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

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

JEIM
37,2 The effects of digital
transformation on supply
chain resilience: a moderated
488 and mediated model
Received 15 September 2022 Yaqin Yuan
Revised 31 March 2023
Accepted 21 May 2023 School of Modern Posts,
Chongqing Smart Posts Engineering Technology Research Center,
Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Chongqing, China
Hongying Tan
School of Management Science and Engineering,
Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu, China, and
Linlin Liu
School of Economics and Management,
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to investigate the impact of digital transformation on supply chain resilience.
Additionally, the paper examines the mediating effect of supply chain process integration as well as the
moderating effect of environmental uncertainty in the relationship between digital transformation and supply
chain resilience.
Design/methodology/approach – Drawing on digital empowerment theory, this study proposes a
theoretical model. Using survey data collected from 216 enterprises in China, the study employs structural
equation modeling to validate the theoretical model.
Findings – The results reveal that digital transformation has a significant impact on supply chain resilience.
Three dimensions of supply chain process integration, namely, information flow integration, physical flow
integration, and financial flow integration mediate the relationship between digital transformation and supply
chain resilience. In addition, environmental uncertainty including market uncertainty and technology
uncertainty positively moderates the relationship between digital transformation and supply chain resilience.
Originality/value – First, this paper provides empirical evidence on both the direct and indirect effects of
digital transformation on supply chain resilience. Second, this paper enriches the understanding of how supply
chain integration impacts supply chain resilience in the digital transformation era by adopting a more granular
perspective of process integration rather than broad external and internal integrations. Furthermore, this paper
extends the knowledge of the role of external environment in digital transformation and supply chain risk
management by examining the moderating effects of market uncertainty and technology uncertainty.
Keywords Digital transformation, Supply chain resilience, Supply chain process integration,
Environmental uncertainty
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The increasingly turbulent and uncertain business environment has continued to challenge
supply chains, with the recent COVID-19 epidemic being a typical example. The global supply
chain disruptions brought by the epidemic has led to numerous enterprises being unable to
Journal of Enterprise Information
Management
resume their operation and eventually going bankrupt (Badhotiya et al., 2022; Cui et al., 2022;
Vol. 37 No. 2, 2024
pp. 488-510
© Emerald Publishing Limited This work is supported by Social Science Planning Research Project of Chongqing [grant number
1741-0398
DOI 10.1108/JEIM-09-2022-0333 2022BS075]; Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [grant number JBK2201042].
Ozdemir et al., 2022). In such a context, supply chain resilience has become a crucial topic for The effects
discussion among academics and practitioners (El Baz and Ruel, 2021; Dubey et al., 2020; of digital
Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020; Wong et al., 2020). Supply chain resilience describes the capability of
a firm to anticipate, prepare, and respond to unforeseen disruptive events (Arisha, 2017).
transformation
Developing supply chain resilience can reduce both the likelihood and the influence of supply
chain disturbances (Dubey et al., 2021; Kochan and Nowicki, 2018). Enterprises with resilient
supply chains are better equipped to perform during supply chain disruptions and are more
likely to recover from crises (Hussain et al., 2023; Katsaliaki et al., 2021). 489
In this digital and informational age, digitalization has been recognized as an essential
trend for building supply chain resilience (Akhtar et al., 2022; Naimi et al., 2022; Shi et al.,
2023). The COVID-19 pandemic has further accelerated the implementation of digital
transformation strategy to combat supply chain disruptions caused by this crisis
(Amankwah-Amoah et al., 2021). As a result, a growing number of studies have emerged
that discuss the relationship between digital technologies and supply chain resilience
(Alvarenga et al., 2023; Ivanov, 2021). Some of these studies have suggested that the digital
technologies contribute to increased supply chain resilience by enhancing the transparency,
visibility, and responsiveness of supply chain. However, some other studies have presented
divergent views on this topic. For instance, McKinsey reported that even though digital
technologies have been widely utilized prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, only 21% of
enterprises have managed to establish a resilient supply chain network (Li et al., 2022).
Another example is that the study by Yang et al. (2021a) showed that digital technologies may
exacerbate supplier opportunism through information technology integration.
A possible reason for the inconsistent arguments in the current studies is that most of
them only pay attention to the influence of particular digital technologies, such as artificial
intelligence (Gupta et al., 2022), blockchain technology (Bechtsis et al., 2022; Dubey et al.,
2020), and the Internet of things (Qader et al., 2022), on enhancing resilience, lacking a broader
and integrative view of digital transformation. The concept of digital transformation extends
beyond the commonly addressed techniques in existing literature. It emphasizes the creation
and appropriation of additional value through the interaction of diverse digital technologies
(Warner and W€ager, 2019). Therefore, there is a need to further clarify the role of digital
transformation in supply chain resilience. To bridge this research gap, this paper puts
forward the first research question:
RQ1. How does digital transformation affect supply chain resilience?

Scholars have suggested that it is of significance to consider the indirect effects of digital
transformation in addition to its direct effects, as it has the potential to create substantial
value by enabling organizational capabilities and thereby indirectly affecting organizational
performance (Li et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2021a). One crucial organizational capability that can
influence supply chain resilience is supply chain integration, which has typically been
discussed from a broad perspective of internal and external integration. However, a more
detailed and granular perspective is needed to better understand the role of supply chain
integration. To address this gap, this paper introduces the concept of supply chain process
integration capability, which describe how well an organization integrates its activities and
processes with its supply chain partners to facilitate the smooth flow of information, physical,
and financial resources (Rai et al., 2006; Rajaguru and Matanda, 2019). Considering that the
key to supply chain management is to align information, physical, and financial flows along
the supply chain (Caniato et al., 2019), it can be inferred that supply chain process integration
capability is critical for supply chain resilience. In order to understand whether digital
transformation can indirectly affect supply chain resilience via supply chain process
integration, this paper puts forward the second research question:
JEIM RQ2. What is the role of supply chain process integration in the relationship between digital
transformation and supply chain resilience?
37,2
Moreover, considerable literature has emphasized the importance of contextual factors in
shaping the relationship between supply chain resilience and its enablers (Hussain et al., 2023; Li
et al., 2022). Specifically, prior research has highlighted the significant role that environmental
uncertainty plays in determining the effectiveness of supply chain resilience enablers (Laguir
490 et al., 2022). These studies explained that the requirements for building supply chain resilience,
such as resources and capabilities, may vary in the different levels of environmental
uncertainty. However, the impact of environmental uncertainty appears largely absent from
existing research on digital transformation and its effects on supply chain resilience. Thus, this
paper wonder whether the impact of digital transformation on supply chain resilience is
contingent on environmental uncertainty and specifies the third research question:
RQ3. What is the role of environmental uncertainty in the relationship between digital
transformation and supply chain resilience?

To answer the research questions, this study develops a theoretical model grounded on the
digital empowerment theory to clarify the relationship between digital transformation,
supply chain process integration, supply chain resilience, and environmental uncertainty.
Then the study employs structural equation modelling (SEM) to validate the theoretical
model using survey data from 216 Chinese firms. This paper contributes to the literature in
the following aspects. First, this paper enriches the empirical evidence on the effect of digital
transformation on supply chain resilience by combining the perspectives of direct and
indirect effects. Second, this paper enriches the understanding of how supply chain
integration impacts supply chain resilience in the digital transformation era, as this paper
considers a more granular supply chain process integration rather than external integration
and internal integration that has always been discussed in previous study. Finally, this paper
extends the knowledge of the role of external environment in digital transformation and
supply chain risk management by examining the moderating effects of market uncertainty
and technology uncertainty.

2. Theoretical background
2.1 Digital transformation-enabled supply chain resilience
Enhancing supply chain resilience with digital technologies has always been an interesting
topic in the field of supply chain management (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014). More recently, this
stream of literature has rapidly expanded as COVID-19 pandemic has led to a surge in the
utilization of digital technologies (Garcia-Perez et al., 2023; Khurana et al., 2022; Spieske and
Birkel, 2021). To be specific, scholars have suggested that the application of artificial
intelligence and big data analytics makes firms more amenable to coping with environmental
changes as these techniques can be used in risk prediction and decision-making optimization,
etc. (Gu et al., 2021; Gupta et al., 2022). Blockchain technology provides a more transparent and
secure environment for information sharing, enabling supply chain actors to develop swift
trust and thus improving supply chain resilience (Bechtsis et al., 2022; Dubey et al., 2020). The
Internet of things allows firms to track goods and detect important metrics such as temperature
and pressure along the supply chain (Qader et al., 2022). Additive manufacturing simplifies the
number of supply chain layers, which contributes to supply chain resilience (Gupta et al., 2022).
However, concentrating solely on particular digital technologies could lead to
disregarding the potential synergies between different digital technologies, ultimately
resulting in an oversimplified understanding of the effects of digital technologies on supply
chain resilience (Li et al., 2022). Digital transformation puts more emphasis on integrating
different kinds of digital technologies to enable major process and business improvement in a
strategic way (Sousa-Zomer et al., 2020; Warner and W€ager, 2019). Therefore, scholars are The effects
gradually aware that unearth the role of digital transformation in supply chain resilience can of digital
gain a broader and integrative insight (Garcia-Perez et al., 2023; Khurana et al., 2022).
Khurana et al. (2022) conducted a case study on eight Indian entrepreneurs and found that the
transformation
implementation of digital transformation supports the establishment of resilience at the
micro (entrepreneur), meso (organizational), and macro (entrepreneur ecosystem) levels. Yin
(2023) discovered that digital transformation breadth and digital transformation depth are
crucial to supply chain resilience by applying fuzzy sets qualitative comparative analysis. 491
The study by Faruquee et al. (2021) suggested that the impact of joint problem-solving on
supply chain resilience is more pronounced when the level of digital transformation is higher.
To conclude, the literature concerning the digital transformation-enabled supply chain
resilience has several gaps that need to be addressed. Firstly, the existing literature has
primarily concentrated on examining the influence of specific digital technologies, with little
attention paid to the broader and more integrative digital transformation. Secondly, the
majority of existing studies discussed this topic conceptually or qualitatively, more empirical
evidence based on large-sample survey data is needed. Additionally, current research has
largely ignored the indirect effects of digital transformation. Therefore, this paper promises
to enrich this research stream by empirically examining both the direct and indirect impact of
digital transformation on supply chain resilience.

2.2 Supply chain process integration

Supply chain integration, as one of the most classic topics in supply chain management
literature, has been extensively studied for its effects from two dimensions: internal and
external integration (Piprani et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2023). Recently, scholars have advocated
for adopting a more granular perspective, such as supply chain process perspective, to
provide a more nuanced understanding of the effects of supply chain integration (Rajaguru
and Matanda, 2019). Previous literature conceptualizes supply chain process integration as a
multidimensional construct. It encompasses three components: information flow integration,
physical flow integration, and financial flow integration (Rai et al., 2006). These three
components are specifically illustrated as follows.
Information flow integration is the ability of an enterprise to share operational, tactical,
and strategic information within its supply chain members (Rai et al., 2006). Physical flow
integration can be defined as the extent to which a focal enterprise and its supply chain
partners jointly leverage material optimization procedures to manage the stocking and flow
of materials and finished goods (Rajaguru and Matanda, 2019). Physical flow integration
involves optimizing procedures for both upstream and downstream movement of materials
and finished goods. Financial flow integration describes the extent to which the exchange of
financial resources between a focal enterprise and its supply chain partners is driven by
workflow events. Integrating financial flows can be achieved through managing
downstream flows (such as invoices) and upstream flows (such as accounts payables) (Rai
et al., 2006).
At present, both theory and practice has paid much attention to understanding the role of
information flow integration and physical flow integration (Cui et al., 2022; Yuan et al., 2022).
Previous studies have proved that information flow integration allows for better visibility,
coordination, and responsiveness, resulting in improved decision-making and enhanced
supply chain resilience (Gu et al., 2021). Regarding the impact of physical flow integration, it
enables organizations to improve operational efficiency, reduce costs, and enhance customer
satisfaction by delivering products quickly and reliably (Ghobakhloo et al., 2014). Financial
flow integration has received relatively less attention compared to information flow and
physical flow integration. One possible reason is that financial resources involve sensitive
JEIM information and require a high degree of trust among supply chain partners (Rajaguru and
37,2 Matanda, 2019). As a result, some enterprises may be unwilling to share their financial data
with their partners, hindering the integration of the financial flow in the supply chain.
However, as digital transformation continues to impact supply chain management, financial
flow integration is becoming more feasible and its importance will become more prominent
(Ning and Yuan, 2021).
In conclusion, prior studies have delineated that exploring the role of three dimension of
492 supply chain process integration is of great significance, highlighting the need for further
research in this area. This paper attempts to contribute to this line of research by
simultaneously examining how information flow integration, physical flow integration, and
financial flow integration affect the relationship between digital transformation and supply
chain resilience.

2.3 Digital empowerment theory

Digital empowerment refers to the process in which digital technologies enable individuals or
organizations to act as influential participants in the information society by creating better
networking, communication, and cooperation opportunities (Sun et al., 2018). Digital
empowerment comprises three dimensions: structural, resource, and psychological
empowerment (Leong et al., 2015; Sun et al., 2018). Structural empowerment focuses on
improving the objective external conditions (such as organizational, institutional, political,
and cultural conditions) to give the power to take actions. A direct mechanism is to remove
structural barriers that hinder the community from obtaining opportunities, information, and
resources (Leong et al., 2015). Resource empowerment pays attention to enhancing the
competence and capability of the powerless in acquiring, controlling, and managing
resources. A direct mechanism is to promote the ability of integrating and releasing resources
(Lee and Koh, 2001). The last dimension is psychological empowerment, which focuses on
promoting social psychology and intrinsic motivation, or on individuals’ subjective
interpretations, such as self-confidence, to help them feel in control of their destiny
(Conger and Kanungo, 1988).
Nowadays, digital empowerment theory is widely applied to explain how digital
technologies empower individuals, organizations, communities, and business ecosystems.
For instance, Leong et al. (2015) showed that digital technologies can facilitate collective
participation, shared identification, and collaborative control in crisis response within
communities. Sun et al. (2018) argued that the digital technologies-enabled platform can
empower the information, financial, and material flow in the waste electrical and electronic
equipment ecosystem, thus enabling better cooperation and performance. Despite these
valuable insights, the current understanding of how digital transformation empowers
activities at the supply chain level is still limited. To address this gap, this study attempts to
adopt digital empowerment as the theoretical lens to uncover how organizations utilize
digital transformation to facilitate the supply chain process integration and thus improve
supply chain resilience.

3. Hypothesis development
3.1 Digital transformation and supply chain resilience
Digital transformation can impact supply chain resilience in at least three ways. First, digital
transformation enables enterprises to be more sensitive to environmental changes (Annarelli
et al., 2021). Using digital technologies, plentiful information can be collected and then
processed into insights that can help enterprises understand customer preferences, market
needs, and supply chain status, etc. (Yuan and Li, 2022). In addition, digital transformation
plays a positive role in supply chain visibility and transparency, which is conducive for firms The effects
to detect abnormal events promptly. Second, digital transformation promotes the resource of digital
management capabilities of an organization. On the one hand, digital transformation allows
resources to flow more smoothly between departments within an organization, facilitating
transformation
different functional departments to work jointly (Li, 2022; Li et al., 2018). On the other hand,
digital transformation provides possibilities for enterprises to cross organizational
boundaries to acquire and integrate valuable resources of other enterprises which are
regarded as a foundation of maintaining business operations (Hanelt et al., 2021). Finally, 493
digital transformation fundamentally changes the internal management model of an
organization. For instance, digital transformation promotes the flattening of organizational
structure, modular and flexible production patterns (Kretschmer and Khashabi, 2020). These
changes enable the organization to be more adaptable to the highly dynamic external
environment, thereby improving the enterprise’s ability to control and respond to risks.
According to these arguments, this paper predicts the following hypothesis:
H1. Digital transformation has a positive impact on supply chain resilience.

3.2 Supply chain process integration and supply chain resilience

Prior literature has provided evidence that supply chain process integration is expected to
facilitate the development of distinctive supply chains and competitive capabilities that can
contribute to improving supply chain resilience (Chen et al., 2009). The integration of
information flow always involves establishing information-sharing processes across the
supply chain, enabling information and knowledge to be transferred consistently throughout
the supply chain (Huo et al., 2016). To be specific, supply chain members can mutually share
information related to customer orders, inventory data, demand, and forecasting data (Yuan
et al., 2022). With adequate and accurate information, supply chain members are more likely
to respond quickly to dynamic challenges (Rajaguru and Matanda, 2019). Physical flow
integration can facilitate the effective and efficient distribution of products in both upstream
and downstream directions (Rai et al., 2006). Previous studies have suggested that physical
flow integration leads to a higher level of supply chain responsiveness, better operation
performance, lower operational cost, and better supply chain relationship, which are effective
to supply chain resilience improvement (Rajaguru and Matanda, 2019). In many cases,
financial shortages are not only the primary cause of supply chain disruptions but are also the
major obstacle hindering the organization from recovering from disruptions. The integration
of financial flow contributes to optimizing organizational working capital at the supply chain
level, reducing the likelihood of disruption due to liquidity disruption. The study by Yuan and
Li (2022) empirically examined that supply chain finance, as a prevailing financial flow
integration approach, plays a positive role in supply chain resilience.
According to the above arguments, the study proposes the following hypotheses:
H2. Supply chain process integration has a positive impact on supply chain resilience.
H2a. Information flow integration has a positive impact on supply chain resilience.
H2b. Physical flow integration has a positive impact on supply chain resilience.
H2c. Financial flow integration has a positive impact on supply chain resilience.

3.3 Digital transformation, supply chain process integration, and supply chain resilience
Several studies have hinted at an association between digital transformation and supply
chain process integration. According to digital empowerment theory, digital transformation
can remove structural barriers inhibiting the integration of supply chain processes and
JEIM enhance an organization’s capabilities of managing information, material, and financial
37,2 resources. In terms of information flow integration, traditional supply chains may face
obstacles due to incompatible business systems used by supply chain members, leading to a
disruption in the smooth flow of information (Ning and Yuan, 2021). However, digital
technologies enable information to be shared and synchronized rapidly along the supply
chain by standardizing the interfaces for information sharing. Additionally, digital
technologies such as blockchain can enhance the quality of information shared along the
494 supply chain by increasing the cost of falsifying information (Pournader et al., 2020).
Regarding physical flow integration, some scholars analyzed the potential application of
digital technologies in promoting the visibility and traceability of the physical flow of goods
(Yang et al., 2021b). Moreover, digital transformation has been identified as the most
promising strategy to facilitate financial flow integration. Achieving financial flow
integration is certain difficult as organizations are always reluctant to integrate their
financial systems with upstream and downstream supply chain partners (McCormack and
Johnson, 2002). The emergence of digital transformation offers an excellent opportunity to
overcome these barriers (Ning and Yuan, 2021). For instance, the research by Ning and Yuan
(2021) showed that an industrial platform has successfully aligned financial flow integration
with its information and material flow integration by leveraging digital transformation.
According to the above arguments, the study proposes the following hypotheses:
H3. Digital transformation has a positive impact on supply chain process integration.
H3a. Digital transformation has a positive impact on information flow integration.
H3b. Digital transformation has a positive impact on physical flow integration.
H3c. Digital transformation has a positive impact on financial flow integration.
As explained earlier, supply chain process integration is positively associated with supply
chain resilience. Hence, it can be speculated that digital transformation can deepen the degree
of three dimensions of supply chain process integration, which can further result in a higher
level of supply chain resilience. In other words, this study proposes that supply chain process
integration can mediate the influence of digital transformation on supply chain resilience.
This study hypothesizes that:
H4. Supply chain process integration mediates the relationship between digital
transformation and supply chain resilience.
H4a. Information flow integration mediates the relationship between digital
transformation and supply chain resilience.
H4b. Physical flow integration mediates the relationship between digital transformation
and supply chain resilience.
H4c. Financial flow integration mediates the relationship between digital transformation
and supply chain resilience.

3.4 Moderating role of environmental uncertainty

Prior studies indicate that the performance effects of certain strategies are dependent on the
environmental conditions in which organizations exist (Fan et al., 2016; Li, 2022). Market
uncertainty and technology uncertainty are two main components of environmental
uncertainty (Fan et al., 2016). Accordingly, this paper intends to discuss how the effect of
digital transformation on supply chain resilience is contingent on environmental uncertainty
from these two aspects. Market uncertainty indicates the rate of change in the composition of
customers and their preferences (Kandemir et al., 2006). Technology uncertainty is defined as
the degree to which the major technologies of an enterprise change over time as well as the The effects
degree to which those changes affect the enterprise (Kandemir et al., 2006). of digital
When the degree of market uncertainty is high, competition activities in the industry
will become increasingly frequent, which will pose a greater challenge to the organizational
transformation
resources and capabilities (Desarbo et al., 2005). In such cases, the value of digital
transformation strategy becomes especially prominent. As discussed earlier, digital
transformation empowers organizations to gain more resources and achieve superior
capabilities. For example, information resources and analytic capabilities that are brought by 495
digital transformation can be used for organizations to continuously adapt their activities
and prevent unanticipated disruptions from happening (Laguir et al., 2022). Therefore, this
study proposes that the positive effect of digital transformation on supply chain resilience
will be strengthened when market uncertainty is high.
As for technology uncertainty, high technology uncertainties will give rise to many issues
such as outdated products and processes, which raises the requirements for organizational
information processing (Fan et al., 2016). In such conditions, digital transformation will play a
more crucial role in providing support for enterprises to develop information processing
capabilities to meet such requirements and thereby ensure the stability of supply chain
operations. Therefore, this study proposes that the impact of digital transformation on
supply chain resilience is also more pronounced in a technologically uncertain environment.
Accordingly, the study hypothesizes the following:
H5. Environmental uncertainty positively moderates the relationship between digital
transformation and supply chain resilience.
H5a. Market uncertainty positively moderates the relationship between digital
transformation and supply chain resilience.
H5b. Technology uncertainty positively moderates the relationship between digital
transformation and supply chain resilience.
The conceptual model of this paper is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
Conceptual framework
JEIM 4. Methodology
37,2 4.1 Measurement
This study adapted previously validated instruments to measure constructs. To be specific,
items of digital transformation were adapted from studies by Nasiri et al. (2020) and Li (2022).
The scales of the three components of supply chain process integration, namely, physical
flow integration, information flow integration, and financial flow integration, were developed
from studies of Rai et al. (2006), and Rajaguru and Matanda (2019). Measurement items
496 regarding market uncertainty and technology uncertainty referred to studies of Desarbo et al.
(2005) and Fan et al. (2016). Items of supply chain resilience were adapted from the work of
Ambulkar et al. (2015) and Brandon-Jones et al. (2014). All the indicators were measured using
a five-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 5 “strongly disagree” to 5 5 “strongly agree”).
Considering that the measurement scales were drawn from English literature while the
informants were Chinese, two professors in the field of the supply chain were hired to translate
the scales. Specifically, one professor was responsible for translating the original English scales
into Chinese and the other then back-translated the Chinese scales into English. The translated
English version was not significantly different from the original English version. Therefore, it
can be concluded that this study was not affected by deviation resulting from cultural
differences. Furthermore, the research team pilot-tested the draft questionnaire with 37 firms to
ensure that the items were understandable. Feedback from the pilot test was used to modify and
improve the questionnaire. The final constructs and items are shown in Table 1.

4.2 Sample selection and data collection

The study collected data from enterprises in China for the following two main reasons. Firstly,
China is one of the most remarkable emerging economies and thus is regarded as a “laboratory” for
supply chain researchers (Yuan and Li, 2022). Secondly, Chinese companies show great
enthusiasm for digital transformation and actively seek to incorporate it into their supply chain
practices. Similar to prior supply chain management studies conducted in China (e.g. Gu et al.,
2021), the research team randomly selected sample enterprises located in four regions that can
represent different stages of economic development in China, including Yangzi River Delta, Bohai
Bay Economic Rim, Pearl River Delta, and other areas. Initially, 1,280 potential sample enterprises
were randomly selected from the directory provided by the National Bureau Statistics of China.
Research team members then contacted these enterprises by telephone, mail, text message, or visit.
To obtain the consent of sample enterprises, team members explained the academic and practical
values of this research in detail, and promised that the data would not be misused or leaked.
Thirdly, we distributed questionnaires to enterprises that were willing to participate in this study.
To ensure respondents had sufficient knowledge of digital transformation and supply chain
management practices, we distributed questionnaires to senior managers such as presidents, vice
presidents, general managers, or supply chain managers. The survey continued for nearly two
months from March 2022 to April 2022. After several reminders, we received 258 questionnaires.
The valid questionnaires were 216 after excluding the invalid questionnaires with a valid response
rate of 83.7%. Table 2 presents the sample distribution.

5. Results
5.1 Nonresponse bias, common method bias (CMB), and endogeneity
Checking for nonresponse bias, CMB and endogeneity issues is of great significance in a
survey-based study. According to the nonresponse bias evaluation method proposed by Scott
and Terry (1977), the independent t-test was used to compare the difference between early
and late responses. The t-test results suggested that nonresponse bias was not a concern in
this study as there were no significant differences between early and late responses.
Constructs
Digital transformation (Li, 2022;
Nasiri et al., 2020)
Information flow integration (Rai et al., 2006;
Rajaguru and Matanda, 2019)
Physical flow integration (Rai et al., 2006;
Rajaguru and Matanda, 2019)
Financial flow integration (Rai et al., 2006;
Rajaguru and Matanda, 2019)
Market uncertainty (Desarbo et al., 2005; Fan
et al., 2016)
Technology uncertainty (Desarbo et al., 2005;
Fan et al., 2016)
Supply chain resilience (Ambulkar et al., 2015;
Brandon-Jones et al., 2014)
Source(s): Authors work
This study applied both procedural remedies and statistical techniques to control the issue of
CMB. Procedural remedies included the utilization of pre-validated scales and plain language,
an introductory letter assuring anonymity of respondents, counterbalancing of question
Indicators
The effects
of digital
Our firm aims to digitalize everything that can be digitized transformation
Our firm aims at achieving information exchange with
digitality
Our firm aims to create stronger networking between the
different business processes with digital technologies
Our firm collects massive volumes of data from different 497
sources
Our integrated systems allow us to share customer needs and
wants through sales data
Our integrated systems allow our firm to project and plan
future demand with supply chain
Integrated systems allow us to share delivery schedules with
supply chain partners
Integrated systems allow sharing of inventory data between
supply chain partners
Our firm jointly manages supply chain wide inventory with
supply chain partners
Our firm jointly manages just-in-time delivery of products
with supply chain partners
Our firm jointly configures the flow of products with supply
chain partners
Our firm and supply chain partners jointly work to reduce
inventory holdings
Account receivable processes are automatically triggered
when our firm ships products to supply chain partners
Account payable processes are automatically triggered when
our firm receives products from supply chain partners
Our firm has an integrated electronic fund transfer system
with our supply chain partners
Customer tastes are almost unpredictable
There are insufficient or distorted information from our
customers about orders or demand quantities of this product
Sales for the product are unpredictable
Core production technology changes rapidly for this product
Core production processes of this product changes rapidly
If our firm don’t keep up with changes in technology, it will be
difficult for us to remain competitive
Our firm’s supply chain can adequately respond to
unexpected disruptions by quickly restoring its product flow
Our firm’s supply chain can quickly return to its original
state after being disrupted
Our firm’s supply chain can move to a new, more desirable
state after being disrupted
Our firm’s supply chain is well prepared to deal with financial
outcomes of potential supply chain disruptions
Our firm’s supply chain has the ability to maintain the
desired level of control over structure and function at the time
of disruption Table 1.
Constructs and items
JEIM Variable n %
37,2
Number of employees
0–50 60 27.8
51–100 39 18.1
101–300 42 19.4
301–500 15 6.9
498 Above 500 60 27.8
Operation Duration
Less than 1 year 8 3.7
1–2 years 10 4.6
2–5 years 42 19.4
5–10 years 54 25.0
Above 10 years 102 47.2
Annual sales (million RMB)
Below 1 21 9.7
1–3 17 7.8
3–5 24 11.1
5–10 22 10.2
10–30 35 16.2
Above 30 97 44.9
Table 2. Note(s): n 5 216
Sample distribution Source(s): Authors work

order, etc. Two statistical techniques were employed to evaluate the CMB issue (Podsakoff
et al., 2003). First, we applied the common latent factor (CLF) approach in confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA). There were no significant losses in the factor loading when linking the CLF
with the original measurement model. Second, all factor items were loaded on a single
construct in CFA. The result showed that the single factor is not fit as indices of model fitness
were unacceptable (χ 2 5 1891.82, df 5 299, RMSEA 5 0.157, TLI 5 0.681, CFI 5 0.648,
GFI 5 0.529, SRMR 5 0.099). In addition, Table 3 showed that the inter-correlations among
constructs were greatly lower than 0.9. Thus, the conclusion of this paper is not affected
by CMB.
Endogeneity test should be performed to evaluate the causality relationship between
constructs prior to hypotheses test (Dubey et al., 2020). Following the argument by Guide and
Ketokivi (2015), this paper employed Durbin-Wu-Hausman to test the presence of
endogeneity. For this, the study first regressed digital transformation on three dimensions

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Digitalization 0.800
Information flow integration 0.568*** 0.853
Physical flow integration 0.617*** 0.679*** 0.851
Financial flow integration 0.492*** 0.596*** 0.608*** 0.912
Market uncertainty 0.382*** 0.351*** 0.452*** 0.275*** 0.756
Technology uncertainty 0.349*** 0.419*** 0.577*** 0.412*** 0.648*** 0.819
*** *** *** ***
Supply chain resilience 0.613 0.614 0.639 0.592 0.5*** 0.489*** 0.871
Table 3.
The correlation Note(s): The value on the diagonal italics is the square root of AVE χ =df ¼ 1:498 <3, RMSEA 5 0.048 < 0.08
2

coefficient and the GFI 5 0.882 > 0.85, TLI 5 0.964 > 0.9, CFI 5 0.970 > 0.9, SRMR 5 0.0409 < 0.08, ***p < 0.001
square root of AVE Source(s): Authors work
of supply chain process integration respectively, then used their residuals of the regression The effects
output as an additional regressor. The results reveal that the parameter estimate for the of digital
residual was insignificant, indicating that digital transformation was not endogenous to
supply chain process integration. Likewise, using the Durbin-Wu-Hausman approach, the
transformation
study proved that the mediator of supply chain process integration was not endogenous to
supply chain resilience. Therefore, endogeneity is not a serious concern in our study.
499
5.2 Reliability and validity
The current study tested reliability and validity using AMOS 24.0 and SPSS 25.0. Firstly,
CFA was conducted and the results showed that the fitness of the model is relatively high
(χ 2 5 410.537, df 5 274, RMSEA 5 0.048, TLI 5 0.964, CFI 5 0.970, GFI 5 0.882,
SRMR 5 0.0409). As shown in Table 4, the factor loadings of all constructs were above 0.7 and
statistically significant. The value of average variance extracted (AVE) greatly exceeded
the threshold of 0.5. Thus, the results indicated that the convergent validity was acceptable.
Besides, as shown in Table 3, the values of the square root of AVE were higher than the
values of correlation coefficients between constructs, providing sufficient support for
discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Then, Cronbach’s α and the composite
reliability (CR) were calculated to measure the reliability of scales. As presented in Table 4,
both the values of Cronbach’s α and CR were higher than 0.8. Hence, the scales achieved
excellent reliability (Hair et al., 1988).

Constructs Item Factor loading Cronbach’s α CR AVE

Digital transformation (DT) DT 1 0.801 0.875 0.8754 0.6372

DT 2 0.793
DT 3 0.799
DT 4 0.800
Information flow integration (IFI) IFI 1 0.802 0.913 0.9144 0.728
IFI 2 0.878
IFI 3 0.837
IFI 4 0.893
Physical flow integration (PFI) PFI 1 0.862 0.912 0.9133 0.7248
PFI 2 0.839
PFI 3 0.866
PFI 4 0.838
Financial flow integration (FFI) FFI 1 0.891 0.937 0.9369 0.832
FFI 2 0.924
FFI 3 0.919
Market uncertainty (MU) MU 1 0.714 0.802 0.8001 0.5719
MU 2 0.774
MU 3 0.779
Technology uncertainty (TU) TU 1 0.797 0.855 0.859 0.6703
TU 2 0.804
TU 3 0.854
Supply chain resilience (SCRES) SCRES1 0.846 0.940 0.9403 0.7591
SCRES2 0.898 Table 4.
SCRES3 0.893 Reliability
SCRES4 0.856 and validity of
SCRES5 0.862 the measurement
Source(s): Authors work model
JEIM 5.3 Hypothesis testing
37,2 5.3.1 Proposed structural model and main effect hypotheses testing. The SEM was applied to
estimate the direct effect hypotheses (H1, H2a, H2b, H2c, H3a, H3b, H3c) (see Figure 1).
The SEM estimates were generated by running AMOS 24.0 with a maximum likelihood
method. The fit indices for the model of this study were: χ 2 5 234.871, df 5 159,
χ 2/df 5 1.477 < 3, RMSEA 5 0.047 < 0.08, TLI 5 0.976 > 0.9, CFI 5 0.980 > 0.9,
GFI 5 0.910 > 0.9, SRMR 5 0.0333 < 0.05. All indices were under recommended criteria,
500 which indicated the fitness of the SEM to survey data. Figure 2 is the path analysis diagram
and Table 5 presents the results of the standardized path coefficients of the SEM. H1,
which posits a positive association between digital transformation and supply chain
resilience, is supported with the positive coefficients being significant (β Digital transformation →
supply chain resilience 5 0.284, p < 0.01). H2a, H2b, and H2c respectively propose that
information flow integration, physical flow integration, and financial flow integration have a
significant positive influence on supply chain resilience. The results in Table 5 indicate that
three corresponding coefficients are significantly positive (β Information flow integration → Supply
Physical flow integration → Supply chain resilience
chain resil ience 5 0.188, p < 0.05; β 5 0.207, p < 0.05;
β Financial flow integration → Supply chain resilience 5 0.204, p < 0.01), thus supporting all these

Figure 2.
Structural equation
diagram: the path
analysis

Parameter
Path estimate SE p-value Decision

Digital transformation → supply chain resilience 0.284*** 0.109 0.001 H1: Accepted
information flow integration → supply chain 0.188* 0.090 0.035 H2a: Accepted
resilience
physical flow integration → supply chain resilience 0.207* 0.109 0.033 H2b: Accepted
financial flow integration →supply chain resilience 0.204** 0.064 0.005 H2c: Accepted
Digital transformation → information flow 0.681*** 0.071 0.000 H3a: Accepted
integration
Digital transformation→ physical flow integration 0.722*** 0.067 0.000 H3b: Accepted
Table 5. Digital transformation → financial flow integration 0.589*** 0.084 0.000 H3c: Accepted
The results of Note(s): *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
hypotheses testing Source(s): Authors work
three hypotheses. Finally, H3a, H3b, and H3c assert that digital transformation can The effects
effectively improve supply chain process integration, including information flow integration, of digital
physical flow integration, and financial flow integration. All three hypotheses receive support
as the corresponding coefficients are significant (β Digital transformation → Information flow
transformation
integration 5 0.681, p < 0.001; β Digital transformation→ Physical flow integration 5 0.722, p < 0.001;
β Digital transformation → Financial flow integration 5 0.589, p < 0.001).
5.3.2 Testing the mediating effect of supply chain process integration. This study validated
the mediation hypotheses using the bias-corrected bootstrapping approach of Preacher and
501
Hayes (2008). The results of the mediation analysis are shown in Table 6. H4a, H4b, and H4c
respectively posit the mediating roles of information flow integration, physical flow integration,
and financial flow integration in the relationship between digital transformation and supply
chain resilience. The results in Table 6 suggest that the indirect effects of digital transformation
on supply chain resilience through information flow integration, physical flow integration and
financial flow integration are 0.1145, 0.1287, and 0.1202 respectively, and are all statistically
significant (for information flow integration: LLCI 5 0.0281, ULCI 5 0.2132; for physical flow
integration: LLCI 5 0.02, ULCI 5 0.2479; for financial flow integration: LLCI 5 0.0554,
ULCI 5 0.2124). Thus, H4a, H4b, and H4c are all supported. In summary, digital transformation
contributes to strengthening supply chain resilience through improving the information and
physical flow integration, and financial flow integration.
5.3.3 Testing the moderating effect of market uncertainty and technology uncertainty. The
study performed hierarchical regression analysis to examine the moderation hypotheses.
Specifically, the baseline model, which contains control variables and the independent variable
was estimated. The moderators and corresponding interaction terms were then added to the
baseline model. The results of the hierarchical regression are presented in Table 7.
H5a and H5b respectively posit that two dimensions of environmental uncertainty,
namely, market uncertainty and technology uncertainty, play moderating roles in the
relationship between digital transformation and supply chain resilience. Both H5a and H5b
are supported by the increased R-square and significant interaction effects. As shown in
Table 7, the interaction effect of market uncertainty and digital transformation on supply
chain resilience is significant (β 5 0.125, p < 0.05), and adding the interaction term (Digital
transformation 3 Market uncertainty) in Model4 increased the R-square for supply chain
resilience significantly (from 0.468 to 0.483, ΔF 5 5.967, p < 0.05). Similarly, the interaction
effect of technology uncertainty and digital transformation on supply chain resilience is
significant (β 5 0.123, p < 0.05), and adding the interaction term (Digital
transformation 3 Technology uncertainty) in Model6 increased the R-square for supply
chain resilience significantly (from 0.466 to 0.480, ΔF 5 5.746, p < 0.05).
Moreover, following Aiken and West (1991), this study plotted the relationship between digital
transformation and supply chain resilience under high and low (1 standard deviation above or

Indirect Lower Upper

Relationships effect SE 95% CI 95% CI Decision

Digital transformation → information 0.1145 ***

0.0475 0.0281 0.2132 H4a: Accepted
flow integration → supply chain resilience
Digital transformation → physical flow 0.1287*** 0.0573 0.0200 0.2479 H4b: Accepted
integration → supply chain resilience
Digital transformation →financial flow 0.1202 ***
0.0389 0.0554 0.2124 H4c: Accepted
integration → supply chain resilience Table 6.
Note(s): Bootstrapping iterations are 1,000; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 Results of Mediation
Source(s): Authors work analysis
JEIM Dependent variable: supply chain resilience
37,2 Constructs Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Control variable
Number of employees 0.027 0.017 0.047 0.043 0.029 0.024
Operation duration 0.039 0.003 0.018 0.001 0.007 0.012
Annual sales 0.011 0.004 0.062 0.082 0.043 0.064
502 Independent variable
Digital transformation 0.615*** 0.491*** 0.485*** 0.505*** 0.503***
Moderator
Market uncertainty 0.341*** 0.327***
Technology uncertainty 0.324*** 0.307***
Interaction
Digital transformation 3 MU 0.125*
Digital transformation 3 TU 0.123*
R2 0.002 0.376 0.468 0.483 0.466 0.480
Change in R2 0.002 0.374 0.092 0.015 0.090 0.014
F-statistics 0.168 31.818*** 36.990*** 32.549*** 36.637*** 32.178***
Table 7. Changes in F-statistics 0.168 126.472*** 36.353*** 5.967* 35.252*** 5.746*
Results of hierarchical Note(s): *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
regression analysis Source(s): Authors work

below the mean) levels of market uncertainty and technology uncertainty, as shown in Figures 3
and 4 respectively. Figures 3 and 4 indicated that both market uncertainty and technology
uncertainty change the strength of the association between digital transformation and supply
chain resilience. The association between digital transformation and supply chain resilience is
higher in environments with high uncertainty than in environments with low uncertainty.

6. Discussion and implications

6.1 Discussion of findings
The results obtained via statistical analyses show the linkages among digital transformation,
supply chain process integration, environmental uncertainty, and supply chain resilience.
The key findings of this study are discussed as follows.

Figure 3.
Moderation effect of
market uncertainty on
the relationship
between digital
transformation and
supply chain resilience
First, the study finds that digital transformation contributes to supply chain resilience. This The effects
finding complements and enriches the current understanding of how digital technologies of digital
influence supply chain resilience. Previous research has argued that digital technologies,
such as artificial intelligence (Gupta et al., 2022), blockchain (Bechtsis et al., 2022; Dubey et al.,
transformation
2020), the Internet of things (Qader et al., 2022), can provide supply chains with greater
visibility and transparency, which are essential for supply chain resilience. Our study
validates the significant role of digital transformation, resulting from the interaction of
various digital technologies, in enhancing supply chain resilience. The finding is also 503
consistent with recent work of Yin (2023), who suggests that the breadth and depth of digital
asset allocation in digital transformation are necessary for achieving supply chain resilience.
Digital transformation empowers organizations to proactively sense environmental changes
and anticipate potential disruptions (Khurana et al., 2022), allowing them to mitigate supply
chain risks before they escalate into disruptive events. Moreover, digital transformation can
foster greater collaboration, trust, and flexibility among an organization and its supply chain
members (Sousa-Zomer et al., 2020), which in turn leads to better response after a disruption.
Therefore, enterprises that effectively execute digital transformation strategies are more
likely to excel in both pre-disruption preparation and post-disruption response, ultimately
achieving supply chain resilience.
Second, the three dimensions of supply chain process integration play a mediating role in
the relationship between digital transformation and supply chain resilience. This implies that
digital transformation has a positive impact on information flow integration, physical flow
integration, and financial flow integration. Such finding supports the existing empirical
evidence claiming the level of supply chain integration increases along with digitalization of
the enterprise’s infrastructure (Cui et al., 2022; Tan et al., 2023). This result also aligns with the
fundamental logic of digital empowerment, in which digital technologies can benefit
organizations by empowering them more control over both intra-organizational and inter-
organizational activities (Leong et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2018). The implementation of digital
transformation has great potential to remove obstacles that hinder the integration of
information flow, physical flow, and financial flow (Ning and Yuan, 2021). Moreover, digital
transformation can enhance an organization’s resource acquisition and management
capabilities (Birkel and Wehrle, 2022), which are beneficial for improving the level of supply
chain process integration.
In addition, the result of mediating role of supply chain process integration also
highlights the possibility that digital transformation might rely on improving supply

Figure 4.
Moderation effect of
technology uncertainty
on the relationship
between digital
transformation and
supply chain resilience
JEIM chain process integration to extend its effect on supply chain resilience. This offers a more
37,2 nuanced understanding of previous studies suggesting that supply chain integration
leads to the enhancement of supply chain resilience (Piprani et al., 2020; Shi et al., 2023).
While those studies have paid attention to the effectiveness of internal and external
integration, this paper focuses on the impact of three specific process integration, namely,
information flow integration, physical flow integration, and financial flow integration. The
main goal of supply chain management is to control, coordinate and manage three flows
504 along supply chains – information, material, and financial (Caniato et al., 2019). From this
point of view, the smoothness and reliability of the information, physical, and financial
flows are also the foundation for a firm to withstand unpredictable events and maintain its
normal operation under disruptions. Hence, only when digital transformation facilitates
supply chain process integration effectively can its role in supply chain resilience be more
extended.
Finally, the present study reveals that both market uncertainty and technology
uncertainty play a moderating role in the relationship between digital transformation and
supply chain resilience, indicating that the effect of digital transformation on supply chain
resilience depends on the degree of environmental uncertainty. This finding is in line with
prior empirical research showing that the impact of digital transformation varies under
different environmental conditions (Laguir et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022). As market uncertainty
and technology uncertainty increase, organizations face higher risks and greater complexity
that traditional business management approaches may not be able to address (Fan et al.,
2016). Digital transformation can equip organizations with the tools and capabilities they
need to quickly adapt and respond to these risks and complexities (Khurana et al., 2022).
In other words, when traditional organizational strategies prove insufficient in responding to
environmental changes, digital transformation can be adopted to empower organizations to
develop supply chain resilience.

6.2 Theoretical implications

This study makes several important theoretical contributions to existing literature.
First, this paper offers an empirical examination of the impacts of digital transformation
on supply chain resilience, thereby extending the theoretical framework of both digital
transformation and supply chain resilience. On the one hand, existing research has mainly
paid attention to examining the effects of specific digital technologies on supply chain
resilience, lacking empirical evidence on the role of digital transformation (Li et al., 2022).
On the other hand, recent research has emphasized the need to advance the body of
knowledge regarding the consequences of digital transformation from the supply chain
perspective, given that current studies have predominantly focused on organizational
perspective (Annarelli et al., 2021). This paper fills this gap by empirically verifying how
digital transformation affects supply chain resilience, which also responds to the call for more
empirical research on digital transformation and supply chain resilience (El Baz and Ruel,
2021; Wong et al., 2020).
The study further enriches the knowledge of the relationship between digital
transformation and supply chain resilience by incorporating the supply chain processes
integration as a mediator and the environmental uncertainty as a moderator. Prior anecdotal
evidence only presents the direct effect of digital transformation, evidence for its indirect
effects appear largely absent from the literature (Li et al., 2022). Moreover, there has been very
limited empirical study uncovering the contextual factors that moderate the effects of digital
transformation on supply chain outcomes (Laguir et al., 2022). The paper addresses these
gaps by revealing the mediating role of supply chain process integration and the moderating
effects of market uncertainty and technology uncertainty.
 Furthermore, the paper complements the current understanding concerning the role of The effects
supply chain integration in supply chain resilience in the digital transformation era. On the of digital
one hand, different from prior literature that discuss this topic from the perspective of
external integration and internal integration (Piprani et al., 2020; Shi et al., 2023), our research
transformation
considers the impacts of three dimensions of supply chain process integration. On the other
hand, although previous studies have revealed the effectiveness of information flow
integration and physical flow integration on enhancing supply chain resilience individually
(Brandon-Jones et al., 2014), little attention has been paid to financial flow integration (Yuan 505
and Li, 2022). Our study fills these gaps by simultaneously examining how information flow
integration, physical flow integration and financial flow integration mediate the relationship
between digital transformation and supply chain resilience. Furthermore, the study extends
the theoretical framework of supply chain process integration from its antecedents and
consequences.

6.3 Managerial implications

The study provides several managerial implications for supply chain practitioners to
improve supply chain resilience.
First, as this study finds that digital transformation can improve supply chain process
integration and supply chain resilience, it reveals that firms need to pay more attention to the
effective formulation and execution of digital transformation strategies. Enterprises of
different sizes can adopt different digital transformation implementation approaches
according to their resources and capabilities. Large enterprises, which usually possess more
resources and stronger technological strengths, can devote themselves to advancing digital
technologies to accelerate the process of digital transformation. Middle and small-sized
enterprises, which may have insufficient resources and funds, can leverage the tools and
resources of third-party platforms to achieve their digital transformation goals.
Second, the findings indicate that digital transformation can promote supply chain resilience
through supply chain process integration, which implies that enterprises should take advantage
of digital transformation to empower supply chain processes. Therefore, practitioners need to
advance their knowledge of the role of digital transformation. When it comes to issues related to
digital transformations, managers should not limit their understanding to technology
deployment. They need to consider embedding digital transformation into operation
processes from a strategic view. In particular, since supply chain process integration
comprises information flow integration, physical flow integration, financial flow integration,
practitioners should pay attention to concurrently empowering these three dimensions.
Finally, our findings point to the need for executives to recognize that the effectiveness of
digital transformation in enhancing supply chain resilience is contingent on market uncertainty
and technology uncertainty. The study reveals that environments with high levels of market
uncertainty and technology uncertainty are likely favorable for digital transformation to
improve supply chain resilience. Therefore, it is imperative for enterprises to maintain a
heightened awareness of changes in their external environment and develop an accurate
understanding of the level of market uncertainty and technology uncertainty. To achieve this
purpose, enterprises can collect information from more sources, such as social media platforms,
industry forums and public news. In case enterprises realize that they are operating in a
condition with high levels of market uncertainty and technology uncertainty, they should make
more attempts to leverage digital transformation to empower supply chains.

7. Conclusion, limitations, and future studies

This study intends for providing an initial understanding of how to leverage digital
transformation to facilitate supply chain resilience via answering following research
JEIM questions: How does digital transformation affect supply chain resilience? and What is the role
37,2 of supply chain process integration and environmental uncertainty in the relationship between
digital transformation and supply chain resilience? The objective of this research was
accomplished by proposing a theoretical model based on digital empowerment theory, which
was empirically validated by survey data from 216 Chinese firms. The findings support
the proposed theoretical model, which demonstrated the positive relationship between
digital transformation and supply chain resilience, the mediating role of supply chain process
506 integration as well as the moderating role of environmental uncertainty in the relationship.
The current study has several limitations. First, the sample size, the industries and the
regions covered in the study are limited, future investigations could expand the sample size
and collect data from a wider range of regions to verify whether our results are supported in
other countries. Second, the mediating and moderating factors considered in this paper are
limited. Future research could incorporate other possible mediators (e.g. supply chain
capabilities) and moderators (e.g. supply chain structure.) to further extend the
understanding of the relationship between digital transformation and supply chain
resilience. Last but not least, the use of a single method may yield incomplete insights.
Therefore, future studies are encouraged to employ mixed-methods or alternative methods
(e.g. longitudinal studies or case studies) to further elucidate how digital transformation
empowers the enhancement of supply chain resilience.

References
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Akhtar, P., Ghouri, A.M., Saha, M., Khan, M.R., Shamim, S. and Nallaluthan, K. (2022), “Industrial
digitization, the use of real-time information, and operational agility: digital and information
perspectives for supply chain resilience”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
In press, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2022.3182479.
Alvarenga, M.Z., de Oliveira, M.P.V. and de Oliveira, T.A.G.F. (2023), “The impact of using digital
technologies on supply chain resilience and robustness: the role of memory under the covid-19
outbreak”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 226, 107610.
Amankwah-Amoah, J., Khan, Z., Wood, G. and Knight, G. (2021), “COVID-19 and digitalization:
the great acceleration”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 136, pp. 602-611.
Ambulkar, S., Blackhurst, J. and Grawe, S. (2015), “Firm’s resilience to supply chain disruptions: scale
development and empirical examination”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 33 No. 34,
pp. 111-122.
Annarelli, A., Battistella, C., Nonino, F., Parida, V. and Pessot, E. (2021), “Literature review on
digitalization capabilities: Co-citation analysis of antecedents, conceptualization and
consequences”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 166, pp. 1-22.
Arisha, A.A.A.M.A. (2017), “Analysing supply chain resilience: integrating the constructs in a
concept”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-49.
Badhotiya, G.K., Soni, G., Jain, V., Joshi, R. and Mittal, S. (2022), “Assessing supply chain resilience to
the outbreak of COVID-19 in Indian manufacturing firms”, Operations Management Research,
No. 15, pp. 1161-1180.
Bechtsis, D., Tsolakis, N., Iakovou, E. and Vlachos, D. (2022), “Data-driven secure, resilient and sustainable
supply chains: gaps, opportunities, and a new generalised data sharing and data monetisation
framework”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 60 No. 14, pp. 4397-4417.
Birkel, H. and Wehrle, M. (2022), “Small- and medium-sized companies tackling the digital
transformation of supply chain processes: insights from a multiple case study in the German
manufacturing industry”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, In press, doi: 10.
1109/TEM.2022.3209131.
Brandon-Jones, E., Squire, B., Autry, C.W. and Petersen, K.J. (2014), “A contingent resource-based The effects
perspective of supply chain resilience and robustness”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 55-73, doi: 10.1111/jscm.12050. of digital
Caniato, F., Henke, M. and Zsidisin, G.A. (2019), “Supply chain finance: historical foundations, current
transformation
research, future developments”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 99-104.
Chen, H., Daugherty, P.J. and Landry, T.D. (2009), “Supply chain process integration: a theoretical
framework”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 27-46. 507
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), “The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 471-482.
Cui, L., Wu, H., Wu, L., Kumar, A. and Tan, K.H. (2022), “Investigating the relationship between digital
technologies, supply chain integration and firm resilience in the context of COVID-19”, Annals
of Operations Research, In press, doi: 10.1007/s10479-022-04735-y.
Desarbo, W.S., Di Benedetto, C.A., Song, M. and Sinha, I. (2005), “Revisiting the miles and snow
strategic framework: uncovering interrelationships between strategic types, capabilities,
environmental uncertainty, and firm performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26
No. 1, pp. 47-74, doi: 10.1002/smj.431.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Bryde, D.J., Dwivedi, Y.K. and Papadopoulos, T. (2020), “Blockchain
technology for enhancing swift-trust, collaboration and resilience within a humanitarian supply
chain setting”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 11, pp. 3381-3398.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Fosso Wamba, S., Roubaud, D. and Foropon, C. (2021),
“Empirical investigation of data analytics capability and organizational flexibility as
complements to supply chain resilience”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 110-128.
El Baz, J. and Ruel, S. (2021), “Can supply chain risk management practices mitigate the disruption
impacts on supply chains’ resilience and robustness? Evidence from an empirical survey in a
COVID-19 outbreak era”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 233, 107972.
Fan, H., Cheng, T.C.E., Li, G. and Lee, P.K.C. (2016), “The effectiveness of supply chain risk
information processing capability: an information processing perspective”, IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 414-425, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2016.2598814.
Faruquee, M., Paulraj, A. and Irawan, C.A. (2021), “Strategic supplier relationships and supply chain
resilience: is digital transformation that precludes trust beneficial?”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 1192-1219.
Fornell, C. 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.
Garcia-Perez, A., Cegarra-Navarro, J.G., Sallos, M.P., Martinez-Caro, E. and Chinnaswamy, A. (2023),
“Resilience in healthcare systems: cyber security and digital transformation”, Technovation,
Vol. 121, 102583.
Ghobakhloo, M., Tang, S.H., Sabouri, M.S. and Zulkifli, N. (2014), “The impact of information system-
enabled supply chain process integration on business performance: a resource-based analysis”,
International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, Vol. 13 No. 5,
pp. 1075-1113.
Gu, M., Yang, L. and Huo, B. (2021), “The impact of information technology usage on supply chain
resilience and performance : an ambidexterous view”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 232, 107956.
Guide, V.D.R. and Ketokivi, M. (2015), “Notes from the Editors: redefining some methodological
criteria for the journal”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 37, pp. v-viii.
Gupta, S., Bag, S., Modgil, S., Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A. and Kumar, A. (2022), “Examining
the influence of big data analytics and additive manufacturing on supply chain risk control and
resilience: an empirical study”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 172, 108629.
JEIM Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (1988), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River.
37,2
Hanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D. and Antunes Marante, C. (2021), “A systematic review of the
literature on digital transformation: insights and implications for strategy and organizational
change”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 1159-1197, doi: 10.1111/joms.12639.
Huo, B., Han, Z. and Prajogo, D. (2016), “Antecedents and consequences of supply chain information
integration: a resource-based view”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 661-677,
508 doi: 10.1108/SCM-08-2015-0336.
Hussain, G., Nazir, M.S., Rashid, M.A. and Sattar, M.A. (2023), “From supply chain resilience to supply
chain disruption orientation: the moderating role of supply chain complexity”, Journal of
Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 70-90.
Ivanov, D. (2021), “Digital supply chain management and technology to enhance resilience by building
and using end-to-end visibility during the COVID-19 pandemic”, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, In press, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2021.3095193.
Ivanov, D. and Dolgui, A. (2020), “Viability of intertwined supply networks: extending the supply
chain resilience angles towards survivability. A position paper motivated by COVID-19
outbreak”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 10, pp. 2904-2915.
Kandemir, D., Yaprak, A. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2006), “Alliance orientation: conceptualization,
measurement, and impact on market performance”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 324-340.
Katsaliaki, K., Galetsi, P. and Kumar, S. (2021), “Supply chain disruptions and resilience: a major
review and future research agenda”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 319 No. 1,
pp. 965-1002.
Khurana, I., Dutta, D.K. and Singh Ghura, A. (2022), “SMEs and digital transformation during a crisis:
the emergence of resilience as a second-order dynamic capability in an entrepreneurial
ecosystem”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 150, pp. 623-641.
Kochan, C.G. and Nowicki, D.R. (2018), “Supply chain resilience : a systematic literature review and
typological framework resilience”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 48 No. 8, pp. 842-865.
Kretschmer, T. and Khashabi, P. (2020), “Digital transformation and organization design:
an integrated approach”, California Management Review, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 86-104.
Laguir, I., Choi, T.M., Stekelorum, R., Gupta, S. and Kumar, A. (2022), “Roles of mobilized controls and
environmental uncertainty on supply chain resilience: an empirical study from dynamic-
capabilities-view and levers-of-control perspectives”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, In press, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2022.3171606.
Lee, M. and Koh, J. (2001), “Is empowerment really a new concept?”, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 684-695, doi: 10.1080/09586190110037344.
Leong, C., Ling, M. and Ractham, P. (2015), “ICT-enabled community empowerment in crisis response :
social media in Thailand flooding 2011”, Journal of Association for Information Systems, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 174-212.
Leong, C., Pan, S.L. and Newell, S. (2016), “The emergence of self-organizing e-commerce ecosystems
in remote villages of China: a tale of digital empowerment for rural development”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 475-484.
Li, L. (2022), “Digital transformation and sustainable performance: the moderating role of market
turbulence”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 104, pp. 28-37.
Li, L., Su, F., Zhang, W. and Mao, J.Y. (2018), “Digital transformation by SME entrepreneurs:
a capability perspective”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 1129-1157.
Li, L., Wang, Z., Ye, F., Chen, L. and Zhan, Y. (2022), “Digital technology deployment and firm
resilience: evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 105,
pp. 190-199.
McCormack, K.P. and Johnson, W.C. (2002), Supply Chain Networks and Business Process Orientation, The effects
St.Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL.
of digital
Naimi, M.A., Faisal, M.N., Sobh, R. and Bin Sabir, L. (2022), “A systematic mapping review exploring
10 years of research on supply chain resilience and reconfiguration”, International Journal of
transformation
Logistics: Research and Applications, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 1191-1218.
Nasiri, M., Ukko, J., Saunila, M. and Rantala, T. (2020), “Managing the digital supply chain: the role of
smart technologies”, Technovation, Vols 96-97, 102121, doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102121.
509
Ning, L. and Yuan, Y. (2021), “How blockchain impacts the supply chain finance platform business
model reconfiguration”, International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, In press,
doi: 10.1080/13675567.2021.2017419.
Ozdemir, D., Sharma, M., Dhir, A. and Daim, T. (2022), “Supply chain resilience during the COVID-19
pandemic”, Technology in Society, Vol. 68, 101847.
Piprani, A.Z., Mohezar, S. and Jaafar, N.I. (2020), “Supply chain integration and supply chain
performance: the mediating role of supply chain resilience”, International Journal of Supply
Chain Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 58-73.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, p. 879.
Pournader, M., Shi, Y., Seuring, S. and Koh, S.C.L. (2020), “Blockchain applications in supply chains,
transport and logistics: a systematic review of the literature”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 7, pp. 2063-2081.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891, doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.
Qader, G., Junaid, M., Abbas, Q. and Mubarik, M.S. (2022), “Industry 4.0 enables supply chain
resilience and supply chain performance”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Vol. 185, 122026.
Rai, A., Patnayakuni, R. and Seth, N. (2006), “Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply
chain integration capabilities”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 225-246.
Rajaguru, R. and Matanda, M.J. (2019), “Role of compatibility and supply chain process integration in
facilitating supply chain capabilities and organizational performance”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 315-330, doi: 10.1108/SCM-05-
2017-0187.
Scott, J. and Terry, S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Shi, Y., Zheng, X., Venkatesh, V.G., Humdan, E.A.I. and Paul, S.K. (2023), “The impact of digitalization
on supply chain resilience: an empirical study of the Chinese manufacturing industry”, Journal
of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Sousa-Zomer, T.T., Neely, A. and Martinez, V. (2020), “Digital transforming capability and
performance: a microfoundational perspective”, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 40 Nos 7-8, pp. 1095-1128.
Spieske, A. and Birkel, H. (2021), “Improving supply chain resilience through industry 4.0:
a systematic literature review under the impressions of the COVID-19 pandemic”, Computers
and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 158, 107452.
Sun, Q., Wang, C., shui Zuo, L. and hua Lu, F. (2018), “Digital empowerment in a WEEE collection
business ecosystem: a comparative study of two typical cases in China”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 184, pp. 414-422.
Tan, C.L., Yeo, S.F. and Kumar, A. (2023), “Nexus among blockchain visibility, supply chain
integration and supply chain performance in the digital transformation era”, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 123 No. 1, pp. 229-252.
JEIM Warner, K.S.R. and W€ager, M. (2019), “Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation:
an ongoing process of strategic renewal”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 326-349.
37,2
Wong, C.W.Y., Lirn, T.C., Yang, C.C. and Shang, K.C. (2020), “Supply chain and external conditions
under which supply chain resilience pays: an organizational information processing
theorization”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 226, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.
107610.
Yang, L., Huo, B., Tian, M. and Han, Z. (2021a), “The impact of digitalization and inter-organizational
510 technological activities on supplier opportunism: the moderating role of relational ties”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 1085-1118,
doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-09-2020-0664.
Yang, M., Fu, M. and Zhang, Z. (2021b), “The adoption of digital technologies in supply chains:
drivers, process and impact”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 169, pp. 1-13,
doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120795.
Yin, W. (2023), “Identifying the pathways through digital transformation to achieve supply chain
resilience: an fsQCA approach”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 10867-10879.
Yuan, Y. and Li, W. (2022), “The effects of supply chain risk information processing capability and
supply chain finance on supply chain resilience: a moderated and mediated model”, Journal of
Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 1592-1612, doi: 10.1108/JEIM-09-
2021-0383.
Yuan, Y., Liu, L. and Liu, L. (2022), “How does information integration enhance SMEs ’ credit quality :
the mediating role of supply chain capabilities”, Industrial Management & Data Systems,
Vol. 122 No. 2, pp. 544-561, doi: 10.1108/IMDS-10-2020-0621.

Corresponding author
Hongying Tan can be contacted at: tanhongying@swufe.edu.cn

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