supply chain research paper examples

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

SupplyChain →

No results found in working knowledge.

• Were any results found in one of the other content buckets on the left?
• Try removing some search filters.
• Use different search filters.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

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

Priyabrata chowdhury.

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

Sanjoy Kumar Paul

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

Shahriar Kaisar

Md. abdul moktadir.

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

Associated Data

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

1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

2. Review methodology

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

Search methodology for finalizing the articles for analysis.

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

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

Framework of the analysis process.

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

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

Articles by source title.

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

Subject areas in the analyzed articles.

3.1. Methodologies used

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

Research methodologies used in the reviewed articles.

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

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

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

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

3.2. Context of the studies

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

3.2.1. National context

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

The national contexts on which the reviewed articles focused.

3.2.2. Industry context

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

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

A breakdown of the industry sectors in the reviewed articles.

3.3. Theories used

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

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

3.4. Main themes in the existing research: A synthesis

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

Themes of the reviewed articles.

3.4.1. Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.4.2. Resilience strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.4.3. The role of technology in implementing resilience strategies

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

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

3.4.4. The COVID-19 pandemic and supply chain sustainability

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

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

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

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

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

4.1. Research on prior epidemic outbreaks

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Research on supply chain disruptions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Research opportunities

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

Summary of research questions and opportunities.

6.1. Impact focus

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

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

6.2. Resilience focus

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

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

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

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

6.3. Technology focus

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

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

6.4. Sustainability focus

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

6.5. Other aspects

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

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

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

7. Conclusions

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

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

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

CRediT authorship contribution statement

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

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

Appendices. Supplementary data

The following are the Supplementary data to this article:

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

A systematic literature review of food sustainable supply chain management (FSSCM): building blocks and research trends

The TQM Journal

ISSN : 1754-2731

Article publication date: 6 December 2021

Issue publication date: 19 December 2022

The purpose of this paper is to explore the increased research attention gained by sustainability in food supply chain management. Although previous review studies have focused on aspects such as traceability, food safety, and performance measurement, sustainability has rarely been considered as a means of integrating these issues.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper presents a comprehensive review of the literature on food sustainable supply chain management (FSSCM). Using systematic review methods, relevant studies published from 1997 to early 2021 are explored to reveal the research landscape and the gaps and trends.

The paper shows the building blocks and the main research directions in FSSCM, particularly considering the opportunities in “neglected” emerging countries. Insights are provided into the various elements of the sustainability supply chain in the food industry, which have previously been analysed separately.

Originality/value

Only a few researchers have systematically reviewed the literature or taken a bibliometric approach in their analyses to provide an overview of the current trends and links between sustainability and food supply chain management.

• Systematic literature review
• Food sustainable supply chain management (FSSCM)
• Food industry
• Global supply chain
• Emerging countries
• Sustainability

Palazzo, M. and Vollero, A. (2022), "A systematic literature review of food sustainable supply chain management (FSSCM): building blocks and research trends", The TQM Journal , Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 54-72. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-10-2021-0300

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021, Maria Palazzo and Agostino Vollero

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

The debate over the approach to sustainability has become central to most businesses, as a proper sustainability perspective holistically considers all of a company's functions and business relationships along supply chains, which are increasingly interconnected globally ( Carter and Rogers, 2008 ; Solér et al. , 2010 ). Managing the integration of sustainable environmental, social and economic criteria along the multiple aspects of the supply chain represents a major challenge for manufacturers and producers ( Massaroni et al. , 2015 ).

Supply chain management (SCM) has been defined as “the configuration and operation of efficient and effective production and logistics networks and the intra- and inter-organizational management of supply, transformation and delivery processes” ( Brandenburg and Rebs, 2015 ). A revolution in SCM has occurred in recent years, which has been noted by many scholars and researchers, as its focus has shifted from economic performance to an integrated social and environmental approach ( Seuring and Müller, 2008 ; Ahi and Searcy, 2013 ; Khan et al. , 2020 ).

Exploring the intersection between sustainability and SCM involves considering different viewpoints, as SCM is based on both downstream and upstream flows of goods ( Cosimato and Troisi, 2015 ; Fahimnia et al. , 2015 ; Maditati et al. , 2018 ). The downstream flows of goods (towards the final customer) has been traditionally viewed as involving responsibility and ethical issues ( Seuring and Müller, 2008 ), while upstream flows of products/services (towards the supplier) are explored from manufacturing, product recovery and reverse logistics perspectives ( Feng et al. , 2017 ), and thus more concerned with environmental issues, such as energy and waste reduction ( Naik and Suresh, 2018 ; Kumar et al. , 2020 ; Kumari et al. , 2021 ). There is general agreement that the sustainable management of a supply chain requires an integrated approach to social, environmental and economic goals ( Carter and Rogers, 2008 ; Hassini et al. , 2012 ; Juettner et al. , 2020 ). Thus, the means by which SCM can develop sustainable features and follow the path of sustainable development have been considered ( Manning, 2013 ; Zhu et al. , 2018 ). This can be challenging in industries such as food, in which the SCM can have a strong effect on not only the final consumer but also other stakeholders in the value chain ( Matopoulos et al. , 2015 ; Ghadge et al. , 2017 ; Mangla et al. , 2019 ).

A food supply chain (FSC) is particularly complex, as it connects different sectors of the economy (agriculture and the food-processing industry and distribution sector) in a market dominated by rapidly changing customer preferences ( Beske et al. , 2014 ). Food types can affect the natural environment, due to the food production systems, transport distances from producers and consumers, waste management, and workers' conditions in the sectors involved ( Beer and Lemmer, 2011 ). The situation is even more complicated in the agri-fresh food sector due to the perishability of products and the short shelf-life ( Siddh et al. , 2017 ). Thus, examining sustainable development in the FSC is extremely complex due to the high level of unpredictability in terms of demand and cost, the fragile nature of food and consumers' increased awareness of risks and safety issues associated with diets and eating disorders ( Siddh et al. , 2018 ). Finally, many firms in the FSC are small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) ( Beer and Lemmer, 2011 ; Ghadge et al. , 2017 ) that may find it difficult to address sustainability challenges and implement practices. The various FSC duties and tasks are often perceived as more demanding when sustainability is applied to enrich conventional profit-oriented models ( Allaoui et al. , 2018 ). Studies in this area have addressed issues such as the triple bottom line, ethics and corporate social responsible principles in their analyses ( Siddh et al. , 2018 ; Allaoui et al. , 2018 ), but few have provided an integrated overview of the phenomenon.

Only a few researchers have systematically reviewed the literature or taken a bibliometric approach in their analyses to provide an overview of the current trends and links between sustainability and food supply chain management (FSCM). However, many articles have applied specific methods to explore particular themes or typical processes. These themes and processes include sustainable sourcing ( Ghadge et al. , 2017 ), food traceability ( Bosona and Gebresenbet, 2013 ), approaches for enhancing sustainability in SCM ( Sharma et al. , 2017 ; Dania et al. , 2018 ), sustainable supply chain strategies and tactics ( Beske et al. , 2014 ; Zhong et al. , 2017 ), food safety ( Siddh et al. , 2018 ), controls of the level of sustainability ( Sharma et al. , 2017 ), measurements of sustainable items ( Sharma et al. , 2021 ) and the circular economy ( Corallo et al. , 2020 ).

Bosona and Gebresenbet (2013) , for example, presented a literature review that focussed mainly on food traceability, which highlights several features, definitions, items and measurements of the food traceability system. The bibliometric approach was also taken by Beske et al. (2014) , who described how sustainable supply chain management tactics allow organizations to manage their supply chain while putting into practice dynamic capabilities. Zhong et al. (2017) used the bibliometric approach to review the FSCM, and considered it in terms of systems and implementations. Siddh et al. (2017) explored the agri-fresh food supply chain quality features and definitions, by collecting and analysing relevant academic papers. Using the same method, Sharma et al. (2017) analysed the performance indicators and sub-indicators of green SCM implementation. Dania et al. (2018) proposed a systematic review of sustainable agri-food supply chains to assess and manage collaborative performances, while Govindan (2018) focused on the influence of stakeholders in the food industry.

Thomé et al . (2020) recently provided several insights into food supply chains and short food supply chains based on a bibliometric analysis, while Kamble et al. (2020) proposed a framework for managers in the agri-food supply chain based on an extensive literature review, to increase supply chain visibility and resources. Finally, Sharma et al. (2020) applied a systematic literature review of machine learning applications in agricultural supply chains.

These studies demonstrate the pressing need to examine the “green” side of SCM in the food sector. They show that the number of empirical papers in this area is increasing, but that there is a lack of an integrated perspective for holistically linking recent trends and facets of the FSCM. The focus is on very specific viewpoints rather than a broader exploration. To increase our understanding of the intellectual progress and knowledge structure of food sustainable supply chain management (FSSCM), a comprehensive analysis is required. Thus, in the present paper, we aim to outline a comprehensive framework of the research and current trends in the FSSCM, and to identify specific research gaps that must be addressed.

To achieve this, earlier review analyses of FSSCM and broad research trends are identified objectively and systematically, by providing an analysis of the evolution of FSSCM over the past years, exploring the international research, studying the mainly empirical FSSCM research, examining the research tools applied, identifying any issues that arise, and by identifying the main gaps and directions for future research in the field of FSSCM.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the methodology used for the literature review. Section 3 provides the results and analyses of the selected papers. Sections 4 and 5 present the findings, a discussion and the implications in terms of FSSCM that can enrich further research. Finally, a conclusion and limitations are presented in Section 6 .

2. Methodology

As other studies take various specific perspectives, we applied a comprehensive analysis of the literature focussing on the link between sustainability and FSCM. This offers a complete view and several insights for further studies in various emerging business contexts.

Unlike other conventionally structured literature reviews, a systematic review was selected as this can be effective in managing the exploration of a huge number of academic publications and enables the development of a complex framework for the research subjects ( Garcia-Buendia et al. , 2021 ). The method can also help researchers and scholars explore the literature by considering its bibliographic elements ( Xu et al. , 2020 ). This analytical approach also helps in terms of recognizing the main features and definitions of specific research field(s), identifying the main research questions and gaps, identifying the theoretical area in which the analyses will have an effect, understanding the theoretical concepts and their terminology, providing a list of the relevant resources available, and highlighting the research designs, methodologies and approaches that can be applied ( Soni and Kodali, 2011 ; Fahimnia et al. , 2015 ; Feng et al. , 2017 ).

Time horizon: The first step is the selection of a time period. The exploration period for academic and research articles is between 1997 and early 2021, as SCM and corporate social responsibility (CSR) were implemented in the food industry to a greater extent after 1997 ( Henk and Hans, 1997 ). We end our paper collection in early 2021.

Selection of publications: Only papers written in English were selected, and the articles were selected in Scopus. This database is commonly used by management science researchers (or in related fields) for bibliometric analyses or systematic literature review methods in SCM ( Soni and Kodali, 2011 ; Fahimnia et al. , 2015 ). The Scopus database has greater coverage than the Web of Science, and it was deemed more appropriate for exploring complex research areas that are constantly changing and developing ( Feng et al. , 2017 ).

The keywords used for the selection of the publications: The keywords chosen for developing the search of the main publications in Scopus were “supply”, “food”, and “sustainabl*”. In total, after using the “title, abstract, keywords” search in the Scopus, 1,930 papers were found by searching with these keywords. “Sustainabl*” involves environmental, economic, and social facets, and thus papers identified by searching for “sustainabl*” and “supply” were examined. The papers resulting from the searches were then analysed for information including title, author(s), affiliation(s), source title, number of citations, keywords, abstract and references.

The categorization of academic publications according to the Association of Business Schools (ABS) 2018 list: The number of papers was further reduced by selecting only academic and well-referred journals that were considered in this list. Of the 1,930 papers, some were non-referred publications appearing in 0-star journals, magazines and conference proceedings that did not follow a rigorous scientific editorial approach. Chapters of books and whole books were also not selected for the analysis. After deleting these, 733 articles remained and were filtered from the total number of downloaded publications.

Categorization of academic publications: After reading the abstracts and the complete papers, the number was further reduced by considering the relevance of the publications. The sample size was condensed in this phase to create a representative data set. The rule for selecting the articles was that they had to be related to the food sector, supply chain management and sustainability. Thus, 176 papers remained.

Systematic classifications of the papers: The articles were then categorized according to leading journals in FSSCM research and journal name per number of published articles; number of published articles in FSSCM research per field; number of publications; trending articles about the food sustainable supply chain; geographical locations by region of the first author's affiliation; the methodology used; theoretical frameworks; tool/research methods; data collection; the entity of analysis and sustainability issues.

3. Results and analysis

All of the identified papers are presented, discussed and analysed in the following sections in terms of their various aspects and features.

3.1 Year-based classification of number of publications

The number of articles about FSSCM has increased, probably due to the increased interest and awareness of managers and academics in the area of sustainability and SCM. The annual number of published articles has increased in recent times (2017–2020) to three times that of the 2015–2016 period (in fact, in 2017, 26 papers were published; in 2018, 29 articles were proposed; while in 2019 and 2020, 23 and 27 studies were focused on the selected topics).

3.2 Journal-based categorization of papers

This categorization illustrates the frequency of papers presented in various leading academic journals. Many of these appear to be very interested in issues and problems related to FSSCM. These include Business Strategy and the Environment (BSE), the British Food Journal (BFJ), Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management (CSREM), Food Policy (FP), Industrial Management and Data Systems (IMDS), International Journal of Production Economics (IJPE), International Journal of Production Research (IJPR), Journal of Cleaner Production (JCP), Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management (JMTM), Production Planning and Control (PPC), and Supply Chain Management – An International Journal (SCM-IJ).

In total, 176 papers that focused on SCM definitions and features in the food industry from the perspective of sustainability were selected. This demonstrates that a considerable number of papers were published in the relevant fields of study. Table 1 shows the number of total articles published (PSC) and average global citations received per paper (AGC), and most are from JCP (49 PSC, 28.24 AGC), followed by IJPE (18 PSC, 94.56 AGC), PPC (7 PSC, 4.14 AGC), SCM-IJ (7 PSC, 17.29 AGC), and BSE (6 PSC, 21.67 AGC). Considering the average global citations received per paper (AGC), the journals with the highest are IJPE (18 PSC, 94.56 AGC), IJPR (5 PSC, 81.60 AGC), FP (4 PSC, 75.50 AGC), CSREM (4 PSC, 41.25 AGC) and JCP (49 PSC, 28.24 AGC).

Moreover, the distribution of published articles in FSSCM research per field (economics; ethics-csr management; international business and area; information management; marketing; operations research and management science; organizational studies; regional studies; sector; social studies), based on how they are ranked in the ABS Journal Guide of 2018 was analysed.

It was highlighted that, especially, in the fields of “Operations Research and Management Science” and “Sector”, there were many articles published in 2018, 2019 and 2020 in the realm of FSSCM.

3.3 Categorization of publications based on the geographical location of first authors

Publications are classified based on the first authors' affiliated regions and include developed and emerging economies. This classification clearly shows that most papers are from developed countries in Europe (63%), Asia (18%) and North America (8%), with less attention paid to FSSCM in developing areas such as South America (5%) and Africa (1%), although many countries in these regions are still mainly agrarian.

3.4 Categorization of trending articles in the field of FSSCM

Several of the papers achieved a remarkable number of total citations. The data presented in Table 2 show that two papers gained more than 300 total citations, four achieved over 200, and the remaining four publications gained more than 100 total citations.

3.5 Categorization based on methodology and tools/research methods

FSSCM papers can be analysed according to the methodology (approach) applied. Most publications utilized a qualitative approach (78%) and only 22% take a quantitative approach.

Table 3 shows that theoretical and empirical explorations of SCM sustainability in the food sector have been conducted ( Pohlmann et al. , 2020 ; Yakavenka et al. , 2020 ; Khan et al. , 2021 ).

Case study analysis is the most used (26%: 46 papers) followed by statistical analysis (22%: 38 papers), conceptual analysis and/or frameworks (19%: 34 articles), mathematical models (13%: 23 articles), quality tool (11%: 19 articles) and finally bibliometric analysis and/or literature review (9%: 16 papers). Examples of the methodologies and tools applied to this complex concept include the following: Taghikhah et al. (2020) used several mathematical models to explore the relation between consumer preferences and environmental factors related to food production. Morley (2020) used case studies to analyse the impact of public procurement on various food company strategies. Thomé et al . (2020) used a structured literature review to examine studies of short food supply chains. Sharma et al. (2020) statistically analysed aspects of food and other industries during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

3.6 Research publications categorization on the basis of data collection

We first examine the data collection (data sources) applied in the FSSCM papers and find that the majority of the publications use primary data (i.e. survey, experiment, interviews, focus groups, observation, etc.) (56%: 99 papers). Secondary data (i.e. archival, content extraction, bibliometric records, etc.) are used in 46 papers (26%), a combination of primary and secondary data is used in 10 (6%), and 21 papers (12%) do not use data collection as they are based on conceptual analyses, viewpoint research, etc.

3.7 Research publications categorization based on issues of FSSCM

We then categorize the papers based on the FSSCM issues addressed, as shown in Figure 2 . FSSCM involves multiple sustainability issues, and the majority of articles focused on “supplier management” (20%: 36 papers). “Sustainable development” was the next most common (17%: 30 papers), followed by “collaboration and coordination management” in 25 (14%), “performance management” in 17 (10%), “circular economy” in 15 (9%), “logistic management” in 14 (8%), “strategic management” in 11 (6%), “innovation” in 10 (6%), “agriculture” in 6 (3%), a “comprehensive view” (involving more than one issue) in 5 (3%), “quality management” in 4 (2%), and “other issues” were analysed in 3 papers (2%).

Thus, “supplier management”, “sustainable development” and “collaboration and coordination management” were the most common issues, covered by over half of the total selected publications. Other issues are also significant in the area of FSSCM, but not to the same extent, while others are mainly neglected (i.e. “agriculture” and “quality management”)

3.8 Research publications categorization on the basis of theoretical framework

The theoretical framework applied to develop the selected papers was then explored. Nearly two-thirds (114) of the articles did not follow any specific theoretical approach. The stakeholder approach was considered in 11 articles, 8 papers were based on the triple bottom line, 8 took the life cycle approach, 7 the circular economy approach, 6 applied resource-based view (RBV) and knowledge-based view (KBV) frameworks, 6 the institutional theory, 4 applied the resource dependency theory and 2 the decision theory-based framework. Other approaches (i.e. country of origin, TOE, critical success factors, etc.) were taken in ten articles.

3.9 Publications categorization on the basis of entity of analysis

Finally, we examined the main perspectives taken when exploring FSSCM issues.

Many research publications use the supply chain as the entity of analysis (EOA) (70 papers). However, a significant number (23) consider the whole supply network or the manufacturer's point of view (21); 18 are mainly conceptual; 10 are based on the distributor's perspective; 10 take a dyadic view (more than 1 EOA); 9 take the suppliers'/farmers' perspectives; the logistic industry is examined in 7; consumers in 5; and the remaining 3 papers do not use any of these EOA.

4. Discussion: main themes and trends in FSSCM

The increase and evolution of FSSC studies suggests that supply chains in the food sector are moving towards a sustainable approach. Several new trends have emerged in the field, which focus on both intra- and inter-firm dimensions ( Figure 3 ).

Increasingly, the multiplicity of stakeholders in FSSCM and the collaboration/coordination challenges this brings have been explored throughout the food supply chain phases. These include the sustainable purchasing relationships of food retailers ( Chkanikova, 2016 ); increasing legitimacy in the food industry ( Czinkota et al. , 2014 ); strategies for reducing food waste within the circular economy framework ( Dora, 2019 ); and tools for increasing collaboration and coordination throughout the food supply chain ( Vodenicharova, 2020 ). Collaboration has gained the attention of researchers exploring the competitive advantages derived from a sustainable approach by leveraging environmental information along the supply chain ( Solér et al. , 2010 ), the alignment of sourcing with marketing and branding strategies ( Croom et al. , 2007 ), and dynamic capabilities ( Beske et al. , 2014 ).

“Collaboration and coordination management”, “supplier management” and “sustainable development” are the most common issues, covered by over half of the total publications. These include collaboration with partners along the supply chain ( Pakdeechoho and Sukhotu, 2018 ), the criteria for selecting suppliers ( Wilhelm et al. , 2016 ), the alignment of supplier-producer procedures ( Vodenicharova, 2020 ), the overall efficiency of the supply chain ( Danny and Priscila, 2004 ), and collaborations adopting mandatory and voluntary standards when assessing environmental, social and economic performances ( Glover et al. , 2014 ; Touboulic and Walker, 2015 ; Govindan, 2018 ). Other recent emerging challenges include more general sustainability-related aspects, such as innovation and the circular economy. On the other hand, the inclusion of quality management in the field of FSCM seems to be scarce in academic literature ( Ting et al. , 2014 ; Siddh et al. , 2018 ; Feng et al. , 2020 ), even though, there are several authors who tried to build a more centred approach in reviewing quality issues inside the analysis of sustainable supply chain. For example, Manzini et al. (2014) highlighted the existing connection between food quality and environmental sustainability of supply chain strategies and tactics, while Winter and Knemeyer (2013) explored how sustainability can be included in supply chain quality and, Ilbery and Maye (2005) presented a list of important sustainable food standards linked with environmental quality, socially inclusiveness and other relevant items.

Besides, the findings suggest that an integration of intra- and inter-firm processes can be crucial for the effective sustainable performance of organizations, as if FSSCM is based on sustainability it can have a positive effect on all stages of the supply chain ( Erol et al. , 2011 ; Kahi et al. , 2017 ). Unlike traditional performance measurements, sustainable performance involves comprehensively considering social, economic, and environmental factors ( Sharma et al. , 2017 ; Siddh et al. , 2018 ). Pullman et al. (2009) focussed on how to improve the quality performance of the food supply chain, which in turn improves cost performance. Raut et al. (2019) analysed operational/technology-based and human resource-based performance indicators of the sustainable value chain that help those in the food sector minimize their effect on the environment while boosting their economic performance. Thus, when proposing new “green” performance measurements, food industry researchers should include the bases of sustainability in their analyses of FSSCM.

The development of these new FSSCM trends suggests that this field of research will continue to grow as many scholars and academics explore the specific features and perspectives applicable to developed countries. The literature review shows that few studies consider less developed countries, with just 1% having African authors. Developing economies, such as those in Asia, have however had more attention in recent years. Some studies show that a lack of infrastructure or inefficient logistics could result in more food waste and inefficient processes ( Naik and Suresh, 2018 ; Kumar et al. , 2020 ). This is a major issue in FSSCM, as it is expected that 90% of the global population will live in developing countries by 2050 ( PRB, 2020 ). Sustainability is therefore vital in the food global supply chains of these countries, which are characterized by strong interdependencies along the north-south axis.

Most scholars investigating the sustainability of the food supply chain directly collect their data using tools such as surveys, experiments, interviews, and focus groups. The case study is the most common method for these explorations, as indicated in previous research ( Ashby et al. , 2012 ; Massaroni et al. , 2015 ). This emphasis on case studies indicates the novel and fast-changing nature of the field, and that more in-depth investigations are required to identify its boundaries and foundations. However, modelling-based studies are increasing in number (e.g. Chen et al. , 2018 ) as they address the need for a more integrated understanding of sustainable supply chains ( Brandenburg et al. , 2014 ). In addition, the lack of specific theoretical frameworks in two-thirds of the studies indicates that the research field is still emerging, and thus extensive opportunities for research that bridges the gap between theory and practice are presented.

5. Implications and research directions

This systematic literature review offers several implications for practitioners, and insights for further research in the field of FSSCM.

Food supply chains make a significant contribution to the global economy and sustainable development, as they involve suppliers and other stakeholders from various industries working together so food can reach the final consumer ( Joshi et al. , 2020 ; Kamble et al. , 2020 ; Thomé et al. , 2020 ). Kamble et al. (2020) suggest that better economic performance and social wellbeing can be achieved by food suppliers, retailers and others only if critical post-harvest losses can be avoided by applying new methods linked with supply chain visibility and sustainable resources. Thus, the focus should be on the upstream of the supply chain, particularly in many under-developed and developing nations where agriculture is still the essential basis of the economy ( Taghikhah et al. , 2020 ). Some studies were identified as being conducted in developing geographic areas, but more should be encouraged due to the greater potential FSSCM can bring.

The specific directions identified include those of Kumar Sharma et al. (2019) , who stated that the circular economy and sustainability are complex and must be managed by decision makers and practitioners in both developed and developing nations. They proposed a model that can inform the implementation of circular economy-driven sustainability FSC activities in emerging and under-developed economies, particularly in India.

Asian et al. (2019) examined how the increasing costs of logistics, lower yields, and strategic barriers have a negative impact on the level of competitiveness of farmers in developing countries. The authors proposed an algorithm to help key decision makers address the challenges of the FSC and sustainable development. Further studies can also develop theories and practical tools based on specific features, as these geographic areas can support the food industry through new sustainable strategies and tactics.

Such strategies and tactics are high on the agendas of many types of companies, but the business models of start-ups differ from those of other organizations and thus affect their creation and implementation. Larger companies may be able to better sustain the impact of the evolving trends of FSSCM, but they may also be less flexible than start-ups in finding opportunities and innovating ( Suchek et al. , 2021 ).

As suggested in previous sections, researchers must also focus on assessing the reliability and trustworthiness of FSSCM theories, as we found that many papers focussed on theory building. However, these theories generally address specific facets and thus the results cannot be easily generalized. Our study enriches the research by reviewing the most common theoretical approaches (e.g. the stakeholder approach, triple bottom line, the life cycle approach), and others that are less used (i.e. RBV and KBV, institutional theory, resource dependency theory, decision theory-based framework, etc.). This requires further exploration as a need to build a more solid conceptual framework for FSSCM research has also emerged.

In terms of FSSCM measurement and control, our analysis reveals an increase in the development of standardized constructs, which can be used to monitor and control how companies involved in the FSC achieve a successful level of sustainable development ( Folkerts and Koehorst, 1998 ; Yakovleva et al. , 2012 ; Sharma et al. , 2017 ). This is required as most aspects of FSSCM are associated with government regulation, incentive policies, stakeholders' approval of pioneering “green” products/services and the associated cultural and social consequences, and entrepreneurs' inclinations to follow ground-breaking sustainable principles. These trends are often related to the market, and involve accessibility, the costs of raw materials, and new technology, which require specific knowledge and thus may incur huge costs that many companies cannot afford.

In terms of the EOA, we suggest that future empirical research should focus on intra-functional and intra-firm exploration at corporate and network levels, or on dyads that reveal the relationships between pairs of organizations (i.e. farms, manufacturers, distributors, etc.). Similarly, Siddh et al. (2017) also emphasized that empirical research should focus on exploring intra-firm and intra-functional relations, as integration between companies should be encouraged before sustainability at different levels of the FSC is achieved. Finally, the role of end consumers in the FSSCM is still largely unexplored but important, as they can prompt organizations, dyads and networks to adopt more efficient and effective methods of introducing sustainable innovations and identifying new niche opportunities in this area.

6. Conclusion

In this paper we provide a literature review of papers focussed on the various facets of the FSSCM. We identify relevant papers published over the past 23 years (1997 to early 2021), with the aim of informing academics and practitioners about the research landscape, gaps, and current and future trends in the FSSCM. The literature review considers 176 influential peer-reviewed articles using accurate selection procedures and content investigation.

The majority of the selected papers were published in the last eight years (2014–2021), probably due to the increased awareness of environmental problems and of the need to reduce hunger globally (Zero Hunger is Goal Two of the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda), the increased food risks, an awareness of the benefits of decreasing food wastage, health management and of the well-being of people in all geographical areas (Goal Three: Good Health and Well-being).

FSSCM research is undoubtedly increasing, but few studies succeed in combining the various sustainability constructs with the main elements of the FSCM, particularly in the context of developing/under-developed countries. Thus, there are opportunities to increase our understanding of the integrative factors, particularly in less-developed regions of the world.

Our research has various limitations, like most studies. First, we used the specific keywords “supply”, “food”, and “sustainabl*” to select the articles from the Scopus database. While this identified nearly 2000 articles, using different keywords may have a different outcome. Additionally, only one database was used, so researchers can explore others such as Web of Science and compare their findings to ours, and although many analyses were identified, other methods of bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review may offer different insights into the specific context. Thus, we suggest that researchers apply different bibliometric methods when addressing this research domain.

Steps of the systematic literature review

Main sustainability issues in the field of FSSCM

Trends in FSSCM research

Leading journals in FSSCM research

Applied tools/research methods in the field of FSSCM

Ahi , P. and Searcy , C. ( 2013 ), “ A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable supply chain management ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  52 , pp.  329 - 341 .

Allaoui , H. , Guo , Y. , Choudhary , A. and Bloemhof , J. ( 2018 ), “ Sustainable agro-food supply chain design using two-stage hybrid multi-objective decision-making approach ”, Computers and Operations Research , Vol.  89 , pp.  369 - 384 .

Ashby , A. , Leat , M. and Hudson-Smith , M. ( 2012 ), “ Making connections: a review of supply chain management and sustainability literature ”, Supply Chain Management , Vol.  17 No.  5 , pp.  497 - 516 .

Asian , S. , Hafezalkotob , A. and John , J.J. ( 2019 ), “ Sharing economy in organic food supply chains: a pathway to sustainable development ”, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol.  218 , pp.  322 - 338 .

Beer , S. and Lemmer , C. ( 2011 ), “ A critical review of ‘green’ procurement: life cycle analysis of food products within the supply chain ”, Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes , Vol.  3 No.  3 , pp.  229 - 244 .

Beske , P. , Land , A. and Seuring , S. ( 2014 ), “ Sustainable supply chain management practices and dynamic capabilities in the food industry: a critical analysis of the literature ”, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol.  152 , pp.  131 - 143 .

Bosona , T. and Gebresenbet , G. ( 2013 ), “ Food traceability as an integral part of logistics management in food and agricultural supply chain ”, Food Control , Vol.  33 No.  1 , pp.  32 - 48 .

Brandenburg , M. and Rebs , T. ( 2015 ), “ Sustainable supply chain management: a modeling perspective ”, Annals of Operations Research , Vol.  229 No.  1 , pp.  213 - 252 .

Brandenburg , M. , Govindan , K. , Sarkis , J. and Seuring , S. ( 2014 ), “ Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management: developments and directions ”, European Journal of Operational Research , Vol.  233 No.  2 , pp.  299 - 312 .

Carter , C.R. and Rogers , D.S. ( 2008 ), “ A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory ”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management , Vol.  38 No.  5 , pp.  360 - 387 .

Chen , Y. , Wang , S. , Yao , J. , Li , Y. and Yang , S. ( 2018 ), “ Socially responsible supplier selection and sustainable supply chain development: a combined approach of total interpretive structural modeling and fuzzy analytic network process ”, Business Strategy and the Environment , Vol.  27 No.  8 , pp.  1708 - 1719 .

Chkanikova , O. ( 2016 ), “ Sustainable purchasing in food retailing: inter-organizational relationship management to green product supply ”, Business Strategy and the Environment , Vol.  25 No.  7 , pp.  478 - 494 .

Corallo , A. , Latino , M.E. , Menegoli , M. and Pontrandolfo , P. ( 2020 ), “ A systematic literature review to explore traceability and lifecycle relationship ”, International Journal of Production Research , Vol.  58 No.  15 , pp.  4789 - 4807 .

Cosimato , S. and Troisi , O. ( 2015 ), “ Green supply chain management: practices and tools for logistics competitiveness and sustainability. The DHL case study ”, The TQM Journal , Vol.  27 No.  2 , pp.  256 - 276 .

Croom , S. , Cox , A. , Chicksand , D. and Yang , T. ( 2007 ), “ The proactive alignment of sourcing with marketing and branding strategies: a food service case ”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , Vol.  12 No.  5 , pp.  321 - 333 .

Czinkota , M. , Kaufmann , H.R. and Basile , G. ( 2014 ), “ The relationship between legitimacy, reputation, sustainability and branding for companies and their supply chains ”, Industrial Marketing Management , Vol.  43 No.  1 , pp.  91 - 101 .

Dania , W.A.P. , Xing , K. and Amer , Y. ( 2018 ), “ Collaboration behavioural factors for sustainable agri-food supply chains: a systematic review ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  186 , pp.  851 - 864 .

Danny , P.C. and Priscila , B.D.O.C. ( 2004 ), “ Coordinating B2B cross-border supply chains: the case of the organic coffee industry ”, The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing , Vol.  19 No.  6 , pp.  405 - 414 .

Dora , M. ( 2019 ), “ Collaboration in a circular economy: learning from the farmers to reduce food waste ”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management , Vol.  33 No.  4 , pp.  769 - 789 .

Erol , I. , Sencer , S. and Sari , R. ( 2011 ), “ A new fuzzy multi-criteria framework for measuring sustainability performance of a supply chain ”, Ecological Economics , Vol.  70 No.  6 , pp.  1088 - 1100 .

Fahimnia , B. , Sarkis , J. and Davarzani , H. ( 2015 ), “ Green supply chain management: a review and bibliometric analysis ”, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol.  162 No.  c , pp.  101 - 114 .

Feng , Y. , Zhu , Q. and Lai , K.H. ( 2017 ), “ Corporate social responsibility for supply chain management: a literature review and bibliometric analysis ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  100 No.  158 , pp.  296 - 307 .

Feng , H. , Wang , X. , Duan , Y. , Zhang , J. and Zhang , X. ( 2020 ), “ Applying blockchain technology to improve agri-food traceability: a review of development methods, benefits and challenges ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  260 , 121031 .

Folkerts , H. and Koehorst , H. ( 1998 ), “ Challenges in international food supply chains: vertical co-ordination in the European agribusiness and food industries ”, British Food Journal , Vol.  100 No.  8 , pp.  385 - 388 .

Garcia-Buendia , N. , Moyano-Fuentes , J. , Maqueira-Marín , J.M. and Cobo , M.J. ( 2021 ), “ 22 Years of lean supply chain management: a science mapping-based bibliometric analysis ”, International Journal of Production Research , Vol.  59 No.  6 , pp.  1901 - 1921 .

Ghadge , A. , Kaklamanou , M. , Choudhary , S. and Bourlakis , M. ( 2017 ), “ Implementing environmental practices within the Greek dairy supply chain drivers and barriers for SMEs ”, Industrial Management and Data Systems , Vol.  117 No.  9 , pp.  1995 - 2014 .

Glover , J.L. , Champion , D. , Daniels , K.J. and Dainty , A.J. ( 2014 ), “ An institutional theory perspective on sustainable practices across the dairy supply chain ”, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol.  152 No.  C , pp.  102 - 111 .

Govindan , K. ( 2018 ), “ Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply chain: a conceptual framework ”, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol.  195 No.  C , pp.  419 - 431 .

Hassini , E. , Surti , C. and Searcy , C. ( 2012 ), “ A literature review and a case study of sustainable supply chains with a focus on metrics ”, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol.  140 No.  1 , pp.  69 - 82 .

Henk , F. and Hans , K. ( 1997 ), “ Challenges in international food supply chains: vertical co-ordination in the European agribusiness and food industries ”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , Vol.  2 No.  1 , pp.  11 - 14 .

Ilbery , B. and Maye , D. ( 2005 ), “ Food supply chains and sustainability: evidence from specialist food producers in the Scottish/English borders ”, Land Use Policy , Vol.  22 No.  4 , pp.  331 - 344 .

Joshi , S. , Singh , R.K. and Sharma , M. ( 2020 ), “ Sustainable agri-food supply chain practices: few empirical evidences from a developing economy ”, Global Business Review , Vol.  1 No.  24 .

Juettner , U. , Windler , K. , Podleisek , A. , Gander , M. and Meldau , S. ( 2020 ), “ Implementing supplier management strategies for supply chain sustainability risks in multinational companies ”, The TQM Journal , Vol.  32 No.  5 , pp.  923 - 938 .

Kahi , V.S. , Yousefi , S. , Shabanpour , H. and Saen , R.F. ( 2017 ), “ How to evaluate sustainability of supply chains? A dynamic network DEA approach ”, Industrial Management and Data Systems , Vol.  117 , pp.  1866 - 1889 .

Kamble , S.S. , Gunasekaran , A. and Gawankar , S.A. ( 2020 ), “ Achieving sustainable performance in a data-driven agriculture supply chain: a review for research and applications ”, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol.  219 , pp.  179 - 194 .

Khan , S.A.R. , Yu , Z. , Golpîra , H. , Sharif , A. and Mardani , A. ( 2020 ), “ A state-of-the-art review and meta-analysis on sustainable supply chain management: future research directions ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 278 , 123357 .

Khan , S.A. , Mubarik , M.S. , Kusi‐Sarpong , S. , Zaman , S.I. and Kazmi , S.H.A. ( 2021 ), “ Social sustainable supply chains in the food industry: a perspective of an emerging economy ”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , Vol.  28 No.  1 , pp.  404 - 418 .

Kumar , A. , Mangla , S.K. , Kumar , P. and Karamperidis , S. ( 2020 ), “ Challenges in perishable food supply chains for sustainability management: a developing economy perspective ”, Business Strategy and the Environment , Vol.  29 No.  5 , pp.  1809 - 1831 .

Kumar Sharma , Y. , Mangla , S. , Patil , P. and Liu , S. ( 2019 ), “ When challenges impede the process: for circular economy driven sustainability practices in food supply chain ”, Management Decision , Vol.  57 No.  4 , pp.  995 - 1017 .

Kumari , S. , Raghuram , P. , Venkatesh , V.G. and Shi , Y. ( 2021 ), “ Future perspectives on progressive farming with adoption of virtual reality technology for sustainable quality in agriculture ”, The TQM Journal , Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print , doi: 10.1108/TQM-06-2021-0191 .

Maditati , D.R. , Munim , Z.H. , Schramm , H.J. and Kummer , S. ( 2018 ), “ A review of green supply chain management: from bibliometric analysis to a conceptual framework and future research directions ”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling , Vol.  139 , pp.  150 - 162 .

Mangla , S.K. , Sharma , Y.K. , Patil , P.P. , Yadav , G. and Xu , J. ( 2019 ), “ Logistics and distribution challenges to managing operations for corporate sustainability: study on leading Indian diary organizations ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  238 , 117620 .

Manning , L. ( 2013 ), “ Corporate and consumer social responsibility in the food supply chain ”, British Food Journal , Vol.  115 No.  1 , pp.  9 - 29 .

Manzini , R. , Accorsi , R. , Ayyad , Z. , Bendini , A. , Bortolini , M. , Gamberi , M. , Valli , E. and Toschi , T.G. ( 2014 ), “ Sustainability and quality in the food supply chain. A case study of shipment of edible oils ”, British Food Journal , Vol.  116 No.  12 , pp.  2069 - 2090 .

Massaroni , E. , Cozzolino , A. and Wankowicz , E. ( 2015 ), “ Sustainability in supply chain management-a literature review ”, Sinergie Italian Journal of Management , Vol.  33 , pp.  331 - 355 .

Matopoulos , A. , Barros , A.C. and van der Vorst , J.G.A.J. ( 2015 ), “ Resource-efficient supply chains: a research framework, literature review and research agenda ”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , Vol.  20 No.  2 , pp.  218 - 236 .

Morley , A. ( 2020 ), “ Procuring for change: an exploration of the innovation potential of sustainable food procurement ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  279 , 123410 .

Naik , G. and Suresh , D.N. ( 2018 ), “ Challenges of creating sustainable agri-retail supply chains ”, IIMB Management Review , Vol.  30 , pp.  270 - 282 .

Pakdeechoho , N. and Sukhotu , V. ( 2018 ), “ Sustainable supply chain collaboration: incentives in emerging economies ”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management , Vol.  29 No.  2 , pp.  273 - 294 .

Pohlmann , C.R. , Scavarda , A.J. , Alves , M.B. and Korzenowski , A.L. ( 2020 ), “ The role of the focal company in sustainable development goals: a Brazilian food poultry supply chain case study ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  245 , 118798 .

PRB ( 2020 ), “ 2020 world population data sheet. World population data sheet (population reference bureau, July 2020) ”, available at: https://www.prb.org/2020-world-population-datasheet .

Pullman , M.E. , Maloni , M.J. and Carter , C.R. ( 2009 ), “ Food for thought: social versus environmental sustainability practices and performance outcomes ”, Journal of Supply Chain Management , Vol.  45 No.  4 , pp.  38 - 54 .

Raut , R.D. , Luthra , S. , Narkhede , B.E. , Mangla , S.K. , Gardas , B.B. and Priyadarshinee , P. ( 2019 ), “ Examining the performance oriented indicators for implementing green management practices in the Indian agro sector ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  215 , pp.  926 - 943 .

Seuring , S. and Muller , M. ( 2008 ), “ From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  16 No.  15 , pp.  1699 - 1710 .

Sharma , A. , Adhikary , A. and Borah , S.B. ( 2021 ), “ Covid-19's impact on supply chain decisions: strategic insights from NASDAQ 100 firms using Twitter data ”, Journal of Business Research , Vol.  117 , pp.  443 - 449 .

Sharma , R. , Kamble , S.S. , Gunasekaran , A. , Kumar , V. and Kumar , A. ( 2020 ), “ A systematic literature review on machine learning applications for sustainable agriculture supply chain performance ”, Computers and Operations Research , Vol.  119 , 104926 .

Sharma , V.K. , Chandna , P. and Bhardwaj , A. ( 2017 ), “ Green supply chain management related performance indicators in agro industry: a review ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  141 , pp.  1194 - 1208 .

Siddh , M.M. , Soni , G. , Jain , R. and Sharma , M.K. ( 2018 ), “ Structural model of perishable food supply chain quality (PFSCQ) to improve sustainable organizational performance ”, Benchmarking: An International Journal , Vol.  25 No.  7 , pp.  2272 - 2317 .

Siddh , M.M. , Soni , G. , Jain , R. , Sharma , M.K. and Yadav , V. ( 2017 ), “ Agri-fresh food supply chain quality (AFSCQ): a literature review ”, Industrial Management and Data Systems , Vol.  117 No.  9 , pp.  2015 - 2044 .

Solér , C. , Bergström , K. and Shanahan , H. ( 2010 ), “ Green supply chains and the missing link between environmental information and practice ”, Business Strategy and the Environment , Vol.  19 No.  1 , pp.  14 - 25 .

Soni , G. and Kodali , R. ( 2011 ), “ A critical analysis of supply chain management content in empirical research ”, Business Process Management Journal , Vol.  17 No.  2 , pp.  238 - 266 .

Suchek , N. , Fernandes , C.I. , Kraus , S. , Filser , M. and Sjögrén , H. ( 2021 ), “ Innovation and the circular economy: a systematic literature review ”, Business Strategy and the Environment , Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print , pp. 1 - 17 , doi: 10.1002/bse.2834 .

Taghikhah , F. , Voinov , A. , Shukla , N. , Filatova , T. and Anufriev , M. ( 2020 ), “ Integrated modeling of extended agro-food supply chains: a systems approach ”, European Journal of Operational Research , Vol.  288 No.  3 , pp.  852 - 868 .

Thomé , K.M. , Cappellesso , G. , Ramos , E.L.A. and de Lima Duarte , S.C. ( 2020 ), “ Food supply chains and short food supply chains: coexistence conceptual framework ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 278 , 123207 .

Ting , S.L. , Tse , Y.K. , Ho , G.T.S. , Chung , S.H. and Pang , G. ( 2014 ), “ Mining logistics data to assure the quality in a sustainable food supply chain: a case in the red wine industry ”, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol.  152 , pp.  200 - 209 .

Touboulic , A. and Walker , H. ( 2015 ), “ Love me, love me not: a nuanced view on collaboration in sustainable supply chains ”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management , Vol.  21 No.  3 , pp.  178 - 191 .

Vodenicharova , M.S. ( 2020 ), “ Supply chain study in food industry in Bulgaria ”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management , Vol.  48 No.  9 , pp.  921 - 938 .

Wilhelm , M. , Blome , C. , Wieck , E. and Xiao , C.Y. ( 2016 ), “ Implementing sustainability in multi-tier supply chains: strategies and contingencies in managing sub-suppliers ”, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol.  182 , pp.  196 - 212 .

Winter , M. and Knemeyer , A.M. ( 2013 ), “ Exploring the integration of sustainability and supply chain management: current state and opportunities for future inquiry ”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management , Vol.  43 No.  1 , pp.  18 - 38 .

Xu , S. , Zhang , X. , Feng , L. and Yang , W. ( 2020 ), “ Disruption risks in supply chain management: a literature review based on bibliometric analysis ”, International Journal of Production Research , Vol.  58 No.  11 , pp.  3508 - 3526 .

Yakavenka , V. , Mallidis , I. , Vlachos , D. , Iakovou , E. and Eleni , Z. ( 2020 ), “ Development of a multi-objective model for the design of sustainable supply chains: the case of perishable food products ”, Annals of Operations Research , Vol.  294 No.  1 , pp.  593 - 621 .

Yakovleva , N. , Sarkis , J. and Sloan , T. ( 2012 ), “ Sustainable benchmarking of supply chains: the case of the food industry ”, International Journal of Production Research , Vol.  50 No.  5 , pp.  1297 - 1317 .

Zhong , R. , Xu , X. and Wang , L. ( 2017 ), “ Food supply chain management: systems, implementations, and future research ”, Industrial Management and Data Systems , Vol.  117 No.  9 , pp.  2085 - 2114 .

Zhu , Z. , Chu , F. , Dolgui , A. , Chu , C. , Zhou , W. and Piramuthu , S. ( 2018 ), “ Recent advances and opportunities in sustainable food supply chain: a model-oriented review ”, International Journal of Production Research , Vol.  56 No.  17 , pp.  5700 - 5722 .

Acknowledgements

Although the views and ideas expressed in this article are those of Maria Palazzo and Agostino Vollero; “sections 1; 3; 3.1; 3.2; 3.6; 3.8; 4” are attributed to Maria Palazzo; while “sections 2; 3.3; 3.4; 3.5; 3.7; 3.9; 5; 6” are attributed to Agostino Vollero.

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Supply Chain Management Research Paper

View sample Supply Chain Management Research Paper. Browse other  research paper examples and check the list of research paper topics for more inspiration. If you need a religion research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our custom writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

1. Introduction

Supply chain management is one of the most essential aspects of conducting business. Many people outside of the direct community (in research and industry) do not realize this because an ordinary consumer often experiences only its effects. Recall the times when the item that you wanted was not available in your favorite garments or grocery store, recall how many times you got a great ‘deal’ at the end of the season, recall the sudden increases in gas prices due to shortages, recall the times when your e-commerce site promised availability but later could not send the required product or sent you the wrong product, or recall the times when your customized product (like a personal computer or kitchen cabinet) was delayed to a great extent. All the above and several other experiences that consumers have on a routine basis are direct consequences of supply chain practices followed by firms. As opposed to business-to-consumer transactions, supply chain practices have immediate impact on business-to-business transactions. A few years back Toyota had to shut down its manufacturing facility in Japan due to supply shortages for its brake pedals, Boeing took a charge for several million dollars in the late 1990s due to insufficient capacity and part shortage resulting from an inability of the supply base to ramp up production, while firms such as Dell Computers, WalMart, and 7-Eleven Japan have consistently outperformed competition due to their great strengths in supply chain management.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code, 2. definition.

Supply chain management is such a vast topic that as a result people often give it a different definition based on their own personal experience. To some, supply chain management is all about managing the supplier base, determining what to outsource and to whom, and managing relationships with the various suppliers. To some others it is efficient ways of transferring goods from one place to another taking into account the distribution and transportation costs. To another set of people it is all about how the different firms in the distribution channel or value chain are integrated in terms of information systems and inventory management practices. To yet another group it is effective management of fixed and variable assets required for running the business. In a sense all these definitions are like the blind men defining the elephant based on its different organs. A comprehensive definition of supply chain management can be given as follows.

A supply chain is the set of entities that are involved in the design of new products and services, procuring raw materials, transforming them into semifinished and finished products and delivering them to the end customer. Supply chain management is efficient management of the end-to-end process starting from the design of the product or service to the time when it has been sold, consumed, and finally disposed of by the consumer. This complete process includes product design, procurement, planning and forecasting, production, distribution, fulfillment, and after-sales support (see Fig. 1).

Supply chain management issues can be classified into two broad categories—configuration and coordination. Configuration-level issues relate to the basic infrastructure on which the supply chain executes and coordination-level issues relate to the actual execution of the supply chain.

2.1 Configuration-Level Issues

2.1.1 Supply Base Decisions. How many and what kinds of suppliers to have? Which parts to outsource and which to keep in house? How to standardize and streamline procurement practices? Should one use vertical marketplaces for auctions or should one invest in developing highly integrated supply partnerships? How long or short contracts with suppliers should be?

2.1.2 Plant Location Decisions. Where and how many manufacturing, distribution, or retail outlets to have in a global production distribution network? How much capacity should be installed at each of these sites? What kind of distribution channel should a firm utilize—traditional brick and mortar, direct to consumer via Internet or phone, or a combination?

2.1.3 Product Portfolio Decisions. What kinds of products and services are going to be supported through the supply chain? How much variety to provide to customers? What degree of commonality to have across the product portfolio?

2.1.4 Information Support Decisions. Should enterprise resource planning software be standardized across functional units of a firm? Should the supply chain work on standard protocols such as XML (extended markup language) or on proprietary standards?

2.2 Coordination-Level Issues

2.2.1 Material flow Decisions. How much inventory of different types of products should be stored? Should inventory be carried in finished form or semifinished form? How often should inventory be replenished? Should a firm make all of its inventory decisions or is it better to have the vendor manage the inventory? Should suppliers be required to deliver goods just in time?

2.2.2 Information flow Decisions. In what form is information shared between different entities in the supply chain—paper, voice via telephone, EDI (electronic data interchange), XML? To what degree does collaborative forecasting take place in the supply chain? What kind of visibility is provided to other entities in the supply chain during execution? How much collaboration takes place during new product or service development among the supply chain partners?

2.2.3 Cash flow Decisions. When do suppliers get paid for their deliveries? What kinds of cost reduction efforts are taken across the supply chain (or expected of suppliers)? In a global firm, in which currency will a supplier be paid?

2.2.4 Capacity decisions. How to optimally utilize the existing capacity in terms of manpower and machines? How to schedule on a manufacturing line to complete jobs on time? How much buffer capacity to have for abnormal situations with excess demand?

As is evident, configuration and coordination issues are interdependent. Configuration issues can be viewed as strategic long-term decisions whereas coordination issues are medium-to-short term decisions. Generally, firms develop a strategy for the configuration-level decisions and then constrain the coordination decisions based on those.

3. Complexities Associated With Supply Chains

As evident from discussions in the earlier section, supply chain management spans several functional and geographical areas. This introduces complexities both in terms of design and execution of supply chains. Some of the pertinent factors that complicate supply chain management decisions are as follows.

3.1 Multiple Agents

Supply chain issues need to be decided by different entities sometimes having different interests. For example, a retailer may want that the distributor provide very high availability for the products but at the same time not charge anything additional from the retailer. The distributor may sometimes agree to that but in turn may want information about actual customer sales which the retailer may not want to share. Even when decisions have to be made within the same firm there could be incentive issues. For example, the marketing or sales department, typically a revenue center, presents the future demand forecast to the manufacturing department that is a cost center. Clearly, there is incentive for the former to over-forecast and the latter to under-produce (as compared to the forecast). This creates several difficulties while deciding on the amount of inventory to be stocked. Another related issue is encountered where the marketing department may push for huge amount of variety in the product/service offerings; the manufacturing department may not want to embrace that because additional complexities are created during execution.

3.2 Uncertainty

Accurately matching supply and demand is the ultimate goal of effective supply chain management but that is complicated by uncertainty at various levels of the process. There is uncertainty in product and technology development, in predicting customer demand, in day-to-day operations and manufacturing, and supply. Typically, uncertainty creates more inefficiency in the system. For example, if the final demand for a sweater at a store cannot be predicted accurately then the firm either stocks too little (in which case it suffers from stock-outs) or produces too much (in which case it has to salvage the inventory through a huge sale at the end of the season). Similarly, the uncertainty in supply may necessitate additional buffer inventory.

3.3 Information Asymmetry

Since supply chain processes extend across multiple functional units within a firm and often across different firms there is a high degree of asymmetry in terms of information. This is caused primarily by two main reasons—one relates to lack of adoption of information technology and the other relates to reluctance to share information with other supply chain partners. The lack of information causes several problems during actual fulfillment. For example, when a consumer goes to an e-commerce site and buys an item off the electronic catalog, the consumer expects to receive the product on time. The consumer is not aware that the inventory status on the product may be updated only once a week and that the information on the site may be outdated. As a result, the consumer is disappointed when the product does not arrive on time.

3.4 Lead Time

Each and every task in the supply chain process needs time to be completed and the resources (labor, machines, or computers) have limited processing capacity. As a result, not all tasks can be completed after the actual demand is known and some of the tasks need to be done up front (which may or may not get utilized based on the actual demand realized). Further, the limited capacity associated with the resources creates variability in the actual realized lead-time, which in turn necessitates greater resource requirements at the next stage in the supply chain. The above complexities lead to several types of inefficiencies in the supply chain that are often perceived as the ‘bad effects’ of inefficient supply chain management. Some of the major inefficiencies can be classified into the following categories.

4. Inefficiencies Of Supply Chain Management

4.1 poor utilization of inventory assets.

One common effect of poor supply chain management is having excess inventory at various stages in the supply chain, at the same time having shortages at other parts of the supply chain. Since inventory forms a substantial part of working assets of a firm, poor management could lead to huge inefficiencies. Lee and Billington (1992) provide an excellent overview of pitfalls and opportunities associated with inventory management in supply chains.

4.2 Distortion Of Information

Another effect relates to lack of visibility of demand and supply information across the supply chain which causes the bullwhip effect. This effect describes how a small blip in customer demands may get amplified down the supply chain because the different entities in the supply chain generate and revise their individual forecasts and do not collaborate and share actual demand information. Lee et al. (1997) describe the causes and controls for this effect.

4.3 Stock-Outs

Poor supply chain management also results in late deliveries and large stock-outs. Fundamentally, these effects are caused due to an inability of the firm to predict the requirement for raw material and equipment capacity together with the uncertainty associated with obtaining deliveries of products on time from its suppliers. Fisher et al. (1994) describe how accurate forecasts in the apparel industry could potentially reduce this inefficiency.

4.4 Customization Challenges

As the degree of customization has increased in the marketplace, one of the immediate effects of poor supply chain management relates to late deliveries of customized products. Firms are developing several strategies in order to provide variety while keeping costs under control. These include delaying differentiation of the product and introducing more commonality and modularity in product lines (see Swaminathan and Tayur 1998).

5. Supply Chain Models: Past, Present, And Future

The science related to supply chain management traces its history back to the early 1950s when several researchers were interested in understanding the optimal policies related to inventory management. One of the first pieces of work in this stream relates to the models developed by Clark and Scarf (1958) for managing inventories at multiple echelons. Several hundreds of researchers have studied related inventory problems under stochastic and deterministic environments since the 1950s.

This research is captured concisely in the research handbook edited by Graves et al. (1993). There is a large amount of literature in the area of transportation and distribution as well as plant location models in the context of supply chain management. Traditional researchers focussed on developing optimal policies and rules for specific supply chain issues assuming a centralized control of the supply chain. In the 1990s researchers have started to study problems which take a decentralized multi-agent approach to analyzing supply chain problems, integrate information availability across the supply chain with logistics decisions, develop new models for supply contracts, and demand forecasting and integrate product design with supply chain management. A collection of prominent pieces of research in this area is contained in Tayur et al. (1999). In addition to academic research, several firms in the 1990s have developed successfully and employed large analytical and simulation models for supply chain optimization and execution. Arntzen et al. (1995) describe one such system developed for Digital Equipment and recently, IBM was awarded the Franz Edelman Award by INFORMS (The Institute for Operations Research and Management Sciences) for a supply chain optimization project which led to $750 million in inventory savings.

In the twenty-first century, firms face severe challenges in terms of global competition and customer requirement for greater variety, shorter and reliable delivery times, and lower prices. The advent of ecommerce has created immense opportunities but at the same time has made firms more vulnerable to logistics pitfalls. Today customers do not just buy products but they buy delivered products. As a result fulfillment is as important as making the sale. As opposed to traditional channels where inventory could be stored to hide other inefficiencies in terms of lead time and poor forecasts, in the fast-paced electronic business environment such arrangements are not as useful. As a result, firms are beginning to pay more attention towards supply chain management. Both business-to-consumer and business-to-business ecommerce environments have introduced several issues related to supply chain management which are likely to be studied by researchers in the near future.

The prevalence of the Internet has led to the development of vertical market places that promise to reduce the inefficiencies in the buying process in several industries. On one hand, these market places are likely to reduce the cost of goods for the manufacturer due to more competition leading to better prices. This line of thought indicates that in future supply chains may be more agile and supplier relationships may be short-term oriented. On the other hand, several firms realize that greater benefits can be attained if some of these market places can in fact be used for process integration and collaboration across the supply chain. In such an environment, firms need to develop greater trust so that they would be willing to share information with their supply chain partners. Researchers today are trying to identify under what conditions one or the other scenario may play out and what kinds of new models and analysis need to be developed. A related effect of the Internet is the expansion of global supply chains. Today it is much easier for any supplier located in a remote part of the world to bid on contracts from large firms in developed nations with whom they may not have done business in the past. Issues related to coordination of global supply chain management are likely to be an integral part of supply chain management research in the future. Another important research topic is the reverse logistics issues related to supply chain management. Traditionally, researchers have only concerned themselves with efficient movement of goods from supplier to the customer. Now a greater number of researchers are studying problems related to disposal of used products, refurbishing old products, making packaging more environmentally friendly, and basing supplier selection on environmental criteria in addition to traditional criteria related to cost, quality, and reliability. Another new stream of research is the study of supply chains in the service industry. As opposed to traditional manufacturing-oriented supply chains, service supply chains are more complicated due to the inability to store inventory. Uncertainty is handled in those cases using additional buffer capacity. Finally, researchers are beginning to focus more on the integration of product design and supply chains and developing models to understand the concepts related to design for supply chain management.

Bibliography:

• Arntzen B C, Brown G G, Harrison T P, Trafton L L 1995 Global supply chain management at Digital Equipment Corporation. Interfaces 25(1): 69–93
• Clark A J, Scarf H 1958 Optimal policies for a multi-echelon inventory problem. Management Science 6: 475–90
• Graves S C, Rinnooy Kan A H G, Zipkin P H 1993 Logistics of Production and Inventory, Handbook in OR and MS. North Holland, Amsterdam, Vol. IV
• Fisher M L, Hammond J H, Obermeyer W R, Raman A 1994 Making supply meet in an uncertain world. Harvard Business Review 72(3): 83–9
• Lee H L, Billington C 1992 Managing supply chain inventory: Pitfalls and opportunities. Sloan Management Review 33(3): 65–73
• Lee H L, Padmanabhan V, Whang J 1997 Information distortion in a supply chain: The bullwhip eff Management Science 43(4): 546–8
• Swaminathan J M, Tayur S 1998 Managing broader product lines through delayed differentiation using vanilla boxes. Management Science 44(12): S161–72
• Tayur S, Ganeshan R, Magazine M J 1998 Quantitative Models for Supply Chain Management. Kluwer, MA

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Advertisement

Towards Supply Chain 5.0: Redesigning Supply Chains as Resilient, Sustainable, and Human-Centric Systems in a Post-pandemic World

• Open access
• Published: 29 July 2023
• Volume 4 , article number  60 , ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Alice Villar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8250-1340 1 ,
• Stefania Paladini   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1526-3589 2 &
• Oliver Buckley   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1502-5721 3  

5558 Accesses

6 Citations

Explore all metrics

The purpose was to investigate the impact of the Industry 5.0 paradigm on the supply chain research field. Our study contributes to the conceptualization of supply chain 5.0, a term that has been receiving increased attention as supply chains adapt to the fifth industrial revolution. We conducted a systematic literature network analysis (SLNA) to examine the research landscape of Industry 5.0 supply chains. We used VOSViewer software and Bibliometrix R-package for multiple bibliometric analyses using 682 documents published between 2016 and 2022. We present a comprehensive framework of supply chain 5.0, including its key concepts, technologies, and trends. Additionally, this research offers a future research agenda to inspire and support further development in this field. We utilized three academic databases for bibliometric analyses: Dimension, Scopus and Lens. Additional databases could provide a wider research landscape and better field representation. We demonstrate how Industry 5.0 enables supply chain evaluation and optimization to assist companies in navigating disruptions without compromising competitiveness and profitability and provide a unique contribution to the field of supply chain 5.0 by exploring promising research areas and guiding the transition to this new paradigm for practitioners and scholars.

Similar content being viewed by others

Supply Chain Strategies and Methodologies—A Bibliometric Review

Mapping research on healthcare operations and supply chain management: a topic modelling-based literature review

Imran Ali & Devika Kannan

Industry 4.0 Driven Quantitative Methods for Circular Supply Chains: A Bibliometric Analysis

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

The COVID-19 outbreak has led to an unprecedented disruption of commerce in most industry sectors, which created challenges in health and safety, supply chains, workforce, cash flow, consumer behavior, sales, and marketing [ 1 ]. Supply chain disruptions (SCDs) worldwide shed light on the fragility and vulnerability of supply chains in different aspects, including finance, lead time, demand changes, and production performance [ 2 ]. Amid unprecedented stress on global supply chains, the severity of the business disruption challenged the previous understanding of what constitutes a sustainable-resilient supply chain, encouraging research on SCD management strategies related to supply chain performance. As Moosavi et al. [ 2 ] revealed, resilience and sustainability have become primary research topics in the supply chain context.

This paper builds upon insights from Akundi et al. [ 3 ] in the bibliometric research paper “State of Industry 5.0—Analysis and Identification of Current Research Trends.” The authors conducted a topic analysis to understand the major themes in the published literature on the fifth industrial revolution, also known as Industry 5.0. They verified that the terms artificial intelligence (AI), big data, supply chain (SC), digital transformation, machine learning (ML), and Internet of Things (IoT) are the most often used and among several Industry 5.0 drivers identified by researchers. The term with the third highest count was “Supply Chain,” which suggests that Industry 5.0 will influence supply chains to an unprecedented level [ 3 ]. Drawing on the work of Akundi et al. the aim of our research is to investigate the impact of Industry 5.0 on modeling future supply chains.

To accomplish this goal, we performed a systematic literature network analysis (SLNA), which combines a bibliographic analysis with a systematic literature review (SLR). Through this mixed approach, which incorporates both qualitative and quantitative methods, we verified that, although the topic of supply chains in the context of Industry 5.0 is being widely explored, the term supply chain 5.0 is rarely used. We investigate the connectivity between Industry 5.0, Society 5.0, and supply chains to explore Industry 5.0 supply chains, herein referred to as supply chain 5.0.

For the bibliometric analysis, following PRISMA framework, we used 682 peer-reviewed documents (published from 2016 to 2022) from Lens, Scopus, and Dimensions databases. We applied Bibliometrix and VOSviewer software tools to visualize bibliometric network mappings and analyze the research landscape of supply chain 5.0. For our systematic literature review (SLR), we primarily used the 41 most globally cited documents (Table  4 ) and proposed a novel conceptual framework for supply chains 5.0. Our framework articulates the constructs of Industry 5.0 (human centricity, resilience, and sustainability) as they apply to future supply chains.

As a guiding framework for our study, we answer the following research questions (RQs):

RQ1–what does the fifth industrial revolution mean in the context of supply chains?

RQ2–what are the major topics and associated literature of supply chain 5.0?

RQ3–what would a supply chain 5.0 conceptual framework look like?

RQ4–what is the future research agenda related to supply chain 5.0?

Our paper is divided into six sections. Section 1 introduces and contextualizes the theme, presenting our motivation and the research gap the paper aims to fill. Section 2 details our methodology, which includes a combination of qualitative analysis and a bibliometric study. Section 3 presents the first part of our bibliometric research, focusing on the literature landscape and knowledge structure of supply chain 5.0. We use the Bibliometrix R-package to analyze annual production, locally and globally cited sources, wordclouds, word frequency over time, trend topics, and thematic evolution. Section 4 is the second part of our bibliometric research. Using the VOSviewer tool, we constructed keywords co-occurrence networks (KCNs) for supply chain 5.0 and its three major pillars: resilience, sustainability, and human centricity. Section 5 completes our systematic literature review, providing a theoretical background, analyzing the journey from supply chain 4.0 to supply chain 5.0, and creating a conceptual framework of supply chain 5.0. Section 6 presents a conceptual framework of supply chain 5.0. Section 7 is the discussion about bringing Maslow’s Hierarchy to Life in the supply chain context, which highlights the importance of human centricity in achieving sustainable supply chains. Section 8 offers a future research agenda to support further development in the field. Finally, Sect. 9  is the conclusion, summarizing the theoretical and practical implications of our findings.

2 Methodologies—Systematic Literature Network Analysis (SLNA)

The present research employs systematic literature network analysis (SLNA), a literature review method that combines qualitative and quantitative methods to provide a comprehensive understanding of a particular topic.

Conventional literature reviews usually rely on subjective content analysis, omitting the dynamic evolution of the research topic over time. On the other hand, the SLNA relies on objective tools (e.g, Bibliometrix and VOSviewer) and algorithms (e.g, citation network and keywords’ network) in assessing the bibliometric data generated from academic databases (e.g, Scopus, Lens, and Dimensions). Thus, SLNA provides the reader with a dynamic depiction of the research topic over a certain period, uncovering how academics have addressed a topic from its initial appearance [ 4 , 5 ]. This allows for a more in-depth understanding of the field, identifying trending topics as well as areas of research that are under-explored. SLNA is a powerful research methodology that can help to improve the quality and rigor of research in a particular field.

Through this mixed approach, we examine the research landscape of supply chain 5.0 through a bibliometric analysis of 682 documents published from 2016 to 2022. Using SLNA, were able to develop an SLR on the supply chain 5.0 research landscape, including a dynamic depiction of the research topic’s progress over time, as well as identifying the key issues and main paths that have shaped its growth.

For the bibliometric research, we employed VOSviewer software and Bibliometrix R-package to construct and visualize networks using publications taken from three databases: Dimensions, Scopus, and Lens. For the systematic literature review, we applied PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses), an evidence-based minimum set of items aimed at ensuring a transparent, accurate, replicable, and scientifically adequate systematic review [ 6 ].

Figure  1 illustrates the two stages of our systematic literature network analysis (SLNA), which ultimately culminate in the development of the conceptual framework (presented in Sect. 6 ) and the future research agenda for supply chain 5.0 (presented in Sect. 8 ).

Systematic literature network analysis (SLNA)

2.1 First Phase of SLNA Methodology: Bibliometric Research

Our bibliometric research methodology follows three phases:

Phase 1 (Table  1 )—assessment criteria

Phase 2 (Table  2 )—search strategy methodology

Phase 3 (Table  3 )—data gathering and preprocessing

The first phase is the assessment, presenting the criteria for inclusion. The second phase contains the search strategy methodology, in which we constructed four separate queries to search through the titles and abstracts in our scholarly databases. Search 1 aimed to find papers that refer to supply chain 5.0 directly or through joined concepts that together also refer to supply chain 5.0. The other three searches further subdivided the results based on the inclusion of the three specific pillars of Industry 5.0 (resilience, sustainability, and human centricity). The third phase is the data gathering and preprocessing, in which we executed our search strategy methodology from phase 2 to extract articles from three scholarly databases on November 3, 2021. A total of 1103 papers were identified. Table  3 shows the number of articles retrieved from each database in each separate search. Using Bibliometrix, we identified and removed 421 duplicate papers, leaving 682 unique documents for the bibliometric analysis.

2.2 Second Phase of SLNA Methodology: SLR

For our systematic literature review (SLR), we used the PRISMA methodology (Fig.  2 ). PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) consists of four major phases to critically investigate the subject matter: 1) identification, 2) screening, 3) eligibility, and 4) inclusion.

PRISMA flow diagram summarizing the SLR and its results

In the first stage, known as “identification,” we conducted a thorough search of three databases: Dimensions, Lens, and Scopus. From these databases, we collected a total of 1076 documents. As shown in our PRISMA diagram, the breakdown of documents collected from each individual database is as follows: Dimensions—351 documents, Lens—478 documents, and Scopus—247 documents. By utilizing multiple databases, we ensured a comprehensive search and increased the likelihood of finding all relevant studies.

The second stage of the PRISMA methodology is known as “screening.” During this stage, we reviewed the documents collected in the previous stage to determine which studies were relevant to our analysis. This process involved evaluating each study based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The goal was to identify studies that were both relevant for the final analysis and of high quality, ensuring the rigor and credibility of the systematic review. By systematically reviewing and selecting relevant articles, the screening process helps to minimize bias and increase the overall validity of the study’s findings.

In our screening phase, our full database of 682 documents was found to be eligible for inclusion. The reason for the high number of acceptable documents is that, during the search phase, we utilized appropriate Boolean logic in the queries to narrow the result field. The use of proper Boolean logic for database searching is crucial for a successful search, as it allows for more accurate and efficient retrieval of relevant research. The documents were also filtered by year, ensuring relevance to the study.

The third phase of the PRISMA methodology is called “eligibility criteria.” During this phase, we analyzed the documents that passed the previous “screening” stage to determine which studies were eligible for inclusion in the final analysis. In this phase, we identified no document as impertinent or unavailable, which means all articles passed this phase and were considered relevant to the systematic review.

In the fourth stage, known as the “inclusion” stage, we ended up with a total of 41 papers. To reach this result, we utilized a document co-citation analysis technique known as global citation analysis (GCA) to generate a ranked list of documents based on the number of citations received by each document globally. From this list, we first selected all papers that had received at least one citation, resulting in a total of 225 documents. We further narrowed this list by only including papers that had received at least 15 citations, resulting in a total of 41 documents for our SLR.

It is imperative to clarify that we chose a threshold of 15 citations to narrow down the list of highly cited documents while still encompassing a significant body of relevant literature. Initially, we experimented with a lower threshold of 10 citations, but this led to a substantially larger list of papers, making it challenging to maintain coherence and focus within the review. Opting for a threshold of 15 citations struck a reasonable balance and ensured a robust selection of influential works.

Furthermore, it is important to highlight that the final selection of 41 documents did not solely form the basis of our research findings. To augment the literature review, we conducted additional qualitative research, resulting in the inclusion of approximately 120 peer-reviewed documents. This involved a comprehensive approach, leveraging our complete database of 682 documents and conducting targeted searches on Google Scholar using search queries similar to those presented in Table  2 . This meticulous approach enabled us to capture a broader range of perspectives and incorporate a diverse set of scholarly contributions.

By combining quantitative and qualitative approaches, we utilized the insights from the 41 most cited articles while incorporating a broader range of relevant studies. This integrated approach significantly enhanced the robustness and richness of our findings, contributing to a more thorough analysis of the subject matter.

3 Bibliometric Research Part 1: Overview of the Literature Landscape and Knowledge Structure of Supply Chain 5.0

In Sect. 3 , we present a total of seven bibliometric graphs and maps generated from the full database of 682 documents using the Bibliometrix R-package.

3.1 Annual Evolution of Scientific Production and Main Information About Data

Figure  3 presents the annual evolution of scientific production in the field of supply chain 5.0. The graph is based on a sample of 678 documents from our full database, which contains 682 documents. The sample was selected by applying a time span of 2016–2022, so the graph does not include four documents published in 2023. This is to ensure that the output of 2023 is not misrepresented.

Annual evolution of scientific production (documents published in 2023 omitted due to lack of significant sample)

As shown in Fig.  3 , the year 2016 marks the beginning of publications in the field of supply chain 5.0. Since then, there has been a steady increase in the number of publications in the field, but this growth became particularly intense following the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020. The sudden and widespread disruption caused by the pandemic highlighted the need for increased visibility, resilience, and digitization within supply chain management. This led to an increase in the number of publications, as more and more researchers and professionals focused on making supply chains more resilient, collaborative, and networked [ 7 ].

Our bibliometric analysis yielded some valuable insights. The average age of documents in our study was 1.19 years, with an average of 4.049 citations per document. Additionally, we observed an annual growth rate of scientific production of 87.77% from 2016 to 2022, indicating a growing interest in the theme and suggesting that this trend is likely to continue in the near future. As an emerging field, we expect that the scientific contributions to supply chain 5.0 will continue to grow in the coming years.

3.2 Most Local Cited Sources (from Reference List)

To find the most local cited sources (from Reference List), Bibliometrix counts the citations that a document has received within other documents included in our collection. Our database collection of 682 documents contained 268 sources (e.g, journals, books, conference proceedings, and others ) . In order to identify the leading outlets in advancing supply chain 5.0 research, we employed a parameter of sources with at least 100 citations. This resulted in a ranking of the 14 most locally cited sources, as shown in Fig.  4 .

Most locally cited sources (from reference lists)

3.3 Most Globally Cited Documents

A bibliometric analysis of the most globally cited documents, also known as global citation analysis (GCA), is a method used to evaluate the impact of scientific publications by analyzing the number of citations they have received from documents indexed in any bibliographic database (e.g, WoS and Scopus). It is worth noting that the GCA considers the total number of citations a document has received, even if those citing papers were not included in our database collection. This means that the GCA analysis is not limited to papers included in a specific database, but it takes into consideration all the citations that a paper has received in the world [ 8 ]. This makes GCA a powerful tool to evaluate the impact of scientific publications and identify the most influential papers in a field of study.

Figure  5 presents the ranked list of the 41 most globally cited documents, which we then use for our systematic literature review (SLR). Table  4 provides additional details for each document in the ranked list, including the full title, the total number of citations per year (TC per year), and the normalized citation impact scores (normalized TC). These metrics allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the relevance of each document in the field.

Most globally cited documents

3.4 Wordcloud

The wordcloud presented in Fig.  6 provides a visual representation of the most used bigrams associated with the ongoing digital transformation of supply chains within Industry 4.0 and the transition to Industry 5.0 supply chains. We selected 15 bigrams based on their frequency within the abstracts of our full database of 682 documents (2016 to 2023). The size of each bigram varies according to the number of times it appears in the text. Although the placement of words is somewhat random, the predominant words appear largest and in the middle of the cloud, while the less prominent bigrams are smaller, but still indicate potential directions for future research.

The wordcloud highlights the shift toward the Fifth Industrial Revolution builds on the foundation of Industry 4.0 and adds a focus on sustainable development goals (SDG) and human-centric manufacturing [ 9 ]. It emphasizes the importance of the terms “artificial intelligence (AI),” “sustainability,” “digital technologies,” “digital transformation,” “digital twins” (DT), “smart manufacturing,” “information technology (IT),” “machine learning (ML),” “production management,” and “cyber-physical system” (CPS) in this transition. The wordcloud also includes the “covid pandemic” crisis, which has significantly accelerated the adoption of digital technologies in supply chains [ 10 , 11 , 12 ].

3.5 Word Frequency

Figure  7 presents word frequency over time, showcasing the five words most frequently used in supply chain 5.0 research from 2016 to 2022. We selected five bigrams based on their cumulative occurrences within the abstracts of our database of 679 documents (2016 to 2022). We excluded the year 2023 as it only had three papers, which is not a representative sample.

Word frequency in years 2016–2022 (documents published in 2023 omitted due to lack of significant sample)

As depicted in the graph, the majority of these keywords experienced a significant increase in research interest in 2020, coinciding with the outbreak of COVID-19 as a global pandemic. As the effects of COVID-19 continue to affect the global supply chain, there has been a significant amount of research conducted into how Industry 5.0 resilience can optimize supply chains to help companies navigate disruptions without compromising competitiveness and profitability.

Figure  7 shows an exponential increase in the occurrences of the terms “supply chain,” “industrial revolution,” “artificial intelligence (AI),” “digital twins (DT),” and “sustainable development” in 2020, after COVID-19. This trend suggests a growing interest in how emerging technologies such as AI and digital twins can revolutionize manufacturing supply chains and contribute to sustainable development within the framework of Industry 5.0.

3.6 Trending Topics

The identification of trending topics is a valuable tool for researchers as it allows them to focus their attention on areas of study that are gaining prominence. By knowing these trends, researchers can stay up-to-date with the latest developments in their field and prioritize their research efforts to align with the most current and relevant topics.

To generate the trending topics graph, we configured the following parameters: bigrams based on abstracts, word minimum frequency of 20, and a maximum of 15 words per year. The timespan of our trending topics graph focuses only on 2020–2022 because, as shown in the word frequency graph (Fig.  7 ), interest in the topic of I50-SCs has increased notably since the COVID-19 outbreak. By limiting our analysis to this time period, we are able to capture and highlight trending topics that have experienced a significant increase in interest.

Figure  8 presents a hierarchical arrangement of the emerging trends in I50-SCs as discussed in academic publications. The graph showcases the relative prominence of different topics in each year. The length of the lines in the graph represents the strength or intensity of a particular topic’s trend over time.

Trending topics between 2020 and 2022

Longer lines indicate stronger, more significant trends for specific topics. They suggest that these topics have been receiving more attention and generating a higher volume of publications or citations during that period. On the other hand, shorter lines represent weaker trends or lower levels of activity for a particular topic, meaning that it has received relatively less attention in terms of publications or citations.

Comparing the lengths of lines over time allows us to identify shifts in research interest. If a line becomes longer or shorter in subsequent periods, it suggests a change in the topic’s significance or attention within the research community.

Figure  8 reveals that digital twins (DT) was the most discussed topic in 2022, followed in order by sustainable development, cyber-physical systems (CPS), collaborative robots (cobots), enabling technologies, deep learning, digital transformation, smart manufacturing, the COVID-19 pandemic, industry technologies (Industry 4.0 and 5.0), industrial internet, and sustainable manufacturing. Additionally, Fig.  11 shows that the industrial revolution, digital technologies, machine learning (ML), and artificial intelligence (AI) have remained trending topics since 2020. It is important to note that Bibliometrix R-package does not include numbers when it selects bigrams. For this reason, the graph in Fig.  8 does not separate the expressions “industry 4.0 technology” and “industry 5.0 technology,” but instead groups them under the single term “industry technologies.”

3.7 Thematic Evolution

The thematic evolution graph depicted in Fig.  9 provides a visual representation of the knowledge structure and the progressive evolution of themes within the context of Industry 5.0 supply chains. By analyzing this graph, it is possible to identify the most prevalent concepts and their connections throughout the years.

Thematic evolution

In particular, the graph utilizes different visual elements, including nodes and edges, to represent the evolving themes and their relationships. The nodes represent distinct themes or concepts, while the edges, indicated by gray connectors, signify the connections between these themes.

The gray connectors in the thematic evolution graph represent co-citation relationships, indicating that the connected themes share common references or are frequently cited together in scholarly literature. These co-citation relationships suggest thematic similarity or relatedness between the interconnected concepts.

By analyzing the gray connectors, it is possible to gain deeper insights into the interrelationships and co-occurrence of themes throughout the years. These connections provide valuable information about the flow of knowledge and the evolution of ideas within the domain of Industry 5.0 supply chains.

To generate this graph, we used the following parameters: bigrams were generated based on abstracts, the Louvain clustering algorithm was employed, and a timespan of 2016 to 2023 was used, utilizing our full database of 682 documents.

The first column of Fig.  9 (2016–2017) represents the earliest publications on the fifth industrial revolution. The term Industry 5.0 was introduced on December 1, 2015, in an article published by Michael Rada on the social network LinkedIn.

The second column (2018–2019) shows that the terms “artificial intelligence,” “sustainable development,” and “digital era” were key drivers of I50-SCs research at that time.

The third column (2020–2021) highlights the terms “supply chain” and “emerging technologies,” which indicates a growing focus on I50-SCs development and implementation of innovative technologies in response to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 outbreak. The pandemic has fundamentally reshaped the way in which manufacturing and supply chain management are approached, greatly accelerating the adoption of digital technologies [ 10 , 13 ]. The thematic evolution graph reflects the increasing emphasis on these technologies.

The fourth column (2022–23) shows the emerging technologies highlighted in the third column, emphasizing a continued focus on digital supply chain transformation and the shift toward value-driven supply chains. A value-driven supply chain prioritizes sustainable development, which includes not only economic performance but also social and environmental sustainability. This reflects a growing emphasis on building smarter and more resilient supply chains, in alignment with the visions of Industry 5.0 and Society 5.0 [ 14 ].

4 Bibliometric Research Part II: Keywords Co-occurrence Networks (KCNs)

In order to understand the impacts of Industry 5.0 on supply chains, we conducted a bibliometric KCN analysis using VOSviewer software to identify clusters associated with supply chain 5.0 (Search 1) and its three major pillars: resilience (Search 2), sustainability (Search 3), and human centricity (Search 4). By analyzing the literature in these areas, we were better able to understand the key themes and trends shaping the future of supply chain management and operations, as well as identify opportunities for further research and development.

To construct the four bibliometric maps, we applied similar settings in the VOSviewer: a) term co-occurrence maps based on text data, extracting terms from the title and abstract fields of our full database of 682 documents; b) binary counting; and c) select the most relevant keywords in the network, using the default choice of 60%.

To control the number of terms in each map and to make them more readable, we set a minimum number of occurrences of a term for each cluster; the following values were chosen to limit the number of terms to 200. For Search 1, the minimum number of occurrences of a term was 32 (194 met the threshold, and 116 terms were selected). For Search 2, the minimum number of occurrences of a term was 6 (174 met the threshold, and 104 terms were selected). For Search 3, the minimum number of occurrences of a term was 18 (195 meet the threshold, and 117 terms were selected). For Search 4, the minimum number of occurrences of a term was 9 (185 meet the threshold, and 111 terms were selected). After applying the default choice to select the 60% most relevant terms and elimination repetition, 145 total terms were selected across all four clusters. This approach allowed us to identify key terms and connections within the literature, providing insights into the current state of research and potential areas for future study.

In order to ensure the relevance and accuracy of our analysis, keywords not relevant to our study were excluded manually. This included words typically found in abstracts, such as ‘scenario,’ ‘evaluation,’ ‘overview,’ ‘article,’ ‘case study,’ ‘literature,’ ‘literature review,’ and expressions to describe context, such as ‘set,’ ‘place’, ‘factor,’ ‘prospect,’ ‘identification,’ ‘basis,’ and ‘issue.’ These words were removed to focus on the concepts that more closely relate to this study.

Next, we present an analysis of the four bibliometric maps. They allow us to visualize the connections between different terms within the literature, providing a clear and comprehensive understanding of the key themes and trends shaping the future of supply chains.

Search 1: supply chain 5.0

Figure  10 illustrates the cluster analysis results in the context of supply chain 5.0. As shown in the figure, three major clusters can be identified, which are colored green, red, and blue.

Cluster analysis results for the supply chain 5.0 search

The green cluster shows the digital transformation of manufacturing, which offers great opportunities for sustainable manufacturing in the transition to Industry 5.0 and Society 5.0. The main terms the green cluster uses are as follows: fourth industrial revolution, fifth industrial revolution, society, transition, manufacturing sector, flexible, technological innovation, digitalization, government, sustainable development, goal, economy, education, skill, knowledge, and covid.

The red cluster focuses on human–machine interaction (HMI), a key technology for the implementation of smart manufacturing to achieve efficient human–robot collaboration. The main keywords shown are: smart manufacturing, manufacturing industry, collaboration, collaborative robot, operator, digital twin, efficiency, human, robot, interaction, optimization, performance, productivity, resilience, and safety.

The blue cluster illustrates the integration of smart manufacturing technologies under Industry 5.0. The main keywords associated with this cluster are big data, architecture, blockchain, communication, customer, cyber-physical system, digital technology, IIot, IoT, machine learning, sensor, and security.

Search 2: supply chain 5.0 and resilience

Figure  11 illustrates the cluster analysis results in the context of resilience within supply chain 5.0. There are three major clusters, which once again are colored green, red, and blue. Each cluster represents a distinct group of factors that contribute to resilience in supply chain 5.0.

Cluster analysis results for resilience in supply chain 5.0

The green cluster contains words related to Industry 5.0 core values (human centricity, sustainability, and resilience) in smart manufacturing. The most relevant keywords are: smart manufacturing, sustainable development, sustainable manufacturing, resilient, human-centric, European Commission, production process, innovation, and pandemic.

The red cluster addresses the challenges and opportunities of smart manufacturing resilience strategies through the integration of advanced technologies in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The main keywords in this cluster are blockchain, digital twin, scheduling, future challenge, platform, quality, production system, intelligent system, mass customization, smart manufacturing, and sustainable development supply chain management.

The blue cluster addresses one of the key emerging themes for Industry 5.0, human–robot collaboration, and the core idea behind Industry 5.0, which is to place the human factor at the center of the production process. This cluster highlights terms such as: human centricity, human operator, collaborative robot, business collaboration, future factory, and resilient capability.

Search 3: 5IR supply chains and sustainability

Figure  12 illustrates the cluster analysis results for supply chain sustainability within the context of Industry 5.0. We can identify four major clusters, which are colored red, green, blue, and yellow. Each cluster represents a distinct group of factors that contribute to supply chain sustainability in Industry 5.0.

Cluster analysis results for sustainability in supply chain 5.0

The red cluster contains keywords related to sustainable development challenges, especially after the supply chain disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The most relevant terms in this cluster are: sustainable development, sustainable development goal, technological innovation, digitalization, pandemic, manufacturing industry, production process, education, economy, customer, company, organization, opportunity, and business model.

The green cluster illustrates the ongoing digital transformation towards smart manufacturing within post-COVID Industry 5.0. The most relevant terms in this cluster are blockchain, covid, digital twin, simulation, mass customization, optimization, paradigm, resilience, robot, and smart manufacturing.

The blue cluster focuses on machine learning methodologies for human–robot interaction in the manufacturing sector. The most relevant terms in this cluster are: collaboration, cyber-physical systems, digital technology, human factor, interaction, machine learning, and production process.

The yellow cluster addresses recent research on circular economy (CE) and big data/IoT. The most important terms in this cluster are: architecture, big data, circular economy, Internet of things (IoT), and security.

Search 4: 5IR supply chains and human centricity

Figure  13 illustrates the clustering results for human-centricity within the context of supply chain 5.0. We can identify two major clusters, which are colored green and red.

Cluster analysis results for human centricity within the context of supply chain 5.0

The red cluster explores the role of digital transformation during the transition from Industry 4.0 to 5.0, highlighting the shift from a technology-focused approach to a human-centric approach. This cluster delves into the concept of human-centric manufacturing, which emphasizes empathic collaboration between humans and machines. Worker well-being is placed at the center of the manufacturing process, with continuous learning of skills and knowledge. The most relevant terms in this cluster are big data, collaboration, collaborative robot, communication technology, consumer, customization, cyber-physical system, decision making, digital technology, education, fifth industrial revolution, fourth industrial revolution, flexibility, government, human-centric, human operator, interaction, machine learning, personalization, and sensor.

The green cluster focuses on the future of manufacturing based on lessons learned from the pandemic. It addresses key strategies and technologies necessary for achieving human-centric smart manufacturing. The most relevant terms in this cluster are additive manufacturing, blockchain, covid, digital transformation, digital twin, energy, factory, future, learning, mass customization, operator, performance, platform, quality, resilience, simulation, smart manufacturing, sustainability, and sustainable manufacturing.

5 Second Phase of SLNA Methodology—Systematic Literature Review of Supply Chain 5.0

Section 5 builds on the knowledge gathered from the bibliometric research conducted in the first phase, providing a detailed examination of the evolution of supply chains and the novel concept of supply chain 5.0. The section is divided into four subsections. In Sect.  5.1 , we trace the historical development of industrial revolutions from 1.0 to 6.0 through a literature review. Then, Sect.  5.2 examines the transition from supply chain 4.0 to supply chain 5.0, highlighting the key changes and advancements that have led to this new paradigm. In Sect.  5.3 , we delve into the concept of supply chain 5.0 itself, analyzing its three major pillars: resilience, sustainability, and human centricity. Our analysis is based on the four clusters generated through keywords co-occurrence networks (KCNs). Finally, in Sect.  6 , we present a comprehensive conceptual framework which encapsulates the key pillars that characterize supply chain 5.0.

5.1 Industry 1.0 to Industry 6.0: A Brief Overview

Since the Industrial Revolution, which began in the eighteenth century, six waves of technological innovation can be identified (See Fig.  14 ). The first wave, known as the Age of Steam, marked the transition from hand-made methods to mechanized manufacturing using water and steam. The second wave, the Age of Electricity, brought significant industrialization and innovation into steel production, petroleum, and electricity. The third wave, the Age of Automation, launched the Information Age and marked a shift to an economy based primarily on information and technology systems. The fourth wave, the Digital Age, has been progressing since the mid-1900s and represents a paradigm shift in organizing and managing industrial business. It is characterized by the incorporation of smart technology in traditional manufacturing and industrial practices, leading to a digital transformation of production systems, business models, environments, operators, machines, products, and services [ 15 ],

History of innovation cycles, adapted from Hargroves and Smith [ 16 , 17 ]

The fourth wave, known as Industry 4.0 (I40), initially focused on manufacturing, supply chain management, and production. The vision of I40 is to integrate advanced technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), and cyber-physical systems (CPS) to make the manufacturing industry “smart” and increase productivity through mass production [ 18 ]. However, there are still significant challenges to overcome, such as a shortage of skilled labor, limited knowledge on the implementation of I40 technologies, and potential technology-related job displacement [ 19 ].

Although Industry 4.0 has been successful in lowering manufacturing costs and optimizing production processes, it has prioritized these goals at the expense of human needs. The highly automated production environment in I40 has raised concerns that humans may no longer play a valuable role in the manufacturing process. This concern led the European Economic and Social Committee to hold a conference in November 2018 to address the social challenges and potential negative impacts of Industry 4.0, such as job displacement and the need for new skills, and to develop a more holistic vision for the future of manufacturing that takes into account both technological and social considerations [ 20 ].

These ideals distinguish the Fifth Industrial Revolution (I50), also known as the Age of Augmentation, from the fourth. I50 builds upon the technological advancements of Industry 4.0. However, while I40 is focused on the concept of “Smart Manufacturing for the Future” [ 21 ], I50 envisions sustainable smart manufacturing solutions that not only enhance productivity and efficiency but also consider the environmental and social impacts of manufacturing processes [ 18 ]. The fifth industrial revolution is more concerned with symbiotic and smooth relationships between humans and machines, with special attention to ethical considerations [ 22 ].

In January 2021, the European Commission [ 23 ] released its Industry 5.0 agenda for resilient, sustainable, and human-centric European Industry. The commission’s report shows that geopolitical changes and natural crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of industries, highlighting the need for rapid adaptability and resiliency. According to this agenda, I5.0 promotes a sustainable lifestyle through the 6Rs of sustainability (recognize, reconsider, realize, reduce, reuse and recycle), which recommends the implementation of circular processes to reduce the impact of technology on people and the environment. As a human-centric solution, I5.0 must ensure that technological advancements address the challenges of sustainable development and positively impact society, protecting human rights and driving employee well-being [ 14 , 18 , 24 , 25 ].

Finally, the Sixth Industrial Revolution, or Industry 6.0 (I60), is an ideological and futuristic concept defined as ubiquitous, customer-driven, virtualized, antifragile manufacturing. It will encompass a customer-focused ethos and hyper-connected industries with dynamic supply chains where data flows across domains [ 26 , 27 , 28 ].

Figure  14 presents a historical overview of innovation cycles, ranging from Industry 1.0 to Industry 6.0. The data suggests a notable trend of shorter periods between wave cycles of innovation. This pattern leads us to contemplate the possibility of the sixth industrial revolution commencing within the next two decades. In line with this, Chourasia et al. [ 26 ] assert that the realization of Industry 5.0’s integration of sustainability and anti-fragile goals is estimated to require approximately 10 to 15 years for full implementation. By considering these insights, we gain valuable perspectives on the potential timeline and transformative nature of future industrial advancements.

5.2 From Supply Chain 4.0 to Supply Chain 5.0

The transition from supply chain 4.0 to supply chain 5.0 is a major milestone in the world of supply chain management. Supply chain 4.0 brought significant advancements in terms of technology and efficiency, while supply chain 5.0 incorporates new technologies and practices that allow for human-centric, sustainable, and resilient supply chains.

The term supply chain 4.0 refers to the integration of Industry 4.0 technologies into the entire supply chain, from design planning to production, distribution, consumption, and reverse logistics. This integration optimizes and automates the supply chain, making it more connected and responsive to changing market conditions and consumer demands. Unlike traditional supply chains, which were characterized by linear links between suppliers and customers, in supply chain 4.0, information flow in all directions, allowing for more flexibility and adaptability [ 29 ].

Supply chain 4.0 represents a major restructuring of traditional supply chains through the integration of key Industry 4.0 technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), cloud manufacturing, blockchain, cyber-physical systems (CPS) [ 30 ], big data analytics, IoT and IIoT, sensor technology, additive manufacturing, and other industrial automation technologies [ 13 , 31 , 32 , 33 ] .Additionally, new connectivity technologies such as 5G and Wi-Fi 6, Digital Twins, Virtual Reality (VR), and augmented reality (AR) [ 34 ], Maddikunta et al. [ 18 ] also play an important role, allowing for more accurate and efficient tracking and control of inventory, production processes, and logistics. These technologies work together to create a more connected and automated supply chain, allowing organizations to respond quickly to changes in market conditions and consumer demands.

The integration of Industry 4.0 technologies into the supply chain has revolutionized the way organizations approach their operations. The implementation of a data-driven, decentralized system with resources that are geographically distributed and interconnected has allowed for improved adaptability and the capability of fully flexible production at the highest speed possible [ 35 , 36 ]. For example, by harnessing the power of Industry 4.0 technologies, the agricultural industry has been able to make informed decisions, improve efficiency and productivity, and ultimately achieve better outcomes. The concept of Agriculture 4.0, also known as smart agriculture, represents this new way of organizing the agricultural sector into an intelligent, data-driven decision-making system [ 37 ].

The service-oriented architecture (SOA) is a fundamental building block of smart manufacturing in supply chain 4.0. It offers services that support virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), providing an interface to interact with the digital world in the smart factory. The use of VR and AR in smart manufacturing has revolutionized product development and production processes, enabling more efficient and effective design and production. This ability to dynamically adapt and evolve is critical to the success of a smart manufacturing environment, allowing for rapid response to customer needs and market changes [ 38 ].

As highlighted in various studies, supply chain 4.0 leverages smart manufacturing to optimize production processes [ 18 , 39 ], improve operational efficiency [ 39 , 40 ], create greater flexibility and real-time information sharing [ 39 , 41 ], facilitate operational transparency [ 18 , 42 ], raise quality and reduce cost [ 31 ], enhance customer experience through customization of products and services [ 43 ], and improve communication, coordination, and collaboration [ 44 ]. However, despite these advancements, supply chain 4.0 still faced challenges in terms of sustainability and resilience, particularly in the face of disruptions such as natural disasters or pandemics.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the vulnerabilities and limitations of supply chains, despite the potential benefits of Industry 4.0 technologies in optimizing supply chain operations and improving agility. The pandemic has underscored the need for more resilient and robust systems that can withstand unexpected disruptions on a global scale. The response to the pandemic may promote the development of new innovative technologies and contribute to the evolution of the fifth industrial revolution, which aims to create more sustainable, flexible, and adaptable supply chains [ 45 ].

This is where Industry 5.0 comes in. It aims to go beyond Industry 4.0 by creating a combination of organizational principles and technologies to design and manage operations and supply chains as resilient, sustainable, and human-centric systems [ 46 ].

Supply chain 5.0 builds upon the achievements of supply chain 4.0 while prioritizing social and ethical factors such as workplace safety, health, and environmental sustainability. This human-centric supply chain management model has the potential to deliver substantial benefits to both customers and businesses, creating more resilient and efficient supply chains. Supply chain 5.0 emphasizes the shift from mass production to mass customization, with skilled workers collaborating with robots to offer personalized products and services, which enhances customer experience while improving productivity, efficiency, and waste reduction. This new approach to supply chain management is expected to play a critical role in creating more sustainable and socially responsible businesses in the future [ 43 ,  40 , 47 , 48 ].

5.3 Supply Chain 5.0 Constructs

In this section, we will examine three key constructs of supply chain 5.0 in order to gain a deeper understanding of how these factors are shaping the future of supply chain management. The literature review will provide valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities presented by supply chain 5.0, and how organizations can best prepare for, and adapt to, these changes.

5.3.1 Human-Centric Supply Chains (HCSCs)

The principle of human centricity emphasizes that machines and automation should be subservient to humans, not the other way around [ 49 ]. The human-centric supply chain (HCSC) takes this approach to supply chain management by placing people at the center of the process. Through the use of technology, the HCSC aims to create a sustainable society that prioritizes corporate social and environmental responsibility in supply chain development [ 50 , 51 ].

The HCSC approach is becoming increasingly important as supply chains evolve towards the Society 5.0 paradigm. The concept of Society 5.0 is a Japanese initiative that envisions a “super-smart society” that focuses on human-centered and sustainable solutions to meet customer needs and social problems through technological innovation [ 52 ]. The Japanese government defines 17 actions to be implemented within Society 5.0 to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the year 2030. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also known as the Global Goals, were adopted by the United Nations by all United Nations Member States in 2015 and provide a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future [ 53 , 54 ]

Big data, IoT, and AI are the critical Industry 4.0 (I40) technologies for the transition to Society 5.0. Together, these technologies provide all the initiating and sharing information processes required to design Society 5.0 solutions [ 55 ] The integration of Industry 4.0 technologies in the development of Society 5.0 solutions requires the implementation of new business models, services, and products by managers [ 56 , 57 ].

In the context of the evolution towards Industry 5.0, a human-centric approach to supply chain management becomes crucial as it prioritizes the well-being of workers, consumers, and individuals. This approach aligns technological progress with socio-environmental needs, promoting sustainability and social responsibility in the manufacturing industry [ 18 ]. By placing the human factor at the center of the manufacturing process, job satisfaction, working conditions, and productivity can all be improved [ 58 ].

The concept of “Operator 4.0” represents a human perspective that addresses the social-sustainability and human centricity requirements of Industry 5.0. The Operator 4.0 paradigm redefines traditional manufacturing work by making it more safe, enjoyable, and with greater autonomy and opportunities for self-development. This is accomplished through the integration of cognitive technologies with Industry 4.0 technologies. As a result, the traditional manufacturing worker is transformed into a smart and skilled operator [ 59 ].

As a result, Industry 5.0 is paving the way toward a more efficient and sustainable future for manufacturing by restructuring the supply chain to prioritize the needs and well-being of workers and customers. This shift is driven by the psychological and cultural paradigm of mass personalization, promoting a human-centered approach that adds value to manufacturing as it personalizes products and services like never before [ 60 , 61 ].

Next, we present the key elements of HCSCs:

Human-centered technological innovation (HCTI)

Human-centered technological innovation is an approach to technology development that prioritizes people’s needs, while also considering the impact on the environment and society as a whole [ 18 ]. This approach is based on human-centered design principles that emphasize empathy, understanding, and collaboration with end-users to create technology that is user-friendly and meets user needs.

Human-in-the-loop technology (HITL)

HITL technology refers to the integration of human input into automated processes for improved decision-making and quality control. It allows for human oversight and final decisions on important aspects such as product quality, safety, and compliance with regulations. The HITL approach promotes effective collaboration between humans and machines, ensuring continued operations, even in the case of equipment failure, and enables ethical decision-making [ 62 ].

Human–machine interaction (HMI)

The field of HMI is a rapidly growing interdisciplinary area that aims to facilitate smooth and efficient collaboration between humans and robots. This field brings together various disciplines such as psychology, computer science, engineering, and human factors to create effective systems for human–robot collaboration (HRC). Despite the challenges, the future of HMI holds great promise for improving HRC, creating new jobs, and driving technological progress [ 24 ].

Supply chain skill development (SCSD)

Training programs for supply chain skill development have become a crucial aspect of business operations. With the rapid advancements in technology, companies must ensure their employees have the necessary skills to effectively operate new technologies and perform high-value tasks in production. This is essential for long-term success and competitiveness in the marketplace [ 15 , 42 , 63 , 64 , 65 ]. To provide appropriate training, virtual technologies such as AR/VR are increasingly being used, offering a safe and efficient solution for training a skilled workforce without disrupting ongoing processes or exposing workers to dangerous scenarios [ 24 ].

Human rights and well-being (HRWB)

A human-centric supply chain (HCSC) places workers at the center of its operations and prioritizes their well-being and rights. By incorporating social and ethical practices into its operations, a human-centric supply chain creates a safe and inclusive work environment that respects the autonomy, dignity, and privacy of workers, with a focus on their physical and mental health [ 9 , 66 , 67 ]. By promoting fair labor practices, non-discrimination, and access to education and training, a human-centric supply chain also supports the personal and professional development of workers, contributing to their career growth and future prospects.

Human-centered human–robot collaboration (HC-HRC)

A Human-centered human–robot collaboration (HC-HRC) is a human-centric approach where robots are designed and deployed with a focus on human safety, comfort, and needs. Recent studies have highlighted the importance of collaborative robots (cobots) in reducing the risk of injuries and fatigue among workers, as well as increasing efficiency and creating more specialized and personalized products and experiences [ 14 , 18 , 68 , 69 ], and [ 70 ].

Customer-centric supply chains (CCSCs)

Customer-centric supply chains (CCSCs) prioritize the preferences and requirements of customers throughout the entire process of sourcing, production, and delivery of goods and services. This approach requires production lines to be adaptive, intelligent, and flexible enough to meet updated requests, ensuring that the needs of each customer are met [ 24 ]. To enhance the customer experience, virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technologies can be used in the purchasing phase, while sensors and AI can provide real-time support in the post-sale phase. Data privacy and ethical issues must also be considered when offering customized services [ 18 , 64 , 71 ].

The implementation of CCSCs involves a shift from mass production to personalized production, allowing for the creation of unique and customized products and services for each individual customer. This approach results in increased competitiveness and revenue for businesses, as well as better customer relationships and long-term success [ 72 ].

Human-centric manufacturing automation (HCMA)

Industry 5.0 is revolutionizing the manufacturing industry by incorporating autonomous machines, cobots, and other digital technologies. This approach aims to increase manufacturing system efficiency and reduce waste, ultimately leading to a reduction in the final cost of products [ 24 , 43 ]. However, a human-centric approach to manufacturing automation, which integrates human creativity and automation, can further enhance the benefits of Industry 5.0. This approach not only eliminates unpleasant and hazardous jobs but also creates more fulfilling and appealing roles for workers, resulting in a positive work environment [ 9 , 58 ]. As automation continues to transform the workforce, it is essential for companies and governments to invest in education programs to equip workers with the necessary skills to succeed in these evolving roles [ 73 ]. With the right approach and investment, Industry 5.0 can offer workers new opportunities for skill development and more fulfilling careers while driving the manufacturing industry forward.

5.3.2 Sustainable Supply Chains (SSCs)

Industry 5.0 represents a paradigm shift in the manufacturing industry, moving away from a system-centric approach and towards a human-centric approach with a focus on sustainability. The integration of advanced technologies into the manufacturing sector aims to augment the capabilities of human workers while minimizing environmental and social impacts. Supply chain 5.0 prioritizes sustainable manufacturing and the well-being of human operators, as well as productivity goals. This holistic approach to industrial development sets the stage for a more sustainable and equitable future [ 14 ].

Sustainable supply chain (SSC) refers to the integration of sustainable development principles into the management and operation of supply chain activities. It takes a triple-bottom-line approach, balancing economic, social, and environmental sustainability. SSC focuses on ensuring economic growth while also being socially responsible and environmentally conscious in the management and operation of supply chain activities.

On the same note, sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) involves the strategic and transparent management of supply chain activities with a focus on sustainability [ 74 ]. Implementing SSCM can lead to reduced operational costs, improved company image, and better monitoring of environmental actions [ 75 , 76 ]. The entire life cycle of a product or service is considered, from raw material sourcing to end-of-life product disposal, to ensure that economic, social, and environmental impacts are taken into account.

In 2015, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) proposed 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to drive action in critical areas for humanity and the planet over the next 15 years. These goals promote sustainable practices and are adapted to each nation’s financial and social circumstances [ 12 , 77 , 78 , 79 ]. The 17 SDGs provide a framework for businesses to operate more sustainably and responsibly, with supply chains playing a crucial role in contributing to these goals. It is worth noting that some SDGs may overlap between multiple categories and some SDGs may contribute to multiple sustainability categories.

The social goals include no poverty, zero hunger, good health and well-being, quality education, gender equality, clean water and sanitation, and affordable and clean energy. The environmental goals include responsible consumption and production, climate action, life below water, and life on land. The economic goals include decent work and economic growth, industry, innovation and infrastructure, reduced inequalities, sustainable cities and communities, and partnerships for the goals. Achieving these goals will require the collective efforts of governments, civil society, the private sector, and individuals worldwide.

Supply chains play a critical role in advancing the UNDP 17 SDGs. Supply chains can make a significant impact on these goals by integrating sustainable practices into their operations. By considering the entire life cycle of a product, from raw material sourcing to end-of-life product disposal, supply chains can play a key role in promoting sustainable development and creating a more sustainable future for all.

In the following sections, we will explain each dimension of the triple bottom line (TBL) framework of sustainability in the context of supply chains:

Economic perspective of sustainable supply chains (SSCs)

The economic perspective of sustainable supply chains (SSCs) aims to balance economic growth with social well-being and environmental sustainability [ 9 ]. By implementing sustainable practices and considering the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental sustainability, SSCs strive to create value for all stakeholders and contribute to sustainable economic growth. This approach can help reduce costs, improve efficiency, and increase the competitiveness of supply chains, while also promoting social justice and environmental protection. This approach to economic growth prioritizes both economic progress and the well-being of people and the planet, aligning with the goal of societal development [ 80 , 81 ].

Social perspective of sustainable supply chains (SSCs)

In the era of Industry 5.0, social sustainability has taken center stage. It is characterized by the focus on the physical and psychological well-being of human operators, their skills and competencies, and the integration of digital technologies for this purpose. This includes fair wage policies, safe and ergonomic work environments, and programs that promote worker well-being. Ethical business practices, compliance with laws and regulations, and increased transparency through sustainability reports are also crucial components of social sustainability. By prioritizing social sustainability in supply chains, companies can build trust with stakeholders, contribute to the well-being of workers and communities, and work towards a more sustainable and equitable future [ 64 , 82 ].

For example, by promoting sustainable agriculture practices, supply chains can have a positive impact on the lives of workers and communities involved in agriculture, as well as reduce food waste and improve food security. This can be achieved through sustainable farming methods, reducing food loss and waste, and improving the efficiency of food production and distribution. By implementing these practices, supply chains can contribute to social sustainability by improving the lives of workers and communities and ensuring a more sustainable and secure food system [ 83 , 84 ].

Environmental perspective of sustainable supply chains (SSCs)

The environmental aspect of sustainable supply chains (SSCs) is a crucial part of Industry 5.0’s mission to balance economic growth with environmental preservation. It focuses on reducing the negative impact of supply chains on the environment, while also promoting sustainability and responsible resource use.

The implementation of circular economy (CE) principles is key to achieving environmental sustainability in supply chains. A CE is a new business model that prioritizes reducing waste and maximizing resource utilization, contrasting the traditional linear model of take-make-dispose [ 85 , 86 ]. In a circular economy, waste is minimized, resources are conserved, and product life cycles are extended through closed-loop processes. This model plays a vital role in promoting sustainability from both social and environmental perspectives [ 87 , 88 ].

The circular supply chain (CSC) is a highly specific application of circular economy principles, which is focused on transforming supply chains to minimize waste and maximize resource utilization. By creating closed-loop processes, CSCs aim to conserve resources and reduce waste, while promoting the use of environmentally friendly materials and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Fraga-Lamas et al. [ 14 ] have shed light on the pivotal role of digital technologies in facilitating data creation and processing, which are fundamental for managing circular supply chains. The authors have emphasized that in the current context, IoT technologies and paradigms fall short of contributing to the sustainable development of the sector. To address this issue, the authors have highlighted the emergence of the Green IoT (G-IoT) paradigm, which is centered on the development of energy-efficient and environmentally friendly IoT systems. Green IIoT (Industrial Internet of Things) is a subset of G-IoT, which focuses on using IoT technology in industrial settings to enhance energy efficiency and reduce environmental impact.

Big data analytics (BDA) has a significant potential application to circular supply chains (CSCs) to optimize supply chain processes and achieve sustainability. By leveraging real-time information sharing, BDA can help to reduce delivery times and save energy. This is accomplished by directly connecting millions of customers, which allows for real-time monitoring and adjustment of supply chain processes [ 76 ]. In addition, BDA can help monitor the activities of supply chain partners, identify unsustainable or unethical practices, and detect any environmental misconduct. By monitoring relevant indicators, BDA can provide an accurate picture of the impact of specific economic activities on the environment [ 75 ].

Green supply chain management (GSCM) is a new model that helps organizations to improve their competitiveness and performance by complying with new regulations and addressing public concerns related to environmental sustainability [ 89 ]. It involves incorporating environmental and social sustainability principles into every stage of the supply chain, from the sourcing of raw materials to the disposal of products at the end of their lifecycle. As a subset of the circular economy, GSCM focuses on reducing waste, conserving resources, and minimizing the environmental impact of supply chain activities. It aims to improve the environmental performance of a company’s supply chain and make them more competitive and efficient, with reduced delivery times and cost reduction [ 39 , 90 ].

Green housing is a prime example of green supply chain management (GSCM), as it involves the use of sustainable and environmentally friendly materials, construction practices, and energy-efficient systems throughout the supply chain. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a significant shift in housing preferences, with a growing preference for green housing, which is designed, built, and operated in an environmentally responsible and sustainable manner [ 91 ]. The role of supply chains is essential in the green housing industry, as they are responsible for sourcing, producing, and delivering the materials and products used in construction and building operations. By incorporating GSCM principles into the construction and maintenance of green homes, we can reduce the environmental impact of the housing industry and create more sustainable and resilient communities.

5.3.3 Resilient Supply Chains (RSCs)

Resilience is a multi-faceted capability that is critical to the success of any system. It encompasses a range of abilities, including the ability to anticipate disruptions, withstand them, adapt to changes, and recover from expected and unexpected disruptions [ 92 ].

Resilient Operator 5.0 is a new approach to improving the adaptability and responsiveness of the manufacturing workforce and systems, which will be essential for success in the rapidly evolving landscape of Industry 5.0. It aims to create a new type of industrial operator who can adapt quickly to changes and disruptions [ 93 ].

The Resilient Operator 5.0 vision has two main goals: to foster “self-resilience” for the workforce and “system resilience” for human–machine systems in smart manufacturing. Self-resilience is a personality trait associated with the ability to adapt, withstand and quickly recover from difficult conditions, incorporating biological, physical, cognitive and psychological factors, such as meaningfulness, safety, work engagement, self-esteem, optimism, and emotional stability. System resilience , on the other hand, refers to the capacity of human–machine systems to act as fully integrated and collaborative manufacturing systems, allowing for real-time responses to changing demands and conditions in the factory, supply chain and customer requirements [ 32 , 94 , 95 , 96 ].

In the context of manufacturing, the term “Smart Resilient Manufacturing System” refers to a flexible and agile system that can respond to operational changes and disturbances, sustaining required operations under normal and abnormal conditions. To achieve this, the system must be reconfigurable, allowing it to adapt to changes and disruptions in real-time [ 93 , 97 ]. With an increasingly integrated and connected supply chain, end-to-end visibility has become essential for improving decision-making quality in procurement, manufacturing, logistics, and sales operations. This enhanced visibility plays a crucial role in the efficiency, productivity, resilience, and sustainability of the supply chain ecosystem. Recent research supports the importance of supply chain visibility in achieving these objectives [ 33 , 98 ].

In Industry 5.0, supply chain resilience (SCR) is seen as a means to achieve the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The integration of resilience and sustainability in supply chains has led to a growing interest in sustainable-resilient supply chains, where supply chains must be adaptable to disruptions and changing market conditions while reducing their environmental impact and promoting social responsibility. For example, Supply Chain Management (SCM) in Industry 5.0 has the potential to drive new trends toward sustainable solutions such as green supply chain management [ 89 ], circular economy [ 88 ], and corporate social responsibility (Panov and Moroff 2020). These approaches have been proven to positively impact supply chain resilience and help organizations achieve their sustainability and resilience goals.

By prioritizing sustainability and resilience, organizations can reduce their environmental impact, improve their image, and become more competitive in the long run. However, it is important to note that the integration of these approaches is still in its early stages, and further research is needed to fully understand their impact on supply chain management in Industry 5.0 [ 46 , 99 ].

The use of digital technology in building supply chain sustainable-resilient supply chains includes the following:

Data collection and processing:

IoT sensors and devices: monitor and collect data on energy usage, emissions, and other environmental factors in the supply chain [ 29 ].

Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and Green IIoT: in industrial settings, IIoT is used to connect, manage, and analyze data from multiple sources and devices. It holds great potential for quality control, sustainable and green practices. The Green IIoT refers to the use of IoT technology in industrial settings to improve energy efficiency and reduce environmental impact [ 37 ].

Cyber-physical systems (CPS): Industry 4.0 is characterized by the integration of digital technologies into manufacturing systems, through IoT and IoS (Internet of Services) integration, resulting in “smart factories” with greater visibility and control over supply chains [ 18 , 52 , 100 , 101 ]. By enabling real-time data collection and analysis, CPS can help organizations to make data-driven decisions to optimize their supply chain operations and improve resilience. Industry 5.0 introduces the concept of cyber-physical-social systems (CPSS), where the integration of social networks into CPS creates a highly interconnected and more responsive industrial system with higher adaptability. This integration offers the potential to greatly enhance the efficiency and resilience of industrial systems by enabling more effective management of resources and logistics and facilitating communication and collaboration among supply chain partners [ 102 , 103 ].

Data management and analysis:

Big data analytics (BDA): with big data analytics capability, organizations can extract insights from data and make data-driven decisions, which provides a game-changing advantage for monitoring performance, mitigating risks, promoting agility, and enhancing supply chain resiliency. The use of AI-based big data analytics can generate better decision-making support for research, policymaking, and business management, making it a top priority for organizations seeking to improve their supply chain sustainability [ 29 , 76 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 ]

Machine learning and artificial intelligence (ML-AI): these technologies can be used to analyze data and identify patterns that can optimize supply chain operations and improve forecasting of demand, which is critical for supply chain planning and management [ 29 , 32 ].

Cloud computing (CC) and edge computing (EC): these technologies are used to store and process large amounts of data and to enable real-time collaboration and decision-making in the supply chain [ 18 ].

Applications for supply chain optimization:

Blockchain technology (BT): used for secure and transparent tracking of goods and transactions in the supply chain, helping to reduce fraud, errors, and delays. It can also enable faster and more accurate tracking of inventory and shipments, reducing waste and improving efficiency in the supply chain [ 29 , 39 , 108 , 109 ].

Digital twins (DTs): digital simulations provide valuable insights into complex production systems, allowing organizations to develop and test new operating policies before implementing them in the real world. By using virtual experimentation and validation of manufacturing systems, significant benefits in terms of reduction in development time and cost can be achieved. DTs enable organizations to proactively identify inefficiencies and make data-driven decisions to optimize their supply chain operations and improve resilience. With the ability to simulate and test potential scenarios, DTs allow organizations to better manage risks and ensure continuity in their supply chain operations, making them a powerful tool for enhancing supply chain sustainability [ 37 , 110 , 111 ].

Additive manufacturing technology (AMT): is revolutionizing the way products are made and distributed in supply chains. It is a sustainable method of production that minimizes waste and energy consumption while increasing supply chain flexibility and speed. With its layered manufacturing capabilities, additive manufacturing can quickly produce customized products on-demand, reducing lead times, inventory costs, and transportation expenses. This makes it an attractive option for industries looking to improve sustainability and reduce their carbon footprint. Additionally, the ability to create personalized and human-centered products has led to increased customer satisfaction, and additive manufacturing is increasingly being leveraged to enhance customer experiences in various industries [ 32 , 34 , 39 , 112 , 113 ].

5G technology: used to improve the speed and reliability of communications and data transfer in the supply chain, enabling real-time monitoring and better coordination among supply chain partners [ 32 ].

Collaborative robots (cobots): cobots are revolutionizing the manufacturing industry by leveraging the power of AI and ML to analyze big data collected by embedded sensors of the Internet of Things (IoT) [ 22 , 24 ]. This technology has been shown to improve efficiency, safety, accuracy, and productivity in manufacturing, as reported by Lu et al. [ 9 ] and Woo [ 114 ]. Cobots can dynamically allocate tasks and roles, thereby helping to reduce waste and increase supply chain resilience [ 96 ]. In human–robot collaborative manufacturing, cyber-physical systems (CCPS) can enable robots to work alongside human operators in a factory setting, with the ability to sense and respond to their environment, adapt to changing conditions, and make decisions based on real-time data [ 18 ].

Augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR): can enhance warehouse operations and logistics by providing workers with real-time information, training, and visualization [ 42 , 96 ].

Supply chain as a service (SCaaS): can enhance supply chain sustainability and resilience by allowing organizations to outsource certain aspects of their supply chain management to third-party providers. This can reduce the organization’s dependence on a single supplier or logistics provider, thus mitigating the risks associated with supply chain disruptions caused by factors such as natural disasters, supplier bankruptcies, or pandemics [ 115 , 116 , 117 ]. SCaaS business model can also help organizations to implement resilience strategies such as multi-sourcing, collaboration, visibility, and flexible re-routing [ 118 , 119 ].

6 Three-Dimensional Conceptual Framework of Supply Chain 5.0

Section 6 introduces a three-dimensional conceptual framework of supply chain 5.0, as depicted in Fig.  15 . This framework is based on three key pillars—sustainability, human centricity, and resilience—with each pillar shown separately in Figs.  16 , 17 , and 18 respectively.

Three-dimensional conceptual framework of supply chain 5.0

Sustainability pillar in supply chain 5.0 framework

Human centricity pillar in supply chain 5.0 framework

Resilience pillar in supply chain 5.0 framework

7 Discussion: Bringing Maslow’s Hierarchy to Life

Industry 5.0 represents a major shift in the way supply chains are managed and operated, and it is an opportunity to bring Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to life. The concept of Maslow’s hierarchy is based on the idea that human needs are arranged in a pyramid, with certain innate needs that must be met in a specific order. There are five levels in Maslow’s pyramid. From the bottom of the hierarchy upwards, the needs are as follows: physiological (shelter and nutrition), safety (stability and shelter), belonging needs (collaboration and friendship), esteem (dignity, achievement, and competence), and self-actualization (self-fulfillment and personal growth). This last need is the ultimate goal of Maslow’s theory. As Maslow [ 120 ] explained, “This tendency might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming.”

Maslow’s hierarchy is often used as a framework for understanding human motivation and behavior, and it has the potential to be applied in the context of supply chain management. With the emergence of Industry 5.0 and its focus on human centricity in supply chains, there is an opportunity to bring Maslow’s hierarchy to life and create supply chains that not only meet basic needs but also support personal growth and self-actualization for all stakeholders involved.

By integrating advanced technologies into the manufacturing sector, Industry 5.0 seeks to improve the standard of living for workers and enhance their capabilities. Automating repetitive and low-skilled tasks allows workers to focus on higher-value activities that require creativity, problem-solving, and decision-making skills. This human-centric approach not only shapes the future of manufacturing but also transforms the nature of work for future generations. The goal of Industry 5.0 is to ensure that workers’ basic needs, as outlined in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, are met, allowing them to reach their full potential and lead fulfilling lives.

Along with Lu et al. [ 9 ], we believe that human-centric manufacturing should ultimately address human needs defined in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. As shown in Fig.  19 , research on human-centric HMI ought to be designed in alignment with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, as 5C journey (coexistence, cooperation, collaboration, compassion, and coevolution). Research in the field of human–machine interaction (HMI) should be aligned with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, as it seeks to design systems that not only meet basic physiological and safety needs, but also enhance human capabilities and support self-actualization.

Human-centric in alignment with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

The idea of the co-evolution of artificial intelligence and human intelligence is that humans are in a position of control and sovereign decision-making [ 53 , 121 ]. This approach emphasizes the importance of human oversight and control of AI and also seeks to enhance the capabilities of human intelligence by leveraging the of AI. By allowing individuals to focus on creative and innovative tasks, humans can pursue self-fulfillment and personal growth.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) highlights the importance of combining human creativity and craftsmanship with robots’ speed, productivity, and consistency in Industry 5.0. The goal is to reduce or eliminate monotonous and repetitive tasks, freeing workers to focus on cognitively demanding activities and improve personal development. This leads to improved psychological well-being and work performance, ultimately benefiting the success of the organization [ 66 , 122 ]. However, Industry 5.0 will require significant investment and organizational and cultural changes to implement. Businesses, governments, and educational institutions must support workers to create higher-value jobs and skilled workers. Governance and ethics will also play a crucial role in developing the workforce’s skills [ 123 , 124 ].

8 Future Research Agenda for Supply Chain 5.0

Based on the comprehensive qualitative and quantitative analyses provided in our study, we have identified several areas that deserve further research attention and have developed a future research agenda for the supply chain 5.0 framework in its three key dimensions, as follows:

Supply chain resilience

What comprehensive models can be developed to assess supply chain resilience while considering the interdependencies of various supply chain components, including technology, infrastructure, and human factors?

How can emerging technologies, such as blockchain, AI, and IoT, be used to enhance supply chain resilience, and what is the potential of integrating these technologies to create more resilient supply chains?

What is the effectiveness of existing supply chain risk management strategies in reducing the impact of disruptions, and what new strategies can be developed that are more effective in dealing with uncertain and unpredictable events?

Supply chain sustainability

What is the impact of sustainable practices, such as green logistics and circular economy, on supply chain sustainability, and what is the potential of incorporating these practices into supply chain management?

How can emerging technologies, such as 3D printing and additive manufacturing, be used to reduce the environmental impact of supply chains, and what is their potential for improving supply chain sustainability?

What is the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on supply chain sustainability, and how can CSR be integrated into supply chain management to promote sustainable practices?

Human centricity in supply chains

What is the role of human factors in supply chain management, such as employee training and communication, and how can these factors be integrated into supply chain management to improve the resilience and sustainability of supply chains?

What is the impact of digital transformation on the workforce in supply chains, including the potential for job displacement, and what ways can be explored to mitigate the negative impact and enhance the human centricity of supply chains?

What is the role of diversity, equity, and inclusion in supply chain management, and how can promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in supply chains improve the resilience and sustainability of supply chains?

9 Conclusion

This research employed a systematic literature network analysis (SLNA) to explore the impact of Industry 5.0 on the supply chain research field. The study provided a comprehensive understanding of the key concepts, technologies, and trends that define supply chain 5.0, demonstrating the potential benefits of this emerging paradigm for organizations. By integrating sustainable practices, technological advancements, and the human-centric approach aligned with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, supply chain 5.0 represents a significant advancement in supply chain management. This paradigm shift not only enhances the adaptability, resiliency, and sustainability of supply chains but also generates positive societal impacts.

The research has highlighted the incorporation of human-centric design and sustainable-resilient practices into the supply chain, creating a more adaptable and flexible system capable of withstanding global disruptions and meeting the changing needs of customers and the market. The transition from supply chain 4.0 to supply chain 5.0 is a significant milestone that will improve the adaptability and resiliency of supply chains, enabling organizations to meet the changing needs of customers while promoting sustainability and social responsibility.

The supply chain 5.0 model is an advanced approach that focuses on collaboration, integration, and innovation, aiming to create a more agile and responsive supply chain that can quickly adapt to changes. The model builds on the previous generations of supply chain management, which focused on optimizing efficiency and reducing costs. The new generation of supply chains is designed with a human-centric approach that puts people at the center of production, using personalized products and eco-friendly processes that promote social responsibility and sustainability. The integration of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), digital twins, blockchain, collaborative robots, and the Internet of Things (IoT) can provide real-time visibility and control, enhance collaboration and coordination, and enable data-driven decision-making.

This research adds value to the field of supply chain management by shedding light on the potential of supply chain 5.0 and emphasizing the significance of integrating sustainable practices and human-centric design principles into the supply chain. The three-dimensional conceptual framework of supply chain 5.0 (Sect.  7 ) and future research agenda (Sect.  8 ) presented in the article provide a valuable contribution to the emerging field of supply chain 5.0. By exploring potential areas for future research and aiding in the transition to this new paradigm, these findings offer insights and opportunities for further exploration in supply chain management.

Availability of Data and Material

This study, which is based on secondary data, employed the systematic literature network analysis (SLNA) method, combining bibliographic analysis and systematic literature review (SLR) to investigate the research landscape of Industry 5.0 supply chains. The analysis involved 682 documents published between 2016 and 2022 and utilized VOSViewer software and Bibliometrix R-package for multiple bibliometric analyses, drawing on publications from Dimensions, Scopus, and Lens databases.

Code Availability

Code is available at https://github.com/alicevillar/TowardsSupplyChain-5.0

Donthu N, Gustafsson A (2020) Effects of COVID-19 on business and research. J Bus Res 117:284–289

Google Scholar  

Moosavi J, Fathollahi-Fard AM, Dulebenets MA (2022) Supply chain disruption during the COVID-19 pandemic: recognizing potential disruption management strategies. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 102983

Akundi A, Euresti D, Luna S, Ankobiah W, Lopes A, Edinbarough I (2022) State of Industry 5.0—analysis and identification of current research trends. Appl Syst Innov 5(1):27

Khitous F, Strozzi F, Urbinati A, Alberti F (2020) A systematic literature network analysis of existing themes and emerging research trends in circular economy. Sustainability 12(4):1633

Strozzi F, Colicchia C, Creazza A, Noè C (2017) Literature review on the ‘Smart Factory’ concept using bibliometric tools. Int J Prod Res 55(22):6572–6591

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev 10(1):1–11

Harapko S (2021) How COVID-19 impacted supply chains and what comes next| EY-Global. Retrieved from Ernst & Young website https://www.ey.com/en_gl/supply-chain/how-covid-19-impacted-supply-chainsand-what-comes-next

Bibliometrix, n.d. Frequently asked questions. Available from: https://www.bibliometrix.org/home/index.php/faq

Lu Y, Zheng H, Chand S, Xia W, Liu Z, Xu X, Bao J (2022) Outlook on human-centric manufacturing towards Industry 5.0. J Manuf Syst 62:612–627

Amentae TK, Gebresenbet G (2021) Digitalization and future agro-food supply chain management: a literature-based implications. Sustainability 13(21):12181

Bakalis S, Valdramidis VP, Argyropoulos D, Ahrne L, Chen J, Cullen PJ, Van Impe JF (2020) Perspectives from CO+ RE: how COVID-19 changed our food systems and food security paradigms. Current Res Food Sci 3:166

Hassoun A, Aït-Kaddour A, Abu-Mahfouz AM, Rathod NB, Bader F, Barba FJ, Regenstein J (2022) The fourth industrial revolution in the food industry—Part I: Industry 4.0 technologies. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 1–17

Mourtzis D, Angelopoulos J, Panopoulos N (2021) Smart manufacturing and tactile internet based on 5G in Industry 4.0: challenges, applications and new trends. Electronics 10(24):3175

Fraga-Lamas P, Varela-Barbeito J, Fernández-Caramés TM (2021) Next generation auto-identification and traceability technologies for Industry 5.0: a methodology and practical use case for the shipbuilding industry. IEEE Access 9:140700–140730

Santos G, Sá JC, Félix MJ, Barreto L, Carvalho F, Doiro M, Stefanović M (2021) New needed quality management skills for quality managers 4.0. Sustainability 13(11):6149

Hargroves K, Smith MH (2005a) Natural advantage of nations. Earthscan

Hargroves K, Smith M (2005b) Natural advantage of nations: business opportunities, innovation and governance for the 21st century. Routledge, London

Maddikunta PKR, Pham QV, Prabadevi B, Deepa N, Dev K, Gadekallu TR, Liyanage M (2022) Industry 5.0: a survey on enabling technologies and potential applications. J Indust Inform Integ 26:100257

Paschek, D, Mocan, A, Draghici, A (2019, May). Industry 5.0—the expected impact of next industrial revolution. In Thriving on future education, industry, business, and society, proceedings of the MakeLearn and TIIM international conference, Piran, Slovenia (pp. 15–17)

European Economic and Social Committee – EESC (2018) Industry 5.0. Available in: https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/agenda/our-events/events/industry-50

Demir KA, Döven G, Sezen B (2019) Industry 5.0 and human-robot co-working. Procedia computer science 158:688–695

Özdemir V, Hekim N (2018) Birth of industry 5.0: making sense of big data with artificial intelligence, “the internet of things” and next-generation technology policy. Omics J Integ Biol 22(1):65–76

European Commission (2021) Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Breque, M, De Nul, L, Petridis, A, Industry 5.0: towards a sustainable, human-centric and resilient European industry, Publications Office

Nahavandi S (2019). Industry 5.0 — a human-centric solution. Sustainability 11(16):4371

Rada, Michael. Industry 5.0 definition (May 2020). URL https://michael-rada.medium.com/industry-5-0-definition-6a2f9922dc48

Chourasia S, Tyagi A, Pandey SM, Walia RS, Murtaza Q (2022) Sustainability of Industry 6.0 in global perspective: benefits and challenges. MAPAN 1–10

Annanperä E, Jurmu M, Kaivo-oja, J Kettunen, P Knudsen M, Lauraéus T, Porras, J (2021) From Industry X to Industry 6.0: antifragile manufacturing for people, planet, and profit with passion

Das S, Pan T (2022) A strategic outline of Industry 6.0: exploring the future. Available at SSRN 4104696

Bhat SA, Huang NF, Sofi IB, Sultan M (2021) Agriculture-food supply chain management based on blockchain and IoT: a narrative on enterprise blockchain interoperability. Agriculture 12(1):40

He S, Ren W, Zhu T, Choo KKR (2019) BoSMoS: A blockchain-based status monitoring system for defending against unauthorized software updating in industrial Internet of Things. IEEE Internet Things J 7(2):948–959

Sigov A, Ratkin L, Ivanov LA, Xu LD (2022) Emerging enabling technologies for Industry 4.0 and beyond. Inform Syst Front 1–11

Jagatheesaperumal SK, Rahouti M, Ahmad K, Al-Fuqaha A, Guizani M (2021) The duo of artificial intelligence and big data for Industry 4.0: applications, techniques, challenges, and future research directions. IEEE Internet Things J

Ivanov D, Dolgui A, Sokolov B (2022) Cloud supply chain: integrating industry 4.0 and digital platforms in the “Supply Chain-as-a-Service”. Transport Res Part E Logist Transport Rev 160:102676

Nair MM, Tyagi AK, Sreenath N (2021) The future with industry 4.0 at the core of society 5.0: open issues, future opportunities and challenges. In 2021 Int Conf Comp Commun Inform (ICCCI) 1–7. IEEE

Frank AG, Dalenogare LS, Ayala NF (2019) Industry 4.0 technologies: implementation patterns in manufacturing companies. Int J Prod Econ 210:15–26

Oztemel E, Gursev S (2020) Literature review of Industry 4.0 and related technologies. J Intell Manuf 31(1):127–182

Tabaa M, Monteiro F, Bensag H, Dandache A (2020) Green Industrial Internet of Things from a smart industry perspectives. Energy Rep 6:430–446

Papcun P, Kajáti E, Koziorek J (2018). Human machine interface in concept of industry 4.0. In 2018 World Symposium on Digital Intelligence for Systems and Machines (DISA) (pp. 289–296). IEEE

Acioli C, Scavarda A, Reis A (2021) Applying Industry 4.0 technologies in the COVID–19 sustainable chains. Int J Product Perform Manag

Pereira AG, Lima TM, Santos FC (2020) Industry 4.0 and Society 5.0: opportunities and threats. Int J Recent Technol Eng 8(5):3305–3308

Ali I, Gölgeci I (2019) Where is supply chain resilience research heading? A systematic and co-occurrence analysis. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag

Longo F, Padovano A, Umbrello S (2020) Value-oriented and ethical technology engineering in industry 5.0: a human-centric perspective for the design of the factory of the future. Appl Sci 10(12):4182

Javaid M, Haleem A (2020) Critical components of Industry 5.0 towards a successful adoption in the field of manufacturing. J Indust Integ Manag 5(03):327–348

Foresti R, Rossi S, Magnani M, Bianco CGL, Delmonte N (2020) Smart society and artificial intelligence: big data scheduling and the global standard method applied to smart maintenance. Engineering 6(7):835–846

Sarfraz Z, Sarfraz A, Iftikar HM, Akhund R (2021) Is COVID-19 pushing us to the fifth industrial revolution (society 5.0)? Pakistan J Med Sci 37(2):591

Ivanov, D (2022). The Industry 5.0 framework: viability-based integration of the resilience, sustainability, and human-centricity perspectives. International Journal of Production Research 1–13

Frederico GF (2021) From supply chain 4.0 to supply chain 5.0: findings from a systematic literature review and research directions. Logistics 5(3):49

Massaro A, Galiano A (2020) Re-engineering process in a food factory: an overview of technologies and approaches for the design of pasta production processes. Production & Manufacturing Research 8(1):80–100

Rosenbrock HH (1990) Machines with a purpose. Oxford University Press

Onday O (2019) Japan’s society 5.0: going beyond industry 4.0. Bus Econ J 10(2):1–6

Pacana A, Siwiec D, Bednárová L (2020) Method of choice: a fluorescent penetrant taking into account sustainability criteria. Sustainability 12(14):5854

Serpanos D (2018) The cyber-physical systems revolution. Computer 51(3):70–73

Carayannis EG, Christodoulou K, Christodoulou P, Chatzichristofis SA, Zinonos Z (2022) Known unknowns in an era of technological and viral disruptions—implications for theory, policy, and practice. J Knowl Econ 13(1):587–610

Government of Japan (2016) The 5th Science and Technology Basic Plan. Prov transl. Access address https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/kihonkeikaku/5basicplan_en.pdf

Aquilani B, Piccarozzi M, Abbate T, Codini A (2020) The role of open innovation and value co-creation in the challenging transition from industry 4.0 to society 5.0: toward a theoretical framework. Sustainability 12(21):8943

Peraković D, Periša M, Cvitić I, Zorić P (2020) Information and communication technologies for the society 5.0 environment. Zbornik radova trideset osmog simpozijuma o novim tehnologijama u poštanskom i telekomunikacionom saobraćaju–POSTEL 203–212

Yıkılmaz İ (2020) New era: the transformation from the information society to super smart society (society 5.0). Data, Information and Knowledge Management; Mert, G, Şen, E, Yılmaz, O, Eds 85–112

Doyle-Kent, M, Kopacek, P (2020, September). Do we need synchronization of the human and robotics to make Industry 5.0 a success story? In Int Symp Prod Res 302–311. Springer, Cham

Romero D, Stahre J, Taisch M (2020) The Operator 4.0: towards socially sustainable factories of the future. Comp Indust Eng 139:106128

ElFar OA, Chang CK, Leong HY, Peter AP, Chew KW, Show PL (2021) Prospects of Industry 5.0 in algae: customization of production and new advance technology for clean bioenergy generation. Ener Conv Manag X 10:100048

Østergaard EH (2018) Welcome to industry 5.0. Retrieved Febr 5, 2020

Golovianko M, Terziyan V, Branytskyi V, Malyk D (2023) Industry 4.0 vs. Industry 5.0: co-existence, transition, or a hybrid. Procedia Computer Science 217:102–113

Broo, D. G, Kaynak, O, Sait, S. M (2022). Rethinking engineering education at the age of industry 5.0. J Indust Inform Integ 25:100311

Fornasiero R, Zangiacomi A (2021) Reshaping the supply chain for society 5.0. In IFIP Int Conf Adv Prod Manag Syst 663–670. Springer, Cham

Guile D, Mitchell J (2022) Fusion skills and Industry 5.0: conceptions and challenges. Intech Open Books

Xu X, Lu Y, Vogel-Heuser B, Wang L (2021) Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0—inception, conception and perception. J Manuf Syst 61:530–535

Breque M, De Nul L, Petridis A (2021) Industry 5.0: towards a sustainable, human-centric and resilient European Industry

Bettoni A, Montini E, Righi M, Villani V, Tsvetanov R, Borgia S, Carpanzano E (2020) Mutualistic and adaptive human-machine collaboration based on machine learning in an injection moulding manufacturing line. Procedia CIRP 93:395–400

Wilson HJ, Daugherty PR (2018) Collaborative intelligence: humans and AI are joining forces. Harv Bus Rev 96(4):114–123

Tiwari S, Bahuguna PC, Walker J (2022) Industry 5.0: a macroperspective approach. In Handbook Res Innov Manag Using AI Indust 5.0 (pp. 59–73). IGI Global

Martinelli, E. M, Tunisini, A (2018). Customer integration into supply chains: literature review and research propositions. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Javaid M, Haleem A, Singh RP, Haq MIU, Raina A, Suman R (2020). Industry 5.0: potential applications in COVID-19. J Indust Integ Manag 5(04):507–530

Kent MD, Kopacek P (2021) Social and ethical aspects of automation. In Digital conversion on the way to Industry 4.0: selected papers from ISPR2020, September 24–26, 2020 Online-Turkey (pp. 363–372). Springer International Publishing

Brandenburg M, Gruchmann T, Oelze N (2019) Sustainable supply chain management—a conceptual framework and future research perspectives. Sustainability 11(24):7239

Jabbour CJC, Fiorini PDC, Ndubisi NO, Queiroz MM, Piato ÉL (2020) Digitally-enabled sustainable supply chains in the 21st century: a review and a research agenda. Sci Total Environ 725:138177

Mageto J (2021) Big data analytics in sustainable supply chain management: a focus on manufacturing supply chains. Sustainability 13(13):7101

Bebbington J, Unerman J (2018) Achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: an enabling role for accounting research. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 31(1):2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2017-2929

Article   Google Scholar  

UNIDO (2020) Digital transformation strategy in action: developing a roadmap towards the fourth industrial revolution in Africa. United Nat Indust Develop Organ. Vienna, Austria

United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication . Accessed 02 July 2019

Khanfar AA, Iranmanesh M, Ghobakhloo M, Senali MG, Fathi M (2021) Applications of blockchain technology in sustainable manufacturing and supply chain management: a systematic review. Sustainability 13(14):7870

Saberi S, Kouhizadeh M, Sarkis J, Shen L (2019) Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management. Int J Prod Res 57(7):2117–2135

Cai YJ, Choi TM (2020) A United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals perspective for sustainable textile and apparel supply chain management. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 141:102010

Zambon I, Cecchini M, Egidi G, Saporito MG, Colantoni A (2019) Revolution 4.0: Industry vs. agriculture in a future development for SMEs. Processes 7(1):36

Adnan N, Nordin SM, Rahman I, Noor A (2018) The effects of knowledge transfer on farmers decision making toward sustainable agriculture practices: in view of green fertilizer technology. World Journal of Science, Technol Sustain Develop

Belaud JP, Prioux N, Vialle C, Sablayrolles C (2019) Big data for Agri-Food 4.0: application to sustainability management for by-products supply chain. Comput Ind 111:41–50

Ghisellini P, Cialani C, Ulgiati S (2016) A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J Clean Prod 114:11–32

Durakbasa NM, Gençyılmaz MG (Eds.) (2019) Proceedings of the International Symposium for Production Research 2019. Springer Nature

Cherrafi A, Chiarini A, Belhadi A, El Baz J, Benabdellah AC (2022) Digital technologies and circular economy practices: vital enablers to support sustainable and resilient supply chain management in the post-COVID-19 era. The TQM Journal 34(7):179–202

Mohammed A (2020) Towards ‘gresilient’ supply chain management: a quantitative study. Resour Conserv Recycl 155:104641

Duarte S, Cruz-Machado V (2017) Exploring linkages between lean and green supply chain and the industry 4.0. In Int Conf Manag Sci Eng Manag1242–1252. Springer, Cham

Kaklauskas A, Lepkova N, Raslanas S, Vetloviene I, Milevicius V, Sepliakov J (2021) COVID-19 and green housing: a review of relevant literature. Energies 14(8):2072

Madni AM, Jackson S (2009) Towards a conceptual framework for resilience engineering. IEEE Syst J 3(2):181–191

Leng J, Sha W, Wang B, Zheng P, Zhuang C, Liu Q, Wang L (2022) Industry 5.0: prospect and retrospect. J Manuf Syst 65:279–295

Fletcher D, Sarkar M (2013) Psychological resilience: a review and critique of definitions, concepts, and theory. Eur Psychol 18(1):12

Margherita EG, Bua I (2021) The role of human resource practices for the development of Operator 4.0 in Industry 4.0 organisations: a literature review and a research agenda. Businesses 1(1):18–33

Romero D, Stahre J (2021) Towards the resilient operator 5.0: the future of work in smart resilient manufacturing systems. Procedia CIRP 104:1089–1094

Hollnagel E (2011) Prologue: The scope of resilience engineering. resilience engineering in practice: a guidebook, E. Hollnagel et al (Eds.). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate

Zouari D, Ruel S, Viale L (2020) Does digitalising the supply chain contribute to its resilience? Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag

Saidi D, El Alami J, Hlyal M (2021) Building sustainable resilient supply chains in emerging economies: review of motivations and holistic framework. In IOP Conf Series Earth Environ Sci 690(1):012057. IOP Publishing

Kagermann H, Helbig J, Hellinger A, Wahlster W (2013) Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0: securing the future of German manufacturing industry; final report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group. Forschungsunion

Kamble SS, Gunasekaran A, Gawankar SA (2018) Sustainable Industry 4.0 framework: a systematic literature review identifying the current trends and future perspectives. Process Saf Environ Prot 117:408–425

Carayannis EG, Campbell DF (2021) Democracy of climate and climate for democracy: the evolution of quadruple and quintuple helix innovation systems. J Knowl Econ 12(4):2050–2082

Reine R, Juwono FH, Sim ZA, Wong WK (2021) Cyber-physical-social systems: an overview. Smart Connected World 25–45

Kache F, Seuring S (2017) Challenges and opportunities of digital information at the intersection of big data analytics and supply chain management. Int J Oper Prod Manag

Mishra D, Gunasekaran A, Papadopoulos T, Childe SJ (2018) Big data and supply chain management: a review and bibliometric analysis. Ann Oper Res 270(1–2):313–336

Raman S, Patwa N, Niranjan I, Ranjan U, Moorthy K, Mehta A (2018) Impact of big data on supply chain management. Int J Log Res Appl 21(6):579–596

Wamba SF, Gunasekaran A, Papadopoulos T, Ngai E (2018) Big data analytics in logistics and supply chain management. The International Journal of Logistics Management 29(2):478–484

Choi TM, Feng L, Li R (2020) Information disclosure structure in supply chains with rental service platforms in the blockchain technology era. Int J Prod Econ 221:107473

Zhang F, Wu X, Tang CS, Feng T, Dai Y (2020) Evolution of operations management research: from managing flows to building capabilities. Prod Oper Manag 29(10):2219–2229

Burgos D, Ivanov D (2021) Food retail supply chain resilience and the COVID-19 pandemic: a digital twin-based impact analysis and improvement directions. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 152:102412

Malik AA, Bilberg A (2018) Digital twins of human-robot collaboration in a production setting. Procedia manufacturing 17:278–285

Haleem A, Javaid M (2019) Additive manufacturing applications in industry 4.0: a review. J Indust Integ Manag 4(04), 1930001

Liu C, Tian W, Kan C (2022). When AI meets additive manufacturing: challenges and emerging opportunities for human-centered products development. J Manuf Syst

Woo WL (2020) Future trends in I&M: human-machine co-creation in the rise of AI. IEEE Instrum Meas Mag 23(2):71–73

Azadegan A, Dooley K (2021) A typology of supply network resilience strategies: complex collaborations in a complex world. J Supply Chain Manag 57(1):17–26

Hosseini S, Ivanov D, Dolgui A (2019) Review of quantitative methods for supply chain resilience analysis. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 125:285–307

Ivanov D (2021) Supply chain viability and the COVID-19 pandemic: a conceptual and formal generalisation of four major adaptation strategies. Int J Prod Res 59(12):3535–3552

Rozhkov M, Ivanov D, Blackhurst J, Nair A (2022) Adapting supply chain operations in anticipation of and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Omega 110:102635

Sawik B (2020) Selected multiple criteria supply chain optimization problems. In Appl Manag Sci 20:31–58. Emerald Publishing Limited

Maslow AH (1943) Theory of motivation. Psychol Rev 50(4):370–396

Carayannis EG, Campbell DF, Grigoroudis E (2022) Helix trilogy: the triple, quadruple, and quintuple innovation helices from a theory, policy, and practice set of perspectives. J Knowl Econ 13(3):2272–2301

Welfare KS, Hallowell MR, Shah JA, Riek LD (2019) Consider the human work experience when integrating robotics in the workplace. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE Int Conf Human-Robot Int (HRI) 5–84. IEEE

Doyle-Kent M, Kopacek P (2019) Industry 5.0: Is the manufacturing industry on the cusp of a new revolution?. In Proc Int Symp Prod Res 432–441. Springer, Cham

Bednar PM, Welch C (2020) Socio-technical perspectives on smart working: creating meaningful and sustainable systems. Inf Syst Front 22(2):281–298

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Computer Science, University of Essex, Colchester, Essex, UK

Alice Villar

School of Arts, Social Sciences, and Management, Queen Margaret University, Musselburgh, UK

Stefania Paladini

Faculty of Computer Science, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK

Oliver Buckley

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception or design of the work: Alice Villar. Data collection: Alice Villar. Data analysis and interpretation: Alice Villar. Drafting the article: Alice Villar. Critical revision of the article: Alice Villar, Stefania Paladini, and Oliver Buckley. Final approval of the version to be published: Alice Villar, Stefania Paladini, and Oliver Buckley.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefania Paladini .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

This is not applicable.

Consent to Participate

Consent for publication, conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Advances and Applications in Supply Chain Management

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Villar, A., Paladini, S. & Buckley, O. Towards Supply Chain 5.0: Redesigning Supply Chains as Resilient, Sustainable, and Human-Centric Systems in a Post-pandemic World. Oper. Res. Forum 4 , 60 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-023-00234-3

Download citation

Received : 19 March 2023

Accepted : 08 June 2023

Published : 29 July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-023-00234-3

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Industry 5.0
• Supply Chain 5.0
• Intelligent manufacturing
• Collaborative manufacturing
• Supply chain resilience (SCR)
• Supply chain sustainability (SCS)
• Human-centric supply chain (HCSC)
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

A Supply Chain, Research Paper Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2329

Hire a Writer for Custom Research Paper

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Introduction

A supply chain may be defined as the number of business practices that move goods from that of raw materials through supply, production and the final distribution of the goods to the customer. Most manufacturing organizations have a supply chain of some description. It is considered that all effective management practices must take into consideration the efficiencies of the component within the chain in order to avoid loss of quality and important customers within the business.

The process

Within any supply chain there are five key elements: 1) Production 2) Supply 3) Inventory 4) Location and 5) Transportation and Information.  Each of these is examined in turn.

Production |   In order to facilitate strategic decision making relative to production it is important to understand both what the client wants and equally what the market demands. This leads to the development of supply chain agility and indicates how many products will need to be completed; the sequence to be completed, the individual components required and which plants are capable of producing them. Each of these decisions needs to focus on items such as inventory management, quality, capacity and the volume of goods to be produced in order to meet the customer need. In addition what techniques of quality control need to be introduced in order to meet the required standards of production?

Supply | This relates to the facility being able to produce efficient and economical goods whilst maintaining high levels of quality. This can be very hard for companies to achieve, particularly when the product incorporates external sub components made outside of the firm.  Hence there is a need to QA external products as meeting a required standard of quality. This not only applies to imported finished goods but also the quality of raw materials being used. When selecting a supplier it is a careful balance of cost, quality, reliability and flexibility. A good supplier relationship helps to build a strategic business relationship.

Inventory | Other important decisions relate to stock or inventory and as such it is a very fine balance between holding too much inventory and not enough. This becomes an important aspect of supply chain management and it is important to retain optimum levels of stock at different locations without holding too much inventory which creates under-utilized capital. There is also the risk of obsolescence for those goods that exceed their storage dates. Control policies need to examine the procedure for retention of inventory and this involves close customer relationship management.

Location | Strategic decisions are focused upon such items as the location of production plants, distribution and stock facilities and the location of these facilities to the market. Once customers are established it is important that they are services by having production facilities within close proximity to them. This was an important part of the success of the Industrial Revolution in Britain the mines producing raw materials i.e. Coal, Coke etc.  were close to the factories that needed to burn them for power and fuel, together with the steel plants that needed the coal for the furnaces.

Transportation & Information

Transportation decisions are an important part of satisfying customer demand.   (Rockford Consulting, 2012). Creating  innovation requires good organization of information. Computers and software provide important valuable assists in the achievement of these objectives but it still remains important to conduct regular business process analysis and eliminate any redundancies or duplication of effort.

Figure 1 : Supply Chain Management

The illustration to the right shows the different components within Supply Chain Management and how these form an integrated holistic process.

The three components of supply chain management

There are three essential important components of Supply Chain Management:

• Business Processes
• Management Components
• Network Structure

Each of these can be examined in turn:

Business Processes | It is the business processes that define both the activities and flow of information within the organization. For example: order processing, customer services, distribution etc. It is important to gain a firm understanding of the business processes by conducting business process analysis. This enables the processes to be optimized by streamlining, elimination of redundant processes and building enhanced processes.

Network structure | This identifies those partners who collaborate in the supply chain. They are the important key business players. Relationships can be placed into categories for example: Strategic Partners, Manufacturing, Operational and Reserve list.

Management Components | The management component contains the company philosophy for doing business and the methods that it will deploy in order to carry this out.  This should be a clear Executive framework that supports a reliable decision making process. It is important that the managers embrace the culture of the Company and this is clearly demonstrated to both the customers and those who work within the organization. (Jesperson, B.D. 2005)

Interpreting logistics in the supply chain

Logistics may be defined as the function that manages the movement of the materials in the supply chain. This is the movement of materials from the initial supply to that of the final delivery to the customer. The concept of logistics embraces a number of distinct activities like procurement, warehousing, inventory management, order processing, recycling and distribution etc. (Sadler, I.  2007)

Benefits of logistics Management| Managers will be better informed and make smarter decisions if they understand the business processes within their organization. This is critical in the achievement of business goals. Efficient logistics management is also an important vehicle in the development of the business marketing strategy.  The roots of logistics management can be traced back to WW2 and the military application of mobilizing resources and materials. These early concepts were further evolved in the 1960’s with physical distribution management. In the 1990’s the advances in communication with Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) enabled electronic transfer of information between organizations. We now have Global Positioning (GP) technology that enables precise tracking of goods on a truly globalized basis.

The use of logistics software has the benefit of placing controls within the system and ensures that proper routing choices are made. This includes the selection of the correct carriers and optimal shipping routes. These time savings provide a considerable return on investment.

Exploration of new concepts

The external supply chain advances beyond the basic concepts of supply chain management. It brings into play all of the additional business links and the complex levels of interactivity. The integration of all of these steps is extremely complex. One such business that has stepped up to the challenge is that of Ford Motor Company in the USA. They have vertically integrated every aspect of the business from mining to manufacturing. The main driver of these new concepts has clearly been centred on customer satisfaction.       One of the goals of integrated supply chain management is to remove barriers in order to allow the free flow of materials. One such barrier is that of shared resources in the supply chain. One new approach is removing this barrier and thereby changing the focus to that of ‘buyer focus’. Two existing approaches on the removal of barriers are that of lean thinking and agile manufacturing. Shared resources create a problem by adding to the complexity of planning and control, as such creating a barrier. Buyer focus looks towards splitting the buyer process into more manageable components in order to meet improved performance criteria. In this concept resources are singled out in order to serve one buyer. Hence one buyer serves the whole range of supply products.

Supply chain management is a relatively new concept. The origins can be traced back as recent as 26 years to a Booze Allen Consultant named Keith Oliver. It was Oliver who defined the term and provided the early foundation concepts to what we now know today as integrated supply chain management. It was the Japanese who really adopted this approach in manufacturing and adapted the techniques of ‘just-in-time’ and ‘Ken Ban’; these techniques becoming universally accepted and adopted throughout the west. The large software vendors like Oracle and SAP were looking towards computer software solutions for the automation of these complex processes. Despite making advances in this area it is still difficult to point towards a single standard or procedure for adoption in Supply Chain Management. (Thorsten Blecker, 2006)

Software Applications |   JDA is an example of a software Company that claims to have in excess of 6000 world-wide customers and  their software covers the entire spectrum of supply chain management.  Another leading player in this field is that of the software firm Logility.  Other leading software suppliers like ORACLE and SAP have integrated these applications into the more wider ranging Enterprise Planning software solutions.

Mitigating risks in the supply chain

Financial Control – The key towards the management of financial risks in Transportation costs is by having an effective budgetary control system.  Planned levels of expenditure (budgets) are made for all levels of operating costs and these are measured against Actual results in the monthly accounts.  These will produce variances, either positive (underspend) or negative (overspend).  Those negative variances that fall outside of a prescribed tolerance level e.g. +/- 10% of the budget figure, should be made the point of financial investigation and appropriate remedial action taken.  This could be the result of increased supplier costs, unplanned overspend, an increase in the quality of materials and hence costs.  There may be numerous reasons but the objective should be to get the expenditure back within the budget tolerance limit.  ( Sodhi, M.S. 2012)

Financial control should also be linked to Project Management. In particular examination of contingency plans for alternate suppliers within the supply chain.  Lack of appropriate alternative suppliers can expose the firm to unplanned financial risks and cost escalation.  The concept of Analytical Risk Mitigation is an approach that explores the relationship between cost and change and this is linked to economic considerations like supply and demand, marginal cost statements, break even analysis. This approach allows firms to deploy risk mitigation strategies that diversify or spread the nature of the risk thereby minimizing the amount of cost disruption to the business.

Economic Measures – This ties in with logistics and ensuring that measures are taken to mitigate expenditure within the transportation of goods within the supply chain. Logistics may be defined as the function that manages the movement of the materials in the supply chain. This is the movement of materials from the initial supply to that of the final delivery to the customer. The concept of logistics embraces a number of distinct activities like procurement, warehousing, inventory management, order processing, recycling and distribution etc.

Benefits of logistics management means that managers will be better informed and make smarter decisions if they understand the business processes within their organization. This is critical in the achievement of business goals. Efficient logistics management is also an important vehicle in the development of the business marketing strategy.  The use of logistics software has the benefit of placing controls within the system and ensures that proper routing choices are made. This includes the selection of the correct carriers and optimal shipping routes. These time savings provide a considerable return on investment and reduces the level of risk involved.

One of the goals of the integrated supply chain is to remove barriers in order to allow the free flow of materials. One such barrier is that of shared resources in the supply chain. One new approach is removing this barrier and thereby changing the focus to that of ‘buyer focus’. Two existing approaches on the removal of barriers are that of lean thinking and agile manufacturing. Shared resources create a problem by adding to the complexity of planning and control, as such creating a barrier. Buyer focus looks towards splitting the buyer process into more manageable components in order to meet improved performance criteria. In this concept resources are singled out in order to serve one buyer. Hence one buyer serves the whole range of supply products.

Risks and responses should be reported to the project sponsor and other management stakeholders on project status and progress reports.  Risk management items should be also part of regularly scheduled project Steering Committee meetings. When risk events occur, the impact and actual damage to the project are assessed.  Appropriate corrective response plans, workarounds and action items are executed. When a risk event does occur, it becomes an issue that has an impact on the project deliverables and as such it is important that these are resolved at the earliest opportunity The probability and impact matrix is a vehicle whereby the Project Manager and his team determine elements of risks involved in the project and the activities or phases where these may impact the project.

Conclusions

The larger more complex business operations are moving towards the installation of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems that embrace supply chain management. These integrated systems use a single relational database management (rdbms) system. If these are installed properly they can offer significant competitive advantages to the firm. There are however some drawbacks in that they are extremely expensive to set up and install. In addition they propose both complex and expensive maintenance procedures. Some products like that of SAP have had a limited expert resource base to draw from. This has resulted in large in-house training programs and as such added a further layer of expense to the cost of software acquisition. Those firms that have trodden down this path agree that this is an investment over time. The rewards show at a later date once you gain formal control over inventories and the movement of goods in the organization. (Madu, C.N. 2005)

Christian N. Madu, C.-H. K. (2005). Erp And Supply Chain Management. Fairfield CT: Chi Publishers.

Jesperson, B. (2005). Supply chain management: in theory and practice . Supply Chain Management Theory & Practice , 21-23.

ManMohan S. Sodhi, C. S. (2012). Managing Supply Chain Risk. New York: Springer.

Rockford Consulting. (2012, 7 20). Supply Chain Management . Retrieved from Rockford Consulting: http://rockfordconsulting.com/supply-chain-management.htm

Sadler, I. (2007). Logistics and Supply Chain Integration. London: Sage.

Thorsten Blecker, W. K. (2006). Complexity Management in Supply Chains: Concepts, Tools and Methods. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag GmbH.

Stuck with your Research Paper?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Article Presentation, Essay Example

The Code of Conduct, Research Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Research Paper Samples & Examples

The risk of teenagers smoking, research paper example.

Pages: 11

Words: 3102

Impacts on Patients and Healthcare Workers in Canada, Research Paper Example

Pages: 7

Words: 1839

Death by Neurological Criteria, Research Paper Example

Words: 2028

Ethical Considerations in End-Of-Life Care, Research Paper Example

Pages: 5

Words: 1391

Ethical Dilemmas in Brain Death, Research Paper Example

Words: 2005

Politics of Difference and the Case of School Uniforms, Research Paper Example

Pages: 2

Words: 631