). Resilience indicates existence of multiple
stability domains in natural systems and its relations to the ecological processes, random
events and heterogeneity of temporal and spatial scales (Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2016;
Folke, 2006). Resilience term then gets popularity in other fields as well, such as ecological
and material sciences (Pettit et al., 2013). While gaining currency among other fields, the
resilience concept gained momentum in the field of SC as well (Annarelli and Nonino, 2016;
Thome et al., 2016; Hohenstein et al., 2015).
According to Ponomarov and Holcomb (2009), SC resilience is the capability of the SC to
adapt to deal with disruptions and assist to maintain continuity of operations. Pettit et al.
(2013) gave the taxonomy of “four Rs”: robustness, resourcefulness, recovery and review to
define resilience. J€uttner and Maklan (2011) tested flexibility, collaboration, visibility and
velocity as formative elements to conceptualize SC resilience. Wieland and Wallenburg (2013)
outline SC resilience in terms of robustness and agility, while a system-level approach was
undertaken by few (Scholten et al., 2014; Christopher and Peck, 2004) to identify re-
engineering, collaboration, agility, risk awareness and knowledge management.
Simultaneously, researchers have voiced about SC visibility (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014),
SC collaboration (Scholten and Schilder, 2015) and RMC (Chowdhury and Quaddas, 2016) as
the antecedents of SC resilience. The role of cooperation was also explored by researchers
(Dubey et al., 2019; Scholten and Schilder, 2015; Wieland and Marcus Wallenburg, 2013;
Christopher and Peck, 2004).
Operations resilience currently serves as a link between SC resilience and its
responsiveness toward SC risks and disruptions (Forbes and Wilson, 2018; Annarelli and
Nonino, 2016; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015). Kochan and Nowicki (2018), through a systematic
literature review, suggested that there is a new motion in the SC resilience research, i.e. from
defining to measuring SC resilience. It has been delineated that exploring resilience enablers
along with SC resilience models can significantly improve our understanding of the SC
resilience and reconfiguration (Ivanov and Sokolov, 2019; Adobor and McMullen, 2018). This
may also leverage SC reconfiguration (Bag et al., 2019). Considering these points, the present
JEIM study is an attempt to make a significant and original contribution to knowledge of the SC
resilience and reconfiguration.

3. Theoretical framework and hypothesis development

In the current business environment, organizations have to deal with myriad of SC problems
like shorter product life cycles, varied customer requirements and sudden disruptions (Gligor,
2015). To improve SC resilience, diverse organizational practices have been delineated in the
literature (Urciuoli et al., 2014; Tang, 2006). Researchers have worked on resilience variables
like flexibility (Dubey et al., 2017; Bag, 2016), agility (Jain et al., 2017; Hohenstein et al., 2015;
Christopher and Peck, 2004), collaboration (Parast and Shekarian, 2019; Beske and Seuring,
2014), redundancy strategies (Das and Lashkari, 2015) as the most imperative capabilities an
organization can have to stabilize SC disruptions. Christopher and Peck (2004) recommended
the inclusion of risk management for creating SC resilience.
Despite a lot of focus, the multi-dimensionality aspect of SC resilience has been rarely
explored empirically. Moreover, it has been advocated that a significant amount of research
should target testing models on SC resilience, under one type of disruption (Shekarian and
Mellat Parast, 2020; Ambulkar et al., 2015). However, some degree of progress has been made
(Zainal and Ingirige, 2018; Lam and Bai, 2016; Ishfaq, 2012) in varied contexts (Adobor and
McMullen, 2018). Further, there is a need to shed light about the precise effects of SC resilience
on SC reconfiguration (Bag et al., 2019; Ivanov and Sokolov, 2019). In addition, empirical
evidence concerning the influence of variables that can be considered as enablers on SC
resilience are limited (Dubey et al., 2019; Brusset and Teller, 2017; Dubey et al., 2019; Johnson
et al., 2013).

3.1 Risk management culture

Literature on SC resilience generally contends that SCs are associated with different cultures,
locations and time zone, sometimes creating unpredictable disruptions (Tukamuhabwa et al.,
2017). The competence for tackling such disruptions is vital for an organization to lessen
losses and operate resourcefully with minimal downtime (Cardoso et al., 2015; Ponomarov
and Holcomb, 2009). To operationalize this competence, RMC is considered as a control-
oriented activity, which primarily involves business continuity planning and employee
training to develop resilience in operations (Das and Lashkari, 2015). RMC is considered as
one of the major enabler of resilience (Soni et al., 2014) and mitigating agent (Wieland and
Wallenburg, 2013). This was further explored by Lima et al. (2018) and Stone and Rahimifard
(2018), who claim that implementing a culture of resilience may help to mitigate specific
vulnerabilities in the SC. Therefore, organizations are required to create a RMC in SCs to
prepare for unexpected events, respond to disruptions and to recover from disruptions by
maintaining continuity of operations (Jain et al., 2017). As a result, the following hypothesis
was stated:
H1. RMC has a significant and positive relationship with SC resilience.

3.2 Agility
Agility is defined as the ability to transform into operating contingencies as a response to
volatility in market conditions (Shekarian and Parast, 2020; Lim et al., 2017). It is regarded as
one of the most powerful ways to achieve SC resilience (Christopher and Peck, 2004). The role
of agility in mitigating SC disruptions is well documented in literature (Dubey et al., 2019;
Ali et al., 2017a; Pettit et al., 2010). Agility has been propounded as a means for mastering
market turbulence (Gligor et al., 2016), to adjust tactics and operations (Gligor et al., 2015) and
to integrate processes (Li et al., 2008). It has been argued that flexibility, visibility and velocity
can be captured through agility (Ali et al., 2017a; Kamalahmadi and Parast, 2016; Scholten Supply chain
et al., 2014). Flexibility not only supports SC agility but also SC resilience by coordinating the resilience
firm processes to cope with high levels of environment and operation uncertainty (Petersen
et al., 2015). While, visibility is more likely result in successful achieving of agility through
identifying of changes and speed for a faster respond to changes in SC (Hohenstein et al., 2015;
Khan et al., 2012). Besides, agility overlooks velocity as a pace of flexible adaptation, which
therefore determinates the recovery speed of SC from a risk event (J€ uttner and Maklan, 2011).
Wieland and Wallenburg (2013) and Scholten et al. (2014) found a significant and positive
relationship between agility and SC resilience. Hence, when SC disruptions occur, agility
enables SCs to perform a quick SC redesign (i.e. SC reconfiguration). For instance, rerouting
materials and ramping up at other manufacturing plants in case of disruption at a production
facility (Hohenstein et al., 2015; Khan et al., 2012). With plethora of studies examining either
agility or resilience exists, rare studies to date have investigated the complex relationship
between the two constructs, with Gligor et al. (2019) being exception. Thus, it was
hypothesized to test the relationship between agility and SC resilience that:
H2. Agility has a significant and positive relationship with SC resilience.

3.3 Collaboration
SC collaboration is known as the ability to work cohesively with other units on processes like
forecasting and risk sharing for mutual benefit (Parast and Shekarian, 2019). Empirical
evidences have shown that collaboration has a significant influence on SC resilience (Pettit
et al., 2013; J€uttner and Maklan, 2011). Collaboration can help in reducing the level of
uncertainty while facilitating the sharing of knowledge about SC risks (Tomlin, 2006). Pettit
et al. (2010) found that global SCs that have strong capabilities in the area of collaboration,
visibility, and flexibility, effectively manage their vast number of interrelated operations. It is
argued that collaboration between SC partners can help to mitigate disruptive risks by
exchanging information (Cheng and Lu, 2017; Pettit et al., 2013; Ponomarov and
Holcomb, 2009).
Further, trust and information sharing were highlighted as two elements of collaboration
that are prerequisites in building cooperation relationship and resilience (Chowdhury and
Quaddus, 2016). Collaboration empowers SC allies to share the costs of building security and
resilience (Bakshi and Kleindorfer, 2009). Moreover, it ensures SC recovery by improving the
operation processes implemented by SC partners (Ghadge et al., 2012). Relying on these
crucial attributes of collaboration, we can argue that collaboration may help toward
enhancing SC resilience. Therefore, we suggest that:
H3. Collaboration has a significant and positive relationship with SC resilience.

3.4 Integration
Integration is one of the relational capabilities that effect the SC resilience (Wieland and
Wallenburg, 2013). Integration can be divided into coordination, in terms of enterprise
resources planning, and process, such as inventory management (Wieland and Wallenburg,
2013). These two streams of integration can enhance SC resilience by effective and efficient
flows of products and services, information, money and decision, to provide maximum value
to the customer at low cost and high speed (Brusset and Teller, 2017). It has been argued that
coordination and process are often accompanied by high risk; therefore, an organization
needs to share information affectively with partners to reduce the impact of SC disruptions
(Lui et al., 2018).
However, empirical evidence concerning the effects of integration with SC resilience are
found to be equivocal. Parast and Spillan (2014) considered integration as internal and
JEIM external collaborations through operations management, which objectively create
operational and strategic effectiveness. Researchers have also posited that both internal
and external collaboration positively enhance the SC resilience (Mandal, 2012, 2017).
Integration increases visibility and reduces uncertainty while both are effective toward SC
resilience (Christopher and Peck, 2004).
Accordingly, the following hypothesis is stated:
H4. Integration has a significant and positive relationship with SC resilience.

3.5 Supply chain reconfiguration

SC reconfiguration in terms of resources of a firm can be defined as the capability to realign
and restructure the resources in response to disruptions in the organization’s external
environment (Wei and Wang, 2010; Helfat et al., 2007). Overall, studies examining SC
resilience has produced significant finding concerning its effects on the relationships between
SC resilience enablers, and it is the ability to respond to the SC disruptions. However, studies
investigating the influence of SC resilience on SC reconfiguration are rare. Literature on SC
resilience is unclear about how SC resilience affects SC reconfiguration, where reconfiguring
resources are scarce (Ivanov et al., 2018; Bag et al., 2019; Ambulkar et al., 2015). Sirmon et al.
(2007) reported that when organizations face disruptions and discontinuities, there is a need
to restructure themselves and their resource base as well. This gives direction to future
research on SC reconfiguration and its antecedents. It is to be noted that firms having past
experience of facing disruptions proactively configure and align resources (Bode et al., 2011)
and give ample time scanning the environment for better responsiveness to disruptions
(Ramaswami et al., 2009). Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed:
H5. SC resilience has a significant and positive relationship with SC reconfiguration.
Based on the hypotheses as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, we propose the research
model as shown in Figure 1.

Risk Management
Culture

H1

Agility

H2 Supply Chain
Supply Chain
Resilience H5 Reconfiguration

H3
Collaboration

H4
Figure 1.
Integration
Proposed
research model
4. Research methodology Supply chain
The current research aims to develop a structured questionnaire to explore the antecedents of resilience
SC and SC reconfiguration by pooling out all the items to measure the constructs of the
research model from previous studies. After carrying out the content validity, a pilot test was
conducted in the same survey sample setting to investigate the crucial components of the
main study. The instrument’s reliability and validity were also assessed on the basis of
results from measurement model. Later, the proposed model hypotheses were tested using
partial least squares–structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). With PLS-SEM, it is easy to
test complex models with various indicators and constructs because there are no technical
constraints like identification of indicators (Rigdon, 2014). However, there exist other toolkits
for SEM. For example, SEM thorough AMOS, which is a co-variance-based SEM (CB-SEM).
An advantage of PLS-SEM is that it helps in getting results even with smaller samples
(Reinartz et al., 2009), which is difficult in CB-SEM (Hair et al., 2014). PLS-SEM proved to be an
impressive tool for operations research because of its high level of flexibility while checking
the cause and effect relationship (Luft and Shields, 2014). It also helps in testing the interplay
of theory and data, as also suggested by researchers (Chin, 1998). Figure 2 depicts the series of
steps undertaken for conducting the study:

4.1 Measures
The study instrument comprised of two sections. Validated scales borrowed from previous
studies forms the first section, while demographic characteristics of the respondents were
gathered using the second section. Valid multi-item scales addressing SC resilience and

Step 1: Pooling of research items to develop the questionnaire

Step 2: Assessment of the questionnaire using content validity

through field and academic experts

Step 3: Pilot testing and checking uni-dimensionality of

constructs through exploratory factor analysis

Step 4: Final Data Collection

Step 5: Confirmation of factors using Confirmatory Factor

Analysis

Step 6: Validity and Reliability Assessment

Figure 2.
Step 7: Testing of hypotheses using PLS-SEM Steps and procedure
JEIM reconfiguration were used for all constructs associated with SC resilience, RMC,
collaboration, agility and integration, as shown in Appendix.
SC resilience was measured using eight items adopted from Ambulkar et al. (2015) and
Golgeci and Ponomarove (2013). Each respondent was asked to provide their level of
agreement and disagreement on a seven-point Likert ranging from strong disagree to strong
agree (where strongly disagree 5 1 and strongly agree 5 7). The scale of RMC was adopted
from Liu et al. (2018), which was originally adopted from the work by Johnson et al. (2013) and
Christopher and Peck (2004). Regarding RMC, respondents were asked to provide responses
on information of RMC, the sharing of employee knowledge about risk management,
relationship to overall risk culture, risk awareness and the internal and external attributes
driving risk culture. Agility was measured by four items pooled from the works of Liu et al.
(2018) and Mandal et al. (2016). Collaboration was assessed by four items borrowed from
Brandon-Jones et al. (2014) and Chowdhury and Quaddus (2017). Four items to measure
integration were adapted from the study of Liu et al. (2018). Three items from Wei and Wang
(2010) and one item from Pavlou and El Sawy (2006) were pooled and intended to measure SC
reconfiguration. These four items measure the firm’s capability and resources to reconfigure
their SC to fill the local market need of resources.

4.2 Content validity

As stated above, the survey items were adopted from the extant literature on SC. The survey
was initially designed in English language and then translated into Arabic language. The
Arabic version was translated by native speakers of Arabic language who have prior
experience in the translation of survey questionnaires. More importantly, the translators
were well versed with the concept of SC. To validate the face testing, experts from both the
fields, academic and industry, were recruited. Further, the Arabic version was checked
against the English version, some questions were rephrased to improve the accuracy of the
translation. To ensure content validity, the targeted respondents were employees who were
familiar with SC practices and have spent approximately 5–10 years in the concerned
companies.

4.3 Pilot test

A pilot study was conducted by collecting data from a sample of 26 companies/respondents
selected from the list provided by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Qatar.
Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to check the uni-dimensionality of the study
constructs. The items showed factor loadings greater than 0.5 and fall under the intended
constructs. Due to the emergence of sufficient factor loadings, all the research items were
retained (Hair et al., 2011). After a review of the pilot test results, the instrument was ready for
final data collection to test the research model.

4.4 Data collection

The context of this research was all companies operating an SC in Qatar. Therefore, the SC
entities and mangers were the target population of this study. The unit of analysis was firm
level. Data were collected in the pen-and-paper form, and the researcher was present to ensure
unbiased data collection. This also helped the researcher in removing doubts and ambiguity
in the minds of respondents, if any. Moreover, it also ensured no loss of information due to
translation of questionnaire. The respondents were selected from a list of companies
operating in Qatar provided by the Qatar Chamber of Commerce and Industry. A total of 314
companies responded when contacted, from the considered sampling frame. Biased and
partially filled responses were removed, leading to the final sample of 253, which was found Supply chain
adequate for the study. resilience
5. Data analysis and result
5.1 Demographics
Figure 2 and Tables 1 and 2 exhibit the demographic profile of the survey participants. The
majority of the participants were male (87.7%), and 98.4% of them were non-Qatari. The level
of education of the participants indicates that more than half of the participants (59.3%) have
a graduate degree. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 57, with 54.5% (n 5 138) in
the age bracket of 18–25 years. About 33.33% of the participants had spent 5–10 years
working in their companies.
Professional experience of 11–15 years was common (23.3%) than professionals with less
than five years’ experience (19%). In terms of their role, (29.3%) of the participants indicated
that their job position was operations, 27.7% (n 5 70) indicated that their job position as
procurement, 19.8% specified that their job position as the chief executive officer (CEO),
owners and sales managers. General manger participation represents10% (n 5 33) of the
total respondents.
5.2 Assessment of the measurement model
The reliability and validity of the model was assessed as recommended by prior researchers
(Uddin and Khan, 2018; Hair et al., 2014; Molenaar et al., 2000). The PLS algorithm results of
the model (refer to Table 3) show that most of the indicator loadings and their corresponding
t-values of the SCRE enablers (i.e. agility, collaboration, RMC, integration) with SC and SC
reconfiguration constructs were significant, except the integration enabler of SC resilience.
Collinearity among the constructs were checked by calculating the variance inflation
factor (VIF) values, as presented in Table 4. The VIF value for each indicator corresponding to
the respective construct is less than 5, therefore revealing no multicollinearity (Hair et al.,
2012; Henseler et al., 2009). On the other hand, the other measurement model assessments,
such as the average variance extracted (AVE) (i.e. threshold ≥0.5) (Hulland, 1999), composite
reliability (CR) (i.e. threshold >0.7) (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) and Cronbach’s alpha (α)

Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %

Valid Less than 5 years 48 19.0 19.0 19.0

5–10 91 36.0 36.0 54.9
11–15 59 23.3 23.3 78.3
16–20 26 10.3 10.3 88.5 Table 1.
More than 20 years 29 11.5 11.5 100.0 Work experience of the
Total 253 100.0 100.0 respondents

Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %

Valid General manager 33 13.0 13.0 13.0

Procurement staff/manager 70 27.7 27.7 40.7
Operation staff/manager 74 29.2 29.2 70.0
SC staff/manager 26 10.3 10.3 80.2 Table 2.
Other, please specify 50 19.8 19.8 100.0 Job level of the
Total 253 100.0 100.0 respondents
JEIM Construct Indicator Loading CR AVE Cronbach’s alpha (α)

Agility AGILITY 1 0.763 0.916 0.731 0.876

AGILITY 2 0.891
AGILITY 3 0.891
AGILITY 4 0.87
Collaboration COLL 1 0.928 0.951 0.828 0.93
COLL 2 0.951
COLL 3 0.9
COLL 4 0.859
Integration INTEG 1 0.723 0.888 0.666 0.833
INTEG 2 0.851
INTEG 3 0.865
INTEG 4 0.818
RMC RMC 1 0.853 0.922 0.747 0.887
RMC 2 0.889
RMC 3 0.854
RMC 4 0.86
SC reconfiguration SCR 1 0.912 0.959 0.855 0.944
SCR 2 0.949
SCR 3 0.919
SCR 4 0.919
SC resilience SCRE 1 0.844 0.943 0.675 0.931
SCRE 2 0.814
SCRE 3 0.851
SCRE 4 0.778
SCRE 5 0.81
Table 3. SCRE 6 0.815
Measurement model SCRE 7 0.864
assessment SCRE 8 0.792

Agility Agility Collaboration Integration RMC SC reconfiguration SC resilience

Agility 3.758
Collaboration 3.345
Integration 2.744
Table 4. RMC 2.608
VIF values in the SC reconfiguration
structural model SC resilience 1.000

(i.e. threshold ≥0.6) (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) values exceeded their respective thresholds,
as shown in Table 3.
Additionally, the square root of the AVEs exceeded their correlation between any other
constructs (refer to Table 3). Thus, there is no correlation between any two constructs, and
each indicator received adequate loading (Table 3). As aforementioned in the above results,
the validity and reliability of the measurement model were assessed for further evaluation of
the structural model.

5.3 Structural equation model

SEM with SmartPLS V.3 was operationalized in this study to analyze the PLS path modeling.
Following the approach of Hair et al. (2014), two predictive quality analytics, measurement
model and structural model, must be conducted to evaluate the research path model through Supply chain
PLS-SEM (Figure 4). resilience
The measurement model represents the relationships between the observed data and the
latent variables, while the structural model evaluate the relationships between the latent
variables. Figure 3 illustrates the results of the PLS path analysis.

5.4 Assessment of structural model

The path coefficients and corresponding t-values were calculated to assess the relationships
among the constructs, as hypothesized in the research (Hair et al., 2011; Barclay et al., 1995).
The results show that path coefficients representing H1, H2, H3, H5 were significant
(p < 0.05). Therefore, H1, H2, H3, H5 were supported (refer to Table 5). The impact of integrity
on SC resilience found to be insignificant (p > 0.05). Thus, H4 was rejected.
Further, the percentage of variance explained or R2 value was explored to assess the
explanatory power of the proposed model (Hair et al., 2011). The value of R2 was found to be
0.493, suggesting that 49.3% of the variance in reconfiguration explained the SC resilience,
whereas the agility, collaboration, integration and RMC variances explained 56.1% (0.561) of
SC resilience, as shown in Table 6.

6. Discussion
The objective of this study was to explore the antecedents of SC resilience and to gauge the
influence of SC resilience on SC reconfiguration. The results of factor analysis revealed
existence of four underlying antecedents of SC resilience, namely: agility, collaboration, RMC,
integration, along with SC resilience and SC reconfiguration. The findings of this study
provide novel insights about the determinants of SC resilience and the influence of SC
resilience on SC reconfiguration. Majority of the empirical models have not captured this
multifaceted theme of SC resilience (Ishfaq, 2012; Lam and Bai, 2016; Forbes and Wilson,
2018; Zainal and Ingirige, 2018). As it was suggested that more empirical research is needed to
develop a thorough understanding of such complex phenomenon (Ambulkar et al., 2015;
Adobor and McMullen, 2018; Bag et al., 2019; Ivanov and Sokolov, 2019), the current findings,

GENDER Age
Male Female
47 – 57 11
36 – 46 28
12%
25 – 35 76
18 – 25 138
88%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

NATIONALITY EDUCATION
Qatari Non-Qatari 200
150
2% 100 150

50
16 68 19
0
High School Undergraduate Graduate Degree Any Addional Figure 3.
98%
Degree Qualificaon Demographics for
survey respondents
JEIM

Figure 4.
PLS path analysis
results

Standard
Original Sample deviation T-statistics (jO/ p-
sample (O) mean (M) (STDEV) STDEVj) values

Agility → SC resilience 0.396 0.397 0.099 4.015 0.000

Collaboration → SC 0.217 0.214 0.086 2.535 0.011
resilience
Integration → SC 0.036 0.041 0.086 0.420 0.675
resilience
RMC → SC resilience 0.169 0.170 0.085 1.988 0.047
Table 5. SC resilience → SC 0.702 0.704 0.038 18.662 0.000
Path coefficient results reconfiguration

R2 R2 adjusted

Table 6. SC reconfiguration 0.493 0.491

R2 results SC resilience 0.561 0.554

apart from providing valuable insights, add worth to the literature in some ways. The model
tested using PLS path modeling also confirmed the validity and reliability of the model.
The results affirm the positive and significant influence of RMC on SC resilience
(β 5 0.169, p 5 0.047). This is in line with the works of previous researchers (Lima et al., 2018;
Stone and Rahimifard, 2018; Jain et al., 2017; Soni et al., 2014). This also supports the
proposition that enhancement of RMC in the form of agility, integration, collaboration and re-
engineering among SC partners leads to sharing and reduction of risk arising from SC
vulnerabilities (Lui et al., 2018). Empirically it is evident that agility significantly and
positively influences SC resilience (β 5 0.396, p 5 0.000), implying that an improvement in Supply chain
agility (improvements in flexibility, visibility and velocity) may lead to an increased resilience
cooperation to cope with high levels of environment and operation uncertainty. This further
strengthens the work of researchers in the past (Petersen et al., 2015; Scholten et al., 2014).
Integration was not found to significantly influence the SC resilience. This might be
attributed to a plausible explanation that has some negative shades, although it helps in
knowledge sharing. According to Perrow (1984), integration increases dependency in the SC.
Also, a highly integrated SC creates risks in one link, which affects the other links in the chain
(Norrman and Jansson, 2004), implying that highly integrated SCs may develop higher risk
exposure. Our findings echoed with the work of Wieland and Wallenburg (2013).
It is evident that there is a positive impact of collaboration on SC resilience (β 5 0.217,
p 5 0.011). Therefore, collaboration capability, which is influenced by information sharing,
collaborative communication, mutually created knowledge and joint relationship efforts for
SC resilience, is favorable to SC risk mitigation. This is in line with the researchers from the
past (Scholten and Schilder, 2015; Pettit et al., 2013; Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009). The
survey data analysis does not produce significant evidence support for H4 (β 5 0.036,
p 5 0.675). The possible reason for the insignificant relationship may be associated with
inadequate support from relevant actors during crisis in Qatar.
One of the interesting findings of the study is the re-exploration of a new dimension, i.e. SC
reconfiguration in the context of SC resilience. Our study provides evidence that the
hypothesized relationship between SC resilience and reconfiguration is supported and
significant (β 5 0.702, p 5 0.000). It implies that SC resilience provides the firms to
reconfigure their SC and return to the normal operation after disruptions (Bag et al., 2019;
Ambulkar et al., 2015).

6.1 Implications for theory

This research sheds first light on the influence of SC resilience on SC reconfiguration by
developing a research model on SC resilience and filling the gaps in the existing literature.
The research model developed characterized the SC resilience in terms of RMC, agility,
collaboration and integration for SC in Qatar. This study develops and validates the SC
resilience model on SC reconfiguration. Such research model is a novel contribution to the SC
resilience literature.
Previously, SC resilience and reconfiguration have been mostly explored in the context of
western and developed economies (Gligor et al., 2019; Hohenstein et al., 2015; Johnson et al.,
2013; Juttner and Maklan, 2011; Christopher and Peck, 2004). This study has paved way for
re-investigating these study constructs in other economies. For instance, emerging economies
in the Asian sub-continent are moving toward the circular economy pattern and have
witnessed various disruptions (Bag et al., 2019). More emphasis on the same will help in
purging this lacuna. The model, hence, delineates the interesting aspects like RMC, agility,
collaboration, integration on SC resilience and reconfiguration in the context of an emerging
economy like Qatar. It addresses the existing void that previous studies on SC resilience are
ambivalent in differentiating the antecedent and measurement constructs of SC resilience
(J€
uttner and Maklan, 2011). The findings about the effect of integration on SC resilience in the
present study also act as a precursor for some more cross-cultural research. This will help in
clearing the air of mixed findings about the influence of integration on SC resilience and
reconfiguration while adding to the worth of literature.

6.2 Implications for practice

The findings from this study should aid mangers in planning for SC disruptions. The findings
suggest that to create resilient SCs, it is imperative to have RMC, agility and collaboration. In
JEIM fact, Qatar’s SC managers will be equipped with the knowledge on enablers required for
ensuring resilience in the SC. This is the starting point for establishing SC resilience, as it
guides management decisions regarding SC reconfiguration. The RCM can be reinforced
through the regular decision-making and operation process. In doing so, employees at all
levels of the firm are likely to maintain an awareness of disruptions and take steps to learn
from even small disruption within the SC.
In the ongoing scenario, there are some important aspects that are required to be studied
by the organizations to analyze themselves. For instance, the role of individual managers in
decision-making regarding resilience, the formation and structure of management teams on
the basis of knowledge about emergency and uncertainties and the role of company policies
regarding SC resilience. Managers should also seek to establish agility by dedicating human-
centered leadership, continuous improvement and cultural embrace to specialize in managing
and responding to real perceived risks to the SC operation. Our research provides support to
the fact that agility allows firms to easily absorb the impact of disruption. Our findings also
demonstrate that collaboration makes the SC more resilient in the event of disruptions. This
study provides new insights showing the positive effects of collaboration in building SC
resilience. Collaboration is of paramount importance for sharing information and to enable a
faster response to disruption. Studies have reported in some counter-instances that absence
of collaboration increases the impact of disruption because managers waited for information
(Scholten and Schilder, 2015). Risk management is also required for dissemination of
information about disruptions (Scholten et al., 2019). The findings prompt us to posit that a
strong RMC is required to create and share knowledge regarding disruptions; otherwise, the
potential to inculcate SC resilience may get vanished. However, integration, on the other hand,
was found to have no significant influence on SC resilience.
One cannot deny the fact that uncertainty also leads to ambiguity on the part of scare
resources needed to progress and sustain a competitive advantage. Companies to avoid the
ambiguity may need a repertoire of flexible resources. In other words, slack resources are
helpful to manipulate the prevailing abilities of a company in response to inconsistent milieu
(either opportunities or threats). The improvements in agility also influence changes and
speed for a faster response to changes in SC (Cheng and Lu, 2017; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015;
Hohenstein et al., 2015) and the recovery speed of SC from a risk event (Tukamuhabwa et al.,
2015). Agility directly affects the risk management performance of a firm (Liu et al., 2018) and
reduces the response time to disruptions (Christopher and Holweg, 2011); hence, firms must
devote their attention to agility (including the firm’s sensitivity to market changes).
Managers will be equipped with the knowledge of the impact of SC resilience on SC
reconfiguration. Thus, organizations in Qatar should work toward developing reconfiguring
resources to return the SCs to normal operating conditions after disruption (Ivanov and
Sokolov, 2019; Ivanov et al., 2018). Managers should play an active role to make sure that the
resilience of the SC aligned with the change needs to recover the disruptions. Managers must
be willing and able to make change to their SC, which may involve making major
adjustments. Adjustments in capability self-assessment, resource planning and policy
improvement may influence product offerings, services offering, labor, facility operations
and leaderships with other entities. One example might include using an alternative supplier
and service providers to provide the firm with an array of options in the event of such
disruptions to the flow of products and services.

7. Conclusion and scope for future research

Our goal with this study was to explore the antecedents of SC resilience, i.e. which factors
enable a firm to be resilient during disruptions. We extend the literature available and
investigate a new SC re-configuration construct by examining its relationship with SC
resilience. To the best of authors’ knowledge, this empirical study is among the earliest Supply chain
attempts to understand the role of SC resilience in reconfiguration. Our study contributes in a resilience
number of meaningful ways. First, our research model investigates the resilience enablers
influencing SC resilience as well as indirect effect on reconfiguration. Next, by examining SCs
in Qatar, it is evident that that SC resilience has a more powerful influence on SC
reconfiguration to improve reactive and proactive dimensions of SC resilience. Finally, the
findings provide practical guidance on the benefit of SC resilience reinforcing agility,
collaboration and RMC to improve their ability to recover from disruption and reconfigure the
SC. Moreover, the extension of SC resilience toward re-configuration provides pathways to
strategies like pioneering, bundling and mobilizing the resources. It has been mentioned in
the past that configuration (like mobilizing and bundling) leverages the firm’s capabilities
across various production arenas (Sirmon et al., 2007).
In contrast to the findings of previous studies, the influence of integration on SC resilience
turned out to be insignificant. It has been noted that very closely integrated systems of SC
sometimes may not lessen the vulnerabilities to a significant level, which could easily be
reduced by loosely bound relationships (Wieland and Wallenburg, 2013). Here comes the role
of dependencies on resources. Hence, to not to create very strong dependencies,
communicative and cooperative competencies can be acquired. As already mentioned in
the literature, a “supply chain” acts as an intermediary between the firm and its operating
environment; the instant research clearly spots the relevance of coordinated approach among
the antecedents of SC members to achieve resilience.
The study also has some limitations. First, the study depends on a survey method to draw
conclusions. Survey data collection limits the ability to draw conclusions related to the
causality. Therefore, alternative types of data collection methods, such as case study or
longitudinal data with the survey, are recommended for future research. Another limitation of
the research is the use of a single respondent from each firm. Additional data sources for the
measurement of dependent variables are suggested for future research to improve the data
quality. Future research should also consider other enablers of resilience. Scholars should
explore SC resilience and reconfiguration through the impact of different types of risks. For
example, one study could examine the effect of internal SC on SC resilience, and another could
examine the effect of natural disaster in reconfiguration of the SC. Finally, we encourage
scholars to extend the boundaries of firm level to country level, to encompass broader impact
of SC resilience and reconfiguration.

References
Adobor, H. and McMullen, R.S. (2018), “Supply chain resilience: a dynamic and multidimensional
approach”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1451-1471.
Adobor, H. (2018), “Supply chain resilience: a multi-level framework”, International Journal of Logistics
Research and Applications, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 533-556.
Ali, A., Mahfouz, A. and Arisha, A. (2017a), “Analysing supply chain resilience: integrating the
constructs in a concept mapping framework via a systematic literature review”, Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 16-39.
Ali, I., Nagalingam, S. and Gurd, B. (2017b), “Building resilience in SMEs of perishable product supply
chains: enablers, barriers and risks”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 28 No. 15,
pp. 1236-1250.
Altay, N., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R. and Childe, S.J. (2018), “Agility and resilience as antecedents of
supply chain performance under moderating effects of organizational culture within the
humanitarian setting: a dynamic capability view”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 29
No. 14, pp. 1158-1174.
JEIM Ambulkar, S., Blackhurst, J. and Grawe, S. (2015), “Firm’s resilience to supply chain disruptions: scale
development and empirical examination”, Journal of Operations Management, Vols 33-34,
pp. 111-122.
Annarelli, A. and Nonino, F. (2016), “Strategic and operational management of organizational
resilience: current state of research and future directions”, Omega, Vol. 62, pp. 1-18.
Aqlan, F. and Lam, S.S. (2015), “Supply chain risk modelling and mitigation”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 18, pp. 5640-5656.
Bag, S. (2016), “Flexible procurement systems is key to supply chain sustainability”, Journal of
Transport and Supply Chain Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Bag, S., Gupta, S. and Foropon, C. (2019), “Examining the role of dynamic remanufacturing capability
on supply chain resilience in circular economy”, Management Decision, Vol. 57 No. 4,
pp. 863-885.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94 .
Bakshi, N. and Kleindorfer, P. (2009), “Co-opetition and investment for supply-chain resilience”,
Production and Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 583-603.
Barclay, D.W., Higgins, C.A. and Thompson, R. (1995), “The partial least squares approach to causal
modeling: personal computer adoption and use as illustration”, Technology Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 285-309.
BBC (2017), “Qatar row: Economic impact threatens food, flights and football”, available at: https://
www.bbc.com/news/business-40156029 (accessed 15 August 2020).
Behzadi, G., O’Sullivan, M.J., Olsen, T.L., Scrimgeour, F. and Zhang, A. (2017), “Robust and resilient
strategies for managing supply disruptions in an agribusiness supply chain”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 191, pp. 207-220.
Beske, P. and Seuring, S. (2014), “Putting sustainability into supply chain management”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 322-331.
Bhattacharjya, J. (2018), “The role of egocentric networks in achieving resilience: a case study from the
apparel sector”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 48
No. 7, pp. 682-697.
Bode, C., Wagner, S.M., Petersen, K.J. and Ellram, L.M. (2011), “Understanding responses to supply
chain disruptions: insights from information processing and resource dependence
perspectives”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 833-856.
Brandon-Jones, E., Squire, B., Autry, C.W. and Petersen, K.J. (2014), “A contingent resource-based
perspective of supply chain resilience and robustness”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 55-73.
Brusset, X. and Teller, C. (2017), “Supply chain capabilities, risks, and resilience”, International Journal
of Production Economics, Vol. 184, pp. 59-68.
Business Continuity Institute (2016), “Supply chain resilience report 2015, 7th Annual Survey”,
available at: https://www.zurich.com.sg/_/media/dbe/singapore/docs/corporate-solutions/
bcisupplychainresiliencereport2016web.pdf (accessed 7 August 2020).
Cardoso, S.R., Barbosa-Povoa, A.P., Relvas, S. and Novais, A.Q. (2015), “Resilience metrics in the
assessment of complex supply-chains performance operating under demand uncertainty”,
Omega-International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 56, pp. 53-73.
Cheng, J. and Lu, K. (2017), “Enhancing effects of supply chain resilience: insights from trajectory and
resource-based perspectives”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 329-340.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling”, in
Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Erlbaum, Mahwah,
pp. 295-358.
Chowdhury, M.M.H. and Quaddas, M. (2016), “Supply chain readiness, response and recovery for Supply chain
resilience”, Supply Chain Management: International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 709-731.
resilience
Chowdhury, M.H. and Quaddus, M.A. (2015), “A multiple objective optimization based QFD approach
for efficient resilient strategies to mitigate supply chain vulnerabilities: the case of garment
industry of Bangladesh”, Omega, Vol. 57, p. 5.
Chowdhury, M.M. and Quaddus, M. (2017), “Supply chain resilience: conceptualization and scale
development using dynamic capability theory”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 188, pp. 185-204.
Christopher, M. and Holweg, M. (2011), “Supply Chain 2.0: managing supply chains in the era of
turbulence”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 41
No. 1, pp. 63-82.
Christopher, M. and Peck, H. (2004), “Building the resilient supply chain”, International Journal of
Logistics Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 1-14.
Colicchia, C., Dallari, F. and Melacini, M. (2010), “Increasing supply chain resilience in a global
sourcing context”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 680-694.
Das, K. and Lashkari, R.S. (2015), “Risk readiness and resiliency planning for a supply chain”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 22, pp. 6752-6771.
Datta, P. (2017), “Supply network resilience: a systematic literature review and future research”,
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1387-1424.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Papadopoulos, T., Blome, C. and Luo, Z. (2017), “Antecedents
of resilient supply chains: an empirical study”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 193 November, pp. 63-76, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2017.2723042.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Fosso Wamba, S., Roubaud, D. and Foropon, C. (2019),
“Empirical investigation of data analytics capability and organizational flexibility as
complements to supply chain resilience”, International Journal of Production Research. doi:
10.1080/00207543.2019.1582820.
Elbanna, S. (2016), “Managers’ autonomy, strategic control, organizational politics and strategic
planning effectiveness: an empirical investigation into missing links in the hotel sector”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 52, pp. 210-220 .
Folke, C. (2006), “Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses”,
Global Environmental Change, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 253-267.
Forbes, S.L. and Wilson, M.M.J. (2018), “Resilience and response of wine supply chains to disaster: the
Christchurch earthquake sequence”, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and
Consumer Research, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 472-489.
Fornell, C.G. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Ghadge, A., Dani, S. and Kalawsky, R. (2012), “Supply chain risk management: present and future
scope”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 313-339.
Gligor, D.M., Esmark, C.L. and Holcomb, M.C. (2015), “Performance outcomes of supply chain agility:
when should you be agile?”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 71-82.
Gligor, D.M., Holcomb, M.C. and Feizabadi, J. (2016), “An exploration of the strategic antecedents of
firm supply chain agility: the role of a firm’s orientations”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 179 No. 1, pp. 24-34.
Gligor, D., Gligor, N., Holcomb, M. and Bozkurt, S. (2019), “Distinguishing between the concepts of
supply chain agility and resilience: a multidisciplinary literature review”, The International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 467-487.
Gligor, D.M. (2015), “The role of supply chain agility in achieving supply chain fit”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 524-553.
JEIM Golgeci, I. and Ponomarov, S.Y. (2013), “Does firm innovativeness enable effective responses to supply
chain disruptions? An empirical study”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 604-617.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-151.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Pieper, T.M. and Ringle, C.M. (2012a), “The use of partial least squares
structural equation modeling in strategic management research: a review of past practices and
recommendations for future applications”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 5 Nos 5/6, pp. 320-340.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Mena, J.A. (2012b), “An assessment of the use of partial least
squares structural equation modeling in marketing research”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 414-433.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Helfat, C.E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M.A., Singh, H., Teece, D.J. and Winter, S.J. (2007),
Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Chance in Organizations, Blackwell, Oxford.
Hendricks, K. and Singhal, V.R. (2005), “The effect of supply chain disruptions on long-term
shareholder value, profitability, and share price volatility”, available at: http://
supplychainmagazine.fr/TOUTE-INFO/ETUDES/singhal-scm-report.pdf.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009), “The use of partial least squares path modeling in
international marketing”, Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 20, pp. 277-320.
Hohenstein, N.O., Feisel, E., Hartmann, E. and Giunipero, L. (2015), “Research on the phenomenon of
supply chain resilience: a systematic review and paths for further investigation”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 45 Nos 1-2, pp. 90-117.
Holling, C.S. (1973), “Resilience and stability of ecological systems”, Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Hulland, J. (1999), “Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of
four recent studies”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 195-204 .
Ishfaq, R. (2012), “Resilience through flexibility in transportation operations”, International Journal of
Logistics Research and Applications, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 215-229.
Ivanov, D. and Sokolov, B. (2019), “Simultaneous structural–operational control of supply chain
dynamics and resilience”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 283, pp. 1-20.
Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., Sokolov, B. and Ivanova, M. (2017), “Literature review on disruption recovery in
the supply chain”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 6158-6174.
Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A. and Sokolov, B. (2018), “Scheduling of recovery actions in the supply chain with
resilience analysis considerations”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 19,
pp. 6473-6490.
Jain, V., Kumar, S., Soni, U. and Chandra, C. (2017), “Supply chain resilience: model development and
empirical analysis”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 22, pp. 6779-6800.
Johnson, N., Elliott, D. and Drake, P. (2013), “Exploring the role of social capital in facilitating supply
chain resilience”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 324-336.
uttner, U. and Maklan, S. (2011), “Supply chain resilience in the global financial crisis: an empirical
J€
study”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 246-259.
Kamalahmadi, M. and Parast, M.M. (2016), “A review of the literature on the principles of enterprise
and supply chain resilience: major findings and directions for future research”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 171, pp. 116-133.
Khan, O., Martin, C. and Creazza, A. (2012), “Aligning product design with the supply chain: a case
study”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 323-336.
Kochan, C.G. and Nowicki, D.R. (2018), “Supply chain resilience: a systematic literature review and Supply chain
typological framework”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics, Vol. 48
No. 8, pp. 842-865. resilience
Lam, J.S.L. and Bai, X. (2016), “A quality function deployment approach to improve maritime supply
chain resilience”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 92,
pp. 16-27.
Lambert, L. and Bin Hashim, H. (2017), “A century of Saudi-Qatari food insecurity: paradigmatic shifts
in the geopolitics, economics and sustainability of Gulf states animal agriculture”, The Arab
World Geographer, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 261-281.
Li, X., Chung, C., Goldsby, T.J. and Holsapple, C.W. (2008), “A unified model of supply chain agility:
the work-design perspective”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 408-435.
Lim, M.K., Mak, H.Y. and Shen, Z.J. (2017), “Agility and proximity considerations in supply chain
design”, Management Science, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 1026-1041.
Lima Flavia Renata, P.d., Da Silva, A.L., Godinho, F.M. and Dias, E.M. (2018), “Systematic review:
resilience enablers to combat counterfeit medicines”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 117-135.

Lim-Camacho, L., Plaganyi, E.E., Crimp, S., Hodgkinson, J.H., Hobday, A.J., Howden, S.M. and Loechel,
B. (2017), “Complex resource supply chains display higher resilience to simulated climate
shocks”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 46, p. 126.
Liu, C.L., Shang, K.C., Lirn, T.C., Lai, K.H. and Lun, Y.V. (2018), “Supply chain resilience, firm
performance, and management policies in the liner shipping industry”, Transportation Research
Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 110, pp. 202-219.
Luft, J. and Shields, M.D. (2014), “Subjectivity in developing and validating causal explanations in
positivist accounting research”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 39 No. 7,
pp. 550-558.
Mandal, S. and Saravanan, D. (2019), “Exploring the influence of strategic orientations on tourism
supply chain agility and resilience: an empirical investigation”, Tourism Planning and
Development, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 612-636.
Mandal, S., Sarathy, R., Korasiga, V.R., Bhattacharya, S. and Dastidar, S.G. (2016), “Achieving supply
chain resilience: the contribution of logistics and supply chain capabilities”, International
Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 544-562 .
Mandal, S. (2012), “An empirical investigation into supply chain resilience”, IUP Journal of Supply
Chain Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, p. 46.
Mandal, S. (2017), “The influence of organizational culture on healthcare supply chain resilience:
moderating role of technology orientation”, The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 1021-1037.
Molenaar, K., Washington, S. and Diekmann, J. (2000), “Structural equation model of construction
contract dispute potential”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 126
No. 4, pp. 268-277.
Namdar, J., Li, X., Sawhney, R. and Pradhan, N. (2018), “Supply chain resilience for single and multiple
sourcing in the presence of disruption risks”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 2339-2360.
Norrman, A. and Jansson, U. (2004), “Ericsson’s proactive supply chain risk management approach
after a serious sub-supplier accident”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 434-456.
Parast, M.M. and Shekarian, M. (2019), “The impact of supply chain disruptions on organizational
performance: a literature review”, in Zsidisin, G. and Henke, M.(Eds), Revisiting Supply Chain
Risk. Springer Series in Supply Chain Management, Vol. 7, pp. 367-389, Springer, Cham.
JEIM Parast, M.M. and Spillan, J.E. (2014), “Logistics and supply chain process integration as a source of
competitive advantage: an empirical analysis”, International Journal of Logistics Management,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 289-314.
Pavlou, P.A. and El Sawy, O.A. (2006), “From IT leveraging competence to competitive advantage in
turbulent environments: the case of new product development”, Information Systems Research,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 198-227 .
Perrow, N.C. (1984), Accidents: Living with High-risk Technologies, Princeton University Press,
New York.
Petersen, K., Vakkalanka, S. and Kuzniarz, L. (2015), “Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping
studies in software engineering: an update”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 64, p. 1.
Pettit, T.J., Fiksel, J. and Croxton, K.L. (2010), “Ensuring supply chain resilience: development of
conceptual framework”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Pettit, T.J., Croxton, K. and Fiksel, J. (2013), “Ensuring supply chain resilience: development and
implementation of an assessment tool”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 46-76.
Ponomarov, S.Y. and Holcomb, M.C. (2009), “Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience”,
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 124-143.
Pournader, M., Rotaru, K., Kach, A.P. and Razavi Hajiagha, S.H. (2016), “An analytical model for
system-wide and tier-specific assessment of resilience to supply chain risks”, Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 589-609.
Rajesh, R. (2017), “Technological capabilities and supply chain resilience of firms: a relational analysis
using Total Interpretive Structural Modeling (TISM)”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 118, p. 161.
Ramaswami, S.N., Srivastava, R.K. and Bhargava, M. (2009), “Market-based capabilities and financial
performance of firms: insights into marketing’s contribution to firm value”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 97-116.
Reinartz, W.J., Haenlein, M. and Henseler, J. (2009), “An empirical comparison of the efficacy of
covariance-based and variance-based SEM”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 332-344.
Rigdon and Rigdon, E.E. (2014), “Rethinking partial least squares path modeling: breaking chains and
forging ahed”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 47, pp. 161-167.
Scholten, K. and Schilder, S. (2015), “The role of collaboration in supply chain resilience”, Supply Chain
Management: International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 471-484.
Scholten, K., Pamela, S.S. and Fynes, B. (2014), “Mitigation processes - antecedents for building supply
chain resilience”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 211-228.
Scholten, K., Scott, P.S. and Fynes, B. (2019), “Building routines for non-routine events: supply chain
resilience learning mechanisms and their antecedents”, Supply Chain Management:
International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 430-442.
Selmi, R. and Bouoiyour, J. (2020), “Arab geopolitics in turmoil: implications of Qatar-Gulf crisis for
business”, International Economics, Vol. 161, pp. 100-119.
Shekarian, M. and Mellat Parast, M. (2020), “An Integrative approach to supply chain disruption risk
and resilience management: a literature review”, International Journal of Logistics Research and
Applications, pp. 1-29.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A. and Ireland, R.D. (2007), “Managing firm resources in dynamic environments
to create value: looking inside the black box”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 273-292.
Soni, U., Jain, V. and Kumar, S. (2014), “Measuring supply chain resilience using a deterministic
modeling approach”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 74, pp. 11-25.
Stone, J. and Rahimifard, S. (2018), “Resilience in agri-food supply chains: a critical analysis of the Supply chain
literature and synthesis of a novel framework”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 207-238. resilience
Tang, C.S. (2006), “Perspectives in supply chain risk management”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 103 No. 2, pp. 451-488.
The Economist (2018), “Milk sheikhs; Gulf politics”, The Economist (London), 19 May, available at:
https:// www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2018/05/17/why-qatar-is-raising-cows-in-
the-desert (accessed 20 July 2020).
The Washington Institute (2017), “How Qatar seeks to establish new trade routes”, available at:
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/fikraforum/view/how-qatar-seeks-to-establish-new-trade-
routes (accessed 15 August 2020).
Thome, A.M.T., Scavarda, L.F., Scavarda, A. and de Souza Thome, F.E.S. (2016), “Similarities and
contrasts of complexity, uncertainty, risks, and resilience in supply chains and temporary
multi-organization projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34 No. 7,
pp. 1328-1346.
Tomlin, B. (2006), “On the value of mitigation and contingency strategies for managing supply chain
disruption risks”, Management Science, Vol. 52 No. 5, p. 639.
Tukamuhabwa, B.R., Stevenson, M., Busby, J. and Zorzini, M. (2015), “Supply chain resilience:
definition, review and theoretical foundations for further study”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 18, p. 5592.
Tukamuhabwa, B., Stevenson, M. and Busby, J. (2017), “Supply chain resilience in a developing
country context: a case study on the interconnectedness of threats, strategies and outcomes”,
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 486-505.
Uddin, S.F. and Khan, M.N. (2018), “Young consumer’s green purchasing behavior: opportunities for
green marketing”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 270-281.
Urciuoli, L., Mohanty, S., Hintsa, J. and Boekesteijn, E.G. (2014), “The resilience of energy supply
chains: a multiple case study approach on oil and gas supply chains to Europe”, Supply Chain
Management: International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 46-63.
Wei, H.L. and Wang, E.T. (2010), “The strategic value of supply chain visibility: increasing the ability
to reconfigure”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 238-249 .
Wieland, A. and Wallenburg, M.C. (2013), “The influence of relational competencies on supply chain
resilience: a relational view”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 300-320.
World Economic Forum (2013), “Building resilience in supply chains”, available at: http://www3.
weforum.org/docs/WEF_RRN_MO_BuildingResilienceSupplyChains_Report_2013.pdf
(accessed 7 August 2020).
Yang, Y. and Xu, X. (2015), “Post-disaster grain supply chain resilience with government aid”,
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 76, pp. 139-159.
Yang, Y., Pan, S. and Ballot, E. (2017), “Mitigating supply chain disruptions through interconnected
logistics services in the physical internet”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55
No. 14, pp. 3970-3983.
Zainal Abidin, N.A. and Ingirige, B. (2018), “The dynamics of vulnerabilities and capabilities in
improving resilience within Malaysian construction supply chain”, Construction Innovation,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 412-432.

Further reading
Lopez, C. and Ishizaka, A. (2017), “A hybrid FCM-AHP approach to predict impacts of offshore
outsourcing location decisions on supply chain resilience”, Journal of Business Research,
Vols 92–93, pp. 12-25.
JEIM Appendix

A. General questions

1. Gender
□ Male
□ Female

2. Nationality
□ Qatari
□ Non-Qatari

3. Level of education
□ High school
□ Undergraduate degree
□ Graduate degree
□ Any additional qualification

4. Age
□ 25 – 35
□ 36 – 46
□ 47 – 57
□ 58 – or Above

5. Years of experience
□ Less than 5 Years
□ 5 – 10
□ 11 – 15
□ 16 – 20
□ More than 20 Years

6. Job level
□ General manager
□ Procurement staff/manager
□ Operation staff/manager
□ Supply chain staff/manager
□ Other, please specify …………………….

7. Type of organization
□ Private
□ Government
□ Semi-Government
□ Other, please specify ……………………………
B. Supply chain resilience Supply chain
SC disruptions are unplanned and unanticipated events that disrupt the normal flow of goods and
materials within an SC (Craighead et al., 2007). Thus, SC resilience is the ability of a system to return to its resilience
original state, within an acceptable period of time, after being disturbed (Christopher and Peck, 2004).

Strongly Strongly
(Please answer each row.) Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
We are able to cope with changes brought by the supply chain
disruption □ □ □ □ □ □ □

We are able to adapt to the supply chain disruption easily □ □ □ □ □ □ □

We are able to provide a quick response to the supply chain
disruption □ □ □ □ □ □ □

We are able to maintain high situational awareness at all times. □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Our firm’s supply chain is well prepared to deal with financial
outcomes of supply chain disruptions □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Our firm’s supply chain can move to a new, more desirable

state after being disrupted □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Our firm’s supply chain has the ability to maintain a desired

level of control over structure and function at the time of □ □ □ □ □ □ □
disruption
Our firm’s supply chain has the ability to extract meaning and
useful knowledge from disruptions and unexpected events □ □ □ □ □ □ □

The company uses different means to encourage its employees

to share their knowledge about risk management □ □ □ □ □ □ □

The company has included the subject of risk management as

an important topic in new personnel training □ □ □ □ □ □ □

The company provides training to its employees regarding the

necessary measures to take in the event of a risk incident □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Risk awareness is common in our company □ □ □ □ □ □ □

The company is fairly sensitive to the opportunities and threats
in the business environment □ □ □ □ □ □ □

The company can rapidly respond to the changing market □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Our supply chain members have the information for
monitoring and changing operations strategy □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Our supply chain members have the necessary information

system for tracking goods □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Our firm exchanges relevant information with suppliers □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Our firm exchanges timely information with suppliers □ □ □ □ □ □ □
Our firm exchanges accurate information with suppliers □ □ □ □ □ □ □
We have collaborative planning & decision making practice
with the SC partners □ □ □ □ □ □ □

The company has adopted information systems (such as ERP)

to assist in information sharing □ □ □ □ □ □ □

The company effectively shares information about its

operation with our important suppliers and/or clients □ □ □ □ □ □ □

The company’s integration with the upstream and downstream

supply chain members has increased the flexibility of its □ □ □ □ □ □ □
operation
The company has successfully integrated the clients’ and/or
suppliers’ operations via cross-company information platforms □ □ □ □ □ □ □
or related activities
JEIM
C. Supply chain reconfiguration
SC reconfiguration is the ability of a system to reshape the resources by business and operatives into
new operational competencies (Storer et al., 2014).
Strongly Strongly
(Please answer each row.) Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
We reconfigure our resources and processes in response to the
dynamic environment □ □ □ □ □ □ □

We can successfully reconfigure supply chain resources to

come up with new productive assets □ □ □ □ □ □ □

We can effectively integrate and combine existing resources

into novel combinations in this supply chain □ □ □ □ □ □ □

We are able to engage in resource recombination’s to better

match the product-market areas in this supply chain □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Corresponding author
Mohd Nishat Faisal can be contacted at: nishat786@qu.edu.qa

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com