Supply Chain Risk Assessment: A Content Analysis-Based Literature Review

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/328925460
Supply chain risk assessment: A content analysis-based literature review
Article in International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management · January 2018

DOI: 10.1504/IJLSM.2018.096088
CITATIONS READS
15 5,901
3 authors, including:
Hương Trần Sebastian Kummer

Hanoi University of Science and Technology Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien
8 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS 51 PUBLICATIONS 517 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Autonomous Vehicles and Urban Mobility View project
HumLOG & SCM (Funded by Kuehne Foundation) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Hương Trần on 15 May 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Logistics Systems and Management, Vol. X, No. Y, xxxx 1
Supply chain risk assessment:

a content analysis-based literature review
Thi Huong Tran*

School of Economics and Management,
Hanoi University of Science and Technology,
1 Dai Co Viet Road, Hanoi, Vietnam
Email: Huong.TranThi@hust.edu.vn
*Corresponding author
Mario Dobrovnik and Sebastian Kummer

Institute for Transport and Logistics Management,
Vienna University of Economics and Business,
Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Vienna, Austria
Email: Mario.Dobrovnik@wu.ac.at
Email: Sebastian.Kummer@wu.ac.at
Abstract: In recent years, along with globalisation trend, risk management has
been an integral part in supply chain management. In this vein, supply chain
risk assessment has become an active and important research subject. There is
considerable research and debate on the approach and method of assessing risk
in order to obtain a sound base for decision making in supply chain and supply
chain risk management. This paper aims to synthesise overall aspects of supply
chain risk assessment in the literature. To this end, we have investigated
140 peer-reviewed articles in high quality journals by using a content analysis
method and a systematic approach. The heterogeneous definitions, focuses,
procedures, methods, and indicators of supply chain risk assessment referred to
in previous research are comprehensively analysed and presented in
classification frameworks in order to gain insights into this field, explore
research gaps, and provide an outlook for future research.
Keywords: supply chain management; supply chain risk; supply chain

disruption; risk assessment; risk analysis; risk indicator; risk scale; systematic
review; content analysis.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Tran, T.H., Dobrovnik, M.

and Kummer, S. (xxxx) ‘Supply chain risk assessment: a content analysis-based
literature review’, Int. J. Logistics Systems and Management, Vol. X, No. Y,
pp.xxx–xxx.
Biographical notes: Thi Huong Tran is a lecturer at School of Economics and

Management, Hanoi University of Science and Technology, Vietnam. She
received her doctoral degree at Institute for Transport and Logistics
Management, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria. Her
research interests are supply chain management, quality management, and
supply chain risk management.
Copyright © 20XX Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

2 T.H. Tran et al.
Mario Dobrovnik is a teaching and research associate at Institute for Transport

and Logistics Management, Vienna University of Economics and Business,
Austria. He is working in the field of supply chain management and pursuing a
PhD in this field.
Sebastian Kummer is the Head of Institute for Transport and Logistics

Management, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria. He is
working in the field of transportation, logistics and global supply chain
management. He is the author of more than 100 publications.
This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled ‘Methods to

assess supply chain risk: a literature review and classification framework’
presented at the 19th International Symposium on Logistics, Ho Chi Minh City,
Vietnam, 6–9 July 2014.
1 Introduction
Risks and uncertainties are omnipresent in modern business. One of the most important
and challenging issues for managers in dealing with this fact lies in predicting, raising
awareness of, analysing, monitoring and controlling risks. In the ever-changing supply
chain environment, supply chain risk management (SCRM) has become an integral part
of a holistic supply chain design (Christopher and Lee, 2004) and received much
attention in the world of both academics and practitioners.
Definitions of supply chain risk are various and often vague, which is a challenge for
quantification and management (Heckmann et al., 2015). For instance, Tummala and
Schoenherr (2011) defined supply chain risk “as an event that adversely affects supply
chain operations and hence its desired performance measures, such as chain-wide service
levels and responsiveness as well as cost”. Peck (2006) considered supply chain risk as
“anything that presents a risk (i.e. an impediment or hazard) to information, material or
product flows from original suppliers to the delivery of the final product to the ultimate
end user”. Jüttner et al. (2003) adopted the definition provided by March and Shapira
(1987) and considered risk in both a positive and a negative way. They defined supply
chain risk as “variation in the distribution of possible supply chain outcomes, their
likelihood, and their subjective values”. According to Ho et al. (2015), supply chain risk
is “the likelihood and impact of unexpected macro and/ or micro level events or
conditions that adversely influence any part of a supply chain leading to operational,
tactical, or strategic level failures or irregularities”. However, this definition limits the
number of risk indicators to only those of likelihood and impact disregarding other
significant measures such as detectability, capacity to control as well as dependency and
propagation. In order to ensure consistency in the review process as well as to increase
clearness and comprehensiveness in the supply chain risk definition, we define it
according to the three following main aspects (temporarily ignoring specifying risk
indicators):
• source/trigger of supply chain risk: anything that presents a risk such as threats,
hazards, disruptions, vulnerability, uncertainties, and unexpected events
• impact of supply chain risk: adverse, negative influence on supply chain
Supply chain risk assessment 3
• object of supply chain risk: any information, material or product flows; tangible or
intangible assets; strategic, tactical and operational performance of supply chain
Similarly to the term supply chain risk which has been defined and classified in different
ways without unanimity, there are many definitions of SCRM. However, most
approaches consider SCRM as a three-stage iterative process of identification, assessment
and mitigation, to manage risks through collaborating/coordinating amongst supply chain
members (Aqlan and Lam, 2015a; Kilubi and Haasis, 2015). The mitigation stage
involves the development of the right countermeasures to control supply chain risks
through either proactive (before risk event) or reactive approaches (during and after risk
event). The performance of this stage and the overall SCRM process strongly depend on
the first two stages (risk identification and risk assessment).
Risk identification involves gaining insights into any threat, uncertainty, vulnerability,
and unexpected event that can become a source or trigger for risk to materialise. There
are a number of methods to identify supply chain risk in the literature: Neiger et al.
(2009) proposed one of them, namely value-focused process engineering; Waters (2011)
suggested a five-step procedure to determine supply chain risk based on a process-based
view; Adhitya et al. (2009) used a hazard and operability (HAZOP) approach for supply
chain risk identification; failure mode and effects analysis, which is also an effective tool
to identify, analyse and control risk, was adopted by Canbolat et al. (2008), Chen and Wu
(2013), Bradley (2014), Pradhan and Routroy (2014) and Li and Zeng (2016).
While risk identification is the first step and plays a crucial role in deciding what will
be assessed and managed in the subsequent process, the risk assessment stage will
determine which mitigation solutions should be implemented and how efficient they will
be. Indeed, supply chain risk assessment (SCRA) is a precursor of risk management, but
supply-chain-wide risk assessment is extremely difficult and complex (Bradley, 2010;
Heckmann et al., 2015; Jüttner et al., 2003; Tazelaar and Snijders, 2013). In the literature,
the models, methods, indicators, and scales used to assess supply chain risk have been
proposed and implemented using various approaches.
Risk research and SCRM are critical topics in management science. As a result,
various literature review papers have been published to provide an overview of different
aspects of SCRM: supply chain risk identification and typology (Ghadge et al., 2012;
Rangel et al., 2015; Rao and Goldsby, 2009; Tang and Musa, 2011); scope of supply
chain risk (Sodhi et al., 2012); supply chain risk mitigation approach (Ghadge et al.,
2012; Rao and Goldsby, 2009); research methodologies in SCRM (Ghadge et al., 2012,
Sodhi et al., 2012); the allocation of risks to the management processes (Rangel et al.,
2015); steps of SCRM covered by the literature (Sodhi et al., 2012); SCRM strategies
(Rao and Goldsby, 2009; Tang and Musa, 2011); and risk assessment and risk
management in general, not supply-chain-wide risks (Aven, 2012a, 2016; Aven and Zio,
2014). However, to the best of our knowledge, a comprehensive review of SCRA
research is scarce and still needs to be further developed.
Therefore, this study aims to conduct a systematic literature review on SCRA
research based on content analysis. We expect to provide an extensive overview
concerning overall aspects when developing and implementing a risk assessment as well
as the relationship between risk assessment and other activities in the SCRM process.
Furthermore, we establish classification frameworks in order to gain further insights into
this field explore research gaps and provide an outlook for future research. To this end,
the following research questions are proposed and investigated:
4 T.H. Tran et al.
1 What are the definitions of SCRA, main areas of SCRA research, and which is the
procedure of conducting an SCRA in the literature?
2 What are the methods, indicators, and scales used to assess supply chain risk? How
are they to be classified in order to gain further insights into the emerging issues and
trends in the SCRA literature?
3 What are the research gaps and opportunities future research should focus on in
terms of SCRA research?
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 summarises related work
to address research gaps. In Section 3, we introduce the methodology used to collect and
analyse data. Next, a descriptive analysis of reviewed papers and the content analysis
findings are presented in Section 4. Section 5 discusses relevant issues and classification
frameworks of SCRA methods, indicators and scale. Research gaps and future research
directions are presented in Section 6. Section 7 concludes this paper.
2 Related work
Table 1 summarises related work, i.e., literature review articles in high impact journals.
Those papers are classified according to their respective focus on either assessment of
risk in general, or supply chain risk, or the whole SCRM process. Risk in general
includes a variety of risk types in different areas such as finance, actuarial science, health
care, management, emergency planning, and psychology. From the point of view of
supply chain management, SCRA will be considered under a specific approach.
As we can see, most of the papers investigated the SCRM process and risk
assessment in general, with only a few studies taking the overall SCRA research into
account, such as Zsidisin et al. (2004), Sodhi et al. (2012), Chiu and Choi (2016),
Heckmann et al. (2015), Ho et al. (2015), Fahimnia et al. (2015) and Prakash et al.
(2017a). However, Zsidisin et al. (2004) focused only on techniques to assess supply risk
and conducted their review more than 10 years ago while many SCRA studies have
emerged in the past decade (Ho et al., 2015). Rao and Goldsby (2009) and Sodhi et al.
(2012) provided a quite brief overview of the SCRA approach. In addition, Chiu and
Choi (2016) and Heckmann et al. (2015) only reviewed quantitative models in risk
assessment while there are also qualitative and semi-quantitative approaches in the
literature. Ho et al. (2015) reviewed methods to quantify the supply chain risk in 62
articles (out of 224 papers under review) and mixed these methods with operational
research models under risk and uncertainty or volatility. Fahimnia et al. (2015) mixed
models to assess and mitigate supply chain risks. Prakash et al. (2017a) provided a brief
introduction about risk assessment as an objective of SCRM papers and a step of the
SCRM process. So far, the risk assessment procedure, indicators, scales and approaches
to gather inputs for the assessment process have not been studied.
In this context, we conduct a review based on content analysis with the aim to fill the
research gaps and present a comprehensive view of the overall issues of SCRA research
as well as indicate future research directions.
Focus of related work
No. Related work Author(s) Risk
Table 1
SCRM Supply chain risk assessment

assessment
1 Foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management Aven (2012a) and Aven
and Zio (2014)
2 Risk assessment and risk management: review of recent advances on Aven (2016)
their foundation
3 A critical analysis of supply chain risk management content: Prakash et al. (2017a) Brief introduce risk assessment as
a structured literature review an objective of SCRM papers and
a step of SCRM process
4 Supply chain risk management a literature review Ho et al. (2015) Methods to assess different risks
5 Supply chain risk management enablers – a framework development Kilubi and Haasis (2015)
through systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2015
Summary of related work
6 A critical review on supply chain risk – definition, measure and Heckmann et al. (2015) Quantitative models to assess
Supply chain risk assessment
modelling supply chain risk

7 Quantitative models for managing supply chain risks: a review Fahimnia et al. (2015) Quantitative models to assess
supply chain risk
8 Supply chain risk analysis with mean-variance models: a technical Chiu and Choi (2013) Mean-variance models to assess
review supply chain risk
9 Researchers’ perspectives on supply chain risk management Sodhi et al. (2012) Brief overview SCRA approach
10 Supply chain risk management: present and future scope Ghadge et al. (2012)
11 Supply chain risk management: a new methodology for a systematic Colicchia and Strozzi
literature review (2012)
12 Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain risk Tang and Musa (2011)
management
13 Supply chain risks: a review and typology Rao and Goldsby (2009) Brief overview of SCRA
14 Supply chain risk management: literature review and future research Vanany et al. (2009)
15 Risk and supply chain management: creating a research agenda Khan and Burnes (2007)
16 Perspectives in supply chain risk management Tang (2006)
17 An analysis of supply risk assessment techniques Zsidisin et al. (2004) Techniques to assess supply risk
18 Supply chain risk management: outlining an agenda for future research Jüttner et al. (2003)
Notes: – not focus on the given topic; – partly focus on the given topic; – fully focus on the given topic.
5
6 T.H. Tran et al.
3 Methodology
This paper makes use of content analysis to systematically investigate the literature and
develop a comprehensive overview of SCRA research. Content analysis was defined
early by Berelson in 1952 and developed by Philipp Mayring in 2000 and 2008. A salient
advantage of content analysis is the possibility of combining in-depth qualitative
approaches with powerful quantitative analyses (Duriau et al., 2007; Kohlbacher, 2006).
This method enables flexible analyses on two levels:
1 manifest content of text and documents
2 uncover latent content and deeper meaning embodied in the text and document
(Duriau et al., 2007; Seuring and Gold, 2012).
Objectiveness in searching, screening and analysing papers is the advantage of a
systematic literature review in comparison with a traditional review (Colicchia and
Strozzi, 2012; Ghadge et al., 2012). Therefore, we take advantage of the content analysis
method and systematic approach to classify, analyse and synthesise focuses, methods and
indicators of SCRA research as well as connections with formal characteristics of the
reviewed papers. The detailed process of data collection and analysis are presented in the
following sections.
3.1 Data collection

To ensure quality and reliability of this review, we collected English high quality papers
which were peer reviewed and published between 2002 and the beginning of 2017 by
means of structured keywords search and cross-referencing. The keywords applied to
search for articles in the database of Google Scholar, Emerald Insight and Springer were:
supply chain (OR supply network) AND risk (OR uncertainty, disruption, disaster, black
swans, and glitch) AND assess* (OR analy*, measure*, quantif*, model*, evaluat*).
Articles (except for literature review papers) that assess supply chain risk in all industries
and use any methodology except for literature review papers are considered.
Within our research, focuses, trends, methods, and indicators of SCRA research are
defined and classified. To this end, the units of analysis in our review relate to research
papers that have new contributions to this research field such as:
• develop and/or implement a new model/technique/indicator to assess risk in supply
chain
• empirically investigate how practical organisations conduct SCRA
• compare different methods applied to assess supply chain risks
• other aspects related to the SCRA process and performance.
To this end, screening titles, abstracts, and conclusions are carried out to choose the
appropriate paper to review. Altogether, we selected and reviewed 140 papers which
published in 65 different journals.
3.2 Data analysis

In order to have descriptive analysis and intensive content analysis, selected papers were
coded according to a number of categories that were also revised during the coding
process. Figure 1 presents the final analytic categories that comprise two groups, namely
descriptive analysis and content analysis. The first group covers categories that depict
characteristics of reviewed papers, including publishing year, publishers (journals,
database with SCImago impact factor checking), industry and type of risk that were
assessed. The second group examines different aspects of the SCRA process. The initial
category of this group summarises definitions of supply chain assessment and its
synonyms which have been referred to in the literature. The category ‘focus of supply
chain risk assessment’ aims to investigate the primary concentration of selected papers,
whether it is:
1 to develop a new framework/ technique/ indicator to assess risk
2 to adapt and implement existing approaches to exam a new risk in a new context
3 to compare different methods, etc.
In addition, methods, indicators, scales, and focuses are further important categories in
our review. The details of categories will be introduced and analysed in the next sections.
These two groups will be linked to gain insights into critical points and trends of SCRA
research.
Figure 1 Analytic categories (see online version for colours)
4 Descriptive analysis
Figure 2 presents the distribution by publishing year of the papers. In line with the
importance of SCRA and management, the quantity of papers has increased over time.
8 T.H. Tran et al.
Figure 2 Distribution of reviewed papers by year
Note: *From January to April 2017.

Reviewed papers were published in 65 different journals, which are mostly indexed by
Scopus or filed in quality libraries such as Elsevier, Emerald, Taylor & Francis,
Wiley-Blackwell and Springer. There are 97 articles (69.3%) published in journals with
impact factors equal or greater than 1; 35 papers (25%) published in journals with impact
factors equal or greater than 2; and 5 studies (3.6%) published in journals with impact
factors greater than 3. Table 2 shows the names and impact factors of journals with at
least three articles included in this paper’s review.
Table 2 Impact factor of journals with quantity of reviewed papers equal or greater than 3
Impact No. of
Journal
factor* papers
International Journal of Production Economics 2.786 16
International Journal of Production Research 1.353 14
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 1.931 6
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 1.934 5
European Journal of Operational Research 1.899 5
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 2.368 4
Risk Analysis 1.908 4
The International Journal of Logistics Management 1.066 3
Journal of Business Logistics 1.291 3
Journal of Enterprise Information Management 0.423 3
International Journal of Operational Research 0.607 3
Benchmarking: An International Journal 0.602 3
Note: *SCImago Journal Rank 2014.
Almost all industries have been taken into account in SCRA research. The majority is
part of manufacturing supply chains (mainly from the automotive and electronics
industry) with 78 studies (67.8%). In addition, there is significant attention to analysis of
supply chain risk in the agriculture, retail, wholesale and service sectors. The number of
papers that measure risks in humanitarian and green supply chain is lower but on the rise.
Reviewed papers mainly investigated risks across the whole supply chain. Within
these studies, almost all types of supply chain risk were examined. In 58 papers that focus
solely on individual risks in the supply chain, supply risk has received the most attention.
Disaster risk, operational risk, logistics risk and demand risk are less studied
independently, but they were analysed in papers that considered risks in the
overall supply chain. In addition, in line with the energy and environmental issues,
sustainability-related risk in supply chains has also been considered in assessment and
management (Cerić et al., 2013; Giannakis and Papadopoulos, 2016). Figure 3 shows the
distribution of reviewed papers by the risks that were assessed.
Figure 3 Distribution of reviewed papers by risks were assessed
Note: *Specific risks refer to facility location related risk (Prakash et al., 2015), food
safety risk (LeBlanc et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2012b), information risk (Faisal
et al., 2007b; Sharma et al., 2016), new product development risk (Chaudhuri et al.,
2013), quality risk (Anggrahini et al., 2015), counterfeit-related risk (DiMase et al.,
2016), social risk (Zimmer et al., 2017), sustainability related risk (Giannakis and
Papadopoulos, 2016) and risk from partnerships in supply chain (Zeng and Yen,
2017).
5 Emerging concerns in SCRA research
5.1 Focuses of SCRA research

As with any other prevalent research area, there is a variety of topics in SCRA research.
Figure 4 shows that there are three main research streams:
1 develop conceptual framework to assess risk (62 papers)
2 conduct risk assessment based on given methods in different contexts of
management decisions, products, industries and countries (52 papers)
3 develop, empirically implement, then verify new risk assessment approaches
(ten papers).
10 T.H. Tran et al.
Through different approaches ranging from qualitative, semi-quantitative, quantitative

and mixed methods, previous researchers have proposed a variety of methods to
qualitatively analyse, quantify, prioritise, predict, or pairwise compare risks in the supply
chain.
Besides that, there are several small groups of study within the literature designed to
investigate how organisations in practice assess risk in their supply chains (Ganguly,
2013; Lavastre et al., 2012) and who participates and contributes to the risk assessment
process (Barker et al., 2010); compare the performance of different assessment methods
(Chand et al., 2014b; Olson and Wu, 2011; Radivojević et al., 2014); test correlations
between risk assessment and process characteristics (Tazelaar and Snijders, 2013) or
relations among risk assessment, risk identification and mitigation stages (Kern et al.,
2012); propose supportive tools to visualise the analysis of supply network risk (Basole
and Bellamy, 2014), as well as the ontology approach to support risk assessment process
(Palmer et al., 2016), and software for rapid risk assessment in integrated supply chains
(Aqlan, 2016); propose new risk assessment indicators (Simchi-Levi et al., 2014);
develop and validate risk assessment scales (Punniyamoorthy et al., 2013); and argue for
the necessity of risk assessment (Aggarwal and Bohinc, 2012, DiMase et al., 2016).
Figure 4 Distribution of reviewed papers by their focuses
5.2 SCRA definitions

There are three main phases in implementing SCRM activities, including before risk,
during risk, and after risk. Supply chain risk managers can implement SCRM in one, two
or all three phases, but the effectiveness of SCRM solutions for each phase always
depends on the risk assessment performance. However, definitions of SCRA manifold.
Kern et al. (2012) defined the term by means of its indicators and goals: “the objective of
the risk assessment is the detailed analysis of the identified supply chain risks. The risks
are prioritised based on the dimensions ‘probability of occurrence’ and ‘business
impact’”. However, recently, researchers and industrial managers have measured risks
not only by probability and impact, but also detectability and time to recover, or the
interrelationship between risks. In addition, objectives and/or output of risk assessment
are not only to prioritise risks but also to quantify the impact of risk (disaster) to make a
recovery plan and so on. Some authors have used risk assessment, risk measurement, risk
quantification, and risk analysis as interchangeable terms (Garvey et al., 2015; Ghadge
et al., 2012; Giannakis and Louis, 2011). However, Tummala and Schoenherr (2011)
differentiated these terms as follows:
• risk measurement determines the consequences of all potential supply chain risks
• risk assessment determines the likelihood of each risk factor
• risk evaluation involves risk ranking and risk acceptance.
Oke and Gopalakrishnan (2009) stated that risk assessment can be broken down into risk
analysis and risk evaluation. In contrast, Kırılmaz and Erol (2016) defined risk analysis
as a five-stage process including risk identification, risk measurement, risk evaluation,
risk management, and control.
To have a comprehensive and consistent review, we follow the common approach to
the SCRM process and define the term supply chain risk assessment broadly as all
activities to qualitatively or quantitatively judge, analyse, calculate, quantify, measure,
evaluate, and model individual indicators, aggregated score, or overall level of risks
which have been identified in supply chains in order to create sound basics for supply
chain risk mitigation as well as other management decisions.
5.3 SCRA process

Figure 5 illustrates the SCRA process that synthesises numerous approaches of previous
studies in each step. The SCRA process starts by defining risk indicators such as:
1 risk level (or significance/ importance of risk)
2 probability/ likelihood/ frequency of occurrence
3 impact or severity of risk in general or in terms of economic loss, time delay,
reputation damage
4 interrelationship between risks
5 detectability
6 time to recover, etc.
In a second step, to assign score for risk indicators, risk assessors will collect input data
which may be expert judgement or historical data. Historical data can be either primary
data or secondary data. Expert judgement can be collected through simple interviews or
the Delphi method application as discussed in the study of Markmann et al. (2013).
Experts can be external academic and/or industrial experts (Markmann et al., 2013;
Meidan et al., 2011), internal chief executive officers, procurement, or supply chain
managers (Kırılmaz and Erol, 2016; Venkatesh et al., 2015; Zegordi and Davarzani,
2012), and supply chain stakeholders (Barker et al., 2010). Depending on the desired
assessment methods, the input will be qualitatively analysed and then directly used to
assign a score for risk indicators or quantitatively analysed by modelling, simulation or
other specific techniques. The score-assigning process can be done for individual risks or
each pair of risks as in the methods of analytic hierarchy process (AHP), analytic network
12 T.H. Tran et al.
process (ANP), decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL). Finally,

the score of single risk indicators will be either taken into weighted/unweighted
aggregated score (risk level, risk priority number, value at risk, etc.) or treated
individually to classify and/or prioritise risks in order to provide a sound basis for the
supply chain risk mitigation phase.
Figure 5 SCRA process
As concluded in the research of Kern et al. (2012), they have found empirical evidence to
state that supply chain risk identification activities and a continuous improvement process
have a positive impact on SCRA which in turn also has a positive impact on supply chain
risk mitigation.
According to Tazelaar and Snijders (2013), performance of operational risk
assessment in the supply chain really depends on the characteristics of the process such as
transaction and interrelationship between members in the supply chains.
5.4 Methods to assess risk in the supply chain

Out of the total of 140 research papers on SCRA, 130 propose and/or apply methods to
assess risks in the supply chain. These methods are diversified, but they can be divided
into four main approaches, namely qualitative, semi-quantitative, quantitative and mixed
methods.
• Qualitative risk assessment involves making a formal judgement on risk indicators,
e.g., consequence and probability using a linguistic scale instead of a purely
numerical value. It is a simple and rapid assessment method which is applied mostly
when resources, adequate data or time are limited (Manning and Soon, 2013; Radu,
2009).
• Semi-quantitative approach, which draws on quantitative methods, refers to an
alternative for qualitative and quantitative risk assessment. The semi-quantitative
risk assessment uses relative numbers to measure risk indicators (Aven, 2008; Berle
et al., 2013; Radu, 2009) in assessing and prioritising risks more intensively than
qualitative methods. For instance, Tummala and Schoenherr (2011) used the
probability index and the severity index to express the level of likelihood of
occurrence and consequence of risk as follows:
a severity: 4 – catastrophic; 3 – critical; 2 – marginal; 1 – negligible

b probability: 4 – often; 3 – infrequent; 2 – rare; 1 – extremely rare.
Quite a few researchers have developed assessment models based on a
semi-quantitative approach such as:
1 failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) and modified models
2 multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods to analyse supply chain risk
(for more details, see Table 3).
• Quantitative risk assessment is a method to accurately estimate risk probability and
other indicators, using observations as well as laws and theories. In comparison with
the qualitative approach, quantitative risk assessment is a rigorous, systematic
analysis tool with many strengths such as:
1 providing quantitative measures for decision making
2 allowing information integration
3 enabling to deal with complex interactions
4 providing structure for sensitivity analysis (Apostolakis, 2004; Cross and
Ballesio, 2003).
Although this approach has some limitations such as uncertainties of data, required
simplifications, analytical assumptions and modelling constraints, and is time
consuming (Apostolakis, 2004; Aven, 2008; Cross and Ballesio, 2003; Manning and
Soon, 2013), more and more extended quantitative risk assessments have been
carried out recently (Wang et al., 2012a). Researchers have developed different
quantitative models which either quantify probability by a number or a set of
fuzzy/grey numbers between 0 and 1, or magnitude of consequences by economic
loss, time delay, etc. or both two indicators and/or others such as time to recover,
detectability, risk propagation.
• Mixed method refers to the combination of two or more different methodologies to
assess the supply chain risk. This approach expects to take advantage of individual
methods and to eliminate the disadvantages they entail in exploring risk in multiple
ways. For example, Canbolat et al. (2008) developed a structure of process failure
mode effect analysis (PFMEA) (semi-quantitative approach) to characterise risks in
sourcing design and component manufacturing, and then used a simulation model
(quantitative method) to measure these risk factors to support decision makers in
evaluating risk mitigation strategies. More combination of SCRA methods are
presented in Table 3.
Figure 6 illustrates the prevalent level of each approach in the literature. As we can see,
the quantitative approach (including both single and multiple methods) has been most
frequently applied to assess the supply chain risk with 50% of reviewed papers.
Semi-quantitative risk assessment methods are also widely used in the supply chain
context with 37.69%. Qualitative methods and mixed methods are applied less often, with
proportions of 5.38% and 6.92% respectively. Figure 7 shows that over time,
semi-quantitative and quantitative methods are becoming more prevalent while
qualitative approach receives less attention.
14 T.H. Tran et al.
Table 3 summarises methods to assess supply chain risk which are classified according to
the four main approach groups and systems of specific methods and tools applied.
Figure 6 SCRA methods
Figure 7 Methods to assess supply chain risk over time span
5.5 SCRA indicators and measurement scales

In almost all definitions of risk, impact and probability are the most common indicators
in an SCRA. Besides that, there is a great number of emerging indicators that have been
proposed to measure different aspects of risk to support SCRM decisions. Figure 8 shows
the popularity of indicators in the papers reviewed.
Table 3 SCRA methods
Method groups Methods proposed and references

QUALITATIVE (7)
Cui and Basnet (2015), Hallikas et al. (2002), Harland et al. (2003), Cheng
and Kam (2008), Khan et al. (2008), Norrman and Jansson (2004) and Oke
and Gopalakrishnan (2009)
SEMI-QUANTITATIVE (49)
Generic Hallikas et al. (2004), Wagner and Bode (2008), Thun and Hoenig (2011),
semi-quantitative Tummala and Schoenherr (2011), Yang (2011), Markmann et al. (2013),
Kumar et al. (2014), Chang et al. (2015), Kırılmaz and Erol (2016) and
Mulyati and Geldermann (2017)
FMEA and FMEA (Bradley, 2014; Giannakis and Papadopoulos, 2016; Pradhan and
modified models Routroy, 2014; Li and Zeng, 2016)
Fuzzy FMEA (Chaudhuri et al., 2013; Rohmah et al., 2015)
House of risk (Anggrahini et al., 2015; Pujawan and Geraldin, 2009)
Single MCDM AHP (Enyinda and Mbah, 2016; Gaudenzi and Borghesi, 2006; Schoenherr
et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2006)
Orders of magnitude AHP (Dong and Cooper, 2016)
Fuzzy AHP (Ganguly and Guin, 2013; Mangla et al., 2015; Meidan et al.,
2011; Wang et al., 2012a, 2012b)
ANP (Martino et al., 2017)
DEMATEL (Govindan and Chaudhuri, 2016; Samvedi and Jain, 2013)
Fuzzy and grey DEMATEL (Wu et al., 2016)
Fuzzy ELECTRE TRI-C (Govindan and Chaudhuri, 2016)
Interpretive structural modelling (Chand et al., 2014a; Prakash et al., 2017b;
Colin et al., 2011; Diabat et al., 2012; Srivastava et al., 2015)
Fuzzy interpretive structural modelling (Chaudhuri et al., 2016; Venkatesh
et al., 2015)
Multi-MCDM AHP and fuzzy AHP (Radivojević et al., 2014)
AHP and PROMETHEE (Venkatesan et al., 2012)
Fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS (Samvedi et al., 2013)
Fuzzy ANP and TOPSIS (Berenji and Anantharaman, 2011)
ANP and DEMATEL (Fazli et al., 2015)
ANP and MOORA (Chand et al., 2014b)
Note: Abbreviations: ELECTRE – elimination and choice expressing reality
(ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité), FTA – fault tree analysis,
PROMETHEE – preference ranking organisation method for enrichment
evaluation method, TOPSIS – technique for order preferences by similarity to ideal
solution, MOORA – multi-objective optimisation by ratio analysis,
GIS – geographic information system, FMECA – failure mode, effects and critical
analysis, RBS – risk breakdown structure, RBM – risk breakdown matrix,
SCOR – supply chain operations reference, SLCA – social life cycle assessment,
SPA – structural path analysis.
16 T.H. Tran et al.
Table 3 SCRA methods (continued)

SEMI-QUANTITATIVE (49)
Others Grey-based MCDM (Prakash et al., 2015)
Multi-criteria scoring models (Blackhurst et al., 2008)
Multi Modified FMEA and AHP (Chen and Wu, 2013)
semi-quantitative
QUANTITATIVE (65)
Mathematic Fuzzy – probabilistic risk assessment (Aqlan, 2016)
modelling Mean-variance modelling (Ray and Jenamani, 2016; Tomlin, 2006)
Multiple objective integer programming (Yu and Goh, 2014; Chávez et al.,
2017)
Mixed integer programming (Sawik, 2013, 2014, 2016a, 2016b, 2017)
Adaptive risk- indexing model (Kenyon and Neureuther, 2012)
Linear programming (Bogataj and Bogataj, 2007; Sodhi, 2005)
Graph theory (Faisal et al., 2007a; Wagner and Neshat, 2010)
Statistical Bayesian network (Badurdeen et al., 2014; Garvey et al., 2015; Käki et al.,
modelling 2015; Lockamy, 2014; Lockamy and McCormack, 2010; Qazi et al., 2016;
Sharma et al., 2016)
Structural equation modelling (Chen et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2013)
Statistical supply chain risk measurement model (Mizgier, 2017)
Input-output (I-O) model (Thekdi and Santos, 2016; Wei et al., 2010)
Spatial modelling GIS Canadian-based risk assessment model (LeBlanc et al., 2015)
Statistical Regression (Welburn et al., 2016, Zhang, 2004)
analysis Conjoint analysis (Atwater et al., 2014)
Correlation analysis (Hendricks and Singhal, 2005)
Simulation Discrete event simulation (Lee et al., 2016, Schmitt and Singh, 2012)
Monte Carlo simulation (Berle et al., 2013; Mangla et al., 2014; Vilko and
Hallikas, 2012)
System dynamics (Guertler and Spinler, 2015a, 2015b; Li et al., 2016;
Mehrjoo and Pasek, 2016; Oehmen et al., 2009; Peng et al., 2014; Wilson,
2007)
Multi-agent-based modelling (Giannakis and Louis, 2011)
Table 3 SCRA methods (continued)

QUANTITATIVE (65)
Simulation Petri-net simulation (Rodger et al., 2014; Rossi and Pero, 2012; Zegordi and
Davarzani, 2012)
Disruption analysis network (Wu et al., 2007)
Multiple simulation approach (Knemeyer et al., 2009; Ivanov, 2017)
Others Lead time deviation modelling (Buscher and Wels, 2010)
Reference model (Aggarwal and Bohinc, 2012; Simchi-Levi et al., 2014;
Simchi-Levi et al., 2015)
Scenario-based risk model (Klibi and Martel, 2012)
Multiple Bayesian networks and fault and event trees (Berle et al., 2011)
quantitative Statistical modelling and simulation modelling (Ghadge et al., 2013)
approach
Simulation and regression analysis (Clemons and Slotnick, 2016; Zeng and
Yen, 2017)
SCOR-RBS-RBM (Cagliano et al., 2012)
Data envelopment analysis and Monte Carlo simulation (Olson and Wu,
2011)
Network analysis and information visualisation (Basole and Bellamy, 2014)
Bow tie analysis and fuzzy inference system (Aqlan and Lam, 2015a)
Bow tie analysis and optimisation (Aqlan and Lam, 2015b)
MIXED METHOD (9)
PROMETHEE-II and Goal programming (Soni and Kodali, 2013)
Fuzzy Bow-Tie analysis and Lean principles (Aqlan et al., 2014)
Fuzzy set theory, FTA and Evidential reasoning (Yang et al., 2005)
PFMEA and Simulation (Canbolat et al., 2008)
FMECA and FTA (Kumar and Havey, 2013)
Fault tree analysis and fuzzy AHP (Mangla et al., 2016)
Fuzzy AHP, SPA, I-O model and SLCA (Zimmer et al., 2017)
FMECA and Petri-net (Tuncel and Alpan, 2010)
Decision analysis, case study and perception-based (Manuj and Mentzer,
2008)
18 T.H. Tran et al.
Figure 8 Distribution of SCRA indicators
Table 4 Supply chain risk indicators and scales
Single indicators
Aggregated indicators
Individual risks Pair/group of risks
• Impact/severity • Propagation • Risk level, risk score
a Duration • Dynamics of risk • Risk-exposure index
b Capacity to • Interdependencies • RPN
control/inoperability
• Interrelationships between • VAR – value at risk
c Time to recover/time to risk
survive • CVAR – conditional value
• Driving power at risk
d Economics loss
• Dependence power • Conditional service-at-risk
e Delay, lead time
deviation • Significance
f Inventory level
g Quality and reputation
damage
• Probability/frequency/
likelihood of occurrence
• Detectability/predictability
Scales: Nominal, ordinal, ratio, interval
Linguistics, real numbers, grey/fuzzy numbers
Table 4 classifies indicators used to assess the supply chain risk with regard to its
components and subjects. Single indicators focus on different aspects of risk and then
these single indicators can be aggregated in different ways to form a generalised indicator
that can represent supply chain risk and support risk prioritisation and management.
The most common single indicator of individual risk is impact or severity (used in
103 papers), referring to the extent of the effect of risk on the supply chain performance.
While in qualitative and semi-quantitative approach researchers used a linguistic
judgement in a nominal or ordinal scale to judge the risk impact or severity in general,
quantitative methods divided this indicator into sub-indicators or investigated more
specific aspects of risk consequences, i.e., duration of risk (Ghadge et al., 2013; Kenyon
and Neureuther, 2012; Klibi and Martel, 2012; Mangla et al., 2014; Schmitt and Singh,
2012; Tomlin, 2006), capacity to control (Aqlan and Lam, 2015a; Ganguly and Guin,
2013; Samvedi et al., 2013) or inoperability (Thekdi and Santos, 2016; Wei et al., 2010),
loss in terms of economics, time (delay), quality (damage), reputation (damage), time to
recover (time to regain full capacity, functionality, and performance of the supply chain
after disruptions) (Kenyon and Neureuther, 2012, Klibi and Martel, 2012, Schmitt and
Singh, 2012, Simchi-Levi et al., 2014), time to survive (maximum amount of time the
system can function without performance loss if a particular node is disrupted)
(Simchi-Levi et al., 2015), lead time deviation (variation in lead time due to disruptions
that may result in interruption in material and product flow) (Buscher and Wels, 2010),
and inventory level (inventory at risk – IAR) (Sodhi, 2005).
Next to impact, probability is also a very popular indicator in risk assessment. Due to
the uncertain nature of risk, scholars and practitioners attempt to gain insight into how
often and/or when risk occurs through expert judgement, modelling and simulation or
statistical analysis.
Besides this, detectability – or predictability – which refers to the ability to recognise
the appearance and onset of risk in order to prepare mitigation actions in time, have been
widely used in FMEA (Pradhan and Routroy, 2014) and modified FMEA methods (Chen
and Wu, 2013), as well as bow-tie analysis and fuzzy inference system (Aqlan and Lam,
2015a).
Supply chain risks are not independent but rather depend on each other in terms of
occurrence and magnitude of impact. Therefore, researchers have recently concentrated
on assessing supply chain risk in relation with other risks through several indicators i.e.
risk propagation by ISM models with driving power/dependence power in ISM models
(Chand et al., 2014a; Prakash et al., 2017b; Chaudhuri et al., 2016; Srivastava et al.,
2015), risk propagation, interdependencies and causal relationship by Bayesian network
(Badurdeen et al., 2014; Garvey et al., 2015; Sharma et al., 2016), dynamics of risk
(Cheng and Kam, 2008), interrelationships between risks in the DAMETEL model
(Govindan and Chaudhuri, 2016), and significance/importance of risk in AHP models
(Chand et al., 2014b; Mangla et al., 2016; Radivojević et al., 2014).
As multi-indicators are investigated in the assessment process and there is a need to
compare and/ or prioritise supply chain risks, aggregated indicators have been calculated
to represent risk. Risk level – or risk score – is the common aggregated indicator which is
combined from component indicators in semi-quantitative and quantitative approach.
Simchi-Levi et al. (2015) used the aggregated indicator risk-exposure index to measure
risk in the automotive supply chain. The risk prioritisation number (RPN) is also usually
calculated to prioritise risks by different formulas, i.e., the multiplication of ‘probability’,
‘impact’ and ‘detection’ in FMEA methods, or the multiplication of ‘severity’,
‘probability’ and ‘visibility’ (Venkatesan et al., 2012), or the multiplication of ‘severity’,
‘detectability’ and ratio of ‘driving power’ and ‘dependence power’ in the modified ISM
model by Garvey et al. (2015) and Venkatesh et al. (2015). ‘Value at risk’, which can be
calculated by multiplying the probability of risk with the monetary impact (Lockamy,
2014), and ‘conditional value at risk’ are traditional aggregated risk indicators in
quantitative risk assessment models. These percentile risk measures have been used by
Tomlin (2006), Lockamy and McCormack (2010), Sawik (2013), Lockamy (2014),
Mehrjoo and Pasek (2016) and Mizgier (2017). Sawik (2016b) proposed conditional
service-at-risk as an indicator to measure the effect of supply chain disruptions.
20 T.H. Tran et al.
6 Research gaps and future directions
Research gaps and opportunities for future research in SCRM in general and SCRA in
particular are numerous.
With regard to SCRA methodology, according to Aven (2012b), most researchers
would probably agree that there is a need for both quantitative methods as well as
qualitative methods, and a combination of them would provide the best way of supporting
decision making. However, the number of articles that used a qualitative approach and
integrated different risk assessment methods is quite modest as shown in Figure 6. That
stimulates researchers to combine diverse techniques to create different approaches and
gain a comprehensive insight into supply chain risk.
Concerning types of assessed risk in the supply chain, as can be seen in Figure 3,
most researchers have focused on supply chain risk in general although there are various
types of risk that need to be predicted, quantified and monitored, i.e., disaster risk,
sustainability-related risk, demand risk, reputational risk, compliance risk, etc. In
addition, most reviewed papers only investigated risks in one specific tier or focal
company while risks spread across multiple tiers in the complex supply chain. That
requires future studies to analyse the complicated interrelationship between different
risks, different entities/tiers in the supply chain, and between different supply chains.
Concerning SCRA approaches and indicators, risk needs to be assessed not only
individually but also in relation to other risks through emerging indicators such as
propagation, driving power, dependence level as well as conditional probability.
However, the number of papers focusing on these indicators and the methods to quantify
them is still limited. Future research can find new methods that may be combined with
empirical studies to gain insights into this interrelationship.
Regarding SCRA scales, fuzzy and grey number are becoming more prevalent in
assessing risk in general and supply chain risk in particular. However, this approach
results in the risk assessment process becoming more and more complex. There is a need
for trade-off analysis of the increase in complexity on the one hand and the benefit this
approach contributes to SCRA on the other hand.
As for supportive tools for SCRA, along with the development of the internet, open
data and query techniques, there is an opportunity to apply the big data concept and
resources for SCRA and ultimately for the establishment of an early warning system.
Concerning SCRA quality, risk itself is uncertain and there is also uncertainty in risk
assessment especially when using expert judgement (Aven, 2016). Nevertheless, there is
a lack of articles studying solutions to treat uncertainty, bias, or the complexity in the
SCRA process.
7 Summary
By means of reviewing 140 scientific articles on SCRA, this paper provides a

comprehensive view of this research area. This study first reviewed all possible concepts
and synonyms of SCRA, and then presented our definition in order to ensure consistency
in the review process and future research. Next, all objectives of SCRA research have
been investigated to know what previous studies focus on e.g. how risk assessment is to
be conducted, how a practical company does this work, followed by a comparison of
different risk assessment methods and the relationships between SCRA and other SCRM
stages and supply chain performance. Furthermore, authors have developed an SCRA
process, classified and summarised overall methods, indicators and scales to assess risk in
the supply chain. Findings showed that more and more semi-quantitative and quantitative
risk assessment methods are being applied. While qualitative methods mostly focused on
supply chain risk in general, semi-quantitative approaches have tried to prioritise risks
and have begun to pay attention to the interrelationship between these risks. Quantitative
approaches, however, attached special importance to specific risks in the supply chain to
measure the impact and value at risk index. Indicators to assess risk extend from focusing
on individual risk to focusing on relationship and interactions between pairs or groups of
risk. Grey and fuzzy theories are becoming more prevalent due to vague characteristics of
risk. Finally, this paper presents research gaps and suggests opportunities for future
research related to the approach, methodology, scope and unsolved issues in SCRA.
References
Adhitya, A., Srinivasan, R. and Karimi, I.A. (2009) ‘Supply chain risk identification using a
HAZOP based approach’, AIChE Journal, Vol. 55, No. 6, pp.1447–1463.
Aggarwal, R. and Bohinc, J. (2012) ‘Black swans and supply chain strategic necessity’, Journal of
Transportation Security, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.39–49.
Anggrahini, D., Karningsih, P.D. and Sulistiyono, M. (2015) ‘Managing quality risk in a frozen
shrimp supply chain: a case study’, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 4, pp.252–260.
Apostolakis, G.E. (2004) ‘How useful is quantitative risk assessment?’, Risk Analysis, Vol. 24,
No. 3, pp.515–520.
Aqlan, F. (2016) ‘A software application for rapid risk assessment in integrated supply chains’,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 43, pp.109–116.
Aqlan, F. and Lam, S.S. (2015a) ‘A fuzzy-based integrated framework for supply chain risk
assessment’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 161, pp.54–63.
Aqlan, F. and Lam, S.S. (2015b) ‘Supply chain risk modelling and mitigation’, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53, No. 18, pp.5640–5656.
Aqlan, F., Ali, E.M. and Ali, E.M. (2014) ‘Integrating lean principles and fuzzy bow-tie analysis
for risk assessment in chemical industry’, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process
Industries, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.39–48.
Atwater, C., Gopalan, R., Lancioni, R. and Hunt, J. (2014) ‘Measuring supply chain risk: predicting
motor carriers’ ability to withstand disruptive environmental change using conjoint analysis’,
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 48, pp.360–378.
Aven, T. (2008) ‘A semi-quantitative approach to risk analysis, as an alternative to QRAs’,
Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 93, No. 6, pp.790–797.
Aven, T. (2012a) ‘Foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management’, Risk Analysis,
Vol. 32, No. 10, pp.1647–1656.
Aven, T. (2012b) ‘The risk concept – historical and recent development trends’, Reliability
Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 99, pp.33–44.
Aven, T. (2016) ‘Risk assessment and risk management: review of recent advances on their
foundation’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 253, No. 1, pp.1–13.
Aven, T. and Zio, E. (2014) ‘Foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management’, Risk
Analysis, Vol. 34, No. 7, pp.1164–1172.
Badurdeen, F., Shuaib, M., Wijekoon, K., Brown, A., Faulkner, W., Amundson, J., Jawahir, I.S.,
Goldsby, T.J., Iyengar, D. and Boden, B. (2014) ‘Quantitative modeling and analysis of
supply chain risks using Bayesian theory’, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp.631–654.
22 T.H. Tran et al.
Barker, G.C., Bayley, C., Cassidy, A., French, S., Hart, A., Malakar, P.K., Maule, J., Petkov, M.
and Shepherd, R. (2010) ‘Can a participatory approach contribute to food chain risk
analysis?’, Risk Analysis, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp.766–781.
Basole, R.C. and Bellamy, M.A. (2014) ‘Visual analysis of supply network risks: insights from the
electronics industry’, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 67, pp.109–120.
Berenji, H.R. and Anantharaman, R.N. (2011) ‘Supply chain risk management: risk assessment in
engineering and manufacturing industries’, International Journal of Innovation, Management
and Technology, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp.452–452.
Berle, Ø., Asbjørnslett, B.E. and Rice, J.B. (2011) ‘Formal vulnerability assessment of a maritime
transportation system’, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 96, No. 6, pp.696–705.
Berle, Ø., Norstad, I. and Asbjørnslett, B.E. (2013) ‘Optimization, risk assessment and resilience in
LNG transportation systems’, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18,
No. 3, pp.253–264.
Blackhurst, J.V., Scheibe, K.P. and Johnson, D.J. (2008) ‘Supplier risk assessment and monitoring
for the automotive industry’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Bogataj, D. and Bogataj, M. (2007) ‘Measuring the supply chain risk and vulnerability in frequency
space’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 108, No. 14, pp.291–301.
Bradley, J.R. (2010) ‘The complexity of assessing supply chain risk’, in Thomas, A.R. (Ed.):
Supply chain Security: International Practices and Innovations in Moving Goods Safely and
Efficiently, Praeger, Santa Barbara, California- Denver, Colorado-Oxford, England.
Bradley, J.R. (2014) ‘An improved method for managing catastrophic supply chain disruptions’,
Business Horizons, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp.483–495.
Buscher, U. and Wels, A. (2010) ‘Supply chain risk assessment with the functional quantification
of lead time deviation’, International Journal of Integrated Supply Management, Vol. 5,
No. 3, pp.197–213.
Cagliano, A.C., de Marco, A., Grimaldi, S. and Rafele, C. (2012) ‘An integrated approach to supply
chain risk analysis’, Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 15, No. 7, pp.817–840.
Canbolat, Y.B., Gupta, G., Matera, S. and Chelst, K. (2008) ‘Analysing risk in sourcing design and
manufacture of components and sub-systems to emerging markets’, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 46, No. 18, pp.5145–5164.
Cerić, A., Marčić, D. and Kovačević, M.S. (2013) ‘Applying the analytic network process for risk
assessment in sustainable ground improvement’, Građevinar, Vol. 65, No. 10, pp.919–929.
Chand, M., Raj, T. and Shankar, R. (2014a) ‘Analysing the operational risks in supply chain by
using weighted interpretive structure modelling technique’, International Journal of Services
and Operations Management, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.378–403.
Chand, M., Raj, T. and Shankar, R. (2014b) ‘A comparative study of multi criteria decision making
approaches for risks assessment in supply chain’, International Journal of Business
Information Systems, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.67–84.
Chang, C-H., Xu, J. and Song, D-P. (2015) ‘Risk analysis for container shipping: from a logistics
perspective’, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.147–171.
Chaudhuri, A., Mohanty, B.K. and Singh, K.N. (2013) ‘Supply chain risk assessment during new
product development: a group decision making approach using numeric and linguistic data’,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51, No. 10, pp.2790–2804.
Chaudhuri, A., Srivastava, S., Srivastava, R.K., Parveen, Z., Huang, Z. and Wang, K. (2016) ‘Risk
propagation and its impact on performance in food processing supply chain: a fuzzy
interpretive structural modeling based approach’, Journal of Modelling in Management,
Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.660–693.
Chávez, H., Castillo-Villar, K.K., Herrera, L. and Bustos, A. (2017) ‘Simulation-based
multi-objective model for supply chains with disruptions in transportation’, Robotics and
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 43, pp.39–49.
Chen, J., Sohal, A.S. and Prajogo, D.I. (2013) ‘Supply chain operational risk mitigation: a
collaborative approach’, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51, No. 7,
pp.2186–2199.
Chen, P-S. and Wu, M-T. (2013) ‘A modified failure mode and effects analysis method for supplier
selection problems in the supply chain risk environment: a case study’, Computers &
Industrial Engineering, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp.634–642.
Cheng, S.K. and Kam, B.H. (2008) ‘A conceptual framework for analysing risk in supply
networks’, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.345–360.
Chiu, C-H.C.H. and Choi, T-M.T.M. (2016) ‘Supply chain risk analysis with mean-variance
models: a technical review’, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 240, No. 2, pp.2186–2199.
Christopher, M. and Lee, H. (2004) ‘Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence’,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34, No. 5,
pp.388–396.
Clemons, R. and Slotnick, S.A. (2016) ‘The effect of supply-chain disruption, quality and
knowledge transfer on firm strategy’, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 178, pp.169–186.
Colicchia, C. and Strozzi, F. (2012) ‘Supply chain risk management: a new methodology for a
systematic literature review’, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17,
No. 4, pp.403–418.
Colin, J., Estampe, D., Pfohl, H-C., Gallus, P. and Thomas, D. (2011) ‘Interpretive structural
modeling of supply chain risks’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Cross, R.B. and Ballesio, J.E. (2003) ‘A quantitative risk assessment model for oil tankers’,
Transactions-Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 111, pp.608–623.
Cui, Y. and Basnet, C. (2015) ‘An exploratory study of supply chain risk management in the
New Zealand fast food industry’, International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management,
Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.199–215.
Diabat, A., Govindan, K. and Panicker, V.V. (2012) ‘Supply chain risk management and its
mitigation in a food industry’, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 50, No. 11,
pp.3039–3050.
Dimase, D., Collier, Z.A., Carlson, J., Gray, R.B. and Linkov, I. (2016) ‘Traceability and risk
analysis strategies for addressing counterfeit electronics in supply chains for complex
systems’, Risk Analysis, Vol. 36, No. 10, pp.1834–1843.
Dong, Q. and Cooper, O. (2016) ‘An orders-of-magnitude AHP supply chain risk assessment
framework’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 182, pp.144–156.
Duriau, V.J., Reger, R.K. and Pfarrer, M.D. (2007) ‘A content analysis of the content analysis
literature in organization studies: research themes, data sources, and methodological
refinements’, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.5–34.
Enyinda, C.I. and Mbah, C.H. (2016) ‘Quantifying sources of risk in global food operations and
supply chain’, Thunderbird International Business Review, first online version [online]
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tie.21842/full.
Fahimnia, B., Tang, C.S., Davarzani, H. and Sarkis, J. (2015) ‘Quantitative models for managing
supply chain risks: a review’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 247, No. 1,
pp.1–15.
Faisal, M.N., Banwet, D.K. and Shankar, R. (2007a) ‘Information risks management in supply
chains: an assessment and mitigation framework’, Journal of Enterprise Information
Faisal, M.N., Banwet, D.K., Shankar, R., Nishat, F.M., Banwet, D.K., Ravi, S., Faisal, M.N.,
Banwet, D.K. and Shankar, R. (2007b) ‘Information risks management in supply chains: an
assessment and mitigation framework’, Journal of Enterprise Information Management,
Vol. 20, No. 6, pp.677–699.
24 T.H. Tran et al.
Fazli, S., Mavi, R.K., Vosooghidizaji, M., Kiani Mavi, R. and Vosooghidizaji, M. (2015) ‘Crude oil
supply chain risk management with DEMATEL-ANP’, Operational Research, Vol. 15, No. 3,
pp.453–480.
Ganguly, K. (2013) ‘A case study approach for understanding inbound supply risk assessment’,
Decision, Vol. 40, Nos. 1–2, pp.85–97.
Ganguly, K.K. and Guin, K.K. (2013) ‘A fuzzy AHP approach for inbound supply risk
assessment’, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.129–146.
Garvey, M.D., Carnovale, S. and Yeniyurt, S. (2015) ‘An analytical framework for supply network
risk propagation: a Bayesian network approach’, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 243, No. 2, pp.618–627.
Gaudenzi, B. and Borghesi, A. (2006) ‘Managing risks in the supply chain using the AHP method’,
The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.114–136.
Ghadge, A., Dani, S. and Kalawsky, R. (2012) ‘Supply chain risk management: present and future
scope’, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp.313–339.
Ghadge, A., Dani, S., Chester, M. and Kalawsky, R. (2013) ‘A systems approach for modelling
supply chain risks’, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18, No. 5,
pp.523–538.
Giannakis, M. and Louis, M. (2011) ‘A multi-agent based framework for supply chain risk
management’, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.23–31.
Giannakis, M. and Papadopoulos, T. (2016) ‘Supply chain sustainability: a risk management
approach’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 171, pp.455–470.
Govindan, K. and Chaudhuri, A. (2016) ‘Interrelationships of risks faced by third party logistics
service providers: a DEMATEL based approach’, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics
and Transportation Review, Vol. 90, pp.177–195.
Guertler, B. and Spinler, S. (2015a) ‘Supply risk interrelationships and the derivation of key supply
risk indicators’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 92, pp.224–236.
Guertler, B. and Spinler, S. (2015b) ‘When does operational risk cause supply chain enterprises to
tip? A simulation of intra-organizational dynamics’, Omega, Vol. 57, pp.54–69.
Hallikas, J., Karvonen, I., Pulkkinen, U., Virolainen, V-M. and Tuominen, M. (2004) ‘Risk
management processes in supplier networks’, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 90, No. 1, pp.47–58.
Hallikas, J., Virolainen, V-M. and Tuominen, M. (2002) ‘Risk analysis and assessment in network
environments: a dyadic case study’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 78,
No. 1, pp.45–55.
Harland, C., Brenchley, R. and Walker, H. (2003) ‘Risk in supply networks’, Journal of
Purchasing and Supply management, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.51–62.
Heckmann, I., Comes, T. and Nickel, S. (2015b) ‘A critical review on supply chain risk –
definition, measure and modeling’, Omega (United Kingdom), Vol. 52, pp.119–132.
Hendricks, K.B. and Singhal, V.R. (2005) ‘Association between supply chain glitches and
operating performance’, Management Science, Vol. 51, No. 5, pp.695–711.
Ho, W., Zheng, T., Yildiz, H. and Talluri, S. (2015) ‘Supply chain risk management: a literature
review’, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53, No. 16, pp.5031–5069.
Ivanov, D. (2017) ‘Simulation-based ripple effect modelling in the supply chain’, International
Jüttner, U., Peck, H. and Christopher, M. (2003) ‘Supply chain risk management: outlining an
agenda for future research’, International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications,
Vol. 6, No. 4, pp.197–210.
Käki, A., Salo, A. and Talluri, S. (2015) ‘Disruptions in supply networks: a probabilistic risk
assessment approach’, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.273–287.
Kenyon, G. and Neureuther, B.D. (2012) ‘An adaptive model for assessing supply chain risk’,
Journal of Marketing Channels, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.156–170.
Kern, D., Moser, R., Hartmann, E. and Moder, M. (2012) ‘Supply risk management: model
development and empirical analysis’, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp.60–82.
Khan, O. and Burnes, B. (2007) ‘Risk and supply chain management: creating a research agenda’,
The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.197–216.
Khan, O., Christopher, M. and Burnes, B. (2008) ‘The impact of product design on supply chain
risk: a case study’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 38, Nos. 5–6, pp.412–432.
Kilubi, I. and Haasis, H.D. (2015) ‘Supply chain risk management enablers – a framework
development through systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2015’, International
Journal of Business Science & Applied Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.35–54.
Kırılmaz, O. and Erol, S. (2016) ‘A proactive approach to supply chain risk management: shifting
orders among suppliers to mitigate the supply side risks’, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Klibi, W. and Martel, A. (2012) ‘Scenario-based supply chain network risk modeling’, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 223, No. 3, pp.644–658.
Knemeyer, A.M., Zinn, W. and Eroglu, C. (2009) ‘Proactive planning for catastrophic events in
supply chains’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.141–153.
Kohlbacher, F. (2006) ‘The use of qualitative content analysis in case study research’, Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 7, No. 1 [online]
http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/75.
Kumar, S. and Havey, T. (2013) ‘Before and after disaster strikes: a relief supply chain decision
support framework’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 145, No. 2,
pp.613–629.
Kumar, S., Himes, K.J. and Kritzer, C.P. (2014) ‘Risk assessment and operational approaches to
managing risk in global supply chains’, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 25, No. 6, pp.873–890.
Lavastre, O., Gunasekaran, A. and Spalanzani, A. (2012) ‘Supply chain risk management in French
companies’, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp.828–838.
Leblanc, D.I., Villeneuve, S., Beni, L.H., Otten, A., Fazil, A., Mckellar, R. and Delaquis, P. (2015)
‘A national produce supply chain database for food safety risk analysis’, Journal of Food
Engineering, Vol. 147, pp.24–38.
Lee, B.K., Zhou, R., de Souza, R. and Park, J. (2016) ‘Data-driven risk measurement of
firm-to-firm relationships in a supply chain’, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 180, pp.148–157.
Li, C., Ren, J. and Wang, H. (2016) ‘A system dynamics simulation model of chemical supply
chain transportation risk management systems’, Computers & Chemical Engineering, Vol. 89,
pp.71–83.
Li, S. and Zeng, W. (2016) ‘Risk analysis for the supplier selection problem using failure modes
and effects analysis (FMEA)’, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 27, No. 6,
pp.1309–1321.
Lockamy III, A. (2014) ‘Assessing disaster risks in supply chains’, Industrial Management & Data
Systems, Vol. 114, No. 5, pp.755–777.
Lockamy III, A. and McCormack, K. (2010) ‘Analysing risks in supply networks to facilitate
outsourcing decisions’, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48, No. 2,
pp.593–611.
Mangla, S.K., Kumar, P. and Barua, M.K. (2014) ‘Monte Carlo simulation based approach to
manage risks in operational networks in green supply chain’, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 97,
pp.2186–2194.
Mangla, S.K., Kumar, P. and Barua, M.K. (2015) ‘Risk analysis in green supply chain using fuzzy
AHP approach: a case study’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 104, pp.375–390.
26 T.H. Tran et al.
Mangla, S.K., Kumar, P. and Barua, M.K. (2016) ‘An integrated methodology of FTA and fuzzy
AHP for risk assessment in green supply chain’, International Journal of Operational
Research, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.77–99.
Manning, L. and Soon, J.M. (2013) ‘Mechanisms for assessing food safety risk’, British Food
Journal, Vol. 115, No. 3, pp.460–484.
Manuj, I. and Mentzer, J.T. (2008) ‘Global supply chain risk management’, Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.133–155.
March, J.G. and Shapira, Z. (1987) ‘Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking’, Management
Science, Vol. 33, No. 11, pp.1404–1418.
Markmann, C., Darkow, I-L.L. and von der Gracht, H. (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, Vol. 80, No. 9, pp.1815–1833.
Martino, G., Fera, M., Iannone, R. and Miranda, S. (2017) ‘Supply chain risk assessment in the
fashion retail industry: an analytic network process approach’, International Journal of
Applied Engineering Research, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.140–154.
Mehrjoo, M. and Pasek, Z.J. (2016) ‘Risk assessment for the supply chain of fast fashion apparel
industry: a system dynamics framework’, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 54, No. 1, pp.28–48.
Meidan, X., Ye, L. and Zhiqiang, S. (2011) ‘On the measure method of electronic supply chain
risk’, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 15, pp.4805–4813.
Mizgier, K.J. (2017) ‘Global sensitivity analysis and aggregation of risk in multi-product supply
chain networks’, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp.130–144.
Mulyati, H. and Geldermann, J. (2017) ‘Managing risks in the Indonesian seaweed supply chain’,
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.175–189.
Neiger, D., Rotaru, K. and Churilov, L. (2009) ‘Supply chain risk identification with value-focused
process engineering’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.154–168.
Norrman, A. and Jansson, U. (2004) ‘Ericsson’s proactive supply chain risk management approach
after a serious sub-supplier accident’, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp.434–456.
Oehmen, J., Ziegenbein, A., Alard, R. and Schönsleben, P. (2009) ‘System-oriented supply chain
risk management’, Production planning and control, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.343–361.
Oke, A. and Gopalakrishnan, M. (2009) ‘Managing disruptions in supply chains: a case study of a
retail supply chain’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 118, No. 1,
pp.168–174.
Olson, D.L. and Wu, D. (2011) ‘Risk management models for supply chain: a scenario analysis of
outsourcing to China’, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16, No. 6,
pp.401–408.
Palmer, C., Urwin, E.N., Niknejad, A., Petrovic, D., Popplewell, K. and Young, R.I.M. (2016)
‘An ontology supported risk assessment approach for the intelligent configuration of supply
networks’, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, pp.1–26 [online] https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10845-016-1252-8.
Peck, H. (2006) ‘Reconciling supply chain vulnerability, risk and supply chain management’,
International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.127–142.
Peng, M., Peng, Y. and Chen, H. (2014) ‘Post-seismic supply chain risk management: a system
dynamics disruption analysis approach for inventory and logistics planning’, Computers &
Operations Research, Vol. 42, pp.14–24.
Pradhan, S.K. and Routroy, S. (2014) ‘Analyzing the supply chain risk issues for an Indian
manufacturing company’, Journal of Advances in Management Research, Vol. 11, No. 2,
pp.144–162.
Prakash, S., Soni, G. and Rathore, A.P.S. (2015) ‘A grey based approach for assessment of risk
associated with facility location in global supply chain’, Grey Systems: Theory and
Application, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.419–436.
Prakash, S., Soni, G. and Rathore, A.P.S. (2017a) ‘A critical analysis of supply chain risk
management content: a structured literature review’, Journal of Advances in Management
Prakash, S., Soni, G., Rathore, A.P.S. and Singh, S. (2017b) ‘Risk analysis and mitigation for
perishable food supply chain: a case of dairy industry’, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp.2–23.
Pujawan, I.N. and Geraldin, L.H. (2009) ‘House of risk: a model for proactive supply chain risk
management’, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp.953–967.
Punniyamoorthy, M., Thamaraiselvan, N. and Manikandan, L. (2013) ‘Assessment of supply chain
risk: scale development and validation’, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 20,
No. 1, pp.79–105.
Qazi, A., Quigley, J., Dickson, A. and Ekici, Ş.Ö. (2016) ‘Exploring dependency based
probabilistic supply chain risk measures for prioritising interdependent risks and strategies’,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 259, No. 1, pp.189–204.
Radivojević, G., Gajović, V., Radivojevic, G. and Gajovic, V. (2014) ‘Supply chain risk modeling
by AHP and fuzzy AHP methods’, Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.337–352.
Radu, L-D. (2009) ‘Qualitative, semi-quantitative and, quantitative methods for risk assessment:
case of the financial audit’, Analele Stiintifice ale Universitatii ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’ din
Iasi-Stiinte Economice, Vol. 56, pp.643–657.
Rangel, D.A., de Oliveira, T.K. and Leite, M.S.A. (2015) ‘Supply chain risk classification:
discussion and proposal’, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53, No. 22,
pp.6868–6887.
Rao, S. and Goldsby, T.J. (2009) ‘Supply chain risks: a review and typology’, The International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.97–123.
Ray, P. and Jenamani, M. (2016) ‘Mean-variance analysis of sourcing decision under disruption
risk’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 250, No. 2, pp.679–689.
Rodger, J.A., Pankaj, P. and Gonzalez, S.P. (2014) ‘Decision making using a fuzzy induced
linguistic ordered weighted averaging approach for evaluating risk in a supply chain’,
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 70, Nos. 1–4,
pp.711–723.
Rohmah, D.U.M., Dania, W.A.P. and Dewi, I.A. (2015) ‘Risk measurement of supply chain
organic rice product using fuzzy failure mode effect analysis in MUTOS Seloliman Trawas
Mojokerto’, Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, Vol. 3, pp.108–113.
Rossi, T. and Pero, M. (2012) ‘A formal method for analysing and assessing operational risk in
supply chains’, International Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.90–109.
Samvedi, A. and Jain, V. (2013) ‘A study on the interactions between supply chain risk
management criteria using fuzzy DEMATEL method’, International Journal of Operational
Samvedi, A., Jain, V. and Chan, F.T.S. (2013) ‘Quantifying risks in a supply chain through
integration of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS’, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 51, No. 8, pp.2433–2442.
Sawik, T. (2013) ‘Selection and protection of suppliers in a supply chain with disruption risks’,
International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, Vol. 15, Nos. 2–3, pp.143–159.
Sawik, T. (2014) ‘On the robust decision-making in a supply chain under disruption risks’,
Sawik, T. (2016a) ‘Integrated supply, production and distribution scheduling under disruption
risks’, Omega, Vol. 62, pp.131–144.
Sawik, T. (2016b) ‘On the risk-averse optimization of service level in a supply chain under
disruption risks’, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp.98–113.
Sawik, T. (2017) ‘A portfolio approach to supply chain disruption management’, International
28 T.H. Tran et al.
Schmitt, A.J. and Singh, M. (2012) ‘A quantitative analysis of disruption risk in a multi-echelon
supply chain’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 139, No. 1, pp.22–32.
Schoenherr, T., Tummala, V.M.R. and Harrison, T.P. (2008) ‘Assessing supply chain risks with the
analytic hierarchy process: providing decision support for the offshoring decision by a US
manufacturing company’, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 14, No. 2,
pp.100–111.
Seuring, S. and Gold, S. (2012) ‘Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in supply
chain management’, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17, No. 5,
pp.544–555.
Sharma, S., Routroy, S., Irani, Z. and Irani, Z. (2016) ‘Modeling information risk in supply chain
using Bayesian networks’, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 29, No. 2,
pp.238–254.
Simchi-Levi, D., Schmidt, W. and Wei, Y. (2014) ‘From superstorms to factory fires: managing
unpredictable supply-chain disruptions’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 92, Nos. 1–2,
pp.96–101.
Simchi-Levi, D., Schmidt, W., Wei, Y., Zhang, P.Y., Combs, K., Ge, Y., Gusikhin, O., Sanders, M.
and Zhang, D. (2015) ‘Identifying risks and mitigating disruptions in the automotive supply
chain’, Interfaces, Vol. 45, No. 5, pp.375–390.
Sodhi, M.S. (2005) ‘Managing demand risk in tactical supply chain planning for a global consumer
electronics company’, Production and Operations management, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.69–79.
Sodhi, M.S., Son, B-G. and Tang, C.S. (2012) ‘Researchers’ perspectives on supply chain risk
management’, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.1–13.
Soni, G. and Kodali, R. (2013) ‘A decision framework for assessment of risk associated with global
supply chain’, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.25–53.
Srivastava, S.K., Chaudhuri, A. and Srivastava, R.K. (2015) ‘Propagation of risks and their impact
on performance in fresh food retail’, The International Journal of Logistics Management,
Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.568–602.
Tang, C.S. (2006) ‘Perspectives in supply chain risk management’, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 103, No. 2, pp.451–488.
Tang, O. and Musa, S.N. (2011) ‘Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain
risk management’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 133, No. 1, pp.25–34.
Tazelaar, F. and Snijders, C. (2013) ‘Operational risk assessments by supply chain professionals:
process and performance’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.37–51.
Thekdi, S.A. and Santos, J.R. (2016) ‘Supply chain vulnerability analysis using scenario based
input output modeling: application to port operations’, Risk Analysis, Vol. 36, No. 5,
pp.1025–1039.
Thun, J-H. and Hoenig, D. (2011) ‘An empirical analysis of supply chain risk management in the
German automotive industry’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 131,
No. 1, pp.242–249.
Tomlin, B. (2006) ‘On the value of mitigation and contingency strategies for managing supply
chain disruption risks’, Management Science, Vol. 52, No. 5, pp.639–657.
Tummala, R. and Schoenherr, T. (2011) ‘Assessing and managing risks using the supply chain risk
management process (SCRMP)’, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 16, No. 6, pp.474–483.
Tuncel, G. and Alpan, G. (2010) ‘Risk assessment and management for supply chain networks:
a case study’, Computers in Industry, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp.250–259.
Vanany, I., Zailani, S. and Pujawan, N. (2009) ‘Supply chain risk management: literature review
and future research’, in Hunter, M.G. (Ed.): Strategic Information Systems: Concepts,
Methodologies, Tools, and Applications: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications,
Information Science Reference, Hershey-New York
Venkatesan, S.P., Kumanan, S., Prasanna Venkatesan, S. and Kumanan, S. (2012) ‘Supply chain
risk prioritisation using a hybrid AHP and PROMETHEE approach’, International Journal of
Services and Operations Management, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.19–41.
Venkatesh, V.G., Rathi, S. and Patwa, S. (2015) ‘Analysis on supply chain risks in Indian apparel
retail chains and proposal of risk prioritization model using Interpretive structural modeling’,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 26, pp.153–167.
Vilko, J.P.P. and Hallikas, J.M. (2012) ‘Risk assessment in multimodal supply chains’,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140, No. 2, pp.586–595.
Wagner, S.M. and Bode, C. (2008) ‘An empirical examination of supply chain performance along
several dimensions of risk’, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.307–325.
Wagner, S.M. and Neshat, N. (2010) ‘Assessing the vulnerability of supply chains using graph
theory’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 126, No. 1, pp.121–129.
Wang, X., Chan, H.K., Yee, R.W.Y. and Diaz-Rainey, I. (2012a) ‘A two-stage fuzzy-AHP model
for risk assessment of implementing green initiatives in the fashion supply chain’,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 135, No. 2, pp.595–606.
Wang, X.J., Li, D. and Shi, X.L. (2012b) ‘A fuzzy model for aggregative food safety risk
assessment in food supply chains’, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 23, No. 5,
pp.377–395.
Waters, D. (2011) Supply Chain Risk Management: Vulnerability and Resilience in Logistics,
Kogan Page Publishers, London and Philadelphia.
Wei, H., Dong, M. and Sun, S. (2010) ‘Inoperability input-output modeling (IIM) of disruptions to
supply chain networks’, Systems Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.324–339.
Welburn, J., Bier, V. and Hoerning, S. (2016) ‘Import security: assessing the risks of imported
food’, Risk Analysis, Vol. 36, No. 11, pp.2047–2064.
Wilson, M.C. (2007) ‘The impact of transportation disruptions on supply chain performance’,
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 43, No. 4,
pp.295–320.
Wu, K-J., Liao, C-J., Tseng, M-L., Lim, M.K., Hu, J. and Tan, K. (2016) ‘Toward sustainability:
using big data to explore the decisive attributes of supply chain risks and uncertainties’,
Journal of Cleaner Production.
Wu, T., Blackhurst, J. and Chidambaram, V. (2006) ‘A model for inbound supply risk analysis’,
Computers in Industry, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp.350–365.
Wu, T., Blackhurst, J. and O’Grady, P. (2007) ‘Methodology for supply chain disruption analysis’,
Yang, Y-C. (2011) ‘Risk management of Taiwan’s maritime supply chain security’, Safety Science,
Vol. 49, No. 3, pp.382–393.
Yang, Z-L., Wang, J., Bonsall, S., Yang, J-B. and Fang, Q-G. (2005) ‘A subjective risk analysis
approach of container supply chains’, International Journal of Automation and Computing,
Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.85–92.
Yu, M-C. and Goh, M. (2014) ‘A multi-objective approach to supply chain visibility and risk’,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 233, No. 1, pp.125–130.
Zegordi, S.H. and Davarzani, H. (2012) ‘Developing a supply chain disruption analysis model:
application of colored Petri-nets’, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39, No. 2,
pp.2102–2111.
Zeng, B. and Yen, B.P-C. (2017) ‘Rethinking the role of partnerships in global supply chains:
a risk-based perspective’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 185, pp.52–62.
Zhang, J. (2004) ‘Risk assessment of drought disaster in the maize-growing region of Songliao
Plain, China’, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 102, No. 2, pp.133–153.
Zhao, L., Huo, B., Sun, L. and Zhao, X. (2013) ‘The impact of supply chain risk on supply chain
integration and company performance: a global investigation’, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.115–131.
30 T.H. Tran et al.
Zimmer, K., Fröhling, M., Breun, P. and Schultmann, F. (2017) ‘Assessing social risks of global
supply chains: a quantitative analytical approach and its application to supplier selection in the
German automotive industry’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 149, pp.96–109.
Zsidisin, G.A., Ellram, L.M., Carter, J.R. and Cavinato, J.L. (2004) ‘An analysis of supply risk
assessment techniques’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
View publication stats

Supply Chain Risk Assessment: A Content Analysis-Based Literature Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supply Chain Risk Assessment: A Content Analysis-Based Literature Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Supply chain risk assessment: A content analysis-based literature review

Article in International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management · January 2018

Hương Trần Sebastian Kummer

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Autonomous Vehicles and Urban Mobility View project

HumLOG & SCM (Funded by Kuehne Foundation) View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Supply chain risk assessment:

Thi Huong Tran*

Mario Dobrovnik and Sebastian Kummer

Keywords: supply chain management; supply chain risk; supply chain

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Tran, T.H., Dobrovnik, M.

Biographical notes: Thi Huong Tran is a lecturer at School of Economics and

Copyright © 20XX Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Mario Dobrovnik is a teaching and research associate at Institute for Transport

Sebastian Kummer is the Head of Institute for Transport and Logistics

This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled ‘Methods to

SCRM Supply chain risk assessment

modelling supply chain risk

3.1 Data collection

3.2 Data analysis

Figure 1 Analytic categories (see online version for colours)

Figure 2 Distribution of reviewed papers by year

Note: *From January to April 2017.

Figure 3 Distribution of reviewed papers by risks were assessed

5 Emerging concerns in SCRA research

5.1 Focuses of SCRA research

Through different approaches ranging from qualitative, semi-quantitative, quantitative

Figure 4 Distribution of reviewed papers by their focuses

5.2 SCRA definitions

5.3 SCRA process

process (ANP), decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL). Finally,

Figure 5 SCRA process

5.4 Methods to assess risk in the supply chain

a severity: 4 – catastrophic; 3 – critical; 2 – marginal; 1 – negligible

Figure 6 SCRA methods

Figure 7 Methods to assess supply chain risk over time span

5.5 SCRA indicators and measurement scales

Table 3 SCRA methods

Method groups Methods proposed and references

Table 3 SCRA methods (continued)

Method groups Methods proposed and references

Table 3 SCRA methods (continued)

Method groups Methods proposed and references

Figure 8 Distribution of SCRA indicators

Table 4 Supply chain risk indicators and scales

6 Research gaps and future directions

By means of reviewing 140 scientific articles on SCRA, this paper provides a

View publication stats

You might also like