International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics ManagementEricsson's proactive supply chain risk management approach after a serious sub-supplieraccidentAndreas Norrman Ulf Jansson

Article information:To cite this document:Andreas Norrman Ulf Jansson, (2004),"Ericsson's proactive supply chain risk management approach aftera serious sub-supplier accident", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol.34 Iss 5 pp. 434 - 456Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030410545463

Downloaded on: 05 November 2015, At: 18:32 (PT)References: this document contains references to 31 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 25229 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Rao Tummala, Tobias Schoenherr, (2011),"Assessing and managing risks using the Supply Chain RiskManagement Process (SCRMP)", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16 Iss 6 pp.474-483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598541111171165Craig R. Carter, Dale S. Rogers, (2008),"A framework of sustainable supply chain management: movingtoward new theory", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 38 Iss5 pp. 360-387 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030810882816Larry C. Giunipero, Reham Aly Eltantawy, (2004),"Securing the upstream supply chain: a risk managementapproach", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34 Iss 9 pp.698-713 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030410567478

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Emerald Subscribers

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

Ericsson’s proactive supply chainrisk management approach aftera serious sub-supplier accident

Andreas NorrmanDepartment of Industrial Management and Logistics, Lund University,

Lund, Sweden, and

Ulf JanssonEricsson AB, Sweden, Core Unit Supply, Stockholm, Sweden

Keywords Supply chain management, Risk management, Business continuity, Insurance

Abstract Supply chain risk management (SCRM) is of growing importance, as the vulnerabilityof supply chains increases. The main thrust of this article is to describe how Ericsson, after a fire ata sub-supplier, with a huge impact on Ericsson, has implemented a new organization, and newprocesses and tools for SCRM. The approach described tries to analyze, assess and manage risksources along the supply chain, partly by working close with suppliers but also by placing formalrequirements on them. This explorative study also indicates that insurance companies might be adriving force for improved SCRM, as they now start to understand the vulnerability of modernsupply chains. The article concludes with a discussion of risk related to traditional logistics concepts(time, cost, quality, agility and leanness) by arguing that supply chain risks should also be put intothe trade-off analysis when evaluating new logistics solutions – not with the purpose to minimizerisks, however, but to find the efficient level of risk and prevention.

IntroductionBackgroundIn industry, especially those industries moving towards longer supply chains (e.g. dueto outsourcing) and facing increasingly uncertain demand as well as supply, the issueof risk handling and risk sharing along the supply chain is an important topic. Theleaner and more integrated supply chains get, the more likely uncertainties, dynamicsand accidents in one link affect the other links in the chain. Hence, the supply chainvulnerability (Svensson, 2000; Christopher et al., 2002) increases, and it will increaseeven more if companies, by outsourcing, have become dependent on otherorganizations. A number of current business trends that increase the vulnerabilityto risks in supply chains are:

. increased use of outsourcing of manufacturing and R&D to suppliers;

. globalization of supply chains;

. reduction of supplier base;

. more intertwined and integrated processes between companies;

. reduced buffers, e.g. inventory and lead time;

. increased demand for on-time deliveries in shorter time windows, and shorterlead times;

. shorter product life cycles and compressed time-to-market;

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.htm

IJPDLM34,5

434

Received July 2003Revised February 2004Accepted March 2004

International Journal of PhysicalDistribution & Logistics ManagementVol. 34 No. 5, 2004pp. 434-456q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0960-0035DOI 10.1108/09600030410545463

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

. fast and heavy ramp-up of demand early in product life cycles; and

. capacity limitation of key components.

Souter (2000) stresses that companies should not only focus on their own risks: theymust also focus on risks in other links in their supply chain. According to Lambert andCooper (2000) and Mentzer et al. (2001), for example, a key component for supply chainmanagement (SCM) is sharing both risks and rewards between the members of thesupply chain. This is often mentioned, but not further elaborated on, in traditional SCMliterature. The focus of supply chain risk management (SCRM) is to understand, andtry to avoid, the devastating ripple effects that disasters or even minor businessdisruptions can have in a supply chain. Some examples of risk sources and such“supply chain rippling effects” from the last few years are:

. Hurricanes. Hurricane Floyd flooded a Daimler-Chrysler plant producingsuspension parts in Greenville, North Carolina (USA). As a result, seven of thecompany’s other plants across North America had to be shut down for sevendays.

. Diseases. The foot-and-mouth disease in the UK in 2001 affected the agricultureindustry more than its last outbreak 25 years ago. The reason for this was thatformer local and regional supply networks had become national andinternational, and that the industry was much more consolidated (Juttner et al.,2002). But many other industries were also affected: luxury car manufacturerslike Volvo and Jaguar had to stop deliveries due to lack of quality leather supply.

. Fires. Toyota was forced to shut down 18 plants for almost two weeks followinga fire in February 1997 at its brake-fluid proportioning valve supplier (AisinSeiki). Costs caused by the disruption were estimated to be $195 million and salesloss was estimated to 70,000 vehicles (, $325 million) (Converium, 2001).

. Demand. Rapidly weakening demand coupled with locked-in supply agreementsmade Cisco take a $2.5 billion inventory write-off in Q2 2001.

. Supply. Inaccurate supply planning led Nike to an inventory shortage of “hot”footwear models and the sales for Q3 2001 were $100 million off target.

. Supply chain capacity risks. In a situation where demand is very uncertain, andthe capacity bottleneck is far upstream from the market place, the risk ofinvesting in more capacity could be a joint issue for the whole supply chain, anddifferent instruments for supply chain risk sharing can be used.

PurposeRecently, the interest of supply chain risk management has increased in purchasing,logistics and supply chain management research (e.g. Smeltzer and Siferd, 1998;Zsidisin and Ellram, 1999; Hallikas et al., 2000; Ritchie et al., 2000; Lindroth andNorrman, 2001; Johnson, 2001; Lamming et al., 2001; Christopher et al., 2002). Thisarticle aims to extend current SCRM knowledge by describing and sharing insights ofa company’s new organization, processes and tools focused on SCRM. The company isEricsson, a leading telecom company seriously affected by a fire at a sub-supplier someyears ago, an accident which has been widely reported (e.g. TheWall Street Journal,2001).

Ericsson’sproactiveapproach

435

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. First, literature related tosupply chain risk management and business continuity planning in a supply chainperspective will be summarized to give a background of the topic. Then there is a shortdiscussion of the methodology. Next, the case is introduced by a short description ofthe ”Albuquerque incident” that increased Ericsson’s focus on supply chain riskmanagement. The following section describes Ericsson’s current approach to SCRM,and the paper ends with a concluding discussion.

Supply chain risk managementThe underlying definition of SCRM in this article is:

Supply chain risk management is to [collaborate] with partners in a supply chain apply riskmanagement process tools to deal with risks and uncertainties caused by, or impacting on,logistics related activities or resources (Norrman and Lindroth, 2002).

Supply chain risk management could of course deal with risks for a single company, oreven with the impact on a single logistics activity. But following the definition, the unitanalyzed should represent a buyer-seller relationship (a dyad) or, preferably, a supplychain of three or more companies. Two important dimensions in the definition are riskand uncertainties and the risk management process, which will now be furtherelaborated on.

Risk and uncertaintyDeloach (2000) defines business risk as “the level of exposure to uncertainties that theenterprise must understand and effectively manage as it executes its strategies toachieve its business objectives and create value”. A more standard definition of risk is“risk is the chance, in quantitative terms, of a defined hazard occurring. It thereforecombines a probabilistic measure of the occurrence of the primary event(s) with ameasure of the consequences of that/those event(s)” (The Royal Society, 1992, p. 4).Hence, risk is a quality that reflects both the range of possible outcomes and thedistribution of respective probabilities for each of the outcomes. This “quantitativedefinition” could be expressed: Risk ¼ Probability (of the event) * Business Impact (orseverity) of the event, often illustrated in a risk map or matrix (Figure 1). While riskscan be calculated, uncertainties are genuinely unknown.

But as soon as the “quantitative definition” is left for a broader and more businessoriented perspective, the term also gets fuzzier. Juttner et al. (2002) have also observedthat the use of the term “risk” can be confusing, and they argue that risk should beseparated from “risk (and uncertainty) sources” and “risk consequences” (equal to theterm risk impact). Risk sources are the environmental, organizational or supply chainrelated variables that cannot be predicted with certainty and that affect the supplychain-outcome variables. Juttner et al. (2002) suggest organizing risk sources relevantfor supply chains into three categories:

(1) Numbers: external to the supply chain.

(2) Internal to the supply chain.

(3) Network related.

External risk sources are exemplified by “political risks”, “natural risks”, “social risks”,“industry/market risks” (e.g. volatility of customer demand). Internal risk sources

IJPDLM34,5

436

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

range from labor (strikes) or production (e.g. machine failure) to IT systemuncertainties. Network-related risks arise from interaction between organizationswithin the supply chain, e.g. due to insufficient interaction and cooperation. Riskconsequences/impacts are the focused supply chain outcome variables like costs orquality (but also health and safety), i.e. the different forms in which the variancebecomes manifest. Other authors discussing similar types of risks are Johnson (2001)and Zsidisin (2001). Johnson (2001) divides supply chains risks between supply risks(e.g. capacity limitations, currency fluctuations and supply disruptions) and demandrisks (e.g. seasonal imbalances, volatility of fads, new products). Zsidisin et al. (e.g.2000) focuses on supply risks related to design, quality, cost, availability,manufacturability, supplier, legal, and environmental, health and safety.

We find supply chain risks to be related to the logistics activities in companies’flows of material and information. Consequently, it is only a part of all business risks.(But, on the other hand, the supply chain perspective also implies a perspective notonly including your own company, but a chain of at least three entities: customers,suppliers, sub-suppliers, etc.)

The stages of the risk management processRisk management is the making of decisions regarding risks and their subsequentimplementation, and flows from risk estimation and risk evaluation (The RoyalSociety, 1992, p. 3). The risk management process is focused on understanding therisks, and minimizing their impact by addressing, e.g. probability and direct impact.The stages of the risk management process discussed can vary from riskidentification/analysis (or estimation) via risk assessment (or evaluation) to differentways of risk management (labels differ among authors although the steps are similar).

Parallel to risk management is the issue of how to mitigate the consequences of anaccident if it does happen: to deal with the situation in a way that minimizes businessimpact. This is normally referred to as business continuity management (BCM) andrelates to those management disciplines, processes and techniques, which seek toprovide the means for continuous operations of essential functions under allcircumstances (Hiles and Barnes, 2001, p. 379). BCM aims at getting interrupted

Figure 1.Risk map/matrix

Ericsson’sproactiveapproach

437

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

businesses restarted. In many ways, risk management and BCM are overlapping, andsome argue that business continuity plans development is the risk management actionto take for risks of low probability (such as fires and floods), but whose potentialimpact is a business failure.

Supply chain risk analysis and assessmentRisk analysis/identification is an important stage in the risk management process.Consequently, by identifying a risk, decision-makers become aware of events that maycause disturbances. To assess supply chain risk exposures, the company must identifynot only direct risks to its operations, but also the potential causes or sources of thoserisks at every significant link along the supply chain (Christopher et al., 2002). Hence,the main focus of supply chain risk analysis is to recognize future uncertainties toenable proactive management of risk-related issues.

There are many methods for risk identification and analysis. One important tool isrisk mapping, i.e. using a structured approach and mapping risk sources and therebyunderstanding their potential consequences. Two commonly used techniques forresearching factors and causes contributing to accidental events are the “fault treeanalysis” (FTA) and the “event tree analysis” (ETA). Both are logic diagrams thatrepresent the sequences of failures that may propagate through a complex system.FTA examines all potential events leading up to the critical event and is a graphicaldiagram that shows how a system can fail. The analysis starts with top events, thenthe necessary and sufficiently hazardous events, the causes and contributing factors ofwhich are identified together with their logical relationships by way of a “backwardlogic”. The ETA is also a graphical logic diagram, but goes the other way. It focuses onevents that could occur after a critical event and identifies and quantifies possibleoutcomes following initiating events by looking at potential consequences (e.g. Mullaiand Paulsson, 2002). For both techniques, quantitative data, such as probabilities forevents, could be used to get an idea of the final probability. Deloach (2000) proposes asimilar tool called risk driver map, where potential threats are mapped.

After the risk analysis, it is important to assess and prioritize risks to be able tochoose management actions appropriate to the situation. One common method is tocompare events by assessing their probabilities and consequences and put them in arisk map/matrix (Figure 1). In theory, and when historical events are assessed, thiscould be quite a straightforward and quantitative task, but in business this could be asubjective process relying on specialists’ judgements. Hallikas et al. (2000), show anexample of this in a supply context. In practice, other risk assessment tools are alsoused, which are not consistent with the theory of probability and impact but cover abroader perspective instead. Zsidisin and Ellram (1999) summarize the supply riskassessment process of a Fortune 500 high-tech company, and propose a ten-stepapproach to risk assessment (Figure 2). Primarily, they are concerned withmaterial-related risks that could affect timely and cost-effective delivery of qualityproducts and services.

Risk managementRisk management is the process whereby decisions are made to accept a known orassessed risk and/or the implementation of actions to reduce the consequences orprobability of occurrence. Generally used actions for risk management are to avoid,

IJPDLM34,5

438

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

reduce, transfer, share or even take the risk. To avoid is to eliminate the types of eventthat could trigger the risk. To reduce applies both to reduction of probability andconsequence. Examples of how to reduce the impact could be to have an extrainventory, multiple sources, back-up sites/resources identified, sprinklers in buildings,having risk managers and emergency teams appointed, parallel systems or todiversify. Probability could be reduced by improving risky operational processes, bothinternally and in cooperation with suppliers, and to improve related processes, e.g.supplier selection. Risk could also be transferred to insurance companies – but also tosupply chain partners by moving inventory liability, changing delivery times ofsuppliers (just-in-time deliveries) and to customers (make-to-order manufacturing), orby outsourcing activities. Furthermore, contracts can be used to transfer commercialrisks. Finally, risks could be shared, both by contractual mechanisms (e.g. Tsay et al.(1998) or Cachon (2002), for a review on supply chain contracts) and by improvedcollaboration.

Business continuity managementBusiness continuity management (BCM) is defined as:

. . . the development of strategies, plans and actions which provide protection or alternativemodes of operation for those activities or business processes which, if they were to beinterrupted, might otherwise bring about a seriously damaging or potentially fatal loss to theenterprise” (Hiles and Barnes, 2001).

Business continuity management includes crisis management (overall processes tomanage the incident), disaster recovery (recovery of critical systems, applications, dataand networks), business recovery (recovery of critical business processes) andcontingency planning (recovery from impact external to the organization) (CMI, 2002).

Developing action plans is important in BCM, and business continuity planning(BCP) is a term often used. BCP is planning to ensure continued operations in case of acatastrophic event. But it goes beyond disaster-recovery planning, since it includes theactions to be taken, resources required, and procedures to be followed to ensure thecontinued availability of essential services, programs and operations in the event ofunexpected interruptions. BCP has previously been mostly related to computers andinformation technology-related disasters, especially before Y2K, but since then theapproach has moved towards more applications in other business contexts. However,according to a study by CMI (2002), only about 30 percent of all companies studieddeveloped BCP jointly with suppliers. Only 9 percent of companies that haveoutsourced activities (not only logistics) insist on their outsource suppliers havingbusiness continuity plans.

Figure 2.Supply risk assessment

process based on Zsidisinand Ellram (1999)

Ericsson’sproactiveapproach

439

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

The first activities in developing business continuity plans are identifying the risksand assessing their probability and impact – the steps are hence identical to riskmanagement. Part of this is to understand what will be affected (damage potentialanalysis). Then, strategies and recovery plans should be developed that could beimplemented both before the incident (similar to risk management strategies) and afterthe incident. Post-incident strategies are implemented to maintain partial or totalproduct supply and could for manufacturing and logistics include (Musson, 2001):

. use of spare capacity within the organization;

. shutdown of marginal product lines and transfer of key products to thoseproduction facilities;

. assistance from competition;

. outsourcing to sub-contractors, job shops, etc.;

. re-labeling of competitors’ products (after consideration of all legal implications);and

. establishment of temporary facilities when production capabilities can beestablished with “off-the-shelf” or second-hand equipment.

MethodologySince only limited empirical research on how companies deal with supply chain riskmanagement has been found, an explorative approach has been chosen. Examples ofearlier case studies in the area are those of Zsidisin (2001), Zsidisin and Ellram (1999)and Zsidisin et al. (2000), but they have focused more on purchasing and “supply” thana “supply-chain approach”, consisting of the idea to work with risks along multiplecompanies in a chain. In our study, a single case is used, which is an appropriate way ofestablishing the field at the early stages of an emerging topic (Eisenhardt, 1989). Tocapture and examine contemporary events, the case study approach is normallypreferred (Yin, 1994). The single case could give good enough insights on the breadthof issues and a better opportunity to penetrate important issues. Ericsson has beenchosen for several different reasons: It is in a volatile industry that faces many of thebusiness trends described in the introduction; it has recently had a major supply chainincident that has been widely reported; lately, it has worked hard to improve its supplychain risk management; and, finally, the company has been willing to openly share itsexperiences and has given good access to information and data.

Empirical data have initially been collected through semi-structured and openinterviews done by the academic co-author with about ten representatives from variousfunctions within Ericsson: corporate risk management, core unit supply (a bothstrategic and operational SCM-function), sourcing, and supply chain risk management(industry co-author). In addition, supplementary documents showing processes,organizational structures and risk management tools were collected by the academicco-author to verify and more detailed illustrate the findings from the interviews. Byusing multiple sources of evidence and interviewees, construct validity improves (Yin,1994). The joint writing process started with a structured synopsis developed by theacademic researcher, comparable with an interview guide, which was then filled withfacts and descriptions in a collaborative writing and analysis process. (The “industryco-author” had of course meetings and written communication with colleagues to getsupplementary data and opinions). By this collaborative writing and analysis process

IJPDLM34,5

440

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

between an academic and industry co-author, we think that the richness of the casestudy description can be improved as well as the construct validity increased (Yin,1994, pp. 32-4). Further the final paper has been returned for comments and correctionto the other functions interviewed. As this research is an explorative single case study,external validity and broad generalizability are difficult to address. One purpose hasbeen to describe “pioneering practice” for other practioneers to make it possible tobenchmark, and for academics to start a process of “analytical generalization” (Yin,1994) by first doing replicate studies and “pattern matching-analysis”. Hence externalvalidity and generalizability could increase over time with more cases.

Ericsson and the sub-supplier accidentEricsson is the largest supplier of mobile telecom systems in the world, activeworldwide since 1876 and currently employing approximately 61,000 people in morethan 140 countries. The world’s ten largest mobile-phone operators are among theircustomers and some 40 percent of all mobile phone calls are made through Ericssonsystems. For the last ten years, Ericsson has outsourced a great deal of its assemblyand production to contract manufacturers and sub-suppliers. With Sony Ericsson(including Ericsson’s old cellular phone business) it is also a top supplier of completemobile multi-media products. Like most companies, Ericsson has been exposed to anumber of risks and incidents in the last few years:, e.g. suppliers having quality anddelivery problem, industries’ general lack of capacity, and power disruption lasting afew days. We will shortly describe the accident that can be seen as the major trigger forEricsson to improve its supply chain risk management.

The Albuquerque accidentA major accident from an Ericsson perspective was a fire on 18 March 2000 in a verysmall production cell (small as a conference room for ten people) at a sub-supplier’splant in Albuquerque, New Mexico (USA). The ten-minute fire was an effect of alightning bolt hitting an electric line in New Mexico, causing power fluctuationsthroughout the state. The problem was that when the power was out, there was nospare diesel motor to supply the fans with power, so the fans stopped. From a plantperspective, the resulting fire was almost negligible, and when the fire brigadearrived it was sent home as the fire already was out (The Wall Street Journal). But forEricsson, the impact was huge. In the spring of 2001, when the annual report fromEricsson was announced, a major loss of about $400 million was indicated, primarilydue to gaps in the supply of radio-frequency chips from this supplier. The reason wasthat the fire occurred in one of the plant’s “clean rooms”, where absolutely no dust istolerated. Due to the fire, and especially the smoke and sprinkler water, it took almostthree weeks until the production was up and running. After six months, the yield wasonly 50 percent, and it would take years to get new equipment delivered andinstalled. As this plant was Ericsson’s only source for this chip, Ericsson was not ableto sell and deliver one of its key consumer products during its booming “marketwindow”. The company lost many months of mobile phone production, and theaccident finally had a great impact on Ericsson’s decision to withdraw from themobile phone terminal business.

Later, Ericsson’s business interruption costs were calculated as approximately $200million, which was compensated by insurance companies. This was one of the biggest

Ericsson’sproactiveapproach

441

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

insurance payments that year (after the 9/11 disaster). The accident made Ericssonrealize the importance of not only understanding and managing risks internally – butalso trying to better analyze, assess and manage risk along the supply chain and totake immediate action when incidents are indicated. In a widespread analysis, TheWall Street Journal argued that Ericsson did not take action quickly and powerfullyenough after the “Albuquerque accident”, and that it took too long before highermanagement was aware of the incident. Further, Ericsson neither had alternativesources nor was prepared for this kind of accident. Now, actions have been taken:During the last few years, a formal SCRM organization has been put in place, andmany SCRM processes and tools have been developed and implemented. Today’sphilosophy at Ericsson is that “everyone is a risk manager”.

Ericsson’s current supply chain risk management approachIn the last few years (after the “Albuquerque accident” and before the renewal of itsinsurance), Ericsson has further developed and implemented processes and tools forsupply chain risk management. The purpose is “minimizing risk exposure in thesupply chain”. Its approach for this (Figure 3) is based on a process withfeedback-loops between the sub-processes. The risk management process includes riskidentification (similar to risk analysis), risk assessment, risk treatment (similar to riskmanagement) as previously discussed in theory, but it has also added a process step forrisk monitoring. In parallel (and central) to this, the company has put incident handlingand contingency planning.

Organizational principles and responsibilityPreviously, risk management was handled by a corporate function, mostly dealingwith insurance companies (and later also security). In the last few years theorganisation for supply chain risk management has been developed and many peopleand functions are involved. On a high level, the corporate function for riskmanagement, the SCM/logistics function (in Ericsson called the core unit supply) andthe purchasing function (core unit sourcing) are involved, as well as (Figure 4) the unitsresponsible for the different business areas (SBAs). They are working together in a

Figure 3.Ericsson’s basic approachto SCRM

IJPDLM34,5

442

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

matrix-oriented way, for example with a risk management council with representativesfrom the different units. The roles of the main functions involved are:

. corporate risk management has the overall responsibility for risk management inthe Ericsson group and has contact with the insurance companies and co-ordinatesrisk management activities in the whole group, also developing directives;

. core unit supply (CSUP) is responsible for the operative work and daily interfacewith suppliers;

. system business area (SBA) has the business perspective and owns the product;and

. core unit sourcing is responsible for the commercial interfaces with the supplierand is therefore involved in evaluation of suppliers and when incidents occur.

A matrix approach is taken (Figure 5) on a more operational level within theSCM/logistics function (CSUP), as well. A supply chain risk manager, placed withincore unit supply, is responsible for development and implementation of SCRM. He isworking closely together with corporate risk management, as well as with the “linepeople” (supply chain managers), responsible for different supply chains and hencealso for the supply chains risks. Supply chain managers are also part of CSUP, butinterfacing the SBAs. Supply chain managers should use the tools and processesdeveloped by the SCR manager to analyze, assess and manage risk in their supplychains. In this work purchasers are involved in the assessments of and contacts withsuppliers. The roles of the operational people involved in SCRM are:

. Supply chain risk manager (SCR manager) at core unit supply runs andcoordinates the work to maintain an optimal balance between risk exposures andcosts for damages versus protection activities.

. Supply chain managers (SCM) within CSUP are the interface to SBAs and havefull responsibility for the respective SBA’s supply chain. They are responsiblefor risk management as regards securing the reliability of supply chains andtheir ability to deliver.

. Core production: supports SCM with risk management issues.

Figure 4.Organization of risk

management on acorporate level

Ericsson’sproactiveapproach

443

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

The matrix approach means that many different players are involved in and sharingresponsibility for implementing and maintaining information regarding riskmanagement. This could make roles unclear, and hence responsibility grids(Figure 6) are defined. However, the key responsibility lies with the SCMs thatshould run the risk management work in their respective supply chain.

Risk identification processInitially, Ericsson identifies and analyzes its supply chain risks by mapping thesupply chain upstream, looking at suppliers as well as products/services (Figure 7).

Figure 5.Organization of SCRMwithin the SCM/logisticsfunction “core unit supply”

Figure 6.Part of responsibility grid

IJPDLM34,5

444

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

The purpose of this is verifying the business flow between Ericsson and thesupplier/service provider and defining the critical parts and risk sources in theprocess, i.e. products, components, sites, etc. The goal is to get a betterunderstanding of what the probability and impact of the risks are. So far, more than10,000 components have been analyzed, mainly of first and second tier suppliers.

First, each component is classified into four different classes depending on thenumber of sources:

(1) The product is currently sourced from more than one approved source (e.g. twoor more manufacturers or one manufacturer with two or more sites).

(2) The product is currently sourced from one approved source; other sources areapproved and available but not used.

(3) The product is currently sourced from one approved source; other sources areavailable and approved but no tools, masks or other equipment needed are inplace.

(4) The product is currently sourced from one supplier. No additional manufactureris available.

Ericsson then tries to understand the impact by looking at how long an accident willaffect deliveries. This is expressed by “business recovery time” (BRT). Components areput into four different classes:

(1) It takes less than three months to get deliveries from an alternative source.

(2) Three to eight months to get approval and deliveries from an alternative source.

(3) Nine to 12 months, re-design the only alternative.

(4) 12 months, re-design of a unit/product of high complexity.

Risk assessment processThen, an in-depth analysis is carried out of the suppliers and sub-suppliers of criticalproducts. For this, Ericsson has developed a tool called Ericsson risk managementevaluation tool (ERMET). ERMET (Figure 8) evaluates many different issues in detail,e.g. business control, financial issues, hazards in the surroundings (external as well as

Figure 7.Supply chain risk and

structure map

Ericsson’sproactiveapproach

445

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

man-made); hazards at the site; and business-interruption handling. The tool is used toanalyze both internal and external suppliers. Internally, the tool will be used incombination with contingency planning.

When using ERMET, corporate risk managers and SCR managers often worktogether, as the tool is complex and requires knowledge to use. Often, a representativefrom sourcing is brought in, who is responsible for the supplier contacts. Each sub-areain ERMET is thoroughly evaluated by looking into different aspects (see Figure 9),trying to quantify the risk by looking at impact (consequence) and probability. Thesuppliers’ total risk situation, and their forecasted development, is then summarizedinto spider-web diagrams. Those evaluations are done regularly and are used to followup improvements and action plans.

ERMET is mostly focusing on operational accidents and catastrophes and how toavoid business interruption. Ericsson uses other tools to try to identify and assess morestrategic uncertainties such as shifts in products or product generations. When a riskor uncertainty source has been identified, the SCR manager facilitates workshopsattended by different functional and business specialists where events are discussedthat could lead to risks. For each event causes are identified, so that preventive actionscan be developed. (This methodology is similar to FTA). The analysis and actions arethen summarized into special templates that are later used for follow-up andmonitoring of the risks (Figure 10).

Ericsson tries to combine impact and probability in a risk map/matrix. But it hasfound that the “risk value” (calculated by multiplying impact and probability) is notalways easy to use, as the probability could be difficult to get and the value is notalways “understandable” to business people. Therefore, Ericsson is focusing on thefinancial impact when assessing which risks to prioritize and for which supplier orcomponents to take actions. To get a financial value of the impact on Ericsson’s ownbusiness, the company calculates the business interruption value (BIV). Currently thisvalue is defined by gross margin multiplied by the “business recovery time” (BRT)plus extra costs such as idle capacity labor and equipment, inventory carrying etc. Itsaim is to also consider values such as lost goodwill. This calculation is made by the

Figure 8.Overview of ERMET –Ericsson risk managementevaluation tool

IJPDLM34,5

446

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

business control function in order to help the supply chain manager. To categorize therisks, BIV is divided into four classes:

(1) Severe: BIV . ,$100 million.

(2) Major: BIV ,$50 million-$100 million.

(3) Minor: BIV ,$10 million-$50 million.

(4) Negligible: BIV , ,$10 million.

Figure 9.Examples of detailed riskassessment and summary

diagrams

Ericsson’sproactiveapproach

447

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

Figure 10.Risk map/matrix andcorresponding riskmanagement actions

IJPDLM34,5

448

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

This is then used as a basis for the risk matrix to compare the result from the riskidentification process to understand the impact if an interruption occurs (very high,high, medium or low). For each of these risk levels, different actions are required(Figure 11). Ericsson finds risks with high consequences/low probability moreimportant to handle from a risk management perspective than those with lowconsequence/high probability.

Risk treatment/managementThe third step in Ericsson’s process is called risk treatment, which includes bothdeveloping risk mitigation strategies and deciding on those. This is a lineresponsibility, and who is doing it depends on which tier the risk source is part of:for higher tier, supplier sourcing is responsible, while for lower tier, the supply chainmanager (Figure 6), and for internal plants it is production. Standard templates andtools for this (Figure 10) are developed by the SCR manager. Those templates startwith describing the risk source and its probability and consequence, and continue witha summary of different mitigations strategies, their costs and how they affect the risksituation. To compare the cost of different preventive actions with the businessinterruption value is regarded as very important. Finally, responsible persons areappointed.

Risk monitoring and follow-upIf the risk level is very high, or high and not mitigated, risk monitoring is required. Ifthe residual risk, after mitigation, is not reduced to an acceptable risk level it mustcontinue to be monitored. Risk assessment and treatment templates (Figure 10) and“the spider web” (Figure 9) are used to monitor who is responsible internally and howdifferent supply chain partners are developing compared to their commitments. Forsuppliers and sub-suppliers, special attention is given to how their risk managementprocesses are developing.

Incident handling and business continuity planningEricsson is putting emphasis on developing procedures and templates for incidenthandling and BCP to decrease the consequences of an accident. After the Albuquerqueaccident, the process for “incident reporting” is very important and taskforces/emergency teams have been appointed. If an incident occurs, this should bereported to either the sourcing task force (if external supplier) or the SCM task forceand production task force (if internal supplier). When an incident has been reported, itshould then be communicated to the other task forces as well as to the supply chainrisk manager and the corporate risk management (Figure 12). Also, related SBA and

Figure 11.Templates for risk

assessment and treatment,and contingency planning

Ericsson’sproactiveapproach

449

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

market representatives that might potentially be affected should be notified. It is nottolerated that suppliers not report incidents – they should not first be reported bynewspapers or other sources. The task forces/emergency teams will be trained at leastonce a year in different scenarios, for example a disruption in the supply chain due to adisaster at a class four supplier. When an incident occurs, the three task forces shouldwork closely together, if necessary.

To develop contingency plans, a “toolbox” is available on the intranet. While theprevious contingency planning focus was on site recovery, it has now moved towards afocus on the whole supply chain. If Ericsson cannot manage a risk by eliminating orminimizing the consequences, the company makes a contingency plan to know what todo if something happens. Ericsson has divided contingency planning into three steps(Figure 10):

(1) Response plan: the response is the required reaction to an incident or emergencyto assess the level of containment and to control activity.

(2) Recovery plan: the recovery phase actions shall include the actions that areneeded to resume critical or essential business operations, functions orprocesses.

(3) Restoration plan: the process of planning for and implementing full-scalebusiness operations again and to allow the organization to return to normalservice level.

For each risk source, a responsible person shall be appointed and actions for response,recovery as well as restoration phase be developed.

The supply chain approach to risk management and business continuity managementSupply chain risk management is not only to analyze, assess and manage internalrisks and try to plan for business continuity for the own company. SCRM meanswidening this approach to the chain of suppliers and suppliers’ suppliers. This couldbe done by visiting suppliers and analyze and assess them, but more proactively tomake them implement a SCRM approach themselves, which guarantees a furtherspread upstream.

Figure 12.Information flow and taskforces for incidenthandling

IJPDLM34,5

450

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

Ericsson is implementing this approach both by “soft discussion” and by puttingthe following guidelines as requirements into the frame contracts:

. The supplier shall establish and maintain a secure sourcing plan includingregularly updated business continuity and business contingency plans.

. The supplier shall identify a back-up site/resource for each relevant site.

. A person responsible for initiating the secure sourcing plan activities shall beappointed for each relevant site.

. Key personnel at the supplier shall be appointed and reasonably trained onEricsson’s specific product requirements. Alternatively, personnel in thefacilities concerned shall be prepared to be transferred to the dedicatedback-up capacity.

. The supplier shall report incidents.

. The Ericsson entities placing orders should be allowed to review the plan.

. The supplier shall have corresponding requirements on its suppliers andcontractors.

. The supplier shall actively work with risk management with its contractors andsuppliers.

. Ericsson shall at any time have the option to acquire some or all assets which areunique for the production of Ericsson products by the supplier.

To summarize Ericsson’s approach for SCRM (Figure 13) it starts with mapping all thecomponents and products many tiers upstream the supply chain and identifies criticalsuppliers and sites that have to be prioritized in the further risk assessment. Suppliers,first critical then others, are then analyzed and assessed with the Ericsson evaluationtool (ERMET), which takes many different risk sources into account. By these two first

Figure 13.Ericsson’s approach to

supply chain riskmanagement

Ericsson’sproactiveapproach

451

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

steps, a rough assessment is made on how a shortage of a material or product willaffect the supply chain and, finally, Ericsson’s invoicing. Based on a more thoroughinvestigation, risk probability and the impact of different accidents at each supplierwill be evaluated and the impact measured as “business recovery time”. The “supplierrisk” is then translated to the risk related to Ericsson’s business with the impactmeasured in business interruption value. Based on this assessment, risk managementactions can be discussed and taken. A very important part in this last step is to find theright trade-off between risk management (protection) cost and risk cost (impactmeasured as BIV): a too high investment in safeguards is not good business practice,either.

So far, most joint work has been with the next upstream tier, the contractmanufacturers. They have been very positive to and interested in the co-operativeapproach to “secure the supply chain” and reduce supply chain risks. An importantpart of the work has been to share tools and methods used in the risk managementprocess to analyze and assess risks.

Business impact of improved supply chain risk managementThe new SCRM approach has so far contributed well to Ericsson. After theAlbuquerque accident, it was quite difficult to get new business-interruptioninsurances. The insurance companies were skeptical and an increase of insurance costswas flagged. Further, they demanded more and more information on risks in thesupply chain. With the current way of working with SCRM, this has changed again,and lately, insurance companies have praised Ericsson’s way of working, and willprobably impose the same requirements on other companies. The insurance premiumoffered was 50 percent lower than Ericsson first expected, due to its SCRM work.

Although the supply chains now are more secure and less vulnerable, there havebeen incidents after Albuquerque (and always will be). During the implementation ofSCRM processes, a new incident occurred at a supplier. A small fire in a plating linecaused a disruption. This incident gave Ericsson the opportunity to test and verify theprocesses with a real case. In their risk identification process, the business recoverytime for that component was estimated to approximately three months, which provedto be correct. Based on BRT and previous experience, Ericsson could act and set upenough resources to handle the incident. Ericsson quickly enough allocatedcomponents, so there was no disruption in their inbound supply.

The SCRM tools have also started being used for other purposes than those theywere initially developed for. The supply chain risk and structure maps are now alsoused to assess capacity and dimensioning risks in order to arrange buffers. Anotherexample is that a SBA uses the cause-event analysis for risks related to productintroduction, ramp-up and product changes. This indicates that the SCRM work hasbeen positively received by the organization.

Concluding discussionSupply chain risk management seems to be of growing interest and importance bothfrom an academic and a practioner perspective. The development lately withinSCM/logistics has created long, lean and interconnected chains of companiesvulnerable to accidents and their rippling effects. In the last few years, there have beenmany examples of such accidents, and in this article we have described Ericsson’s new

IJPDLM34,5

452

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

approach to SCRM after its “supply chain accident” in Albuquerque. Ericsson has nowdeveloped and implemented improved organization, processes and tools for supplychain risk management. It tries to identify, analyze and manage both internal andexternal risk sources, related to the company as well as its suppliers and sub-suppliers.By this, and an increased requirement on and cooperation with suppliers regardingrisk management, it also tries to avoid impact from network related risk sources.According to Ericsson, an important success factor, to make SCRM work, is having anopen discussion with the suppliers, both during risk analysis and assessment, butparticularly when handling incidents. Many ideas and tools have been taken fromnormal risk management practice, but have been applied with a supply chainperspective, focusing not only on Ericsson’s own activities. As a result, riskconsequences have been reduced, Ericsson has been better able to handle incidents andits insurance costs have been reduced. However, the approach is continuouslyimplemented and has still not come to its end (if it ever will). Although Ericsson’sapproach can be considered proactive, the company will stress the importance ofhaving reactive task forces prepared. Even if much resources are invested in riskanalysis and assessment, accidents might appear where and when least expected andthen an efficient crisis organization must be in place to minimize the consequences.

Ericsson’s work has, to some extent, been driven by a pressure from insurancecompanies – a pressure that most likely will be put on other companies and industriestoo. What the insurance companies realized, with the “Albuquerque accident” as atrigger, was that they did not understand the risks, risk sources and consequences thatthe current long supply chains and their rippling effects had. Hence, a new drivingforce for companies to work with SCRM could be that insurance companies will requireit to reduce insurance premiums or even to sell contingency insurances.

Current logistics and supply chain principles have been influenced by the attemptsin the last few decades, first to reduce costs, then time and quality, and have latelyfocused on concepts of responsiveness, agility and leanness (Figure 14).

Those principles could lead to very vulnerable supply chains, and, consequently, theinterest in SCRM has increased lately. However, to safeguard logistics processes toomuch could be both counteractive to current best practice in logistics as well as toocostly. Hence, we would argue that a balanced approach should be taken, where SCRM

Figure 14.Key focus areas within

logistics and SCM

Ericsson’sproactiveapproach

453

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

is one part of the equation. This could be done by trying to relate risk consequences totime (business recovery time) and money (business interruption value) as Ericsson isnow doing. Further, it is possible to expand the risk management focus from thecompanies’ own sites to suppliers and sub-suppliers – by working together in riskidentification, assessment, management and business continuity planning, but also byformal assessment of how suppliers are working with those issues and by puttingrequirements into the contracts. Current and new logistics principles could beevaluated from a SCRM perspective, and risk management actions must be evaluatedfrom a logistics perspective focusing on cost, time, quality etc. Some connectionsbetween SCRM and the other areas (Figure 14) are:

. Risk and costs: SCRM might create too high prevention costs (reducingprobability or impact by increased buffers, new processes, extra suppliers, etc) aswell as reduce cost for both business interruptions and insurances. The Ericssoncase is an example in which the risk is measured in money (BIV), prevention costis compared to risk costs, and insurance cost is decreased thanks to improvedSCRM.

. Risk and time: SCRM might create buffers and processes delaying lead time –but through good and well thought out SCRM other actions should be found.Time could also be reduced – e.g. the reaction time when an incident or accidenthappens. Ericsson is also an example of how a time measurement (BRT) is usedto assess risk impact.

. Risk and quality: these two areas are most similar and should definitely work outwell in parallel – both have a clear process orientation and a focus on avoidingerrors (Lee and Wolfe, 2003, elaborate on this issue).

. Risk and agility, responsiveness and leanness: companies’ efforts to increaseagility, responsiveness and leanness have led to increased outsourcing andreduced buffers and lead time and hence to increased vulnerability. Ericsson ischaracterized by this aspiration – and has implied a high risk exposure.However, as these three concepts are very important in today’s business, efficientSCRM is important for managing the increased risk exposure.

The main contributions of this article have been to stress the “supply chain approach”in SCRM as a complement to more purchasing oriented studies, and to give a quitedetailed description of how SCRM could work in practice. By using a case companythat only a few years ago was seriously affected by a sub-suppliers fire and hencestarted to focus on SCRM, it should hopefully bring new insights both to academy andpractioners. The interrelation between supply chain risk management and currentlogistic/supply chain management principles is not clear, and we find this to be aninteresting field for future research so that SCRM actions neither decreases supplychain efficiency nor is seen only as costly and time consuming.

References

Cachon, G. (2002), Supply Chain Coordination with Contracts, The Wharton School of Business,University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

IJPDLM34,5

454

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

Chartered Management Institute (CMI) (2002), Business Continuity and Supply ChainManagement, report available at: www.thebci.org/2809-01%20Bus%20Continuity%20Summ.pdf

Christopher, M., McKinnon, A., Sharp, J., Wilding, R., Peck, H., Chapman, P., Juttner, U. andBolumole, Y. (2002), Supply Chain Vulnerability, Cranfield University, Cranfield.

Converium (2001), “Suppliers’ extension or contingent business interruption insurance”,available at: www.converium.com/web/converium/converium.nsf/2a1b7a462af6c00185256ad2000da28c/30c4e3ebc211d4f9c1256ad5004334b5?OpenDocument.

Deloach, J.W. (2000), Enterprise-wide Risk Management. Strategies for Linking Risk andOpportunities, Financial Times/Prentice-Hall, London.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.

Hallikas, J., Virolainen, V.-M. and Tuominen, M. (2000), “Risk analysis and assessment innetwork environment – a dyadic case study”, Preprints of the 11th International WorkingSeminar on Production Economics, pp. 255-70.

Hiles, A. and Barnes, P. (Eds) (2001), The Definitive Handbook of Business ContinuityManagement, J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Johnson, M.E. (2001), “Learning from toys: lessons in managing supply chain risk from the toyindustry”, California Management Review, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 106-24.

Juttner, U., Peck, H. and Christopher, M. (2002), “Supply chain risk management: outlining anagenda for future research”, in Griffiths, J., Hewitt, F. and Ireland, P. (Eds), Proceedings ofthe Logistics Research Network 7th Annual Conference, pp. 443-50.

Lambert, D.M. and Cooper, M.C. (2000), “Issues in supply chain management”, IndustrialMarketing Management, Vol. 29, pp. 65-83.

Lamming, R., Caldwell, N., Harrison, D. and Phillips, W. (2001), “Transparency in supplyrelationships: concept and practice”, Proceedings of the 10th International IPSERAConference, pp. 585-94.

Lee, H.L. and Wolfe, M. (2003), “Supply chain security without tears”, Supply Chain ManagementReview, January/February, pp. 12-20.

Lindroth, R. and Norrman, A. (2001), “Supply chain risks and risk sharing instruments – anillustration from the telecommunication industry”, Proceedings of the Logistics ResearchNetwork 6th Annual Conference, Heriot-Watt University, 13-14 September, pp. 297-307.

Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2001),“Defining supply chain management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 1-25.

Mullai, A. and Paulsson, U. (2002), Oil Spills in Oresund – Hazardous Events, Causes and Claims,Lund University, Lund.

Musson, M. (2001), “BC strategies for manufacturing and logistics”, in Hiles, A. and Barnes, P.(Eds), The Definitive Handbook of Business Continuity Management, J. Wiley & Sons,Chichester, pp. 163-70.

Norrman, A. and Lindroth, R. (2002), “Supply chain risk management: purchasers’ vs planners’views on sharing capacity investment risks in the telecom iindustry”, Proceedings of the11th International Annual IPSERA Conference, Twente University, 25-27 March,pp. 577-95.

Ritchie, B., Brindley, C., Morris, J. and Peet, S. (2000), “Managing risk within the supply chain”,paper presented at the 9th International IPSERA conference, Ontario, May.

(The) Royal Society (1992), Analysis, Perception and Management, The Royal Society, London.

Ericsson’sproactiveapproach

455

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

Smeltzer, L.R. and Siferd, S.P. (1998), “Proactive supply management: the management of risk”,International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 38-45.

Souter, G. (2000), “Risks from supply chain also demand attention”, Business Insurance, Vol. 34No. 20, pp. 26-8.

Svensson, G. (2000), “A conceptual framework for the analysis of vulnerability in supply chains”,International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 30 No. 9,pp. 731-50.

Tsay, A.A., Nahmias, S. and Agrawal, N. (1998), “Modelling supply chain contracts: a review”, inTayur, S. et al. (Eds), Quantitative Models for Supply Chain Management, KluwerAcademic, Norwall, MA, pp. 299-336.

Wall Street Journal (2001), “Trial by fire – a blaze in Albuquerque sets off major crisis forcell-phone giants”, 29 January.

Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research – Design and Methods, Applied Social Research MethodsSeries, Vol. 5, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Zsidisin, G. (2001), “Measuring supply risk: an example from Europe”, Practix, Best Practices inPurchasing and Supply Chain Management, June, pp. 1-6.

Zsidisin, G. and Ellram, L.M. (1999), “Supply risk assessment analysis”, Practix, Best Practices inPurchasing and Supply Chain Management, June, pp. 9-12.

Zsidisin, G., Panelli, A. and Upton, R. (2000), “Purchasing organization involvement in riskassessment, contingency plans, and risk management: an exploratory study”, SupplyChain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 187-97.

Further reading

A.T. Kearney and European Logistics Association (1999), Insight to Impact. Results of the 4thQuinquennial European Logistics Study, ELA, Brussels.

Lonsdale, C. (1999), “Effectively managing vertical relationships: a risk management model foroutsourcing”, Supply ChainManagement: An International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 176-83.

IJPDLM34,5

456

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Hoda Davarzani, Reza Zanjirani Farahani, Hazhir Rahmandad. 2015. Understanding econo-political risks:impact of sanctions on an automotive supply chain. International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement 35:11, 1567-1591. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

2. Hoda Davarzani, Reza Zanjirani Farahani, Hazhir Rahmandad. 2015. Understanding econo-political risks:impact of sanctions on an automotive supply chain. International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement 1567-1591. [CrossRef]

3. Paula Santos Ceryno, Luiz Felipe Scavarda, Katja Klingebiel. 2015. Supply chain risk: empirical researchin the automotive industry. Journal of Risk Research 18, 1145-1164. [CrossRef]

4. Daniel Ekwall, Björn Lantz. 2015. Modi operandi for cargo theft in EMEA—A seasonality analysis.Journal of Transportation Security . [CrossRef]

5. M. Tekin, S. Özekici. 2015. Mean-Variance Newsvendor Model with Random Supply and FinancialHedging. IIE Transactions 47, 910-928. [CrossRef]

6. V.G. Venkatesh, Snehal Rathi, Sriyans Patwa. 2015. Analysis on supply chain risks in Indian apparel retailchains and proposal of risk prioritization model using Interpretive structural modeling. Journal of Retailingand Consumer Services 26, 153-167. [CrossRef]

7. Helen Rogers, Mohit Srivastava, Kulwant S Pawar, Janat Shah. 2015. Supply chain risk management inIndia – practical insights. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 1-22. [CrossRef]

8. Jukka Hallikas, Katrina Lintukangas. 2015. Purchasing and Supply: An Investigation of Risk ManagementPerformance. International Journal of Production Economics . [CrossRef]

9. Prince Boateng, Zhen Chen, Stephen O. Ogunlana. 2015. An Analytical Network Process model for risksprioritisation in megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management . [CrossRef]

10. Pritee Ray, Mamata Jenamani. 2015. Mean-variance analysis of sourcing decision under disruption risk.European Journal of Operational Research . [CrossRef]

11. D. Bogataj, B. Aver, M. Bogataj. 2015. Supply chain risk at simultaneous robust perturbations.International Journal of Production Economics . [CrossRef]

12. Faeghe Mohammaddust, Shabnam Rezapour, Reza Zanjirani Farahani, Mohammad Mofidfar, Alex Hill.2015. Developing lean and responsive supply chains: A robust model for alternative risk mitigationstrategies in supply chain designs. International Journal of Production Economics . [CrossRef]

13. William Ho, Tian Zheng, Hakan Yildiz, Srinivas Talluri. 2015. Supply chain risk management: a literaturereview. International Journal of Production Research 53, 5031-5069. [CrossRef]

14. Cunlu Zhang, Angappa Gunasekaran, William Yu Chung Wang. 2015. A comprehensive model for supplychain integration. Benchmarking: An International Journal 22:6, 1141-1157. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

15. Chamil E. Kodithuwakku, Deepthi N. Wickramarachchi. 2015. Identifying the Risk Dynamics of SupplyChain Operations in Large Scale Apparel Industry in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Innovation,Management and Technology 6, 272-277. [CrossRef]

16. Purushottam Lal Meena, Sarada Prasad Sarmah. 2015. Supplier selection and demand allocation undersupply disruption risks. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology . [CrossRef]

17. Jasmine Siu Lee Lam, Shiling Su. 2015. Disruption risks and mitigation strategies: an analysis of Asianports. Maritime Policy & Management 42, 415-435. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

18. Jury Gualandris, Matteo Kalchschmidt. 2015. Mitigating the effect of risk conditions on supplydisruptions: the role of manufacturing postponement enablers. Production Planning & Control 26,637-653. [CrossRef]

19. Gang Li, Huan Fan, Peter K.C. Lee, T.C.E. Cheng. 2015. Joint supply chain risk management: An agencyand collaboration perspective. International Journal of Production Economics 164, 83-94. [CrossRef]

20. Daniel Ekwall, Björn Lantz. 2015. Cargo theft at non-secure parking locations. International Journal ofRetail & Distribution Management 43:3, 204-220. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

21. Christian F. Durach, Andreas Wieland, Jose A.D. Machuca. 2015. Antecedents and dimensions of supplychain robustness: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Physical Distribution & LogisticsManagement 45:1/2, 118-137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

22. Faisal Aqlan, Sarah S. Lam. 2015. A fuzzy-based integrated framework for supply chain risk assessment.International Journal of Production Economics 161, 54-63. [CrossRef]

23. Benjamin Guertler, Stefan Spinler. 2015. Supply risk interrelationships and the derivation of key supplyrisk indicators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 92, 224-236. [CrossRef]

24. Martin Tanco, Daniel Jurburg, Matias Escuder. 2015. Main difficulties hindering supply chainperformance: an exploratory analysis at Uruguayan SMEs. Supply Chain Management: An InternationalJournal 20:1, 11-23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

25. Mustafa Güller, Emre Koc, Tobias Hegmanns, Michael Henke, Bernd Noche. 2015. A simulation-baseddecision support framework for real-time supply chain risk management. International Journal of AdvancedLogistics 4, 17-26. [CrossRef]

26. Mohd. Nishat Faisal 1469. [CrossRef]27. Ran Bhamra, Kevin Burnard, Samir Dani 3. [CrossRef]28. Daniel Ekwall, Helmut Brüls, Daniel Wyer. 2015. Theft of pharmaceuticals during transport in Europe.

Journal of Transportation Security . [CrossRef]29. Wei Liu, Shiji Song, Bing Li, Cheng Wu. 2014. A periodic review inventory model with loss-averse

retailer, random supply capacity and demand. International Journal of Production Research 1-12. [CrossRef]30. Santanu Mandal. 2014. Supply chain resilience: a state-of-the-art review and research directions.

International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment 5:4, 427-453. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

31. Katrina Lintukangas, Anni-Kaisa Kähkönen, Paavo Ritala. 2014. Supply risks as drivers of green supplymanagement adoption. Journal of Cleaner Production . [CrossRef]

32. Rahul C. Basole, Marcus A. Bellamy. 2014. Visual analysis of supply network risks: Insights from theelectronics industry. Decision Support Systems 67, 109-120. [CrossRef]

33. Christoph Bode, Denis Hübner, Stephan M. Wagner. 2014. Managing Financially Distressed Suppliers:An Exploratory Study. Journal of Supply Chain Management 50:10.1111/jscm.2014.50.issue-4, 24-43.[CrossRef]

34. Iris Heckmann, Tina Comes, Stefan Nickel. 2014. A Critical Review on Supply Chain Risk – Definition,Measure and Modeling. Omega . [CrossRef]

35. Chunhui Zhou, Kim-Leng PohOptimization of protections against supply chain risks due to intentionalacts 232-237. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

36. Satyendra Kumar Sharma, Anil Bhat. 2014. Supply chain risk management dimensions in Indianautomobile industry. Benchmarking: An International Journal 21:6, 1023-1040. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

37. Djalma Araújo Rangel, Taiane Kamel de Oliveira, Maria Silene Alexandre Leite. 2014. Supply chain riskclassification: discussion and proposal. International Journal of Production Research 1-20. [CrossRef]

38. Florian Kache, Stefan Seuring. 2014. Linking collaboration and integration to risk and performance insupply chains via a review of literature reviews. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19:5/6,664-682. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

39. Ila Manuj, Terry L. Esper, Theodore P. Stank. 2014. Supply Chain Risk Management ApproachesUnder Different Conditions of Risk. Journal of Business Logistics 35:10.1111/jbl.2014.35.issue-3, 241-258.[CrossRef]

40. Kebing Chen, Lei Yang. 2014. Random yield and coordination mechanisms of a supply chain withemergency backup sourcing. International Journal of Production Research 52, 4747-4767. [CrossRef]

41. Umang Soni, Vipul Jain, Sameer Kumar. 2014. Measuring supply chain resilience using a deterministicmodeling approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering 74, 11-25. [CrossRef]

42. Kumar Pradhan Sudeep, Routroy Srikanta. 2014. Analyzing the supply chain risk issues for an Indianmanufacturing company. Journal of Advances in Management Research 11:2, 144-162. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

43. Tzu-Su Li. 2014. Establishing an integrated framework for security capability development in a supplychain. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 17, 283-303. [CrossRef]

44. Sameer Kumar, Katie J. Himes, Collin P. Kritzer. 2014. Risk assessment and operational approaches tomanaging risk in global supply chains. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 25:6, 873-890.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

45. Pritee Ray, Mamata Jenamani. 2014. Sourcing decision under disruption risk with supply and demanduncertainty: A newsvendor approach. Annals of Operations Research . [CrossRef]

46. Olivier Lavastre, Angappa Gunasekaran, Alain Spalanzani. 2014. Effect of firm characteristics, supplierrelationships and techniques used on Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM): an empirical investigationon French industrial firms. International Journal of Production Research 52, 3381-3403. [CrossRef]

47. Daniela Grudinschi, Sanna Sintonen, Jukka Hallikas. 2014. Relationship risk perception and determinantsof the collaboration fluency of buyer–supplier relationships in public service procurement. Journal ofPurchasing and Supply Management 20, 82-91. [CrossRef]

48. Elena Revilla, María Jesús Sáenz. 2014. Supply chain disruption management: Global convergence vsnational specificity. Journal of Business Research 67, 1123-1135. [CrossRef]

49. Navin K. Dev, Ravi Shankar, Roma M. Debnath. 2014. Supply chain efficiency: a simulation cum DEAapproach. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 72, 1537-1549. [CrossRef]

50. Hyejung Moon, Hyun Suk Cho, Seo Hwa Jeong, Jangho ParkPolicy Design Based on Risk at Big DataEra: Case Study of Privacy Invasion in South Korea 756-759. [CrossRef]

51. Hatem Elleuch, Wafik Hachicha, Habib Chabchoub. 2014. A combined approach for supply chain riskmanagement: description and application to a real hospital pharmaceutical case study. Journal of RiskResearch 17, 641-663. [CrossRef]

52. Jury Gualandris, Matteo Kalchschmidt. 2014. A model to evaluate upstream vulnerability. InternationalJournal of Logistics Research and Applications 17, 249-268. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

53. Ennouri Wissem, Frikha Ahmed, Chabchoub HabibThe approaches of supply chain risks management155-159. [CrossRef]

54. H. K. Okyay, F. Karaesmen, S. Özekici. 2014. Newsvendor models with dependent random supply anddemand. Optimization Letters 8, 983-999. [CrossRef]

55. Ikechukwu A. Diugwu, Dorothy L. Baba. 2014. A Health and Safety Improvement Roadmap for theConstruction Industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management 4, 37-44. [CrossRef]

56. Andra Badea, Gabriela Prostean, Gilles Goncalves, Hamid Allaoui. 2014. Assessing Risk Factors inCollaborative Supply Chain with the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Procedia - Social and BehavioralSciences 124, 114-123. [CrossRef]

57. Joseph Mpeera Ntayi, Ephraim Mugume. 2014. A taxonomy of strategic sourcing for defense forces insub-Saharan Africa. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development 10:1,13-32. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

58. Kunal Ganguly. 2014. Integration of analytic hierarchy process and Dempster-Shafer theory forsupplier performance measurement considering risk. International Journal of Productivity and PerformanceManagement 63:1, 85-102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

59. Luca Urciuoli, Sangeeta Mohanty, Juha Hintsa, Else Gerine Boekesteijn. 2014. The resilience of energysupply chains: a multiple case study approach on oil and gas supply chains to Europe. Supply ChainManagement: An International Journal 19:1, 46-63. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

60. Xing Bao. 2014. Research on Overconfidence in Decision-Making for the Capacity Recovery of DamagedPower Systems. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society 2014, 1-7. [CrossRef]

61. Mark L. Lengnick-Hall, Cynthia A. Lengnick-Hall, Carolee M. Rigsbee. 2013. Strategic human resourcemanagement and supply chain orientation. Human Resource Management Review 23, 366-377. [CrossRef]

62. Patrick Lubbecke, Tobias Anton, Richard LackesCross-Border Risk Factors of Cloud Services: RiskAssessment of IS Outsourcing to Foreign Cloud Service Providers 565-572. [CrossRef]

63. X. J. Fu, R. S. M. Goh, J. C. Tong, L. Ponnambalam, X. F. Yin, Z. X. Wang, H. Y. Xu, S. F. LuSocialmedia for supply chain risk management 206-210. [CrossRef]

64. Daniel Ekwall, Björn Lantz. 2013. Seasonality of cargo theft at transport chain locations. InternationalJournal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 43:9, 728-746. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

65. ManMohan S. Sodhi, Christopher S. Tang. 2013. Strategies and tactics of Chinese contract manufacturersand western OEMs (2001–2011). International Journal of Production Economics 146, 14-24. [CrossRef]

66. Christoph Markmann, Inga-Lena Darkow, Heiko von der Gracht. 2013. A Delphi-based risk analysis —Identifying and assessing future challenges for supply chain security in a multi-stakeholder environment.Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80, 1815-1833. [CrossRef]

67. Kunal Ganguly. 2013. A case study approach for understanding inbound supply risk assessment.DECISION 40, 85-97. [CrossRef]

68. Jain Divij, Banwet D.K.. 2013. Modelling critical elements of selection for strategic alliance partnerfor network managed services using interpretive structural modelling (ISM). Journal of Modelling inManagement 8:3, 290-304. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

69. Jose M. Cruz. 2013. Modeling the relationship of globalized supply chains and corporate socialresponsibility. Journal of Cleaner Production 56, 73-85. [CrossRef]

70. Jury Gualandris, Matteo Kalchschmidt. 2013. Product and process modularity: improving flexibility andreducing supplier failure risk. International Journal of Production Research 51, 5757-5770. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

71. LI Zhengping, Tan Puay Siew, Yee Qi Ming Gabriel, Nguyen Quoc Chinh, Ong Yew Soon, ChenXianshunA Review of Complex Systems Technologies for Supply Chain Risk Management 2783-2789.[CrossRef]

72. Joong Y. Son, Ryan K. Orchard. 2013. Effectiveness of policies for mitigating supply disruptions.International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 43:8, 684-706. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

73. Petra Hoffmann, Holger Schiele, Koos Krabbendam. 2013. Uncertainty, supply risk management andtheir impact on performance. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 19, 199-211. [CrossRef]

74. Minkyun Kim, Nallan C. Suresh, Canan Kocabasoglu-Hillmer. 2013. An impact of manufacturingflexibility and technological dimensions of manufacturing strategy on improving supply chainresponsiveness: Business environment perspective. International Journal of Production Research 51,5597-5611. [CrossRef]

75. Divesh Ojha, Peter T. Gianiodis, Ila Manuj. 2013. Impact of logistical business continuity planning onoperational capabilities and financial performance. The International Journal of Logistics Management 24:2,180-209. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

76. Pritee Ray, Mamata Jenamani. 2013. Sourcing under supply disruption with capacity‐constrainedsuppliers. Journal of Advances in Management Research 10:2, 192-205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

77. Doreen Diehl, Stefan Spinler. 2013. Defining a common ground for supply chain risk management –a case study in the fast-moving consumer goods industry. International Journal of Logistics Research andApplications 16, 311-327. [CrossRef]

78. Xiao-Feng Shao. 2013. Supply chain characteristics and disruption mitigation capability: an empiricalinvestigation in China. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 16, 277-295. [CrossRef]

79. Ana Cristina Barros, Ana Paula Barbosa‐Póvoa, Edgar E. Blanco. 2013. Selection of tailored practices forsupply chain management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 33:8, 1040-1074.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

80. Jose M. Cruz. 2013. Mitigating global supply chain risks through corporate social responsibility.International Journal of Production Research 51, 3995-4010. [CrossRef]

81. Mohammed Laeequddin, B. S. Sahay, Vinita Sahay, K. Abdul Waheed. 2013. Supply Chain Partner’sPerceptions of Trust & Risk. International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management4:10.4018/jisscm.20110101, 60-76. [CrossRef]

82. Holger SchrodlInterpreting inter-organizational information technology networks: A chaos theoryapproach 157-161. [CrossRef]

83. Andreas Wieland. 2013. Selecting the right supply chain based on risks. Journal of ManufacturingTechnology Management 24:5, 652-668. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

84. Andreas Wieland, Carl Marcus Wallenburg. 2013. The influence of relational competencies on supplychain resilience: a relational view. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management43:4, 300-320. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

85. Atefeh Baghalian, Shabnam Rezapour, Reza Zanjirani Farahani. 2013. Robust supply chain network designwith service level against disruptions and demand uncertainties: A real-life case. European Journal ofOperational Research 227, 199-215. [CrossRef]

86. Jie Chen, Amrik S. Sohal, Daniel I. Prajogo. 2013. Supply chain operational risk mitigation: a collaborativeapproach. International Journal of Production Research 51, 2186-2199. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

87. Tadeusz Sawik. 2013. Selection of resilient supply portfolio under disruption risks. Omega 41, 259-269.[CrossRef]

88. Avinash Samvedi, Vipul Jain, Felix T.S. Chan. 2013. Quantifying risks in a supply chain throughintegration of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. International Journal of Production Research 51, 2433-2442.[CrossRef]

89. 2013. Risk Management in Global Sourcing:. Transportation Journal 52, 80-107. [CrossRef]90. Christoph H. Glock, Jörg M. Ries. 2013. Reducing lead time risk through multiple sourcing: the case

of stochastic demand and variable lead time. International Journal of Production Research 51, 43-56.[CrossRef]

91. Matthew H. Smith. 2013. A Fundamental Approach to Facilities Location Risk Assessment and ItsRelevance to Supply Chain Network Design: Using the Thai Floods of 2011 as an Example. InternationalJournal of Trade, Economics and Finance 300-303. [CrossRef]

92. Shozo Takata, Masato Yamanaka. 2013. BOM based supply chain risk management. CIRP Annals -Manufacturing Technology 62, 479-482. [CrossRef]

93. Seung-Ok Yoon, Chang-Ho Lee. 2012. A Study on Paradigm Shift of Supply Chain Risk Managementfor SMEs. Journal of the Korea Safety Management and Science 14, 71-77. [CrossRef]

94. Yifan Wu, Ming Dong, Tijun Fan, Shaoxuan Liu. 2012. Performance evaluation of supply chain networkswith assembly structure under system disruptions. Computers & Operations Research 39, 3229-3243.[CrossRef]

95. Andreas Wieland, Carl Marcus Wallenburg. 2012. Dealing with supply chain risks. International Journal ofPhysical Distribution & Logistics Management 42:10, 887-905. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [SupplementalMaterial]

96. Abhijeet Ghadge, Samir Dani, Roy Kalawsky. 2012. Supply chain risk management: present and futurescope. The International Journal of Logistics Management 23:3, 313-339. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

97. Dia Bandaly, Ahmet Satir, Yasemin Kahyaoglu, Latha Shanker. 2012. Supply chain risk management –I: Conceptualization, framework and planning process. Risk Management 14, 249-271. [CrossRef]

98. Gürkan Sin, Kaushik Ghosh, Sathish Natarajan, Rajagopalan Srinivasan, Arief Adhitya, Iftekhar A.Karimi, Stavros Papadokonstantakis, Konrad Hungerbühler, Per AngeloProcess Systems Engineering, 7.Abnormal Events Management and Process Safety . [CrossRef]

99. Lingxiu Dong, Brian Tomlin. 2012. Managing Disruption Risk: The Interplay Between Operations andInsurance. Management Science 58, 1898-1915. [CrossRef]

100. Guoquan Zhang, Xia Luo, Chengzhi SunSupply risk assessment model using hybrid weighting method118-121. [CrossRef]

101. Davide Aloini, Riccardo Dulmin, Valeria Mininno, Simone Ponticelli. 2012. Supply chain management:a review of implementation risks in the construction industry. Business Process Management Journal 18:5,735-761. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

102. T.C.E. Cheng, F.K. Yip, A.C.L. Yeung. 2012. Supply risk management via guanxi in the Chinese businesscontext: The buyer's perspective. International Journal of Production Economics 139, 3-13. [CrossRef]

103. E. Simangunsong, L.C. Hendry, M. Stevenson. 2012. Supply-chain uncertainty: a review and theoreticalfoundation for future research. International Journal of Production Research 50, 4493-4523. [CrossRef]

104. Anna Corinna Cagliano, Alberto De Marco, Sabrina Grimaldi, Carlo Rafele. 2012. An integrated approachto supply chain risk analysis. Journal of Risk Research 15, 817-840. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

105. Carel Nicolaas Bezuidenhout, Shamim Bodhanya, Linda Brenchley. 2012. An analysis of collaborationin a sugarcane production and processing supply chain. British Food Journal 114:6, 880-895. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

106. Ali Diabat, Kannan Govindan, Vinay V. Panicker. 2012. Supply chain risk management and its mitigationin a food industry. International Journal of Production Research 50, 3039-3050. [CrossRef]

107. Jing Hou, Lindu Zhao. 2012. Backup agreements with penalty scheme under supply disruptions.International Journal of Systems Science 43, 987-996. [CrossRef]

108. Cheng-Yuan Ku, Yi-Wen Chang. 2012. Optimal production and selling policies with fixed-price contractsand contingent-price offers. International Journal of Production Economics 137, 94-101. [CrossRef]

109. Xiao-Feng Shao, Ming Dong. 2012. Supply Disruption and Reactive Strategies in an Assemble-to-Order Supply Chain With Time-Sensitive Demand. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 59,201-212. [CrossRef]

110. Belarmino Adenso‐Diaz, Carlos Mena, Santiago García‐Carbajal, Merrill Liechty. 2012. The impact ofsupply network characteristics on reliability. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17:3,263-276. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

111. Jesper Lyng Jensen, Claus Due Ponsaing, Sof Thrane. 2012. Risk, resources and structures: Experimentalevidence of a new cost of risk component – The structural risk component and implications for enterpriserisk management. Risk Management 14, 152-175. [CrossRef]

112. Amit Raj Singh, P. K. Mishra, Rajeev Jain, M. K. Khurana. 2012. Design of global supply chain networkwith operational risks. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 60, 273-290.[CrossRef]

113. KwangSup Shin, YongWoo Shin, Ji-Hye Kwon, Suk-Ho Kang. 2012. Development of risk based dynamicbackorder replenishment planning framework using Bayesian Belief Network. Computers & IndustrialEngineering 62, 716-725. [CrossRef]

114. Archie Lockamy III, Kevin McCormack. 2012. Modeling supplier risks using Bayesian networks.Industrial Management & Data Systems 112:2, 313-333. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

115. Xiao-Feng Shao. 2012. Demand-side reactive strategies for supply disruptions in a multiple-productsystem. International Journal of Production Economics 136, 241-252. [CrossRef]

116. Evi Hartmann, Dieter Kerkfeld, Michael Henke. 2012. Top and bottom line relevance of purchasing andsupply management. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 18, 22-34. [CrossRef]

117. Seyed Hessameddin Zegordi, Hoda Davarzani. 2012. Developing a supply chain disruption analysis model:Application of colored Petri-nets. Expert Systems with Applications 39, 2102-2111. [CrossRef]

118. Helena Carvalho, Ana P. Barroso, Virgínia H. Machado, Susana Azevedo, V. Cruz-Machado. 2012. Supplychain redesign for resilience using simulation. Computers & Industrial Engineering 62, 329-341. [CrossRef]

119. Daniel Kern, Roger Moser, Evi Hartmann, Marco Moder. 2012. Supply risk management: modeldevelopment and empirical analysis. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management42:1, 60-82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

120. Chung‐Yean Chiang, Canan Kocabasoglu‐Hillmer, Nallan Suresh. 2012. An empirical investigation ofthe impact of strategic sourcing and flexibility on firm's supply chain agility. International Journal ofOperations & Production Management 32:1, 49-78. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

121. Behzad Behdani, Arief Adhitya, Zofia Lukszo, Rajagopalan SrinivasanMitigating Supply Disruption fora Global Chemical Supply Chain-Application of Agent-based Modeling 1070-1074. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

122. Guojun Ji, Caihong Zhu. 2012. A Study on Emergency Supply Chain and Risk Based on Urgent ReliefService in Disasters. Systems Engineering Procedia 5, 313-325. [CrossRef]

123. Anupam Haldar, Debamalya Banerjee, Amitava Ray, Surojit Ghosh. 2012. An Integrated Approach forSupplier Selection. Procedia Engineering 38, 2087-2102. [CrossRef]

124. ManMohan S. Sodhi, Byung-Gak Son, Christopher S. Tang. 2012. Researchers' Perspectives on SupplyChain Risk Management. Production and Operations Management 21:10.1111/poms.2011.21.issue-1,1-13. [CrossRef]

125. Kooyul Jung, Youngdeok Lim, Joongsan Oh. 2011. A Model for Measuring Supplier Risk: Do OperationalCapability Indicators Enhance the Prediction Accuracy of Supplier Risk?. British Journal of Management22:10.1111/bjom.2011.22.issue-4, 609-627. [CrossRef]

126. LeeChoongBae, 정정정. 2011. Risk Management Strategies for Global Food Supply Chain. Korean Journalof Logistics 19, 105-124. [CrossRef]

127. Jennifer Blackhurst, Kaitlin S. Dunn, Christopher W. Craighead. 2011. An Empirically DerivedFramework of Global Supply Resiliency. Journal of Business Logistics 32:10.1111/jbl.2011.32.issue-4,374-391. [CrossRef]

128. Helga Drummond. 2011. MIS and illusions of control: an analysis of the risks of risk management. Journalof Information Technology 26, 259-267. [CrossRef]

129. H. Davarzani, S.H. Zegordi, A. Norrman. 2011. Contingent management of supply chain disruption:Effects of dual or triple sourcing. Scientia Iranica 18, 1517-1528. [CrossRef]

130. Claudia Colicchia, Fabrizio Dallari, Marco Melacini. 2011. A simulation-based framework to evaluatestrategies for managing global inbound supply risk. International Journal of Logistics Research andApplications 14, 371-384. [CrossRef]

131. Isabel L. Nunes, S. Figueira, V. Cruz MachadoEvaluation of a supply chain performance using a FuzzyDecision Support System 1735-1739. [CrossRef]

132. Avinash Samvedi, Vipul JainStudying the impact of various inventory policies on a supply chain withintermittent supply disruptions 1636-1644. [CrossRef]

133. P.L. Meena, S.P. Sarmah, A. Sarkar. 2011. Sourcing decisions under risks of catastrophic event disruptions.Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 47, 1058-1074. [CrossRef]

134. Kenan Arifoğlu, Süleyman Özekici. 2011. Inventory management with random supply and imperfectinformation: A hidden Markov model. International Journal of Production Economics 134, 123-137.[CrossRef]

135. Ying Kei Tse, Kim Hua Tan, Sai Ho Chung, Ming Kim Lim. 2011. Quality risk in global supply network.Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 22:8, 1002-1013. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

136. Changhe Yuan, Feng Cheng, Henry Dao, Markus Ettl, Grace Lin, Karthik SourirajanA BayesianFramework for Supply Chain Risk Management Using Business Process Standards 537-564. [CrossRef]

137. Jose M. Cruz, Zugang Liu. 2011. Modeling and analysis of the multiperiod effects of social relationshipon supply chain networks. European Journal of Operational Research 214, 39-52. [CrossRef]

138. Jörn-Henrik Thun, Martin Drüke, Daniel Hoenig. 2011. Managing uncertainty – an empirical analysis ofsupply chain risk management in small and medium-sized enterprises. International Journal of ProductionResearch 49, 5511-5525. [CrossRef]

139. Ran Bhamra, Samir Dani, Kevin Burnard. 2011. Resilience: the concept, a literature review and futuredirections. International Journal of Production Research 49, 5375-5393. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

140. Ou Tang, S. Nurmaya Musa. 2011. Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain riskmanagement. International Journal of Production Economics 133, 25-34. [CrossRef]

141. Brad Hittle, Karen Moustafa Leonard. 2011. Decision making in advance of a supply chain crisis.Management Decision 49:7, 1182-1193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

142. Enrico Cagno, Guido J L Micheli. 2011. Enhancing EPC supply chain competitiveness throughprocurement risk management. Risk Management 13, 147-180. [CrossRef]

143. Uta Jüttner, Stan Maklan. 2011. Supply chain resilience in the global financial crisis: an empirical study.Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16:4, 246-259. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

144. References 437-447. [CrossRef]145. Chiara Verbano, Karen Venturini. 2011. Development paths of risk management: approaches, methods

and fields of application. Journal of Risk Research 14, 519-550. [CrossRef]146. Jörn-Henrik Thun, Daniel Hoenig. 2011. An empirical analysis of supply chain risk management in the

German automotive industry. International Journal of Production Economics 131, 242-249. [CrossRef]147. Elleuch Hatem, Chabchoub HabibRisks management in the downstream pharmaceutical supply chain:

A study on the teaching hospital Habib Bourguiba Sfax 335-340. [CrossRef]148. SCOTT C. ELLIS, JEFF SHOCKLEY, RAYMOND M. HENRY. 2011. MAKING SENSE OF

SUPPLY DISRUPTION RISK RESEARCH: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK GROUNDED INENACTMENT THEORY. Journal of Supply Chain Management 47, 65-96. [CrossRef]

149. Tadeusz Sawik. 2011. Selection of a dynamic supply portfolio in make-to-order environment withrisks.Computers & Operations Research 38, 782-796. [CrossRef]

150. Erik Hofmann. 2011. Natural hedging as a risk prophylaxis and supplier financing instrument inautomotive supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16:2, 128-141. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

151. ManMohan S. Sodhi, Christopher S. TangSupply Chain Risk Management . [CrossRef]152. Julie E. Gould, Cathy Macharis, Hans-Dietrich Haasis. 2010. Emergence of security in supply chain

management literature. Journal of Transportation Security 3, 287-302. [CrossRef]153. A.P. Barroso, V.H. Machado, A.R. Barros, V. Cruz MachadoToward a resilient Supply Chain with supply

disturbances 245-249. [CrossRef]154. Jing Hou, Amy Z. Zeng, Lindu Zhao. 2010. Coordination with a backup supplier through buy-back

contract under supply disruption. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 46,881-895. [CrossRef]

155. Shengzhong Zhang, Qian LiA Review of Supply Chain Risk Management: From the Perspective ofDefault Correlation 111-115. [CrossRef]

156. George A. Zsidisin, Stephan M. Wagner. 2010. DO PERCEPTIONS BECOME REALITY? THEMODERATING ROLE OF SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCY ON DISRUPTION OCCURRENCE.Journal of Business Logistics 31:10.1002/jbl.2010.31.issue-2, 1-20. [CrossRef]

157. C. Clifford Defee, Brent Williams, Wesley S. Randall, Rodney Thomas. 2010. An inventory of theory inlogistics and SCM research. The International Journal of Logistics Management 21:3, 404-489. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

158. F Badurdeen, K Wijekoon, M Shuaib, T J Goldsby, D Iyengar, I S JawahirIntegrated modeling to enhanceresilience in sustainable supply chains . [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

159. Stephan M. Wagner, Nikrouz Neshat. 2010. Assessing the vulnerability of supply chains using graphtheory. International Journal of Production Economics 126, 121-129. [CrossRef]

160. Cheng-Chang Chang, Dah-Chuan GongA comparison of RoHS risk assessment using the LogisticRegression Model and Artificial Neural Network Model 1396-1401. [CrossRef]

161. Xin Cheng, Ning ZhangCooperation between enterprises: A research on emergency mechanisms underdisruptions 236-240. [CrossRef]

162. Shuguang Liu, Jun Lin, Karen A. Hayes. 2010. An agile and diversified supply chain: reducing operationalrisks. Competitiveness Review 20:3, 222-234. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

163. Hans-Christian Pfohl, Holger Köhler, David Thomas. 2010. State of the art in supply chain riskmanagement research: empirical and conceptual findings and a roadmap for the implementation inpractice. Logistics Research 2, 33-44. [CrossRef]

164. Afsaneh Noori Houshyar, Muriati Muktar, Riza SulaimanSimulating the effect of supply chain risk anddisruption: &정34;A Malaysian case study&정34; 1362-1367. [CrossRef]

165. Jürg von Kanel, Eric W. Cope, Léa A. Deleris, Nitin Nayak, Robert G. Torok. 2010. Three key enablers tosuccessful enterprise risk management. IBM Journal of Research and Development 54, 1:1-1:15. [CrossRef]

166. Jose M. Cruz. 2009. The impact of corporate social responsibility in supply chain management:Multicriteria decision-making approach. Decision Support Systems 48, 224-236. [CrossRef]

167. A.P. Barroso, V.H. Machado, V. Cruz MachadoIdentifying vulnerabilities in the supply chain 1444-1448.[CrossRef]

168. I. Nyoman Pujawan, Laudine H. Geraldin. 2009. House of risk: a model for proactive supply chain riskmanagement. Business Process Management Journal 15:6, 953-967. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

169. Divesh Ojha, Rahul A. Gokhale. 2009. Logistical business continuity planning‐scale development andvalidation. The International Journal of Logistics Management 20:3, 342-359. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

170. Zhi Luan, Charlene Xie, Lizhen Duan, Zhengjiao Wang, Yun XiongRisk Identification Based on OEMSupply Chain 1-4. [CrossRef]

171. Malini Natarajarathinam, Ismail Capar, Arunachalam Narayanan. 2009. Managing supply chains in timesof crisis: a review of literature and insights. International Journal of Physical Distribution & LogisticsManagement 39:7, 535-573. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

172. Gyöngyi Kovács, Karen Spens. 2009. Identifying challenges in humanitarian logistics. International Journalof Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 39:6, 506-528. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

173. Mohammed Laeequddin, G.D. Sardana, B.S. Sahay, K. Abdul Waheed, Vinita Sahay. 2009. Supply chainpartners' trust building process through risk evaluation: the perspectives of UAE packaged food industry.Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 14:4, 280-290. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

174. Dennis Degeneffe, Jean Kinsey, Thomas Stinson, Koel Ghosh. 2009. Segmenting consumers for fooddefense communication strategies. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management39:5, 365-403. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

175. Geoffrey T. Stewart, Ramesh Kolluru, Mark Smith. 2009. Leveraging public‐private partnerships toimprove community resilience in times of disaster. International Journal of Physical Distribution & LogisticsManagement 39:5, 343-364. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

176. Peter Trkman, Kevin McCormack. 2009. Supply chain risk in turbulent environments—A conceptualmodel for managing supply chain network risk. International Journal of Production Economics 119,247-258. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

177. Josef Oehmen, Arne Ziegenbein, Robert Alard, Paul Schönsleben. 2009. System-oriented supply chainrisk management. Production Planning & Control 20, 343-361. [CrossRef]

178. Serhiy Y. Ponomarov, Mary C. Holcomb. 2009. Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience.The International Journal of Logistics Management 20:1, 124-143. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

179. Shashank Rao, Thomas J. Goldsby. 2009. Supply chain risks: a review and typology. The InternationalJournal of Logistics Management 20:1, 97-123. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

180. A. Michael Knemeyer, Walter Zinn, Cuneyt Eroglu. 2009. Proactive planning for catastrophic events insupply chains. Journal of Operations Management 27, 141-153. [CrossRef]

181. Dina Neiger, Kristian Rotaru, Leonid Churilov. 2009. Supply chain risk identification with value-focusedprocess engineering. Journal of Operations Management 27, 154-168. [CrossRef]

182. Adegoke Oke, Mohan Gopalakrishnan. 2009. Managing disruptions in supply chains: A case study of aretail supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics 118, 168-174. [CrossRef]

183. Peter W. Stonebraker, Joel Goldhar, George Nassos. 2009. Weak links in the supply chain: measuringfragility and sustainability. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 20:2, 161-177. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

184. J. M. Cruz, D. Matsypura. 2009. Supply chain networks with corporate social responsibility throughintegrated environmental decision-making. International Journal of Production Research 47, 621-648.[CrossRef]

185. Arif Khan K, Rajesh K. Pillania. 2008. Strategic sourcing for supply chain agility and firms' performance.Management Decision 46:10, 1508-1530. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

186. Doğan A. Serel. 2008. Inventory and pricing decisions in a single-period problem involving risky supply.International Journal of Production Economics 116, 115-128. [CrossRef]

187. Jose M. Cruz, Tina Wakolbinger. 2008. Multiperiod effects of corporate social responsibility on supplychain networks, transaction costs, emissions, and risk. International Journal of Production Economics 116,61-74. [CrossRef]

188. Stefan Seuring, Martin Müller. 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainablesupply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 16, 1699-1710. [CrossRef]

189. Lei Yu, Kimmo Suojapelto, Jukka Hallikas, Ou Tang. 2008. Chinese ICT industry from supply chainperspective—A case study of the major Chinese ICT players. International Journal of Production Economics115, 374-387. [CrossRef]

190. Xiaohong Li, Ian Barnes. 2008. Proactive supply risk management methods for building a robust supplyselection process when sourcing from emerging markets. Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal1:3, 252-267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

191. Guido J.L. Micheli, Enrico Cagno, Marta Zorzini. 2008. Supply risk management vs supplier selection tomanage the supply risk in the EPC supply chain. Management Research News 31:11, 846-866. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

192. Zachary Williams, Jason E. Lueg, Stephen A. LeMay. 2008. Supply chain security: an overview andresearch agenda. The International Journal of Logistics Management 19:2, 254-281. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

193. Thomas J. Kull, Srinivas Talluri. 2008. A Supply Risk Reduction Model Using Integrated MulticriteriaDecision Making. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 55, 409-419. [CrossRef]

194. Cunlu Zhang, Yangfan LinRisk control of book supply chain: A case study 1-5. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

195. David E. Cantor. 2008. Workplace safety in the supply chain: a review of the literature and call for research.The International Journal of Logistics Management 19:1, 65-83. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

196. Ila Manuj, John T. Mentzer. 2008. Global supply chain risk management strategies. International Journalof Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 38:3, 192-223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

197. Jennifer V. Blackhurst, Kevin P. Scheibe, Danny J. Johnson. 2008. Supplier risk assessment and monitoringfor the automotive industry. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 38:2,143-165. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

198. Jose M. Cruz. 2008. Dynamics of supply chain networks with corporate social responsibility throughintegrated environmental decision-making. European Journal of Operational Research 184, 1005-1031.[CrossRef]

199. Jianxin XuManaging the Risk of Supply Chain Disruption: Towards a Resilient Approach of SupplyChain Management 3-7. [CrossRef]

200. M S Sodhi, S Lee. 2007. An analysis of sources of risk in the consumer electronics industry. Journal ofthe Operational Research Society 58, 1430-1439. [CrossRef]

201. Mohd Nishat Faisal, D.K. Banwet, Ravi Shankar. 2007. Information risks management in supply chains:an assessment and mitigation framework. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 20:6, 677-699.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

202. Maria Holmlund. 2007. Suggesting and Comparing Different Scopes on Quality Management:Production, Service, Relationship, and Network. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 18,847-859. [CrossRef]

203. T. Tynjälä, E. Eloranta. 2007. Investigating the effect of product variants, and demand distributions onthe optimal demand supply network setup. Production Planning & Control 18, 561-572. [CrossRef]

204. Lei Wen, Zhaocai XiSupply Chain Risk Evaluation Based on Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Lattice-OrderDecision-Making 1442-1445. [CrossRef]

205. Martha C. Wilson. 2007. The impact of transportation disruptions on supply chain performance.Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 43, 295-320. [CrossRef]

206. Ghaleb Y Abbasi, Nisreen A Sandouqa, Mohammad D Al-Tahat, Adnan M Mukattash. 2007. A LookInto Jordan's Large Manufacturing Industries' Risks. Risk Management 9, 108-117. [CrossRef]

207. Stephan M. Wagner, Christoph Bode. 2006. An empirical investigation into supply chain vulnerability.Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 12, 301-312. [CrossRef]

208. Jose M. Cruz, Anna Nagurney, Tina Wakolbinger. 2006. Financial engineering of the integration of globalsupply chain networks and social networks with risk management. Naval Research Logistics 53:10.1002/nav.v53:7, 674-696. [CrossRef]

209. Mohd Nishat Faisal, D.K. Banwet, Ravi Shankar. 2006. Mapping supply chains on risk and customersensitivity dimensions. Industrial Management & Data Systems 106:6, 878-895. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

210. Mohd Nishat Faisal, D.K. Banwet, Ravi Shankar. 2006. Supply chain risk mitigation: modeling theenablers. Business Process Management Journal 12:4, 535-552. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

211. Abbas Foroughi, Marvin Albin, Mehmet KocakulahPerspectives on Global Supply Chain Supply-SideRisk Management 2732-2740. [CrossRef]

212. Mohd. Laeequddin, B. S. Sahay, Vinita Sahay, K. Abdul WaheedSupply Chain Partner’s Perceptions ofTrust & Risk 48-65. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

213. Iwan Vanany, Suhaiza Zailani, Nyoman PujawanSupply Chain Risk Management 15-32. [CrossRef]214. Samir DaniManaging Risk in Virtual Enterprise Networks 72-91. [CrossRef]215. Ruslan Klimov, Yuri Merkuryev, Juri TolujewA Theoretical Framework for a Simulation-Based Analysis

of Supply Chain Risk Management 162-183. [CrossRef]216. Guo Li, Xiang Zhang, Zhaohua WangMonitoring and Warning Mechanisms of Supply Coordination in

Assembly System under Delivery Uncertainty 155-181. [CrossRef]217. Jan HusdalA Conceptual Framework for Risk and Vulnerability in Virtual Enterprise Networks 1-27.

[CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

At 1

8:32

05

Nov

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)