Heliyon 9 (2023) e13901

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Heliyon
journal homepage: www.cell.com/heliyon

Review article

A conceptual framework of supply chain resilience towards

sustainability through a service-dominant logic perspective
Hakim Manurung *, Gatot Yudoko, Liane Okdinawati
School of Business and Management, Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB), Bandung, Indonesia

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

Keywords: The supply chain of every company is essential to its overall operation. Global disruption has an
Service-dominant logic unanticipated and immediate impact on supply chains across all industrial sectors. The supply
SDL chain must, therefore, demonstrate resilience in order to resist such upheaval because it is dy­
Supply chain
namic and extremely vulnerable to global uncertainties. Moreover, it must not only return to its
Supply chain resilience
SCR
initial form but also prove able to achieve steady, sustainable performance. To do so, supply chain
Sustainability activities necessitate value co-creation between stakeholders. One means of achieving this
objective is through the application of service-dominant logic (SDL) whose eleven core premises
define the behaviour, governance, and consequences of service-based exchange. The novelty of
the research reported here lies in the mapping and review frameworks of current supply chain
resilience towards sustainability (SCRTS) from an SDL perspective. This study represents the first
to combine an SDL perspective and SCRTS since no formula has yet been devised to address this
combination of factors. This study proposes the application of a conceptual framework of SCRTS
from an SDL perspective by involving selected premises, resource integration, institutional
structures, and collaboration.
Type of Paper: Conceptual Framework.

1. Introduction

The supply chain of each company is essential to its overall operation and should, therefore, have a competitive advantage. In an
era of disruption, a company’s ability to compete depends on the competitiveness of its supply chain [1]. Unfortunately, being a
component of the main chain, the supply chain is extremely vulnerable to global disruption [2] which affects those of any industry
unexpectedly and with unforeseen notice. Hence, the supply chain requires continual resilience and sustainable performance in order
to respond to such disruption [3]. characterize supply chain resilience (SCR) as a process of continually adapting, evolving, and
transforming in response to the dynamic multi-scale feedback between the multitude of interconnected organizations, institutions, and
social and ecological systems constituting supply chain elements. The phrase SCR has been commonly employed since approximately
2004 and scholars agree that, in essence, it is concerned with the ability of a company to return to its original condition [4]. However,
since the supply chain is dynamic and highly sensitive to global disruptions, SCR requires not only a return to its initial form but also
the capacity to demonstrate steady, sustainable performance [5]. To achieve sustainable performance, supply chain activities
necessitate value co-creation between stakeholders formed on the basic premise of service dominant logic (SDL), specifically resource
integration, institutional arrangements, and stakeholder collaboration. Since being introduced by Ref. [6], SDL has been adopted by

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hmanurung@gmail.com, hakim_manurung@sbm-itb.ac.id (H. Manurung).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13901
Received 12 October 2022; Received in revised form 30 January 2023; Accepted 15 February 2023
Available online 20 February 2023
2405-8440/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
H. Manurung et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13901

many disciplines, including supply chain theory, and has evolved as a theoretical framework from a linear exchange of tangible re­
sources and embedded value to a more systemic interchange of intangible resources and value co-creation [7].
SDL comprises eleven core premises that define the behaviour, governance, and consequences of service-based exchange. The
current SDL framework demonstrates that a dynamic, multi-dimensional system perspective more aptly reflects the structural aspects
of service exchange. Creating supply chain resilience towards sustainability (SCRTS) through SDL constitutes a new movement within
supply chain studies, a fact indicative of SCR being viewed as a service supply chain. However, because of the operant and operand
resource exchange, the only premises adopted in this study are those of resource integration, institutional arrangement, and
collaboration.
The main purpose of this study is to establish how SDL perspectives influence SCM strategy through past studies by proposing a
conceptual framework. From an SDL perspective, the supply chain must consider more than just arrangements relating to the supply of
goods. It must also consider all activities viewed as service exchange. The research literature has particularly contributed to the body of
knowledge regarding supply chain management when the SDL concept is applied to activities. As this study presents a conceptual
framework, it is intended to serve as a guide for future research involving analysis of real-life data relating to a specific industry.
However, the framework can be adjusted based on the actual phenomenon.
Supply chain research has produced numerous concepts that can be applied within any industrial sector, although it tends to be
focused more on practical strategies incorporating traditional concepts such as goods dominant logic [8]. Several studies have dis­
cussed the broader implementation of SDL within supply chains to achieve resilience and sustainability. The value co-creation
framework proposed by Ref. [9] is applied in their study to assess the body of previous research. These authors highlight the need
to address study gaps in the field and explore how the paradigm shift introduced by SDL in relation to market exchanges affects the
traditional supply chain view. A content analysis of the supply chain services listed in the sources consulted is also included in the
systematic literature review undertaken by Ref. [10]. They attempt to analyze these services from the various perspectives of SDL to
further the existing theory. Other reviews integrating an SDL interface with a supply chain cover various salient topics of interest,
including innovation [11], general SCM by identifying SDL as one of the key trends [12], business models [13], and servitization [14].
Despite the expanding body of research, no systematic literature reviews currently exist that compile, summarize, and describe the
research being undertaken in these two fields, particularly that with a business marketing and supply chain focus which highlights
resilience leading to sustainability.
By performing a thorough evaluation of the literature on this topic, this study seeks to bridge this gap and advance the fields of both
SCM and SDL by addressing the following research questions. Firstly, what insights developed by the SDL discipline can be imple­
mented within the supply chain body of knowledge? Secondly, which antecedents of SDL and SCRTS can be constructed within a
conceptual framework? Thirdly, based on the literature review, what represents an appropriate framework for SDL impact on SCRTS
that may be applied to any industry?
The structure of this study consists of the following sections: a literature review; an analysis of the theory connecting SDL and
SCRTS which identifies the antecedents and combines the foundation premises (FPs) of SDL with the supply chain. The description of
the methodological approach adopted is followed by an outline of the study’s conceptual framework.

2. Literature review

Service science, such as SDL, is a new concept involved in supply chain resilience research [15]. enrich the supply chain concept by
incorporating an SDL perspective into the supply chain which, in turn, shifts the paradigm from good dominant logic to service
dominant. The SDL perspective focused on how inter-company collaboration may lead to the creation of superior value propositions
through mutual learning, thereby enhancing their overall knowledge, skills, and abilities ([16,6]). According to Ref. [17], supply chain
management entails not only the delivery of goods but also an exchange of services. Knowledge, integration, customer engagement,
connections, and innovation are all aspects of exchanges between supply chain stakeholders which are promoted by SDL ([18,19,20]).
There are eleven SDL foundational premises (FPs) and five axioms [21] that can be summarized in the following tenets of service
exchanges:

• Every economy constitutes a service economy. With greater specialization and outsourcing, the nature and role of service (singular)
are only now becoming more evident.
• Resource integrators include all economic and social actors. Value is produced by a group, and for this to occur, inputs (resources)
must be combined.
• Actor-generated institutions and institutional structures coordinate value co-creation.

2.1. Bridging the concepts of SDL and SCRTS

The main idea behind adopting SDL within SCRTS is that the former employs a process perspective in which various actors
collaborate to co-create value, particularly during the utilization process, by integrating resources and exchanging underlying services
[15] Scholars have identified SDL premises possessing relationships between the variables or enablers of SCRTS. An examination of the
literature highlights nine essential ideas: value co-creation, operand and operant resources, collaboration, networks and ecosystems,
resource integration, partnerships, strategic advantages, learning, and communication ([22,20]). The enabler of SCRTS found that the
SCR dimension is separated into three categories: proactive signifying pre-disruption or preparedness; reactive featuring

2
H. Manurung et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13901

during-disruption or adaptability; and recovery indicating post-disruption or adjustment ([5,23]). Proactive features comprise
redundancy, robustness, attentiveness, awareness integration, and visibility, while collaboration, information exchange, agility,
adaptability, and speed serve as reactive enablers. Leadership, financial stability, re-configuration, re-design, and adaptability
constitute the enablers of recovery. However, this study will only review the pertinent factors that support SDL and SCRTS.
A supply chain is more than just a means of moving items, irrespective of whether or not this fact is recognized. Eleven FPs intended
to establish a framework for a service-centered mindset encapsulate the logic of service dominance [20]. have recognized since the
initial introduction of the foundational premises that a number of the original FPs could be derived from others. As a result, they
identified five of the eleven expanded FPs as particularly foundational, essentially the axioms of SDL, as described in Table 1.
In keeping with the tenets of SDL-FP3 which assert that goods are distribution mechanisms for service provision, they are also a
means of service delivery. Numerous researchers have viewed the supply chain through the service eco-system paradigm since [17]
first introduced the concept of SDL to scholars. Within this service exchange, value is a constellation of resources integrated by all
actors involved in providing the service, with co-created value for the customer always being uniquely defined by the end-user [17].
Resources can be either operand or operant, with competitive advantage and differentiation potential stemming from the latter which
can be defined as the knowledge, skills, and capabilities of the actors involved in service delivery.
[10] explain the concepts of service and services, respectively, as follows: “An act or performance offered by one party to another.
Although the process may be tied to a physical product, the performance is essentially intangible and does not normally result in
ownership of any of the factors of production and services are economic activities that create value and provide benefits for customers
at specific times and places, as a result of bringing about a desired change in or on behalf of the recipient of the service.” These
definitions of service and services supplement SDL’s axioms. According to Ref. [24], service is the application of resources (primarily
knowledge and skills) for the benefit of another person or organization (the beneficiary). All businesses constitute service businesses
because SDL requires interaction between the service provider and the recipient [24]. Moreover, it is imperative that employees,
managers, suppliers, customers, and other stakeholders collaborate to integrate resources (combining or aligning assets) for mutual
value creation (producing benefit for all participants). In addition to general conceptualization efforts, special consideration is afforded
service supply chains from a service-dominant perspective ([25,10,26])and a performance-based logistics perspective ([25,10,27,28]).
Several studies of the interface between SDL and the supply chain adopt opposing positions [29]. conducted a literature review
using the framework for value co-creation developed in the course of their study. They intended to investigate how the paradigm shift
that SDL introduces to market exchanges affects the traditional supply chain perspective while, in addition, identifying research gaps
in the field that subsequent researchers have found fruitful. For the purposes of theory development [10], included a content analysis
of the supply chain services mentioned in the selected literature and attempted to analyze them from the various dimensions of SDL.
Other reviews, including a supply chain and an SDL interface focused on different main topics of interest such as innovation [11],
supply chain recognition of SDL as one of the influential trends [12], and servitization [30].
According to Ref. [31], SDL links supply chains to partnerships, value networks, service providers, and value generators. If all
supply chain layers such as the producer-customer layer, supplier-producer layer, and supplier’s supplier-supplier layer adopt the
service eco-system scenario, the entire supply chain forms a complex value network that deals with partnership, service provision, and
value creation. In other words, the SDL-based supply chain may maximize each supply chain member’s economic, social, and envi­
ronmental performance [32]. Even though an ever-increasing body of literature has been produced on this topic, no systematic reviews
exist that collect, summarize, and describe ongoing research in these two areas, with a specific focus on SDL and SCRTS.

2.2. Resource integration

“Cooperation” and “collaboration” are words occasionally employed interchangeably with the term “integration” to refer to either
the internal or external variety. Utilization and integration of value network operant resources enhance the ability of the whole chain
to achieve competitive advantage. Internal integration refers to that occurring between departments within an organization ([33,34,
35]) while its external counterpart involves integration with partners outside the company. External integration manifests itself, for
example, in joint planning or information sharing to achieve the shared objectives of supply chain partners ([34,36,35]).
The degree to which an organization works strategically with its supply chain partners and cooperatively controls intra- and inter-

Table 1
SDL’s axioms and foundational premises [20].
AXIOM Code Premises

Axiom 1 FP1 Service is the fundamental basis of exchange.

FP2 Indirect exchange masks the fundamental basis of exchange.
FP3 Goods are distribution mechanisms for service provision.
FP4 Operant resources are the fundamental source of competitive advantage.
FP5 All economies are service economies. Service (singular) is only now becoming more apparent with increased specialization and outsourcing.
Axiom 2 FP6 The customer is always a co-creator of value.
FP7 The enterprise cannot deliver value, but only offer value propositions.
FP8 A service-centered view is inherently customer-oriented and relational.
Axiom 3 FP9 All economic and social actors are resource integrators.
Axiom 4 FP10 Value is always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary.
Axiom 5 FP11 Value co-creation is coordinated through actor-generated institutions and institutional arrangements.

3
H. Manurung et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13901

organizational operations is referred to as supply chain integration. Its goal is to establish efficient and effective flows of products and
services, information, money, and options at a low cost and rapid pace that maximize value to customers [37]. [32] identified internal
integration as exerting the greatest influence on supply chain resilience, exceeding that of customer and partner integration. Customer
integration was found to have three completely mediating impacts on the links between internal integration and service performance;
internal integration and service quality; and logistics collaborator integration and service quality. However, in addition to the limited
sample size, their research did not analyze either the degree of integration between internal integration, customer integration, and
logistic collaborator integration, or the effect on SCR and company performance. Therefore, if other parts of SCR are combined and
examined closely, greater insight into how integration works within SCR and its effects on sustainability.
[38] concluded that supply chain integration has a positive correlation with supply chain agility. A stable and intense supply chain
integration relationship enables efficient information sharing, knowledge exchange, and production transactions between suppliers
and buyers, implying a high degree of supply chain agility. With the latter, supply chain partners enjoy more extensive and transparent
access to transacting information which increases the possibility of identifying supply chain risks. This facilitates their joint adaptation
to and recovery from risks through enhanced collaboration. The robust supply chain system accelerates recovery from risks in com­
parison to the remaining three sample companies, signifying that it demonstrates the highest level of supply chain resilience. Supply
chain integration provides resources such as information exchange and mutual technology-based learning to supply chain partners.
Policymakers could also support the enhancement of both supply chain agility and robustness by providing other types of services [39].
Based on the literature review conducted, the following links between resource integration, collaboration, and SCR are proposed:
P1: Resource integration positively influences collaboration.
P2: Resource integration positively influences supply chain resilience.

2.3. Institutional arrangements

Institutions form one of the supply chain eco-systems that the government represents in regulating business competitiveness.
“Institutions” are defined as the rules, norms, and beliefs created by humans which either enable or restrict action, while “institutional
arrangements” refers to higher-level collections of interconnected institutions [20]. Institutional arrangements have attracted
increasing attention – within SDL and service science – as a critical component of achieving resource integration, value co-creation,
and service-related innovation ([40,39]). Policymakers should promote supply chain integration by eradicating factors that impede
supply chain integration and by encouraging supply chain partners to strengthen their integration.
The government, as the institutional regulator with a supply chain actor role, has been primarily analyzed within the context of
subsidies [41], sustainability, and reverse supply chains [42]. Companies and other competing organizations must cooperate or
compete, an issue affecting fashion supply chains as demonstrated by a case study of rival companies [43]. [20] considered institu­
tionalization as a core process of value co-creation and integral to service ecosystems. Thus, the following propositions concerning
institutional arrangements and resource integration, collaboration, SCR, and sustainability are proposed:
P3: Institutional arrangements influence resource integration.
P4: Institutional arrangements influence collaboration.
P5: Institutional arrangements influence supply chain resilience.
P6: Institutional arrangements influence sustainability.

2.4. Collaboration

Due to globalization and amid global uncertainties, competition no longer involves individual enterprises but, rather, entire supply
chains. Product manufacturers must cooperate with component suppliers throughout the supply chain in order to outperform com­
mercial competitors. Collaboration between organizations operating within a supply chain is what connects the network as a whole
and permits a holistic approach to supply chain resilience [44]. The underlying philosophy of such collaboration is that by sharing
information and applying common knowledge throughout the chain, uncertainty can be reduced [45]. As a result, the recovery time,
cost, disruption absorption, and ability to reduce the impact of loss can all be used to assess resilience [46]. explained how certain
collaborative activities (information sharing, collaborative communication, cooperatively developed knowledge, and joint relation­
ship initiatives) improve supply chain resilience by increasing visibility, velocity, and flexibility.
In their study [47], confirmed the value of collaboration as a response to the disruption of commercial and humanitarian supply
chains and a means of re-establishing such chains. Hence, the supply chain reactive capabilities within the SCR scale are empirically
validated by this research [48]. present a typology of resilience methods associated with various forms of collaboration within and
between the supply networks mentioned in this article. These authors identify a third form of resilience, referred to as meso-level
resilience. Therefore, the following proposition regarding collaboration, resilience and sustainability is proposed:
P7: Collaboration influences supply chain resilience.
P8: Collaboration influences sustainability.

2.5. Supply chain resilience (SCR) and sustainability

While the study of resilience and sustainability has distinct scope and contexts, several scholars have attempted to integrate the two
in their research [49]. The nexus and links between the two themes are frequently incoherent since there is confusion over the
construction of sustainable and resilient supply chains, compounded by a lack of clarity regarding which methods could benefit both

4
H. Manurung et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13901

sectors. A significant inherent tension exists here because sustainability is often concerned with efficiency, whereas resilience is linked
with effectiveness. Research into integration, or the relationship between resilience and sustainability, remains ongoing and continues
to develop [50].
In addition to these early attempts to define sustainable and resilient supply networks by combining the two notions, a lack of
agreement persists among scholars as to what constitutes a sustainable and resilient supply chain. Certain researchers claim that
sustainability constitutes a resilience antecedent ([51,52]) and that sustainability practices can improve resilience [53]. Approaches
that improve one do not always improve the other [54]. Nevertheless, these findings are data-dependent, with the management in­
sights being based on several simulation runs including replications. Sustainable and resilient supply networks are the most evolved
forms of supply chains, as they have a wider scope and set of performance criteria. While the fundamental principles of sustainability
and resilience are somewhat incompatible, there are certain overlaps in their overarching strategic aims [55]. Companies prefer to
work with a supply chain partner which can manage disruptions. Customers respect a company that can rapidly overcome problems,
but they also expect it to learn from its mistakes. Within this context, this research attempts to bridge this gap by combining selected
parts of resilience and sustainability in terms of the supply chain. Since research into the integration of these characteristics remains in
its infancy, this investigation has high novelty value and will contribute to both theory and practice. As a result, the following rep­
resents a proposal for supply chain sustainability and resilience:
P9: The influence of supply chain resilience on sustainability.

2.6. System theory

The tenets of SDL are viewed through an underlying theory as a means of investigating the novelty of integrating SDL premises with
the theoretical foundation of SCRTS [56]. identified system theory and dynamic capability theory (DCT) as relevant in this regard.
According to Ref. [20], institutional theory, systems theory, complexity theory, complexity economics, and evolutionary theory
constitute the key theoretical pillars of S-D logic. Consequently, the main focus of SDL and SCRTS bridging theories was on system
theory.
In the opinion of [57], a supply chain is viewed from the perspective of SD-logic as a service eco-system in which stakeholders are
connected as elements of that system. Within system theory, supply chains are open and porous systems that interact with their
surroundings and are, therefore, continually evolving [58]. From this perspective, it is relatively straightforward to regard supply
chains as interconnected networks [59], both interacting with and relying on external inputs in addition to those from one another
[60]. Another frequently applied supply chain theory that potentially constitutes a valuable lens through which to analyze data quality
challenges is that of the systems theory of organizations [61]. This is because such systems are intra-organizational in nature and rely
on interactions and inputs from a wide range of inter-and intra-company actors [58]. Although differences exist between physical
(operand) systems and “conceptual physical” (operant) systems [62], the two groups share several characteristics. Because these
discrete components are themselves sub-systems, the issue of interdependence between them also exists. The broad concept of a system
border is related to this interaction between system components since in order for systems to interact with one another they require a
boundary.
System theory provides a holistic and integrated perspective which aids managers and the entire organization. However, it is
regarded as excessively abstract and nebulous to be applicable to real-world situations, managers are obliged to consider the orga­
nization as a whole. Consequently, rather than concentrating on individual actions, a manager might think about them collectively and
develop a plan. Sub-systems are both interconnected and interdependent in character. Managers will, therefore, have a greater un­
derstanding of how disruption in one section of the company affects other parts of the business as well as the functioning of the entire
organization. Unfortunately, system theory does not equip managers with actual tools and approaches, rendering its comprehensive
application challenging. Nor does it say anything about how an organization interacts with and depends upon its environment.

3. Methodology

The involvement of the SDL and SCR within sustainability concepts represents the focus of this research. The initial step of con­
ducting a literature review is undertaken to define the topic, followed by seeking, analyzing, and reviewing relevant data. Science­
Direct, ProQuest, and Emerald were used to search for and download papers. According to Ref. [63], systematic literature reviews
involve adopting systematic, transparent and repeatable methodology to reduce bias when selecting which articles to include in or
exclude from the review. Furthermore, a systematic literature review ensures a precise search approach that yields a reliable and
transparent result [64]. proposed that a systematic review entails a number of steps, including establishing research questions,
defining the inclusion and exclusion criteria to be adopted, explaining keyword-based search terms, compiling relevant literature,
analyzing the literature selected, and defining the synthesis.
[65] pointed out that because systematical literature review methodology is not standardized authors can modify it to suit their
own objectives. Therefore, the literature review conducted follows the four steps as suggested by Ref. [66], namely: data selection,
descriptive analysis, category identification, and data evaluation as shown in Fig. 1. However, the outcome of this literature research is
a proposed conceptual framework, while the previous systematic literature review involves only a bibliometric analysis.
In the interests of reliability, only Q1, Q2, and Q3 Scopus journal indexes were selected. The topic of interest was defined on the
basis of personal experience and phenomena, leading to the decision to use SD-logic and supply chain discipline. Because of the

5
H. Manurung et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13901

Fig. 1. Systematical Literature Review methodology process framework [66].

number of papers and age of the SDL concept used in the supply chain, it was deemed reasonable to search for papers dating from the
previous ten years. In the scopus.com database, academic papers discussing SDL-related topics were accepted between 2004 and 2022,
resulting in a corpus totaling 1953. However, only 517 papers focusing on SDL in conjunction with the supply chain were identified, a
figure further reduced to 402 which met the criteria applied relating to language, year of publication, and type. Finally, an assessment
of the redundancy of the contents of their abstracts eliminated all but 70 papers which were ultimately considered relevant to this
study.
The search results for papers on SDL and the supply chain are saved in QSV format files for subsequent analysis using the free
software tool VOSviewer for bibliometric mapping. The QSV file as the data source will be read by the same means in order to establish

6
H. Manurung et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13901

Fig. 2. Co-occurrences analysis.

the occurrence of keywords in the abstract and title as well as the strength of their relatedness. The result reflected the function of
VOSviewer software in displaying large bibliographic maps while providing a simple means of interpreting the results [67].
Co-occurrence analysis in VosViewer is a bibliometric analysis technique that visualizes the commonly employed and strongly
correlated phrases or words discovered in publications pertaining to a certain subject of study. All keywords, including the author’s
name and index keywords, were subjected to a co-occurrence analysis which was used to explain the results. As illustrated in Fig. 2, a
correlation between sustainability and SCR, albeit persistently tenuous in nature, indicates that this potential field of research is re­
mains highly novel.
A review of previous academic papers identified five variables which can construct the link between SDL and SCRTS as shown in
Table 2. These comprise resource integration, institutional arrangements, collaboration, supply chain resilience, and sustainability.
Each variable has associated indicators, those of resources integration being internal integration, supplier development, information
technology, commitment, and collaborative culture. The indicators of institutional arrangement include supply chain guidelines,
centralized databases, integrity policy, tax regulation, and coordination and control, while those of collaboration comprise information
sharing communication, relationships, and strategic alignment. Indicators of SCR comprise alertness, readiness, efficiency, redun­
dancy, agility, flexibility, financial strength, responsive, recovery, and robustness. Lastly, indicators of the sustainability variable
consist of environment, social, economy and reputation. This study seeks to investigate both the background and the summary, as
shown in Table 2.
Table 2 demonstrated that the study in supply chain evolved periodically and was combined with other variables that were either
major or small in relation to the investigation. The papers selected from last ten years which discussed SDL and SCRTS combination.
The reason to select the last ten years due to the availability of the papers regarded to this study objective.
Additional analysis of tabel 2 as shown in Fig. 3, the majority of articles concentrate on resource integration and cooperation as
enablers of SCR and SDL. While institutional arrangement and SCR are still in their infancy when paired with SCR. In light of the fact
that institutional arrangement may vary by country and industry, this study identifies institutional arrangement as one of its distinctive
features. Therefore, it will be interesting for future studies to empirically evaluate the role of institutional structure as a component of
SDL paired with SCRTS.
In addition to the conceptual framework, there are nine hypotheses presented based on the literature review. In order to prove the
hypotheses or refine the conceptual framework, empirical evidence shall be discussed further in future research. According to
reference [68] there are qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods for proving a hypothesis. In this notion, one of them or a

7
H. Manurung et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13901

Table 2
State of the art SDL and SCRTS.

combination of both will be suitable to the specified industrial sector. However, in this study we propose the quantitative research
method, data collected thorough the questionnaires distributed to the participants and the technique of data collection in which each
respondent asked to respond to the same set of questions [68]. A Likert scale is an ordered scale from which respondents choose one
option that best aligns with their view [69]
The uses of a 5-point Likert scale, namely, “strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “neutral,” “agree,” and “strongly agree.” The data
collected will be analyzed using SEM/SmartPLS 3.0 to test the suggested study model using partial least squares (PLS) structural
equation modelling (SEM). PLS-SEM is a causal modelling technique that aims to maximize the variance explained of dependent latent
components by estimating partial relationships in a series of ordinary least squares regressions [70] The decision to utilize PLS-SEM in
this research was based on its capacity to manage small sample numbers.
In the conclusion section has been added about this hypothesis examination in the future research.

8
H. Manurung et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13901

Fig. 3. Distribution studies by enablers of SDL and SCRTS.

4. Results

The variables and indicators of SDL and SCRTS which derived from literature review as shown in Table 2, enable the constructing of
a framework necessary for an analysis of their correlation. Institutional configuration, resource integration, and collaboration serve as
independent variables of SDL, while the dependent variables are SCR and sustainability. The construction of variables and indicators is

Fig. 4. Conceptual Framework – SDL and SCRTS (Adopted from: [22,72,73,20,34]).

9
H. Manurung et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13901

Table 3
Enabler of SDL and SCRTS.
No Variable Elements Main Focus Reference

1 Resource Internal The degree to which a company has incorporated web-
Integration integration based processes for online order taking and receipt,
after-sales service, and integrated demand/forecasting
with customers.
Supplier How far a company has advanced web-based
development procedures with suppliers for any of the following.
Information To establish a competitive edge, obtain the newest
Technology technological components and offer functionalities
that customers require.
Commitment The committed party believes the relationship lasts
forever and commitment is at the heart of all relational
exchanges between the company and its many
patterns. Relationship s with others are so vital as to
warrant making the greatest effort to sustain them.
Collaborative A significant amount of cooperation between several
culture parties is required. Businesses
simultaneously cooperate and compete to achieve a
win-win outcome.
2 Institutional SC Guideline The regulation listed all acceptable and unacceptable
Arrangement behaviour including, but not limited to, integrity and
taxation.
Centralize data The quality of an organization’s IT infrastructure, its
base IT business competence, and its level of learning
determine its level of competitive advantage.
Integrity Policy Highlighting the need to promote an integrity policy in
supply chain operations
Tax regulation Government financial assistance in the form of
incentives, tax breaks, loans, and logistical help in the
form of lenient laws and regulations is crucial,
especially in unusual circumstances.
Coordination and Arranging and controlling systemic differences within
control a problem-solving procedure.
3 Collaboration Information Sharing timely and accurate information reduces risk
sharing and enhances SCR capability. The necessity for a
strong and specialized infrastructure supportive of
effective information sharing is necessitated by the
complicated nature of work. This involves a huge
volume of data interchange and a highly collaborative
work process between diverse parties.
Communication Organizations’ readiness to communicate with
stakeholders and discuss ideas, visions and other
pertinent information in a way that satisfies their
requirements.
Relationship Organizational relationships that encourage people to
collaborate in achieving a similar aim.
Strategic The plan is in line with the mission, objectives, goals,
alignment corporate direction, and business strategies of the
company.
4 Supply Chain Alertness Focuses on the detection and monitoring of changes
Resilience and measures the company’s capacity to quickly
identify changes in their operations.
Readiness Supply chain disruption phases have been used to
structure the adaptive resilience capability.
Efficiency The capacity to achieve results with minimal resources
Redundancy By using spare capacity in production, transportation,
or inventory, redundant capacity enhances the SC’s
power to adjust to unanticipated disruption.
Agility More rapid responses from an agile SC enables swift
adaptation to unforeseen changes in supply or
demand.
Wang et al. (2021); Zhuo et al. (2021);
Adams et al. (2014); Zhang et al. (2014); Tarigan et al.
(2021); Chen et al. (2018); Rajesh (2018)
Yusuf et al. (2014); Dobrzykowski et al. (2012);
Adams et al. (2014); Zhang et al. (2014); Aggarwal &
Srivastava (2019); Tarigan et al. (2021); Chen et al.
(2018) Soni et al. (2014)
Ambulkar et al. (2015); Dobrzykowski et al. (2012);
Adams et al. (2014); Zhang et al. (2014); Hall et al.
(2022);
Wu et al. (2014); Adams et al. (2014); Hawkins.,
(2015); Zhang et al. (2014);
Chakraborty, (2018)
Ambulkar et al. (2015); Dobrzykowski et al. (2012);
Adams et al. (2014); Zhang et al. (2014); Aggarwal &
Srivastava (2019); Kumar & Banerjee., (2012);
Adams et al. (2014)
Mandal (2017)
Beitelspacher et al. (2012)
Newton et al. (2013)
Chowdhury and Quaddus (2017); (Chounta et al.,
2014; Heimeriks and Schreiner, 2002)
Hall et al. (2022); Wu et al. (2014); Dobrzykowski
et al. (2012); Adams et al. (2014); Beitelspacher et al.
(2012); Aggarwal & Srivastava (2019); Soni et al.
(2014); Hosseini et al. (2019); Poberschnigg et al.
(2020); Hosseini, S et al. (2019); Singh et al. (2019);
Rajesh (2018); Papadopoulos
(2017)
Hall et al. (2022); Wu et al. (2014); Adams et al.
(2014); Hawkins., (2015); Lacoste,
(2015) (Cao and Zhang, 2011; Heimeriks and
Schreiner, 2002; Meng, 2012;
Palmer, 1996; Vaart et al., 2012)
Hall et al. (2022); Wu et al. (2014); Adams et al.
(2014) (Anbanandam et al., 2011; Boeck and Wamba,
2008; Fynes et al., 2005)
Hall et al. (2022); Wu et al. (2014); Adams et al.
(2014), Setia and Patel (2013)
Shin and Park (2021); Zhuo et al. (2021); Mubarik
et al. (2020); Mandal (2017)
Grötsch et al. (2013); Mubarik et al. (2020); Sheffi,
2005
Shin and Park (2021); Rajesh (2018); Chowdhury and
Quaddus (2017); Pettit et al., 2010
Rajesh (2018); Chowdhury and Quaddus (2017);
Wieland & Wallenburg, (2012);
Kaviani et al. (2020); Shin and Park (2021); Zanon
et al. (2021); Zhuo et al. (2021); Tarigan et al. (2021);
Altay., (2018);
Mubarik et al. (2020); Mandal (2017)
(continued on next page)

10
H. Manurung et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13901

Table 3 (continued )
No Variable Elements Main Focus Reference

Flexibility Increased adaptability promotes operating efficiency
under normal circumstances and enables quick and
easy modification in the event of disruption.
Financial strength Ability to withstand changes in financial flow
Responsive How quickly businesses can act on information in
responding to sudden changes in supply and demand.
How well-equipped are businesses to respond to
customer needs?
Recovery The ability to quickly return to a normal operational
state
Robustness Ability to perform its role and dampen unexpected
disturbance. If any changes take place, a sturdy SC
maintains its stability and withstands shock.
5 Sustainability Environment Stakeholders should take the necessary steps to reduce
the environmental impact of their deliverables.
Stakeholders should take pro-active measures to
protect the environment as a whole.
Social To prevent harm from being done to society
Economy To avoid penalties or other losses caused by unreliable
products, it is important to verify that products comply
with environmental laws.
Reputation The degree to which customers consider a business
trustworthy and concerned about them. Value is
created through interactions both within and between
relationships.
Kaviani et al. (2020), Shin and Park (2021); Altay.,
(2018); Rajesh (2018); Chowdhury and Quaddus
(2017)
Shin and Park (2021); Wu et al. (2014);
Dobrzykowski et al. (2012); Hall et al. (2022);
Chowdhury and Quaddus (2017); Pettit et al., 2010
Shin and Park (2021); Zanon et al. (2021); Zhuo et al.
(2021) (Christopher and Peck 2004)
Shin and Park (2021); Zhuo et al. (2021); Aggarwal &
Srivastava (2019); Chowdhury and Quaddus (2017);
Pettit et al., 2010
Zhuo et al. (2021); Rajesh (2018); Wieland &
Wallenburg, (2012);
Wang et al. (2021); He et al. (2020); Tarigan et al.
(2021); Gouda & Saranga, (2018);
Yusuf et al. (2014); He et al. (2020);
Tarigan et al. (2021); Rajesh (2018); Gouda &
Saranga, (2018);
Newton et al. (2013); Adams et al. (2014); Hall et al.
(2022); Tarigan et al. (2021); Gouda & Saranga,
(2018);
Tieman (2017); Liu et al. (2021); Quintana- García
et al. (2021) (Doney and Cannon, 1997). Vargo and
Lusch (2008)

based on the relevant literature and may be added or removed depending on observations made during fieldwork. However, these
variables and indicators need to be supported in order to develop the framework model depicted in Fig. 4 which should be modified if
any variables or indications ultimately prove to be unimportant. According to Ref. [71], there are three main approaches to performing
exploratory research: completing a literature review, holding discussions with subject-matter experts, and conducting focus group
interviews.
System theory, which is relevant to the concept of SDL’s role in SCRTS, is the underlying theory guiding the research. However, the
primary objective of this study is to propose a conceptual framework of SDL on SCRTS, taking into account particular enablement and
dimensions. It is anticipated that the SCRTS drivers will be validated through this investigation, perhaps even to a larger degree than in
the existing literature, by the creating of a framework based on the enabler correlation shown in Fig. 4. The framework was created by
combining the earlier research conducted by Refs. [22,72,73,20,34]. Due to the numerous goals of the experiments, no single model
was developed. However, depending on the objectives of the study, a specific mix of variables may be used to build the model as also
depicted in Fig. 3.
Because of this, the model may be improved using real-life data to address the question of the extent to which the SDL, through its
facilities, helps SCR achieve sustainability. The source and main focus of the antecedents within the context of SDL and SCRTS research
is described in Table 3.

5. Conclusion

In an era of disruption, supply chain sustainability is essential to maintaining competitive advantage. In order to be competitive and
build resilience, the SDL perspective recommends value co-creation between actors. A number of previous studies have attempted to
interconnect the SDL concept with research into the supply chain. However, this study is the first conceptual framework constructed by
means of a literature review that combines SDL and SCRTS. This study identified 42 relevant papers and examined which of them
explicitly discussed the correlation between SDL and supply chain management research. The literature review highlighted five
variables and 28 indicators applicable to an exploration of the relationship between SDL and SCRTS. However, despite the continuing
fact that few academic papers have looked at SDL and SCRTS, research focusing on SDL in supply chains has progressed. The difficulty
in applying supply chain research in isolation without combining it with SDL represents one reason why there has been no rapid
proliferation in the number of articles. “Are we there yet?” asked [27]. These academics’ conclusions indicate that SDL is reliable as a
performance-based logistic.
The framework has been carefully analyzed and selected in accordance with the concepts of SDL and SCRTS. In order to develop an
understanding of how SDL affects SCRTS over time, future research to proove the hyprotheses could use this study as the starting point
for an analysis of the literature on SDL and SCRTS and for putting these concepts to the test within any industry. Moreover, future
research into how the SDL concept can be applied to particular premises and practically tested using sufficient data. The methodology

11
H. Manurung et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13901

may be qualitative, quantitative, or a combination of the two to prove the hypotheses in the industry of interest. While the proposed
conceptual framework is general and applicable to various sectors, it may be modified on the basis of actual SDL and SCRTS research
which remains in its early stages.
This study has broadened the time frame of the academic papers used as reference sources to the last ten years. However, one
limitation has proved to the limited number of such sources which specifically discuss SDL and supply chain management. Moreover,
the review consisted of a keyword search which restricted the results to phrase combinations and it is possible that the keywords used
in the conduct of this study are far from exhaustive.

Author contribution statement

All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development and the writing of this article.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability statement

No data was used for the research described in the article.

Declaration of interest’s statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

[1] A.A. Thatte, S.S. Rao, T.S. Ragu-Nathan, Impact of SCM practices of A firm on supply chain responsiveness and competitive advantage of A firm, J. Appl. Bus.
Res. 29 (2) (2013) 499–530, https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v29i2.7653.
[2] Y. Yusuf, A. Hawkins, A. Musa, N.E. Berishy, M. Schulze, T. Abubakar, Ethical supply chains: analysis, practices and performance measures, Int. J. Logist. Syst.
Manag. 17 (4) (2014) 472–497, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLSM.2014.061016.
[3] D.C. Novak, Z. Wu, K.J. Dooley, Whose resilience matters? Addressing issues of scale in supply chain resilience, J. Bus. Logist. 42 (3) (2021) 323–335.
[4] M. Christopher, H. Peck, Building the resilient supply chain, Int. J. Logist. Manag. 15 (2) (2004) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090410700275.
[5] M.M.H. Chowdhury, M. Quaddus, Supply chain resilience: conceptualization and scale development using dynamic capability theory, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 188
(2017) 185–204, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.03.020.
[6] S.L. Vargo, R.F. Lusch, The four service marketing myths: remnants of a goods-based, manufacturing model, J. Serv. Res. 6 (4) (2004) 324–335.
[7] M. Song, C.A. Di Benedetto, Supplier’s involvement and success of radical new product development in new ventures, J. Oper. Manag. 26 (2008) 1–22, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.06.001.
[8] J.T. Mentzer, D.J. Flint, G.T.M. Hult, Logistics service quality as a segment-customized process, J. Market. 65 (4) (2001) 82–104.
[9] M. Tokman, L.S. Beitelspacher, Supply chain networks and service-dominant logic: suggestions for future research, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 41 (2011)
717–726.
[10] S. Maas, S. Herb, E. Hartmann, Supply chain services from a service-dominant perspective: a content analysis, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 44 (1) (2014)
58–79, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-11-2012-0332.
[11] J.E. Carrillo, C. Druehl, J. Hsuan, Introduction to innovation within and across borders: a review and future directions, Decis. Sci. J. 46 (2) (2015) 225–265.
[12] L.M. Ellram, M.C. Cooper, Supply chain management: it’s all about the journey, not the destination, J. Supply Chain Manag. 50 (1) (2014) 8–20.
[13] P.H. Coombes, J.D. Nicholson, Business models and their relationship with marketing: a systematic literature review, Ind. Market. Manag. 42 (5) (2013)
656–664, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.05.005.
[14] H. Lightfoot, T. Baines, P. Smart, The servitization of manufacturing, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 33 (11/12) (2013) 1408–1434, https://doi.org/10.1108/ijopm-
07-2010-0196.
[15] Robert Lusch, Stephen Vargo, Service-dominant logic: premises, perspectives, Possibilities (2014), https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139043120.
[16] Daniel Flint, John Mentzer, Striving for Integrated Value Chain Management Given a Service-Dominant Logic for Marketing, 2006.
[17] S.L. Vargo, R.F. Lusch, Service-dominant_logic_Premises_perspectives_possi.pdf, in: Service Dominant Logic. Premises, Perspectives, Possibilities, 2014.
[18] R.G. Richey, The supply chain crisis and disaster pyramid, A theoretical framework for understanding preparedness and recovery, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist.
Manag. 39 (7) (2009) 619–628, https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030910996288.
[19] W. Song, X. Ming, H.C. Liu, Identifying critical risk factors of sustainable supply chain management: a rough strength-relation analysis method, J. Clean. Prod.
143 (2017) 100–115.
[20] S.L. Vargo, R.F. Lusch, Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic, J. Acad. Market. Sci. 44 (1) (2016) 5–23.
[21] B.T. Hazen, C.A. Boone, J.D. Ezell, L.A. Jones-Farmer, Data quality for data science, predictive analytics, and big data in supply chain management: an
introduction to the problem and suggestions for research and applications, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 154 (2014) 72–80, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.04.018.
[22] K. Hall Kristina, a Lindsey, Ji ( Miracle), Robert Glenn Richey, Ripinka Koli Patil, Collaboration, feedback, and performance: supply chain insights from service-
dominant logic, J. Bus. Res. (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.055. Jr. c.
[23] Serhiy Ponomarov, Mary Holcomb, Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience, Int. J. Logist. Manag. 20 (2009) 124–143, https://doi.org/10.1108/
09574090910954873.
[24] C.R. Greer, R.F. Lusch, S.L. Vargo, A service perspective, Organ. Dynam. 1 (45) (2016) 28–38.
[25] C.F. Breidbach, P.P. Maglio, A Service Science Perspective on the Role of ICT in Service Innovation, 2015.
[26] A. Yazdanparast, I. Manuj, S.M. Swartz, Co-creating logistics value: a service-dominant logic perspective, Int. J. Logist. Manag. (2010).
[27] Jason Randall, Frederick Oswald, Margaret Beier, Mind-wandering, cognition, and performance: a theory-driven meta-analysis of attention regulation, Psychol.
Bull. (2014), https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037428.
[28] C.M. Wittmann, D.R. Nowicki, T.L. Pohlen, W.S. Randall, Service-dominant logic and supply chain management: are we there yet? Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist.
Manag. (2014).
[29] L.S. Beitelspacher, M. Tokman, F.G. Adams, R.G. Richey, Retail service-based operant resources and market performance, Int. J. Logist. Manag. 23 (3) (2012)
408–434, https://doi.org/10.1108/09574091211289246.

12
H. Manurung et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e13901

[30] G. Li, H. Fan, P.K.C. Lee, T.C.E. Cheng, Joint supply chain risk management: an agency and collaboration perspective, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 164 (2015) 83–94,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.02.021.
[31] S.L. Vargo, R.F. Lusch, Service-dominant logic 2025, Int. J. Res. Market. 34 (1) (2017) 46–67.
[32] W. Liu, W. Wei, T.M. Choi, X. Yan, Impacts of leadership on corporate social responsibility management in multi-tier supply chains, Eur. J. Oper. Res. (2021),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.06.042.
[33] J.N. Kim, C.J.F. Hung-Baesecke, S.U. Yang, J.E. Grunig, A strategic management approach to reputation, relationships, and publics: the research heritage of the
excellence theory, in: The Handbook Of Communication And Corporate Reputation, 2013, pp. 197–212.
[34] I.L. Wu, C.H. Chuang, C.H. Hsu, Information sharing and collaborative behaviors in enabling supply chain performance: a social exchange perspective, Int.
(2014).
[35] G.A. Zsidisin, S.M. Wagner, DO perceptions become reality? The moderating role of supply chain resiliency on disruption occurrence, J. Bus. Logist. 31 (2)
(2010) 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2158-1592.2010.tb00140.x.
[36] G. Zhao, T. Feng, D. Wang, Is more supply chain integration always beneficial to financial performance? Ind. Market. Manag. 45 (2015) 162–172.
[37] X. Brusset, C. Teller, Supply chain capabilities, risks, and resilience, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 184 (2017) 59–68.
[38] N. Zhuo, C. Ji, N. Yin, Supply chain integration and resilience in China’s pig sector: case study evidences from emerging institutional arrangements, Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Control Ser. 28 (7) (2021) 8310–8322, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11130-2.
[39] X. Zhao, P. Wang, R. Pal, The effects of agro-food supply chain integration on product quality and financial performance: evidence from Chinese agro-food
processing business, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 231 (2021), 107832.
[40] S.L. Vargo, H. Wieland, M.A. Akaka, Innovation through institutionalization: a service ecosystems perspective, Ind. Market. Manag. 44 (2015) 63–72.
[41] S. Wang, D. Li, Y. Zhang, J. Chen, Smart contract-based product traceability system in the supply chain scenario, IEEE Access 7 (2019) 115122–115133.
[42] C. Chen, A. Chaudhary, A. Mathys, Dietary change scenarios and implications for environmental, nutrition, human health and economic dimensions of food
sustainability, Nutrients 11 (4) (2019) 856.
[43] P.M. Rafi-Ul-Shan, D.B. Grant, P. Perry, Are fashion supply chains capable of coopetition? An exploratory study in the UK, Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 25 (3) (2022)
278–295.
[44] Y. Sheffi, Preparing For The Big One Preparing For The Big One Building A Resilient Supply Chain Can Help A Company Survive In The Face Of A Calamitous
Disruption, 2005. www.iee.org/manufacturing.
[45] W.T. Coombs, Situational theory of crisis: situational crisis communication theory and corporate reputation, in: The Handbook Of Communication And
Corporate Reputation, 2013, pp. 262–278.
[46] K. Scholten, S. Schilder, The role of collaboration in supply chain resilience, Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. (2015).
[47] L.N.K. Duong, J. Chong, Supply chain collaboration in the presence of disruptions: a literature review, Int. J. Prod. Res. (2020) 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2020.171249.
[48] A. Azadegan, K. Dooley, A typology of supply network resilience strategies: complex collaborations in a complex world, J. Supply Chain Manag. 57 (1) (2021)
17–26, https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12256.
[49] M. Negri, E. Cagno, C. Colicchia, J. Sarkis, Integrating sustainability and resilience in the supply chain: a systematic literature review and a research agenda,
Bus. Strat. Environ. 30 (7) (2021) 2858–2886, https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2776.
[50] B. Fahimnia, M. Pournader, E. Siemsen, E. Bendoly, C. Wang, Behavioral Operations and Supply Chain Management-A Review and Literature Mapping Subject
Areas: Behavior, Behavioral Operations and Supply Chain, Operations Management, Review, and Supply Chain Management, 2019.
[51] S.K. Gouda, H. Saranga, Sustainable supply chains for supply chain sustainability: impact of sustainability efforts on supply chain risk, Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (17)
(2018) 5820–5835, https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1456695.
[52] V. Jain, S. Kumar, U. Soni, C. Chandra, Supply chain resilience: model development and empirical analysis, Int. J. Prod. Res. 55 (22) (2017) 6779–6800, https://
doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1349947.
[53] S. Bag, S. Gupta, C. Foropon, Examining the role of dynamic remanufacturing capability on supply chain resilience in circular economy, Manag. Decis. 57 (4)
(2019) 863–885, https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2018-0724.
[54] D. Ivanov, S. Sethi, A. Dolgui, B. Sokolov, A survey on control theory applications to operational systems, supply chain management, and Industry 4.0, Annu.
Rev. Control 46 (2018) 134–147.
[55] R. Rajesh, Measuring the barriers to resilience in manufacturing supply chains using Grey Clustering and VIKOR approaches, Measurement: J. Int. Measur.
Confed. 126 (2018) 259–273, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2018.05.043.
[56] M. Tukamuhabwa, J. Stevenson, M. Busby, Zorzini Supply chain resilience: definition, review and theoretical foundations for further study, BR - Int. J. Prod.
Res. (2015).
[57] P. Frow, J.R. McColl-Kennedy, T. Hilton, A. Davidson, A. Payne, D. Brozovic, Value propositions: a service ecosystems perspective, Market. Theor. 14 (3) (2014)
327–351, https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593114534346.
[58] D.R. Towill, M.M. Naim, J. Wikner, INDUSTRIAL dynamics simulation models in the design of supply chains 3 industrial dynamics simulation models in the
design of supply chains, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 22 (5) (1992) 3–13.
[59] J. Blackhurst, K.S. Dunn, C.W. Craighead, An empirically derived framework of global supply resiliency, J. Bus. Logist. 32 (4) (2011) 374–391, https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.0000-0000.2011.01032.x.
[60] D. Chicksand, G. Watson, H. Walker, Z. Radnor, R. Johnston, Theoretical perspectives in purchasing and supply chain management: an analysis of the literature,
Supply Chain Manag. 17 (4) (2012) 454–472, https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211246611.
[61] Sushil, Systemic flexibility, Global J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 1 (1) (2002) 77–80.
[62] D.J. Teece, G. Pisano, A. Shuen, Dynamic capabilities and strategic management, Strat. Manag. J. 18 (1997).
[63] D. Greyson, E. Rafferty, L. Slater, N. Macdonald, J.A. Bettinger, E. Dube, S.E. Macdonald, Systematic review searches must be systematic, comprehensive, and
transparent : a critique of Perman et al, BMC Publ. Health 19 (2019) 153.
[64] David Gough, James Thomas, Sandy Oliver, Clarifying differences between review designs and methods, Syst. Rev. 1. 28 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-
4053-1-28.
[65] M.K. Linnenluecke, M. Marrone, A.K. Singh, Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses, Aust. J. Manag. 45 (2) (2020) 175–194.
[66] E. Koberg, A. Longoni, A systematic review of sustainable supply chain management in global supply chains, J. Clean. Prod. 207 (2019) 1084–1098.
[67] Van N.J. Eck, L. Waltman, Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping, Scientometrics 84 (2010) 523–538, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.
[68] M.N.K. Saunders, P. Lewis, A. Thornhill. Research Methods for Business Students, 7th ed., Pearson Education Limited, Essex, England, 2015.
[69] Joseph Hair, William Black, Barry Babin, Rolph Anderson. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 2010.
[70] J.F. Hair, C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19 (2) (2011) 139–151.
[71] M. Saunders, P. Lewis, A. Thornhill, Research Methods for Business Students, fourth ed., Financial Times Prentice Hall, Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, 2007.
[72] W.S. Randall, D.R. Nowicki, T.G. Hawkins, Explaining the effectiveness of performance-based logistics: a quantitative examination, Int. J. Logist. Manag. (2011).
[73] N. Shin, S. Park, Evidence-based resilience management for supply chain sustainability: an interpretive structural modelling approach, Sustainability 11 (2)
(2019), https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020484.

13