Journal of Business Research 150 (2022) 59–72

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Increasing global supply chains’ resilience after the COVID-19 pandemic:

Empirical results from a Delphi study☆
Maximilian Gebhardt , Alexander Spieske *, Matthias Kopyto , Hendrik Birkel
Chair of Supply Chain Management, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Lange Gasse 20, 90403 Nuremberg, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: COVID-19 has revealed global supply chains’ vulnerability and sparked debate about increasing supply chain
COVID-19 pandemic resilience (SCRES). Previous SCRES research has primarily focused on near-term responses to large-scale dis­
Delphi study ruptions, neglecting long-term resilience approaches. We address this research gap by presenting empirical ev­
Supply chain disruption
idence from a Delphi study. Based on the resource dependence theory, we developed 10 projections for 2025 on
Supply chain resilience
Supply chain risk management
promising supply chain adaptations, which were assessed by 94 international supply chain experts from
Resource dependence theory academia and industry. The results reveal that companies prioritize bridging over buffering approaches as long-
term responses for increasing SCRES. Promising measures include increasing risk criteria importance in supplier
selection, supply chain collaboration, and supply chain mapping. In contrast, experts ascribe less priority to
safety stocks and coopetition. Moreover, we present a stakeholder analysis confirming one of the resource
dependence theory’s central propositions for the future of global supply chains: companies differently affected by
externalities will choose different countermeasures.

1. Introduction characteristics, including its simultaneous disastrous impact on various

Over the last decades, companies have established global supply
chains (GSCs) by expanding offshoring and outsourcing activities to
benefit from higher productivity, lower labor costs, and access to scarce
resources abroad (López & Ishizaka, 2019). This development has led to
a rise in the complexity and interdependencies of supply chains (SCs)
(Gölgeci, Yildiz, & Andersson, 2020). In recent years, an increasing
number of disruptions (e.g., natural disasters or political interventions)
have struck the complex GSC environment, revealing its vulnerability to
externalities (Lechler, Canzaniello, Roßmann, von der Gracht, & Hart­
mann, 2019). In this context, scholars have explored GSCs’ downsides
and pointed out their inferiority regarding flexibility, lead times, and
recovery capabilities in case of supply chain disruptions (SCDs) (López &
Ishizaka, 2019). Nevertheless, companies had not significantly adapted
their GSC setup when the COVID-19 pandemic exposed GSCs’ vulnera­
bilities more clearly than any previous SCD (Craighead, Ketchen, &
Darby, 2020; Gölgeci et al., 2020). The pandemic’s unique
industries, geographies, and supply and demand markets, led to
worldwide SC breakdowns (Carracedo, Puertas, & Marti, 2021; Craig­
head et al., 2020). Moreover, governmental interventions such as lock­
downs or border closures further complicated GSC operations (Ivanov,
2020). The crisis’s severity was incomparable, with 94% of companies
reporting COVID-induced SCDs and forecasts predicting a world trade
decline of up to 32% (Dib & Oulid Azouz, 2020; WTO, 2020).
These experiences put the concept of supply chain resilience (SCRES)
– which discusses a company’s ability to prepare for, respond to, and
recover from an unexpected SCD (Hohenstein, Feisel, Hartmann, &
Giunipero, 2015) – at the center of academic interest (Craighead et al.,
2020). Scholars state that SCRES will gain importance and companies
will start questioning and modifying their current GSC designs (Dolgui &
Ivanov, 2020; Gölgeci et al., 2020; van Hoek, 2020). This includes
sourcing and site location decisions as well as networks’ ability to react
quickly and flexibly to environmental changes (Sáenz & Revilla, 2014).
However, there is high uncertainty regarding promising SC design

Abbreviations: CV, convergence rate; D, desirability; EP, expected probability; FCM, fuzzy c-means; GSC, global supply chain; I, impact; IQR, interquartile range;
LSP, logistics service provider; P, projection; RDT, resource dependence theory; SC, supply chain; SCD, supply chain disruption; SCM, supply chain management;
SCRES, supply chain resilience.
☆
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: maximilian.gebhardt@fau.de (M. Gebhardt), alexander.spieske@fau.de (A. Spieske), matthias.kopyto@fau.de (M. Kopyto), hendrik.birkel@fau.
de (H. Birkel).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.008
Received 1 February 2021; Received in revised form 30 May 2022; Accepted 5 June 2022
Available online 10 June 2022
0148-2963/© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M. Gebhardt et al.
strategies and related measures to increase SCRES in a post-COVID-19
world (Queiroz, Ivanov, Dolgui, & Fosso Wamba, 2020; Verma & Gus­
tafsson, 2020). Previous SCRES literature primarily addressed near-term
response and recovery measures during SCDs, neglecting long-term
resilience approaches (Hohenstein et al., 2015; Spieske & Birkel,
2021). Moreover, SCRES research lacks contributions regarding large-
scale SCDs such as the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of impact, dura­
tion, and volatility, mainly focusing on operational risks or previous
regional natural disasters (Ivanov, 2020, 2021). Therefore, various
scholars have asked for research on SC design alternatives to reduce
vulnerabilities, dependencies, and increase SCRES in GSCs following the
pandemic (van Hoek, 2020; Verma & Gustafsson, 2020).
To address this critical research gap, we developed 10 future pro­
jections regarding SC design alternatives following the COVID-19
pandemic. Between September and November 2020, 94 supply chain
management (SCM) experts from 10 countries1 evaluated the pro­
jections in a Delphi study, a well-suited method for evaluating uncertain
future scenarios (Rowe & Wright, 1999; Winkler, Kuklinski, & Moser,
2015). We embedded the projections in the resource dependence theory
(RDT) (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), a suitable and established frame for
studying company interdependencies in SCM (Gligor, Bozkurt, Russo, &
Omar, 2019; Pfeffer, 1989; Spieske, Gebhardt, Kopyto, & Birkel, 2022).
RDT explicitly refers to situations in which firms depend on an uncertain
environment to acquire essential resources for their operations (Bode,
Wagner, Petersen, & Ellram, 2011). These characteristics were present
during the large-scale COVID-19 SCD, when complex SC networks,
including an indefinite number of cross-company relationships, were
impacted directly or through ripple effects (Ivanov, 2020; Li, Chen,
Collignon, & Ivanov, 2021). Overall, this approach allows us to address
the discussed research gap by answering the following research question
(RQ):
RQ: How will companies adapt their GSCs by 2025 to increase SCRES
after the COVID-19 pandemic?
Our paper offers several contributions to research on SCRES. We
adopt a widely ignored perspective in SCRES research by presenting
empirical evidence of measures companies will likely implement to
improve SCRES in the aftermath of a large-scale SCD. In this context, we
note contradictions to SCRES measures generally accepted in the liter­
ature and present reasons for SCM experts’ diverging preferences.
Moreover, we uncover positive and negative interdependencies between
the identified measures. Our contributions are backed by RDT, a so-far
underrepresented theory in SCRES research. Apart from confirming its
suitability to study pandemic-related SCM challenges, this theory serves
as a valuable foundation for explaining company reactions to a large-
scale SCD.
This paper’s remainder is organized as follows. First, we review
previous research on the intersections of RDT, SCRES, and COVID-19-
related literature and introduce the Delphi projections. Second, we
describe the research methodology. Third, we present our quantitative
and qualitative results and discuss them to answer our RQ and advance
theory. Lastly, we derive conclusions and implications for theory and
practice, note limitations, and propose future research directions.
2. Theoretical background and projection development
2.1. Supply chain resilience measures following large-scale disruptions
Currently, SCRES research on the aftermath of large-scale disrup­
tions is scarce. Although studies investigating large-scale disruptions
have gained momentum in recent years (Hohenstein et al., 2015; Parker
& Ameen, 2018), scholars still predominantly address response and re­
covery measures during disastrous events and neglect long-term
1
Australia, Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Netherlands,
Switzerland, UAE, UK, and USA.
60
Journal of Business Research 150 (2022) 59–72
adjustments of resilience strategies. For instance, Blome and Schoenherr
(2011) and Jüttner and Maklan (2011) conducted case studies to iden­
tify suitable SCRES measures during a financial crisis. Although Jüttner
and Maklan (2011) assumed that their identified measures might also
prove suitable for the future, evidence is missing. Matsuo (2015)
analyzed Toyota’s initiatives to restore SCs following the Tohoku
earthquake, limiting long-term implications to improved coordination
mechanisms. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Gölgeci et al. (2020),
Wieland (2021), and Wieland and Durach (2021), among others, indi­
cated the need to comprehensively transform SCs instead of solely
identifying measures to managing the present crisis. However, most
recent empirical papers focused solely on identifying SCRES measures
for the ongoing pandemic (e.g., Belhadi et al. (2021), Nandi, Sarkis,
Hervani, and Helms (2020), Sharma, Adhikary, and Borah (2020)),
making empirical evidence on initiatives triggered by large-scale dis­
ruptions to improve future SCRES a major research gap.
2.2. Resource dependence theory
In today’s globalized world, entire SCs, instead of single firms,
compete against each other (Christopher, 2000). This leads to de­
pendencies on other players to successfully operate an SC (Craighead
et al., 2020). These conditions became apparent during the COVID-19
pandemic. Due to the SCD’s unpredicted scale and simultaneous im­
pacts on various geographies and SC tiers (Ivanov, 2021; Li et al., 2021),
managing externalities and maintaining product flows were among the
biggest challenges for GSCs (Craighead et al., 2020).
Nandi et al. (2020) reported that effectively managing SC de­
pendencies is more important than internal capabilities when building
SCRES. While most existing frameworks approach SCRES from multiple
angles – including organizational resources, employee capabilities, and
top executive involvement (e.g., Blackhurst, Dunn, and Craighead
(2011), Ponomarov and Holcomb (2009)) – and without a clear priori­
tization of measures, RDT offers a well-established perspective to spe­
cifically discuss inter-corporate relations and related measures (Gligor,
Bozkurt, et al., 2019; Pfeffer, 1989). This theory has been repeatedly
applied to analyze complex relationships in GSC networks since de­
pendencies in these settings are particularly strong (Al-Balushi & Dur­
ugbo, 2020; Nandi et al., 2020). Despite the theory’s suitability for
analyzing relationships in complex SC networks, RDT-backed SCRES
research is still scarce and, therefore, a highly encouraged research
foundation in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (Ali & Gölgeci,
2019; Craighead et al., 2020).
RDT is based on the idea that companies depend on their environ­
ments to acquire scarce resources at favorable conditions to ensure their
survival (Bode, Wagner, Petersen, & Ellram, 2011; Pfeffer & Salancik,
1978). In this context, resources refer to any input factor which can
support an organization’s success (e.g., materials, labor, and cash)
(Craighead et al., 2020). Sources to acquire them are manifold,
including suppliers, competitors, customers, and public authorities (Al-
Balushi & Durugbo, 2020). To secure these resources in an uncertain
environment, firms are advised to reduce or eliminate their dependence
on external partners or increase others’ dependence on them (Cai, Yang,
& Hu, 2009; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).
Two types of resource dependencies are discussed in RDT literature,
symbiotic and competitive relationships, which were also affected during
the COVID-19 pandemic (Pfeffer, 1989). In symbiotic relationships,
dependency originates when one organization’s output is the input for
another SC member (Pfeffer, 1989; Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). When
suppliers and logistics infrastructure were forced to cease operations to
prevent COVID-19 cases from spreading, many companies experienced
supply shortages, leading to worldwide ripple effects (Ivanov, 2020; van
Hoek, 2020). In competitive relationships, companies share a customer
base, and the market success depends on each firm’s behavior (Pfeffer,
1989; Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). When competitive conditions suddenly
changed because of the COVID-19 pandemic, these dependencies were
M. Gebhardt et al. Journal of Business Research 150 (2022) 59–72

also negatively affected. Border closures favoring local rivals is a
prominent example (Assunção, Medeiros, Moreira, & Lopes, 2020).
To cope with difficulties resulting from inter-organizational depen­
dence during SCDs, RDT generally offers two approaches: buffering and
bridging (Bode et al., 2011). While buffering is external to a relationship
and reduces a company’s exposure to current exchange partners,
bridging is internal to existing relationships and attempts to increase an
organization’s power over the opposite party (Al-Balushi & Durugbo,
2020; Mishra, Sharma, Kumar, & Dubey, 2016). Both approaches can be
applied simultaneously to manage dependence in a specific relationship
(Bode et al., 2011).
2.3. Projections’ literature foundation
Based on a comprehensive projection development process further
described in Section 3, we developed 10 concrete projections for the
year 2025 to discuss SCRES opportunities in GSCs with the Delphi expert
panel (see Table 1). Aligning with RDT, all projections represent buff­
ering and/or bridging approaches and aim to improve symbiotic and/or
competitive relationships between companies. In the following para­
graphs, we introduce the RDT and SCRES literature serving as a foun­
dation for the projections.
Safety stocks (P.1). One of the most prominent buffering measures is
increasing safety stocks to hedge against supplier failures and short-term
demand increases (Mishra et al., 2016; Park, Min, & Min, 2016). GSCs in
particular can benefit from additional inventory, since transport routes
and durations are long with a comparably high probability of delays
(Manuj & Mentzer, 2008). Although this measure was widely applied
during the COVID-19 pandemic (Sharma et al., 2020; Verma & Gus­
tafsson, 2020), enhancing SCRES through safety stocks comes with
additional costs (Christopher & Peck, 2004). Therefore, the continued
application of this strategy after the pandemic is uncertain.
Multiple sourcing (P.2). Another concept to reduce dependency and
improve SCRES is multiple sourcing (Hohenstein et al., 2015). Scholars
have reported that companies applied this measure to buffer supply
shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic (Verma & Gustafsson, 2020).
Particularly, multiple sourcing for strategic components and geograph­
ical sourcing diversification helped to mitigate negative consequences
(Sharma et al., 2020; van Hoek, 2020). However, initiatives to onboard
additional suppliers may not always be successful, since they require
significant time, certification, and coordination efforts (Zsidisin &
Wagner, 2010). Moreover, multiple sourcing is associated with higher
costs, leading to hesitant application (Costantino & Pellegrino, 2010).
Backup transportation (P.3). Sourcing is not limited to physical sup­
ply. It also includes transportation capacities, which was another
bottleneck during the COVID-19 pandemic (Ivanov, 2020). Therefore,
alternative transportation solutions are sometimes required to sustain a
GSC’s delivery capability. Potential backup transportation solutions
include excess capacities and alternative transport modes, routes, and
supply concepts (Albertzeth, Pujawan, Hilletofth, & Tjahjono, 2020).
Scholars compared the measure’s usefulness to other risk management
approaches ranging from safety stocks to insurance coverage and
confirmed its effectiveness in countering transportation disruptions
(Albertzeth et al., 2020; Zhen, Li, Cai, & Shi, 2016).
Standardized components (P.4). Furthermore, companies can reduce
their dependence on certain suppliers by designing their products more
resiliently (Mishra et al., 2016). For instance, reducing the number of
customized components and specifying alternate components lowers the
dependency on specialized suppliers (Matsuo, 2015; Sáenz & Revilla,
2014). This offers more procurement options in case of supplier failures
and is also associated with cost savings due to easier product develop­
ment and economies of scale (Matsuo, 2015).
Flexible network design (P.5). To implement resilience measures,
companies require flexibility in their GSCs, especially in times of SCDs
(Manuj & Mentzer, 2008). This includes the speed of exchanging sup­
pliers, finding new distribution channels, and reacting to rivals’
behavior (Hohenstein et al., 2015; Zsidisin & Wagner, 2010). During the
COVID-19 pandemic, a lack of flexibility in GSCs became evident
(Gölgeci et al., 2020), bringing this topic to the top of SC practitioners’
agendas (van Hoek, 2020).
In addition to the five measures predominantly relying on the buff­
ering approach, there are also several measures to bridge resource
dependencies.
Supplier selection (P.6). Establishing risk management criteria in
supplier and logistics service provider (LSP) selection and auditing can
reduce information asymmetries between exchange partners and
empower buyers to better predict vulnerabilities in times of SCDs
(Christopher & Peck, 2004; López & Ishizaka, 2019). In this context, it is
crucial to not just receive and assess information on operational and
financial performance but to proactively help suppliers to overcome
potential weaknesses to better address or avoid SCDs (Zsidisin & Wag­
ner, 2010).
SC mapping (P.7). Companies can also invest in network visibility to
identify sub-tier suppliers and enhance end-to-end transparency
(Hohenstein et al., 2015). Additional SC information can increase power
and improve governance mechanisms related to direct suppliers (Gligor,

Table 1
Overview of Delphi projections.
Applied RDT Targeted RDT
countermeasure dependency type
type

Projection Projection Buffering Bridging Symbiotic Competi-

abbreviation tive
Until the year 2025, companies will have …

P.1: … significantly increased safety stocks for all components and materials. Safety stocks x x
P.2: … established multiple sourcing for all components and materials. Multiple sourcing x x
P.3: … arranged significant backup transportation capacities (internal or external). Backup x x x
transportation
P.4: … significantly decreased the share of customized components in their products to mitigate Standardized x x
procurement risks. components
P.5: … heavily improved their ability to quickly adapt their supply chain network design (e.g., speed Flexible net-work x x x
of exchanging suppliers, finding new markets). design
P.6: … crucially increased the importance of risk criteria in supplier and service provider selection. Supplier selection x x
P.7: … fundamentally increased supply chain mapping efforts to enhance end-to-end network SC mapping x x
visibility.
P.8: … heavily increased information and resource sharing with supply chain partners for better risk Collaboration SC x x
management. partners
P.9: … heavily increased information and resource sharing with competitors for better risk Collaboration x x
management. competition
P.10: … reduced geographic distance between production sites and sales markets. Market proximity x x

61
M. Gebhardt et al.
Gligor, Holcomb, & Bozkurt, 2019; Touboulic, Chicksand, & Walker,
2014). However, scholars report that establishing visibility in GSCs is
challenging because of their high complexity and numerous in­
terdependencies (Gölgeci et al., 2020). In this context, mapping tech­
niques can help to lift the fog (Sáenz & Revilla, 2014).
Collaboration SC partners (P.8). Intensifying collaboration with SC
members and developing SCRES jointly is another promising approach
to strengthening symbiotic relationships (Bode et al., 2011). This mea­
sure’s foundation is risk information and resource sharing between SC
partners (Gölgeci et al., 2020). When holistically deployed, SC collab­
oration can produce successful collective continuity planning, including
node vulnerability assessments, critical component mapping, and joint
risk scenario simulations (Sáenz & Revilla, 2014). However, previous
research demonstrates that companies often delay sharing disruption
information, leading to compromised countermeasures (Scholten &
Schilder, 2015).
Collaboration competition (P.9). Bridging measures can also target
competitive dependencies. To build resilience and secure sustainable
competitiveness, companies should consider cooperating with rivals
(Gligor, et al., 2019). Coopetition measures can include pooling re­
sources or labor and were partially observed during the COVID-19
pandemic (Beninger & Francis, 2021; Craighead et al., 2020). Howev­
er, collaborations with both SC members and rivals have not yet been
sufficiently explored and require additional research (Ali & Gölgeci,
2019).
Market proximity (P.10). Furthermore, companies started evaluating
their current GSC network setups during the pandemic, putting a greater
focus on geographical market proximity (van Hoek, 2020). Offshoring
activities in recent decades have resulted in complex and fragile GSCs
(López & Ishizaka, 2019), which had their vulnerabilities exposed by the
COVID-19 pandemic (van Hoek, 2020). Network modifications toward
regionality would comprise several benefits, including quick delivery to
customers and local sourcing (van Hoek, 2020).
Fig. 1. Delphi study process (
adapted from Gnatzy, Warth, von der Gracht, and Darkow (2011), Kopyto, Lechler, von der Gracht, and Hartmann (2020)
62
Journal of Business Research 150 (2022) 59–72
3. Research methodology
3.1. The Delphi method
The Delphi method structures group interactions and elicits and
combines expert judgments via multiple rounds of interaction (Rowe &
Wright, 2001). We employed the Delphi approach for two main reasons.
First, it is well-suited for studying future scenarios with high uncertainty
(Winkler et al., 2015). This enables investigation of how GSCs will adapt
after the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, it of­
fers a tested approach for research areas where expert opinion is the only
reliable source of information and the availability of statistical data is
limited (Rowe & Wright, 2001). This method is assumed to reach a
higher accuracy than individual evaluations and mitigate multiple un­
wanted group occurrences, such as the bandwagon or halo effect (Hir­
schinger, Spickermann, Hartmann, von der Gracht, & Darkow, 2015;
Linstone & Turoff, 1975). Our Delphi study included two assessment
rounds and followed a rigorous process (see Fig. 1), which is described in
detail in the following sections.
3.2. Phase 1: Developing the Delphi projections
To ensure reliability and validity, we followed a systematic process
to develop the Delphi study’s projections (Warth, von der Gracht, &
Darkow, 2013). First, we defined our RQ and selected the Delphi
approach as our methodology. Thereafter, we identified relevant ante­
cedents of SCRES for GSCs by conducting (1) an extensive review of
academic and practitioner literature, (2) a creative workshop with four
researchers, and (3) six expert interviews with experienced SCM prac­
titioners. By leveraging multiple sources, we ensured methodological
rigor and established a comprehensive base for further projection
development.
Subsequently, 10 future projections were designed in another
M. Gebhardt et al.
workshop. To ensure reliability and validity, we applied generally
accepted formulation recommendations regarding projections’ length,
clarity, wording, and self-sufficiency and limited their total number to
increase the response rate and mitigate sparse completion (Linstone &
Turoff, 1975; Rowe & Wright, 2001; Salancik, Wenger, & Helfer, 1971).
Moreover, the projections were formulated in a thought-provoking
manner to encourage controversial discussions (Kopyto et al., 2020).
To ensure completeness and comprehensibility (Warth et al., 2013), we
then conducted six additional interviews with practitioners and aca­
demics to pre-test the formulated projections.
Projections were formulated for the year 2025. We chose a five-year
time horizon for two reasons. Firstly, we selected a mid-term perspective
to enable creative ideas and ensure enough temporal distance to short-
term and reactive measures addressing the COVID-19 crisis. Secondly,
we kept the horizon close enough to the pandemic to investigate which
strategic SCM decisions will have been triggered by the COVID-19
disruption. We further validated with the practitioners in our in­
terviews that the formulated projections could – in theory – be realized
in a five-year time span.
3.3. Phase 2: Selecting the expert panel
Choosing appropriate experts with deep expertise and diverse per­
spectives ensures the quality, reliability, and accuracy of a Delphi
study’s results (Paré, Cameron, Poba-Nzaou, & Templier, 2013; Rowe &
Wright, 2011). Similar to previous research projects (e.g., Côrte-Real,
Ruivo, Oliveira, and Popovič (2019), Gebhardt, Spieske, and Birkel
(2022)), we ensured an unbiased selection process by defining concrete
selection criteria (e.g., organization type, function, global work experi­
ence, academic status, risk management expertise). Overall, we identi­
fied 876 candidates that met the selection criteria by searching for
suitable job titles (e.g., “Chief Procurement Officer”, “Head of Supply
Chain Management”, “Professor Logistics”) on the online career network
LinkedIn. Of this expert pool, 94 individuals from 10 countries and a
well-mixed background (see the third column of Fig. 1) participated in
both rounds. The number of participants and the response rate of 10.7%
are higher than or equal to various recent Delphi studies (Hirschinger
et al., 2015; Lechler et al., 2019). Furthermore, only 9.6% of experts that
participated in the first round (10 of 104) dropped out of the second
round.
3.4. Phase 3: Conducting the Delphi study
We conducted the Delphi study for this research in two consecutive
rounds between September and November 2020. In the first round,
participating experts assessed the 10 projections along three
dimensions:
• Expected probability of occurrence (EP) on a scale of 0–100%;
• Impact on SC performance under disruption in case of occurrence (I)
on a five-point Likert scale: very low (1), low (2), medium (3), high
(4), very high (5); and
• Desirability of occurrence (D) on a five-point Likert scale (see above).
The second dimension, I, is related to SCRES based on Sheffi and Rice
(2005) and Hosseini, Ivanov, and Dolgui (2019), who contextualize
SCRES within the development of SC performance in the course of a
disruptive event. Panelists were provided these explanations for each
dimension to ensure a common understanding. Furthermore, panel
members could comment on each assessment through written state­
ments. In round two, experts could re-evaluate their assessments and
add additional written arguments based on the panel responses in round
1. To do so, experts received feedback on the statistical group opinion
(boxplots showing means and interquartile ranges per dimension) and a
summary of representative qualitative statements for each projection as
additional input.
63
Journal of Business Research 150 (2022) 59–72
As a Shapiro-Wilk-Test on normality (p < 0.05) indicated a non-
normal distribution of the sample for each dimension, we employed a
Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney-Test to evaluate the existence of a non-
response bias. Since the test did not reveal any significant differences
(p < 0.05) between early responders (initial 10) and late responders (last
10) across the two rounds (Côrte-Real et al., 2019; Roßmann, Canza­
niello, von der Gracht, & Hartmann, 2018), and characteristics of re­
spondents and non-respondents known a priori (e.g., work experience,
organization types, industries, countries) did not extensively differ
(Wagner & Kemmerling, 2010), we rejected the existence of a non-
response bias.
3.5. Phase 4: Analyzing the results
Results of the Delphi study were analyzed quantitatively and quali­
tatively. Next to calculating mean values for the assessment dimensions
(EP, I, and D) of each projection after round two (Lechler et al., 2019;
Warth et al., 2013), two additional indicators were derived for the EP.
First, we leveraged the interquartile range (IQR) to evaluate the level of
agreement with a projection. The IQR measures the statistical dispersion
of expert ratings – either clustered or scattered – on the 0–100% EP
scale, with small values indicating high levels of panel agreement.
Aligning with other Delphi studies (e.g., Roßmann et al. (2018), Warth
et al. (2013)), we set a threshold of IQR ≤ 25 for consensus, meaning
that panel consensus was reached with at least 50% of the expert ratings
falling within a range of 25 percentage points on the 0–100% EP scale.
Second, we calculated the convergence rate (CV) – defined as the
percent difference in standard deviation for EP between both rounds – to
investigate changes in assessment.
The stability of results between two rounds is an established measure
to decide how many Delphi rounds to conduct (Linstone & Turoff, 2011;
von der Gracht, 2012). Scheibe, Skutsch, and Schofer (1975) considered
a 15% change or lower between two distributions (i.e., Delphi rounds) a
stable situation. The change in mean values for the assessment di­
mensions (EP, I, and D) across the 10 projections between the rounds
was below this threshold, and convergence rates (see Table 2) were
equal to or lower than other round-based Delphi studies (Côrte-Real
et al., 2019; Fritschy & Spinler, 2019). Therefore, a considerable
improvement in the results was not expected from further rounds. Due to
this and the danger of losing further experts through fatigue, the
research team stopped the process after two rounds.
To enable an objective interpretation of the experts’ judgments and a
more structured contextualization of the qualitative statements, we used
a fuzzy c-means (FCM) algorithm to cluster the 10 projections into three
groups according to their EP, I, and D (Hirschinger et al., 2015;
Roßmann et al., 2018). To analyze diverging viewpoints of our multi-
stakeholder sample, we further investigated differences in judgment
among subgroups within the expert panel (Warth et al., 2013). We,
therefore, calculated the mean values, IQRs, and CVs for each subgroup
and identified significant deviations by conducting a Wilcoxon-Mann-
Whitney-Test.
For qualitative analysis, following a coding procedure based on
Corbin and Strauss (2015), we classified each of the written statements.
The statements were labeled as supportive (in favor of a high value),
negative (in favor of a low value), balanced/neutral (providing both
positive and negative arguments or more general statements), or non-
applicable (the comment was incomprehensible) in the context of the
projection. Two researchers conducted the coding independently,
reaching an initial level of agreement of ~ 92% (Voss, Tsikriktsis, &
Frohlich, 2002). Any differing assessments were discussed and resolved
by the research team until consensus was reached. We, thereby, reduced
investigator bias and improved inter-rater reliability. The coding exer­
cise enabled a more systematic analysis of the panelists’ qualitative
comments, which we leveraged to further interpret the quantitative
expert judgments.
The analysis phase concluded with a full-day interpretation
M. Gebhardt et al. Journal of Business Research 150 (2022) 59–72

Table 2
Quantitative results from the expert panel and sentiment analysis of qualitative comments.
Quantitative results Qualitative comments’ trend

Projection (2025) EP IQR CV I D Supportive Negative Balanced/ n/a Sum

[0–100%] [0–100] [%] [1–5] [1–5] neutral
P.1 Safety stocks 39% 30.5 − 17% 3.4 2.4 14 25 46 0 85
P.2 Multiple sourcing 46% 50.8 − 8% 3.9 3.5 29 35 25 9 98
P.3 Backup transportation 39% 30.0 − 9% 2.9 2.8 16 15 35 2 68
P.4 Standardized components 32% 25.0 − 8% 3.1 2.7 17 33 31 4 85
P.5 Flexible network design 53% 38.0 − 9% 3.8 3.8 25 7 19 2 53
P.6 Supplier selection 68% 24.0 − 17% 3.6 3.9 43 4 14 3 64
P.7 SC mapping 65% 29.5 − 8% 3.7 3.9 34 3 24 2 63
P.8 Collaboration SC partners 57% 37.5 − 8% 4.0 4.1 29 9 17 1 56
P.9 Collaboration competition 24% 20.0 − 9% 3.0 2.6 11 26 16 1 54
P.10 Market proximity 50% 38.8 − 13% 3.5 3.3 15 5 28 3 51
Total 233 162 255 27 677
Note: EP: Expected probability D: Desirability IQR: Interquartile range
I: Impact CV: Convergence (i.e., change in standard deviation) IQR ≤ 25 equals panel consensus, highlighted in italics

workshop. Along with the full research team, two additional scholars accordance with the quantitative assessment direction validates our
who had not assisted in any of the study’s previous phases participated. approach of leveraging the panelists’ written statements to interpret the
The results are presented and discussed in Section 4. Delphi study results.

4. Results and discussion 4.2. Discussion of projection clusters

4.1. Quantitative Delphi results
Quantitative assessment results and statistics from the coding exer­
cise for qualitative comments were summarized after Round 2 (see
Table 2). The panel estimated a high impact for six projections (I ≥ 3.5)
and assessed five projections as highly desirable (D ≥ 3.5). The esti­
mated probability of occurrence ranged from 24% for P.9 (collaboration
competition) to 68% for P.6 (supplier selection). The iterative Delphi
process demonstrated an overall decrease in standard deviation of
10.5% across all projections’ EP ratings. This indicates that the Delphi
approach functioned as envisioned (Rowe & Wright, 2011). Consensus
was achieved for three projections (IQR ≤ 25 for P.4, P.6, and P.9). On
the qualitative side, experts provided 677 comments to support their
quantitative assessments. On average, a panel member provided 7.2
comments, and over 76% of participants wrote at least one statement,
indicating active participation in the format. The distribution of quali­
tative comments in positive, negative, and balanced/neutral in
Three clusters were determined by leveraging the FCM approach (see
Fig. 2).
4.2.1. Cluster 1 – Priority measures
With an average EP rating between 57% and 68% and high ratings
for impact (I ≥ 3.6) and desirability (D ≥ 3.9), Cluster 1 bundles three
projections that show a tendency toward realization in 2025 and will
have a considerable and desirable impact.
Supplier selection (P.6). Experts consider this measure a “quick win”
compared to other projections, as its implementation requires relatively
little investment. Experts further note that, even if supplier risk assess­
ments might not specifically investigate resilience in the case of dis­
ruptions such as a pandemic, the practice of individual supplier
assessments for operational risks will eventually translate into better
preparedness for SCDs. The projection’s high relevance aligns with
many recent papers which discuss opportunities to reduce SC risks
through technology-enhanced supplier selection (Birkel & Hartmann,

Fig. 2. Projection categorization based on FMC method (based on Gebhardt et al. (2022)).

64
M. Gebhardt et al.
2020; Kaur & Prakash Singh, 2021).
Panelists also highlighted several focus topics that an intensified risk
assessment should entail to increase its impact. First, experts consider it
crucial that companies demand their suppliers demonstrate viable risk
management processes as part of their own governance. Second, a
supplier’s mid- and long-term financial stability was deemed a risk
assessment criterion with increasing importance in future selection
processes. Overall, panel members stress that risk evaluations should go
beyond Tier 1 suppliers, as risks often lie deeper within GSCs, hinting at
indirect dependencies from sub-suppliers.
Despite these arguments, many experts predict that cost efficiency
will continue to be the dominating criterion for supplier selection.
However, they expect this dominance to decrease and argue that com­
panies will take a more holistic perspective. Additionally, various ex­
perts noted that risk criteria are often already present in selection
processes but lack a corresponding action plan. Thus, potential impact
can only be realized if a clear link to operational measures is established.
Collaboration SC partners (P.8). P.8 is deemed the most impactful and
desirable among the projections. According to many panel members,
COVID-19 has shown that increased risk and resource sharing with SC
partners can be a mutually beneficial effort for involved SC stakeholders.
Moreover, as possibilities to buffer (e.g., by sourcing from different
suppliers) decrease in an SCD such as COVID-19, experts consider it
more promising for future risk mitigation to strengthen and intensify the
existing relationships and bind partners. It will enable timelier proactive
and reactive risk measures. Members of the panel also argue that
continued progress in digital technologies until 2025 (e.g., blockchain
solutions that enable trusted and secure information exchange) will
make stronger collaboration among SC partners more likely.
Despite the high expected impact and desirability, perceived imple­
mentation barriers such as the cautious mindset toward collaboration
cause indecisiveness about the projection’s actual realization by 2025. A
“central condition is that all supply chain members participate and act
ethically. The abuse of trust can heavily damage a supply chain,” as one
panelist emphasized.
Our findings are consistent with a substantial body of literature
advocating for more SC collaboration to improve SCRES (Botes, Nie­
mann, & Kotzé, 2017; Hosseini et al., 2019; Scholten & Schilder, 2015).
SC actors have shown during the COVID-19 pandemic that overcoming
collaboration inhibitors such as a lack of trust or confidentiality reser­
vations can be mutually beneficial (Fearne, Wagner, McDougall, &
Loseby, 2021). This should encourage industries to overcome the bar­
riers to realizing the substantial SCRES potential that SC collaboration
offers.
SC mapping (P.7). Most experts agreed that SC mapping efforts will
fundamentally increase in the future. A deadline of 2025 is deemed a
realistic time horizon, as experts consider extensive SC mapping more as
a continuation of an already existing trend than a new development. The
COVID-19 crisis is considered a significant accelerator of such efforts.
Nevertheless, most panelists attribute the expected progress to ad­
vancements in digitalization. Furthermore, they argue that third-party
providers’ increasing number and effectiveness will overcome prohibi­
tive cost barriers to more extensive mapping efforts. Experts indicate
that such extended mapping efforts cohere with intensified information
sharing and collaboration with SC partners (P.8). Panelists further note
that more holistic and risk-oriented supplier selection (P.6) can function
as an important enabler for sophisticated SC mapping. Thus, P.6, P.7,
and P.8 can be mutually reinforcing bridging mechanisms.
Experts cite a lack of willingness to share information and the
considerable effort to orchestrate effective mapping exercises as
persistent barriers. Some panelists further suggest more targeted instead
of holistic, end-to-end approaches. They note that “each additional tier
increases complexity; marginal benefit could be low.” This more
nuanced view on SC visibility contrasts recent studies advocating for
holistic, end-to-end approaches, while neglecting this effort/benefit
consideration (Ivanov & Dolgui, 2021). It remains blurry how far SC
65
Journal of Business Research 150 (2022) 59–72
mapping efforts should be driven while ensuring sensible benefits and
acceptance within organizations. Therefore, experts argue for focusing
the potentially limited resources for such visibility efforts on the most
critical components, suppliers, and network nodes first before targeting
a more holistic, end-to-end perspective.
From an RDT perspective, all projections of Cluster 1 concern
bridging strategies, concerting measures aimed at increasing the orga­
nizations’ power within dependencies.
4.2.2. Cluster 2 – Promising measures
The three projections allocated to Cluster 2 have been rated with an
EP around 50%, indicating that the expert panel is indecisive. However,
all projections’ impact in case of occurrence is expected to be high (I ≥
3.5). Therefore, it is essential to analyze the barriers that make the
realization of these measures less likely in 2025 than the projections
with similar impacts but higher EP in Cluster 1.
Flexible network design (P.5). Experts agree that higher flexibility and,
therefore, lower dependency on partners is desirable and can have a
high impact on SC performance during a disruption. One participant
concluded that “agility has become the new norm for supply chains to
survive.” Nevertheless, many panelists favor enhancing ties with exist­
ing partners and transforming arms-length into long-term, strategic
partnerships. They argue that, especially during an SCD such as COVID-
19, switching costs become higher, and suitable partners are increas­
ingly hard to find. The experts’ rationale, therefore, indicates a negative
relationship between P.5 (flexible network design) and P.8 (collabora­
tion SC partners), an insight consistent with previous studies (Gölgeci
et al., 2020). Further, several panel members consider a five-year hori­
zon challenging for building the required flexibility capabilities for such
structural network changes. The panelists generally think that other
projections (e.g., P.6 and P.7) will face less significant investment and,
thus, lower realization barriers, which explains the relatively low EP
compared to the other evaluation dimensions. This assessment resonates
with Cluster 1, further indicating that bridging strategies might be
prioritized to build SCRES after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Nevertheless, illustrating the relatively high dissensus, several ex­
perts argue that quick, flexible network adaption will be a core capa­
bility to manage SCDs and reduce resource dependencies in an
increasingly uncertain environment. “The fast will win the race,” one
panelist stated. Experts stress the increasing importance of agility and
responsiveness. These can enable companies to secure scarce resources
in a crisis faster. Furthermore, more rapid channel switches can put
organizations on top of the competition in the aftermath of a disruption.
The experts further argued that emerging platform economies and
improving digital technologies for quick supplier identification and
assessment will make network adaptation easier in the future.
Market proximity (P.10). The panel did not conclude with a clear
prediction on whether companies will reduce their geographical dis­
tance between production sites and sales markets. Experts welcomed
such developments to reduce environmental risks and enable shorter
lead- and reaction-times in local markets. However, panelists noted that
complex resource dependencies with existing suppliers would, in many
cases, prevent companies from establishing a more local network pres­
ence. Suppliers would often need to follow suit and develop local pro­
duction, which might not provide a net economic benefit. Some experts
also mentioned that commercial reasons would continue to outweigh
risk considerations when deciding geographical setup. Like the panel’s
assessment for P.5 (flexible network design), a considerable number of
experts deem 2025 too short-term to realize such a structural shift.
Overall, experts assessed the topic of market proximity more critically
than the findings of other recent studies, such as Belhadi et al. (2021),
who presented localization as one of the top three initiatives for
manufacturing SCs after the pandemic.
Multiple sourcing (P.2). This projection yielded the highest IQR
among the experts, indicating controversy. A comparatively low CV
further reveals relatively high confidence among participants about
M. Gebhardt et al.
their estimations. Several panelists appreciate a broader sourcing
strategy in the future but expect and endorse a more focused approach
on select key components. They predict that additional sources will
specifically be built up for suppliers that showed lower performance and
less reliability than others throughout the COVID-19 crisis.
Critics insist that cost and coordination efforts for a holistic multiple
sourcing strategy will remain prohibitively high in 2025. They believe
that emergency reactions to mitigate the risks of a single sourcing
strategy will, typically, be more efficient than a broad, proactive multi-
source approach. However, literary support for this view is currently
lacking. Although Fearne et al. (2021) showed that parallel SCs with
new suppliers were successfully established during the COVID-19 crisis
(effectiveness), they did not investigate the required investments (effi­
ciency). How the costs for reactively onboarding additional suppliers
during an SCD compare to proactive investments into multiple sourcing
requires further research. Experts further note that many geographies
are equally affected in an SCD such as a pandemic and multiple sourcing
will only have a limited effect. From an RDT perspective, dependence
might shift from one supplier to another but not improve overall. Besides
that, strong dependence on suppliers with unique products and value
propositions might exclude a multi-sourcing option.
Overall, the panelists perceive high impact potential for the pro­
jections of Cluster 2. Nevertheless, common barriers, such as prohibi­
tively high switching/investment costs and strong dependencies on
existing suppliers with unique offerings, make the realization of these
SCRES measures by 2025 uncertain. Addressing these common barriers
in a targeted manner can unlock another set of promising SCRES levers
next to those discussed in Cluster 1.
4.2.3. Cluster 3 – Limited measures
The third cluster contains four projections. The low EP rates (EP ≤
39%) indicate that these projections will most likely not be realized until
2025; although, if they occur, they are predicted to have a considerable
effect on SCRES (I ≥ 2.9). Furthermore, all four projections show a low
average desirability rating (D < 2.9), indicating that experts perceive
them as threats (Keller & von der Gracht, 2014).
Safety stocks (P.1). Scoring the lowest desirability among all pro­
jections, panel members revealed that systematically increased safety
stocks for all materials and components will not be a preferred measure
in 2025. They acknowledge that the bullwhip effect induced by COVID-
19 has led to higher stock levels in the SC. However, they consider a
safety stock increase a temporary and targeted countermeasure for once
disruptions occur or a safeguarding mechanism restricted to critical
components. For improving the availability of materials and compo­
nents, panelists pointed to alternative measures such as P.2 (multiple
sourcing) and P.10 (market proximity), which many prefer over
increased safety stocks. Besides that, experts argue that digital tech­
nologies such as advanced analytics, machine learning, and digital twins
will vastly improve supply–demand balancing visibility, and, thereby,
allow for inventory optimization in the long run. Consequently, sys­
temically increasing safety stocks will be a measure employed by or­
ganizations that failed to adopt such advanced solutions. Due to the high
working capital involved and the fact that the measure does, as one
panelist noted, “only cover the real problems deeper in the supply
chain,” such companies will ultimately lose competitiveness. The
anticipated continuous use of safety stocks as a temporary counter­
measure – sometimes without alternatives and highly cost-intensive –
explains the lowest desirability rating while this projection simulta­
neously scores moderate on expected probability.
Backup transportation (P.3). Compared to acquiring backup suppliers
for materials and components, panelists assessed backup transportation
capacities lower across all dimensions. One of the most prominent ar­
guments is that during the COVID-19 pandemic and other SCDs, trans­
port capacities, compared to shortages in goods supply, tend not to be
severely bottlenecked. The experts further claimed that holding idle
capacities (both internally and externally) will be prohibitively
66
Journal of Business Research 150 (2022) 59–72
expensive. They consider it more likely that firms will bundle capacities
with SC partners to reduce costs and improve environmental perfor­
mance. Moreover, panel members stressed the importance of forming
more strategic partnerships with existing LSPs to prioritize capacities
before and during an SCD and receive preferential treatment in crisis.
Another argument made is that the platformization of the transportation
market will increase transparency and ease access to capacities. This
trend might lead to a more efficient allocation and make it easier for
companies to search for alternative LSPs. From an RDT perspective, such
a development will decrease companies’ average dependency on their
LSPs and, thereby, act as a buffering mechanism.
Standardized components (P.4). Panelists agreed on an overall non-
favorable assessment of less customized components for better pro­
curement risk mitigation. There are two main reasons for this view. First,
experts argue that companies’ current dependency on suppliers with
unique components for specific products will make higher levels of
standardization difficult. Second, the increasing trend towards con­
sumer individualism will prohibit most organizations from abandoning
their customization strategy. According to the Delphi participants, cus­
tomization has become the new normal in many industries and will
remain essential for competitive advantage. As one panelist puts it,
“Customer happiness beats procurement risk reduction.”.
Few experts indicated reasons for more standardization. Most
prominently, they argued that such a measure would (compared to most
other strategies) increase the resilience of an SC while creating economic
benefit. The enabled supply network flexibilization would create re­
dundancies without increasing inventory levels, and in theory, de­
pendencies on specialized suppliers could be reduced. Moreover, some
experts see a higher degree of standardization as a way to ease the
implementation of P.2 (multiple sourcing).
Collaboration competition (P.9). Across all projections, panelists
assessed increased collaboration with competitors as the most unlikely
to be implemented by 2025. They also reached the strongest consensus
for this projection. The COVID-19 pandemic might have shown that
coopetition can have its benefits. Additionally, in some industries, a “we
are all in this together”-mentality has emerged, as one expert com­
mented. Furthermore, digitally-enabled platforms that ensure trust and
confidentiality might enable more information exchange.
However, in the grander scheme of things, panelists predict that
companies will still avoid collaborating with their competition. Ac­
cording to the experts’ assessment, information protection will remain
the key barrier and tightening antitrust regulations represent an addi­
tional obstacle. Referring to P.8 (collaboration SC partners), panelists
argued that companies that are already hesitant to share information
with their SC partners will avoid doing so with their competition even
more. Another fact mentioned by the experts is that they consider their
companies’ robust risk management capabilities as a competitive
advantage and a means to emerge from a crisis ahead of their compe­
tition. Stronger coopetition would undermine this competitive edge.
Interestingly, some experts find it more likely that organizations across
different, non-competing SCs will pool resources (e.g., for transportation
capacities or the procurement of common materials) in the future.
Hence, rather than exploring collaboration with competing SC actors, as
suggested in recent literature (Ali & Gölgeci, 2019; Beninger & Francis,
2021), experts see more SCRES potential in examining partnerships
beyond industry boundaries.
From an RDT perspective, three of four projections in Cluster 3 can
be allocated to buffering strategies. With the observations in clusters 1
and 2, a prioritization to build on existing dependencies rather than
buffering against them can be expected in coming years. Nevertheless,
considering the partially high impact and desirability ratings for buff­
ering projections, we must stress that some buffering mechanisms can
still be considered effective in an SCRES context. However, they might
not be realized until 2025.
M. Gebhardt et al. Journal of Business Research 150 (2022) 59–72

4.3. Discussion of stakeholder group particularities
During the COVID-19 pandemic, companies faced various challenges
(Donthu & Gustafsson, 2020). For instance, some sectors experienced
increased demand and severe supply shortages, while others were
affected by demand declines (Gölgeci et al., 2020; Nandi et al., 2020).
These differing market conditions also applied to our diverse Delphi
panel as publicly available information (e.g., news and company re­
ports) and data provided by the participants revealed. Of the 71 industry
participants, 20 worked for companies with stable/increasing demand
(mainly healthcare and consumer goods firms), while 51 experts expe­
rienced downturns (mainly automotive, machinery, and logistics firms).
To account for these peculiarities, we analyzed the projection assess­
ments according to the experts’ backgrounds: industry (demand stable/
increase), industry (demand decrease), and academia. This more gran­
ular analysis based on Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney-Tests enabled more
profound insights and provided empirical evidence for one of RDT’s
central propositions: companies differently constrained by exchange
partners may show distinct reactions (Pfeffer, 1989).
First, we tested the three stakeholder groups’ average EP, I, and D
ratings across projections. While the academic group did not reveal
peculiarities, both industry groups’ EP and D assessments differed
significantly from the total panel (p < 0.05). The statistical tests hint that
the projections’ impact was assessed independently from the companies’
challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Both industry expert groups
expect similar SCRES benefits when implementing the proposed mea­
sures. However, the projections’ probability and desirability assess­
ments were significantly higher (lower) among the stable/increasing
(decreasing) demand group. This indicates that the ratings depend on
the externalities experienced by the companies, which is a clear indi­
cation of different reactions to individual external resource challenges.
With most projections focusing on maintaining the product flow and
sustaining SC performance, their future implementation is particularly
attractive for companies with stable or rising demand. In contrast, the
comments from the expert group experiencing demand downturns
revealed that they anticipate more pressing priorities than restoring the
product flow, including coordinated GSC shutdowns, manufacturing
flexibility, and cash management. This finding questions several SCRES
definitions (e.g., Christopher and Peck (2004), Hohenstein et al.
(2015)), which solely focus on quickly restoring operations but miss
emergency measures to ensure SCs’ short-term survival.
Second, we applied the same statistical test on a more granular, in­
dividual projection level to identify differences between the industry
expert groups and the overall panel assessments (see Table 3). Four
projections’ EPs, including three buffering measures, were rated
significantly higher (p < 0.05) by the stable/increasing demand group.
This accounts for the firms’ inability to fulfill demand in times of COVID-
19 supply shortages and makes future initiatives to increase redundancy
in selected GSCs likely. Simultaneously, this finding unveils weaknesses
in current redundancy literature, which does not consider company
peculiarities such as previous SCD experiences or industry characteris­
tics when discussing redundancy measures’ future role (e.g., Ivanov
(2021)). With the comparably high probability for P.7 (SC mapping), the
stable/increasing demand group addresses visibility issues impeding
customer order fulfillment during the pandemic. Furthermore, the
Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney-Tests unveiled significantly lower (p < 0.05)
values for two D ratings, one EP rating, and one I rating of the decreasing
demand industry expert group. Considering the industries in this group

Table 3
Average dimension ratings across expert backgrounds and significant deviations.
Expert background

Projection (2025) Dimension Total Academia Industry Industry: demand steady/up (n = 20) Industry: demand down (n = 51)
(n = 94) (n = 23) (n = 71)

P.1 Safety stocks EP 39% 40% 38% 47%* 35%

I 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.7 2.7
D 2.4 2.6 2.4 3.3 2.2*
P.2 Multiple sourcing EP 46% 35%* 49% 61%** 45%
I 3.9 3.7 4.0 4.1 4.0
D 3.5 3.2 3.6 3.7 3.5
P.3 Backup transportation EP 39% 35% 40% 48%* 37%
I 2.9 2.7 3.0 3.1 3.2
D 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.7
P.4 Standardized components EP 32% 31% 32% 34% 32%
I 3.1 3.4 3.0 3.2 3.0
D 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.7
P.5 Flexible network design EP 53% 53% 53% 52% 53%
I 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.5 3.9
D 3.8 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.9
P.6 Supplier selection EP 68% 68% 68% 74% 65%
I 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.6
D 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.8
P.7 SC mapping EP 65% 63% 65% 75%* 62%
I 3.7 3.6 3.7 4.0 3.6
D 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.1 3.8
P.8 Collaboration SC partners EP 57% 55% 58% 65% 55%
I 4.0 4.2 3.9 4.1 3.8*
D 4.1 4.3 4.0 4.3 3.9*
P.9 Collaboration competition EP 24% 23% 25% 29% 23%
I 3.0 3.3 2.9 2.9 2.8
D 2.6 2.9 2.6 2.8 2.5
P.10 Market proximity EP 50% 56% 48% 53% 45%*
I 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.4
D 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.2
Average rating across projections EP 47% 46% 48% 54%** 45%*
I 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4
D 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.4* 3.2*
Note: EP: Expected probability Deviations are significant from total panel results based on Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney-Test at **p < 0.01, *p
I: Impact < 0.05.
D: Desirability

67
M. Gebhardt et al.
and their efficiency-driven history, the desire for additional safety stocks
is unsurprisingly low. Moreover, this industry expert group sees a
significantly lower probability for more local SCs, justifying this
assessment with high investment costs. Finally, they rated the desir­
ability and impact dimensions of P.8 (Collaboration SC partners) more
pessimistically than the overall panel. With SCRES research holistically
promoting SC collaboration and its numerous advantages (e.g., Scholten
and Schilder (2015)), this finding underlines that this lever still requires
research (Ali & Gölgeci, 2019), for instance, regarding industry or
disruption peculiarities.
Third, we compared the individual projection assessments from ac­
ademic participants to the total panel. Overall, academia showed more
consensus than the overall panel, with six projections reaching IQR ≤
25. This reveals scholars’ generally lower level of specialization and
their attitude of analyzing trends from several perspectives. Apart from
projection P.2 (multiple sourcing), industry and academia assessments
did not show significant deviations. This implies a strong alignment
between both stakeholder groups regarding GSCs’ future development.
Concerning multiple sourcing’s expected probability, scholars must
perform more research to better understand the measure’s attractiveness
for increasing SCRES.
4.4. Considerations for supply chain disruption literature
Relating the resulting prioritization of long-term measures to earlier
SCRES studies reveals considerable differences from near-term response
strategies and other large-scale disruptions. For instance, compared to
the adjustments suggested by this study for the aftermath of the COVID-
19 crisis, SC stakeholders focus more prominently on buffering measures
in immediate response to disruptions like the financial crisis (Blome &
Schoenherr, 2011; Jüttner & Maklan, 2011) and the Tohoku earthquake
(Matsuo, 2015). Following a dominating principle of hedging against
(potentially) failing suppliers and corresponding dependencies, com­
panies increased redundancies in stocks, suppliers, and transportation
capacities (Blome & Schoenherr, 2011; Jüttner & Maklan, 2011) and
widely considered product standardization (Matsuo, 2015). Jüttner and
Maklan (2011) and Blome and Schoenherr (2011) derived these insights
primarily from companies facing demand downturns. Conversely, our
stakeholder analysis (see Section 4.3) revealed an even greater future
focus on bridging for such organizations, making the discrepancy with
earlier SCRES studies more striking. While bridging approaches, such as
increased SC visibility and more intensive collaboration, were widely
applied in earlier crises (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011; Matsuo, 2015), they
did not carry the same weight as in the presented Delphi study. Jüttner
and Maklan (2011) even argued that hesitancy to collaborate increases
in risk scenarios. This contrasts our quantitative and qualitative find­
ings, which suggest that the disruption due to COVID-19 will trigger
more intense collaboration and coordination to make SC networks more
resilient.
We present two possible reasons for these considerable differences.
First, the discussed studies on earlier disruptions primarily investigate
reactive responses. While Jüttner and Maklan (2011) and Matsuo (2015)
argue that the identified measures are suitable to increase SCRES in the
future, evidence is missing. Following this logic and relying on our
future-oriented empirical evidence on potential SCRES measures
following the COVID-19 pandemic, we propose that bridging measures
are more suitable than buffering measures to increase SCRES following a
large-scale disruption. Second, the apparent differences in the crisis
responses could be explained by the unique characteristics of the
COVID-19 crisis. While other large-scale disruptions are usually char­
acterized by a comparatively clear origination point and propagation
path and a relatively constrained impact scope, the COVID-19 pandemic
affected an unprecedentedly large spread of SC tiers and impacted many
geographies and SC steps simultaneously (Craighead et al., 2020; Iva­
nov, 2021). As potential buffering sources (e.g., alternative suppliers or
LSPs) have been similarly affected by the wide disruption scope, SC
68
Journal of Business Research 150 (2022) 59–72
stakeholders focus on presenting SC links and improving their posi­
tioning within existing dependencies. Hence, we deduct that compared
to other large-scale disruptions, bridging measures are more suitable to
increase SCRES in the aftermath of a pandemic.
5. Conclusion
With the COVID-19 pandemic disrupting the vulnerable GSC envi­
ronment in 2020, SCRES is currently a primary interest in research and
industry. However, there is high uncertainty regarding the most prom­
ising measures for increasing SCRES in a post-COVID-19 world (Queiroz
et al., 2020), leading to calls for foresight research in this area (e.g., van
Hoek, 2020; Verma & Gustafsson, 2020). Based on RDT, previous SCM
literature, a series of workshops, and interviews with industry experts,
we developed 10 future projections for SC network measures companies
will potentially establish by 2025 to increase SCRES in GSCs. Overall, 94
international SCM experts assessed and discussed the projections’
probabilities, anticipated performance under disruption impact, and
desirability based on a Delphi study approach. Through qualitative and
quantitative analyses, including an FCM algorithm, we bring trans­
parency to the panelists’ evaluations and illuminate GSCs’ future setups.
5.1. Theoretical implications
Our study offers distinct advances to SCRES literature. First, the
analyses imply that companies will primarily engage in bridging activ­
ities to protect their GSCs against SCDs in 2025. This includes expanding
collaboration with current SC partners, increasing risk criteria’s
importance in supplier and LSP assessments, and enforcing SC mapping
activities. In contrast, buffering-related measures were either assessed as
less desirable or too sophisticated to be implemented by 2025, largely
due to the GSCs’ complexity and interdependencies, which cannot be
easily revoked within a few years. Relating the insights to earlier SCRES
literature suggests that bridging strategies have a higher capacity than
buffering strategies for improving resilience as a long-term crisis
response. Moreover, bridging seems to be more effective in response to a
pandemic than to other large-scale disruptions due to its unique char­
acteristics. Second, while our paper’s insights align with some in­
dications from previous research, the results imply that several measures
advocated for in recent literature face substantial barriers that will
inhibit their implementation. For instance, SCM experts attribute only a
limited marginal return to holistic, end-to-end SC visibility; do not
foresee a definite trend toward market proximity after the pandemic;
retain high dissent regarding the cost-benefit of multiple sourcing; and
reject coopetition initiatives. Third, our qualitative analysis reveals
critical interdependencies between various investigated SCRES ap­
proaches. While there are instances of mutually reinforcing measures (e.
g., P.6 and P.7), the analyses also suggest negative relationships (e.g.,
P.5 and P.8). Fourth, this study substantiates central dynamics of RDT
for SCRES research in a pandemic context. In line with the theory’s
principal propositions (Bode et al., 2011; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), the
dependency increases caused by a pandemic disruption are considerable
and trigger SC organizations to implement substantial long-term mea­
sures to decrease dependencies or strengthen actors’ positioning within
those dependencies. Moreover, our stakeholder analysis of industries
with stable/increasing demand and demand decrease confirms a central
RDT proposition for the SCRES context: different constraints from ex­
change partners cause companies to adopt distinct reactions (Pfeffer,
1989).
5.2. Managerial implications
Our research also has important implications for practice. First, our
study results confirm that GSCs will experience important adaptations
following the COVID-19 pandemic. Practitioners must recognize the
trends for further implementing SCRES measures to stay competitive in
M. Gebhardt et al. Journal of Business Research 150 (2022) 59–72

future SCD scenarios. Considering the ever-existing resource constraints
against building resilience (Zsidisin & Wagner, 2010), managers can
leverage the study results to evaluate their measure prioritization for
future adaptation. Our dedicated stakeholder analysis will permit such
an assessment and prioritization exercise on a more granular level spe­
cific to the individual practitioner’s sector. Second, our qualitative
analysis outlines specific implementation barriers organizations must
overcome to increase SCRES in the future. In this context, several
SCRES-improving strategies face similar challenges, such as high in­
vestment costs, strong dependence on existing exchange partners, and a
lack of willingness to collaborate. Practitioners, therefore, should plan
their long-term crisis responses holistically by addressing common
barriers together. Third, the indicated effectiveness differences between
bridging and buffering measures in the context of different large-scale
disruptions, and when comparing near-term and long-term crisis re­
sponses, can prompt managers to re-evaluate their long-term SCRES
strategy. Knowledge derived from the immediate management of earlier
disruptions, such as the financial crisis, might not be applicable for
increasing SCRES in the aftermath of COVID-19.
5.3. Policy implications
The COVID-19 crisis and a general rise in the frequency and severity
of SCDs in recent decades (Lechler et al. 2019) have triggered calls for
more substantial policy interventions to create the right regulatory
environment for increasing SCRES (Queiroz et al., 2020; Verma &
Gustafsson, 2020). The presented Delphi study offers implications for
how such efforts could be designed. First, our results provide a priori­
tized list of future measures, empirically derived from industry and
academia experts, that can support the formulation of targeted policy
interventions for post-COVID-19 recovery. Specifically for strategies in
the “promising measures” cluster (see Section 4.2.2), policy action can
play an essential role. These approaches demonstrate similar SCRES
potential to the “priority measures” (cluster 1, see Section 4.2.1) but are
vastly subject to prohibitive implementation costs. Targeted regulatory
incentives, such as tax breaks for localization or simplified requirements
for onboarding additional suppliers, could particularly address these
barriers. Second, it is essential to differentiate regulatory interventions
by industry, as our stakeholder analysis shows. Different challenges of a
pandemic, especially regarding demand development, have different
effects on the prioritization of SCRES measures.
5.4. Limitations and future research
The study’s limitations offer opportunities for future research. First,
our study empirically confirms many projections’ attractiveness for
increasing SCRES following the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it lacks
insights on the measures’ implementation in a complex GSC setting.
Therefore, we call for further research to empirically investigate reali­
zation approaches (e.g., through case study analyses). Second, our
research project focused on measures applicable to increasing SCRES in
a mid-term time horizon. This led to the finding that impactful buffering
approaches might require more time to be realized. Research on the
necessary time horizon and implementation barriers can enable a
quicker realization of these promising measures. Third, the study’s
qualitative analysis revealed interesting interdependencies between
various buffering and bridging measures, though it did not examine
them quantitatively. Future studies can leverage methods such as factors
analyses or DEMATEL approaches to investigate this direction. Fourth,
we consciously limited the number of projections in our Delphi study to
increase participation and reduce dropout rates. However, other prom­
ising buffering and bridging approaches exist (e.g., vertical SC integra­
tion and cross-sector collaboration) which should also be investigated in
the future.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Maximilian Gebhardt: Writing – review & editing, Writing – orig­
inal draft, Visualization, Validation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal
analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Alexander Spieske: Writing
– review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Software,
Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis,
Data curation, Conceptualization. Matthias Kopyto: Writing – original
draft, Validation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data
curation, Conceptualization. Hendrik Birkel: Writing – review & edit­
ing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Supervision, Methodology,
Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A. Job titles of contributing experts.

ID Job title ID Job title ID Job title

1 Head of Procurement 33 GM SC & Procurement 64 Head of SC Excellence

2 Global Head of SC 34 VP Global SCM 65 SCM Analyst
3 Prof. Strategy & SCM 35 Procurement Manager 66 VP SC Strategy
4 Senior Manager SCM 36 Prof. Logistics & SCM 67 Logistics Manager
5 CPO 37 Research Ass. Logistics 58 Ass. Prof. Operations
6 Manager SC Planning 38 Prof. Logistics 59 Prof. SCM
7 Operations Director 39 Consultant SCM 70 Analyst Proc. Strategy
8 Head of Procurement 40 Team Leader SCM 71 SVP SCM
9 Logistics Manager 41 Head of Purchasing 72 Senior Consultant SCM
10 SCM Director 42 Manager SC Design 73 SCM Analyst
11 Research Ass. SCM 43 Advisor SCM 74 Postdoc Logistics
12 VP SCM 44 VP Global SCM 75 SCM Director
13 Procurement Specialist 45 Manager Log. & SCM 76 Prof. SCM
14 Manager SC Planning 46 Head of Materials 77 Head of SC Innovation
15 SCM Research Lead 47 Global Head of SCM 78 SVP Procurement
16 Procurement Manager 48 Ass. Prof. SCM 79 SC Risk Manager
17 Manager SCM Risk 49 Global Head of SCM 80 GM SCM
18 Purchasing Manager 50 Manager Procurement 81 Lead Planner Logistics
19 VP Procurement 51 Head of Logistics 82 Research Ass. SCM
20 Research Ass. SCM 52 Manager Supplier Dev. 83 Manager Log. Planning
21 Head of SC Planning 53 SC Manager 84 Group Leader SCM
(continued on next page)

69
M. Gebhardt et al. Journal of Business Research 150 (2022) 59–72

(continued )
ID Job title ID Job title ID Job title

22 Director Logistics 54 Postdoc SCM 85 Postdoc Procurement

23 Consultant Operations 55 Supplier Manager 86 SC Manager
24 Managing Director 56 Global SCM Lead 87 Research Ass. SCM
25 Prof. Ops. Management 57 Consultant SCM 88 Prof. SCM
26 Principal SCM 58 Manager Log. Planning 89 Director Procurement
27 Manager SCM 59 Supplier Risk Manager 90 Head of Operations
28 CPO 60 Research Ass. Logistics 91 Manager SCM
29 Ass. Prof. SCM 61 SC Manager 92 Postdoc SCM
30 SCM Analyst 62 Manager Log. & SCM 93 Prof. Manufacturing
31 Head of Logistics 63 Prof. Prod. & Logistics 94 Head of Procurement
32 Manager SCM

References Dib, G., & Oulid Azouz, N. (2020). Global Supply Chain Survey - In search of post-Covid-
19 resilience. Retrieved from. https://www.eulerhermes.com/content/dam/onemar
keting/ehndbx/eulerhermes_com/en_gl/erd/publications/pdf/2020_10_12_Su
Al-Balushi, Z., & Durugbo, C. M. (2020). Management strategies for supply risk
pplyChainSurvey.pdf.
dependencies: Empirical evidence from the gulf region. International Journal of
Dolgui, A., & Ivanov, D. (2020). Exploring supply chain structural dynamics: New
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 50(4), 457–481. https://doi.org/
disruptive technologies and disruption risks. International Journal of Production
10.1108/IJPDLM-06-2019-0201
Economics, 229, Article 107886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107886
Albertzeth, G., Pujawan, I. N., Hilletofth, P., & Tjahjono, B. (2020). Mitigating
Donthu, N., & Gustafsson, A. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on business and research.
transportation disruptions in a supply chain: A cost-effective strategy. International
Journal of Business Research, 117, 284–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 23(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/
jbusres.2020.06.008
10.1080/13675567.2019.1648640
Fearne, A., Wagner, B., McDougall, N., & Loseby, D. (2021). The power of purpose –
Ali, I., & Gölgeci, I. (2019). Where is supply chain resilience research heading? A
lessons in agility from the Ventilator Challenge. Supply Chain Management: An
systematic and co-occurrence analysis. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
International Journal, 26(6), 753–766. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-09-2020-0468
Logistics Management, 49(8), 793–815. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-02-2019-
Fritschy, C., & Spinler, S. (2019). The impact of autonomous trucks on business models in
0038
the automotive and logistics industry–a Delphi-based scenario study. Technological
Assunção, M., Medeiros, M., Moreira, L., & Lopes, I. (2020). Resilience of the Brazilian
Forecasting and Social Change, 148, Article 119736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
supply chains due to the impacts of the COVID-19. Holos, 36(5), 1–20. https://doi.
techfore.2019.119736
org/10.15628/holos.2020.10802.
Gebhardt, M., Spieske, A., & Birkel, H. (2022). The future of the circular economy and its
Belhadi, A., Kamble, S., Jabbour, C. J. C., Gunasekaran, A., Ndubisi, N. O., &
effect on supply chain dependencies: Empirical evidence from a Delphi study.
Venkatesh, M. (2021). Manufacturing and service supply chain resilience to the
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 157, Article
COVID-19 outbreak: Lessons learned from the automobile and airline industries.
102570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2021.102570
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163, Article 120447. https://doi.org/
Gligor, D., Bozkurt, S., Russo, I., & Omar, A. (2019a). A look into the past and future:
10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120447
Theories within supply chain management, marketing and management. Supply
Beninger, S., & Francis, J. N. P. (2021). Collective market shaping by competitors and its
Chain Management: An International Journal, 24(1), 170–186. https://doi.org/
contribution to market resilience. Journal of Business Research, 122, 293–303.
10.1108/SCM-03-2018-0124
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.005
Gligor, D., Gligor, N., Holcomb, M., & Bozkurt, S. (2019b). Distinguishing between the
Birkel, H. S., & Hartmann, E. (2020). Internet of Things – the future of managing supply
concepts of supply chain agility and resilience. The International Journal of Logistics
chain risks. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 25(5), 535–548.
Management, 30(2), 467–487. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-10-2017-0259
https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-09-2019-0356
Gnatzy, T., Warth, J., von der Gracht, H. A., & Darkow, I.-L. (2011). Validating an
Blackhurst, J., Dunn, K. S., & Craighead, C. W. (2011). An Empirically Derived
innovative real-time Delphi approach - A methodological comparison between real-
Framework of Global Supply Resiliency. Journal of Business Logistics, 32(4), 374–391.
time and conventional Delphi studies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0000-0000.2011.01032
(9), 1681–1694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.04.006
Blome, C., & Schoenherr, T. (2011). Supply chain risk management in financial crises - A
Gölgeci, I., Yildiz, H. E., & Andersson, U. (2020). The rising tensions between efficiency
multiple case-study approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 134(1),
and resilience in global value chains in the post-COVID-19 world. Transnational
43–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.01.002
Corporations, 27(2), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.18356/99b1410f-en.
Bode, C., Wagner, S. M., Petersen, K. J., & Ellram, L. M. (2011). Understanding responses
Hirschinger, M., Spickermann, A., Hartmann, E., von der Gracht, H. A., & Darkow, I.-L.
to supply chain disruptions: Insights from information processing and resource
(2015). The future of logistics in emerging markets-fuzzy clustering scenarios
dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 833–856. https://
grounded in institutional and factor-market rivalry theory. Journal of Supply Chain
doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.64870145
Management, 51(4), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12074
Botes, A., Niemann, W., & Kotzé, T. (2017). Buyer-supplier collaboration and supply
Hohenstein, N.-O., Feisel, E., Hartmann, E., & Giunipero, L. (2015). Research on the
chain resilience: A case study in the petrochemical industry. South African Journal of
phenomenon of supply chain resilience. International Journal of Physical Distribution
Industrial Engineering, 28(4), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.7166/28-4-1736
& Logistics Management, 45(1/2), 90–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-05-
Cai, S., Yang, Z., & Hu, Z. (2009). Exploring the governance mechanisms of quasi-
2013-0128
integration in buyer–supplier relationships. Journal of Business Research, 62(6),
Hosseini, S., Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2019). Review of quantitative methods for supply
660–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.02.004
chain resilience analysis. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Carracedo, P., Puertas, R., & Marti, L. (2021). Research lines on the impact of the COVID-
Review, 125, 285–307.
19 pandemic on business. A text mining analysis. Journal of Business Research, 132,
Ivanov, D. (2020). Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains:
586–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.043
A simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2)
Christopher, M. (2000). The Agile Supply Chain - Competing in Volatile Markets.
case. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 136, Article
Industrial Marketing Management, 29(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-
101922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.101922
8501(99)00110-8
Ivanov, D. (2021). Lean resilience: AURA (Active Usage of Resilience Assets) framework
Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the resilient supply chain. International
for post-COVID-19 supply chain management. The International Journal of Logistics
Journal of Logistics Management, 15(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1108/
Management, ahead-of-print.. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-11-2020-0448
09574090410700275
Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2021). A digital supply chain twin for managing the disruption
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
risks and resilience in the era of Industry 4.0. Production Planning & Control, 32(9),
procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
775–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1768450
Publications.
Jüttner, U., & Maklan, S. (2011). Supply chain resilience in the global financial crisis: An
Côrte-Real, N., Ruivo, P., Oliveira, T., & Popovič, A. (2019). Unlocking the drivers of big
empirical study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 16(4), 246–259.
data analytics value in firms. Journal of Business Research, 97, 160–173. https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541111139062
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.072
Kaur, H., & Prakash Singh, S. (2021). Multi-stage hybrid model for supplier selection and
Costantino, N., & Pellegrino, R. (2010). Choosing between single and multiple sourcing
order allocation considering disruption risks and disruptive technologies.
based on supplier default risk: A real options approach. Journal of Purchasing &
International Journal of Production Economics, 231, Article 107830. https://doi.org/
Supply Management, 16(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2009.08.001
10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107830
Craighead, C. W., Ketchen, D. J., & Darby, J. L. (2020). Pandemics and supply chain
Keller, J., & von der Gracht, H. A. (2014). The influence of information and
management research: Toward a theoretical toolbox. Decision Sciences, 51(4),
communication technology (ICT) on future foresight processes - results from a
838–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12468

70
M. Gebhardt et al.
Delphi survey. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 85, 81–92. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.07.010
Kopyto, M., Lechler, S., von der Gracht, H. A., & Hartmann, E. (2020). Potentials of
blockchain technology in supply chain management: Long-term judgments of an
international expert panel. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161, Article
120330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120330
Lechler, S., Canzaniello, A., Roßmann, B., von der Gracht, H. A., & Hartmann, E. (2019).
Real-time data processing in supply chain management: Revealing the uncertainty
dilemma. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 49(10),
1003–1019. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2017-0398
Li, Y. [Y.], Chen, K., Collignon, S., & Ivanov, D. (2021). Ripple effect in the supply chain
network: Forward and backward disruption propagation, network health and firm
vulnerability. European Journal of Operational Research, 291(3), 1117-1131. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.09.053.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi method: techniques and applications.
Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (2011). Delphi: A brief look backward and forward.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1712–1719. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.techfore.2010.09.011
López, C., & Ishizaka, A. (2019). A hybrid FCM-AHP approach to predict impacts of
offshore outsourcing location decisions on supply chain resilience. Journal of Business
Research, 103, 495–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.09.050
Manuj, I., & Mentzer, J. T. (2008). Global supply chain risk management strategies.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(3), 192–223.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030810866986
Matsuo, H. (2015). Implications of the Tohoku earthquake for Toyota’s coordination
mechanism: Supply chain disruption of automotive semiconductors. International
Journal of Production Economics, 161, 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpe.2014.07.010
Mishra, D., Sharma, R., Kumar, S., & Dubey, R. (2016). Bridging and buffering: Strategies
for mitigating supply risk and improving supply chain performance. International
Journal of Production Economics, 180, 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpe.2016.08.005
Nandi, S., Sarkis, J., Hervani, A., & Helms, M. (2020). Do blockchain and circular
economy practices improve post COVID-19 supply chains? A resource-based and
resource dependence perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 121(2),
333–363. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2020-0560
Paré, G., Cameron, A.-F., Poba-Nzaou, P., & Templier, M. (2013). A systematic
assessment of rigor in information systems ranking-type Delphi studies. Information
& Management, 50(5), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2013.03.003
Park, K., Min, H., & Min, S. (2016). Inter-relationship among risk taking propensity,
supply chain security practices, and supply chain disruption occurrence. Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management, 22(2), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pursup.2015.12.001
Parker, H., & Ameen, K. (2018). The role of resilience capabilities in shaping how firms
respond to disruptions. Journal of Business Research, 88, 535–541. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.022
Pfeffer, J. (1989). A resource dependence perspective on intercorporate relations. In
M. S. Mizruchi, & M. Schwartz (Eds.), Intercorporate Relations: The Structural Analysis
of Business (pp. 25–55). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations. A Resource
Dependence Perspective. New York, N.Y.: Harper and Row. https://doi.org/10.2307/
2231527.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Ponomarov, S. Y., & Holcomb, M. C. (2009). Understanding the concept of supply chain
resilience. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 20(1), 124–143. https://
doi.org/10.1108/09574090910954873
Queiroz, M. M., Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., & Fosso Wamba, S. (2020). Impacts of epidemic
outbreaks on supply chains: mapping a research agenda amid the COVID-19
pandemic through a structured literature review. Annals of Operations Research.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03685-7.
Roßmann, B., Canzaniello, A., von der Gracht, H. A., & Hartmann, E. (2018). The future
and social impact of Big Data Analytics in Supply Chain Management: Results from a
Delphi study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 130, 135–149. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.10.005
Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and
analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15(4), 353–375. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0169-2070(99)00018-7
Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (2001). Expert Opinions in Forecasting: The Role of the Delphi
Technique. In F. S. Hillier, & J. S. Armstrong (Eds.), International Series in Operations
Research & Management Science. Principles of Forecasting (pp. 125–144). Boston, MA:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-306-47630-3_7.
Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (2011). The Delphi technique: Past, present, and future prospects
- introduction to the special issue. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9),
1487–1490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.09.002
Sáenz, M. J., & Revilla, E. (2014). Creating more resilient supply chains. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 55(4), 21–24.
Salancik, J. R., Wenger, W., & Helfer, E. (1971). The construction of Delphi event
statements. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 3, 65–73. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0040-1625(71)80004-5
Scheibe, M., Skutsch, M., & Schofer, J. (1975). Experiments in Delphi methodology. In
H. A. Linstone, & M. Turoff (Eds.), The Delphi method: techniques and applications (pp.
262–287). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
71
Journal of Business Research 150 (2022) 59–72
Scholten, K., & Schilder, S. (2015). The role of collaboration in supply chain resilience.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20(4), 471–484. https://doi.org/
10.1108/SCM-11-2014-0386
Sharma, A., Adhikary, A., & Borah, S. B. (2020). Covid-19’s impact on supply chain
decisions: Strategic insights from NASDAQ 100 firms using Twitter data. Journal of
Business Research, 117, 443–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.035
Sheffi, Y., & Rice, B. (2005). A Supply Chain View of the Resilient Enterprise. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 47(1), 41–49.
Spieske, A., & Birkel, H. (2021). Improving supply chain resilience through industry 4.0:
A systematic literature review under the impressions of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 158, Article 107452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cie.2021.107452
Spieske, A., Gebhardt, M., Kopyto, M., & Birkel, H. (2022). Improving resilience of the
healthcare supply chain in a pandemic: Evidence from Europe during the COVID-19
crisis. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 100748. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.pursup.2022.100748
Touboulic, A., Chicksand, D., & Walker, H. (2014). Managing Imbalanced Supply Chain
Relationships for Sustainability: A Power Perspective. Decision Sciences, 45(4),
577–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12087
Van Hoek, R. (2020). Research opportunities for a more resilient post-COVID-19 supply
chain – closing the gap between research findings and industry practice. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 40(4), 341–355. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJOPM-03-2020-0165
Verma, S., & Gustafsson, A. (2020). Investigating the emerging COVID-19 research trends
in the field of business and management: A bibliometric analysis approach. Journal
of Business Research, 118, 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.057
Von der Gracht, H. A. (2012). Consensus measurement in Delphi studies. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 79(8), 1525–1536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2012.04.013
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., & Frohlich, M. (2002). Case research in operations management.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2), 195–219.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570210414329
Wagner, S. M., & Kemmerling, R. (2010). Handling nonresponse in logistics research.
Journal of Business Logistics, 31(2), 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2158-
1592.2010.tb00156.x
Warth, J., von der Gracht, H. A., & Darkow, I.-L. (2013). A dissent-based approach for
multi-stakeholder scenario development — the future of electric drive vehicles.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(4), 566–583. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.005
Wieland, A. (2021). Dancing the Supply Chain: Toward Transformative Supply Chain
Management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 57(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jscm.12248
Wieland, A., & Durach, C. F. (2021). Two perspectives on supply chain resilience. Journal
of Business Logistics, 42(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12271
Winkler, J., Kuklinski, C.-P.-J.-W., & Moser, R. (2015). Decision making in emerging
markets: The Delphi approach’s contribution to coping with uncertainty and
equivocality. Journal of Business Research, 68(5), 1118–1126. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.001
WTO. (2020). Trade set to plunge as COVID-19 pandemic upends global economy.
Retrieved from https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres20_e/pr855_e.htm.
Zhen, X., Li, Y. [Yongjian], Cai, G., & Shi, D. (2016). Transportation disruption risk
management: business interruption insurance and backup transportation.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 90, 51–68. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2016.01.005.
Zsidisin, G. A., & Wagner, S. M. (2010). Do perceptions become reality? The moderating
role of supply chain resiliency on disruption occurrence. Journal of Business Logistics,
31(2), 1–20.
Dr. Maximilian Gebhardt is a guest researcher at the Chair of Supply Chain Management at
the Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany, where he also earned
his doctoral degree. He obtained an M.Sc. in International Management at the Esade
Business School in Barcelona, Spain, and a B.Sc. in Industrial Engineering at the Friedrich-
Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg. His primary areas of research include circular
supply chain management, supply chain resilience, and Industry 4.0 technologies. His
work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the International Journal of
Production Research, the Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, the International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, and Transportation Research Part E.
Before pursuing his PhD, he spent several years in strategy consulting. While serving cli­
ents from a broad range of industries (e.g., insurance, automotive, consumer goods, and
the public sector), he focused on digital transformations, operations management, strategy
development, and private equity advisory.
Dr. Alexander Spieske is a guest researcher at the Chair of Supply Chain Management at
the Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany. He earned his docoral
degree, an M.Sc. in Management, and a B.A. in Business Economics at the Friedrich-
Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg. His primary areas of research include supply
chain risk management, sustainable supply chain management, and Industry 4.0 tech­
nologies. His work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including Computers &
Industrial Engineering, the Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, the International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, , and Transportation Research Part
E. Before pursuing his PhD, he spent several years in strategy consulting. While serving
private and public clients from a broad range of industries (e.g., industrial goods, con­
sumer goods, insurance, and healthcare), he focused on operations management, inno­
vation management, digital transformation, and sustainability initiatives.
M. Gebhardt et al.
Dr. Matthias Kopyto is a guest researcher at the Chair of Supply Chain Management at the
Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany. He earned an M.Sc. in
Business Administration at the Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, and a
B.A. in Business and Economics at the University of Basel, Switzerland. His primary areas
of research include the digital transformation of supply chains, supply chain transparency,
blockchain technology in supply chains, and circular supply chain management. He pre­
sented his works at several conferences and published in peer-reviewed journal outlets,
including the International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,Tech­
nological Forecasting & Social Change, and the Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management.
72
Journal of Business Research 150 (2022) 59–72
Dr. Hendrik Birkel is a postdoctoral associate at the Chair of Supply Chain Management at
the Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany. He earned his
doctoral degree in Management at the Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-
Nuremberg. His primary areas of research include Industry 4.0 and the Internet of
Things, supply chain risk management, and sustainability in the context of supply chain
management. Apart from presentations at various international conferences and his
engagement as a reviewer, his work has been published in a variety of journals, including
the International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Business Research, and Journal of Cleaner Production.