Abstract
Purpose- Supply chain risk has increasingly attracted academic and corporate interest, however the supply chain risk debate in academic literature are rather limited to case and location specific studies. Hence, this paper utilised a systematic literature review to explore the supply chain risk research trends and gaps within the management literature. Design/methodology/approach- To achieve the research objective a systematic literature review (SLR), looking into 25 years since 1990, into supply chain risk management was conducted, which resulted in 114 papers. Findings- While the supply chain risk management literature is growing, results from the systematic literature review identified limited organized understanding of what constitutes holistic supply chain risk process, and high reliance of particular categories for supply chain risk, such as the high reliance on specific country settings (the USA and the UK); limited presence of cross competitive supply chain risk process analysis and challenges in developing conceptual supply chain risk frameworks. Originality/value- Current literature on supply chain risk have been assessed based on its definition and utilisation. The current paper bridges this gap by synthesizing the diverse academic journal papers into the categories based on design continiuum, relationship continiuum, process continiuum and economic continiuum. In addition it highlighted the gaps in industry context, theoretical contribution, geographic location, and research methods applied and addresses the scope for further research. Research limitations – The supply chain risk embeds categories of location, scope of supply chain, risk management tools and industry sectors involved, The search for related publications was mainly used from a wide range of coverage from accountancy to design in supply chain risk, hence although there is indication to specific industries, and foci of risk, this could be further explored. Practical implications – This review of supply chain risk management identifies various research gaps and directions for future research to develop theory and practical understanding of supply chain risk.
Discussion and Conclusion
The current study serves as the first step towards understanding the supply chain risk categories, connotations and context. Thereby this research represents a first attempt toward the mapping of supply chain risk management literature. The structured literature review assisted in the identification and development of categories that made up the current supply chain risk literature compromising of tools used, location and research methods undertaken. Based on the structured literature review, we have identified four undervalued themes in the literature.
• As stated by Hofmann (2012:138) although concrete risk management strategies are needed to evaluate the risk, it is nevertheless a “long-term plan and cannot be made from one day to the next”. The lack of availability of longitudinal studies in the supply chain risk area, makes it difficult for the researchers to build up a coherent research risk profile and changing risk management strategies over the years.
• Secondly, although a number of authors looked into what constitutes supply chain risk and its impact areas, such as Zsidin et al. (2000) defining inbound supply chain risk six dimensions; business risks, supplier capacity constraints, quality, production technological changes, and product design change and disaster in the context of nine manufacturing companies, and Tummola and Schoenherr (2011) evaluating phases of risk identification, risk measurement and assessment, risk evaluation, risk mitigation and contingency planning, and risk control and monitoring, nevertheless there is lack of comparative case studies evaluating the impact of business processes management based on product types and supply chain structures upon the supply chain risk.
• The four categories including economic continiuum, relationship continiuum, design and process continiuum highlighted the themes occuring in the supply chain risk area, however the interlinkage of these themes have not been developed at this stage, a further study is needed to develop it further.
• Finally, although categories of the literature review indicated that most supply chain risk studies were located in a specific location and region (in this case, UK, US, America and Europe) there is further research needed evaluating the different country settings and associated impact upon supply chain risk profiles. However, bearing in mind that global supply chains are complex, lengthy and distanced from their markets, supply chains are forced to find ways to be responsive on how to manage the risks (Khan and Creazza, 2009; Wieland and Wallenburg, 2012) which may be different to each other when compared.
