Oliveira 2019

Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 92 (2019) 17–44
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/simpat
The role of simulation and optimization methods in supply chain

T
risk management: Performance and review standpoints
J.B. Oliveiraa,b, , M. Jinc, R.S. Limaa, J.E. Kobzac, J.A.B. Montevechia
⁎
a
Industrial Engineering and Management Institute, Federal University of Itajuba (UNIFEI), Brazil
b
Academic Unit of Production Engineering, Federal University of Campina Grande (UFCG), Brazil
c
Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering, The University of Tennessee (UTK), USA
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Keywords: An effective risk management procedure can counterbalance critical effects on supply chains.
Risk management Computer applications, optimization and simulation techniques have been applied to improve
Simulation the decision-making process. The purpose of this article is to analyze the role and contribution of
Optimization simulation and optimization methods for the supply chain risk management approach. A sys-
Performance
tematic literature review process was performed, followed by discussions and analysis on the
Literature review
examined topic. The results revealed a key methodological disconnection involving risk man-
agement phases, simulation and optimization methods. Although the number of published papers
on the topic has been significant, this gap highlights the limitations of several models to represent
the dynamics and complexity of the risks in supply chains, particularly on real-world/real-time
applications. Hybrid and flexible simulation-based optimization models for supply chain risk
management could improve the decision-making process. In addition, gaps, a procedural fra-
mework, and future research directions are suggested aiming to develop new applications fo-
cused on simulation and optimization tools for risk mitigation proposes.
1. Introduction
Supply Chain (SC) risk exposure is a critical aspect for the overall SC network performance. The perceived impacts and effects
from the occurrence of risks may cause serious damage to SCs. In this sense, the research effort of this paper is to develop and
implement approaches to better support the decision-making process from the improvement of risk management (RM) mechanisms
[1]. Bayesian Networks was applied [2] to analyze supply chain risks (SCR) produced by disasters. Various approaches [3–5] have
been developed to improve the Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM), typically a process to identify risks; assess their potential
impacts; select those most critical; define and execute risk response strategies; and monitor and control them. In the context of SCRM
procedures, the correct choice of the risk response strategies is an important decision for some corporations [6]. In line, the type of
action taken by managers is influenced by risk consequences [7].
Risk mitigation aims to minimize risk impacts, and/or the probability of occurrence caused by SCR [8,9]. The objective is
minimizing the risk effects on the Supply Chain Performance (SCP). How to manage the relationship between risk consequences and
SCP is a main feature for the success of SC partners. On the perspective of efficiency and effectiveness, the relation among perfor-
mance, risk drivers, and risk response management provides interesting insights to measure and manage SCRs [10], since perfor-
mance outcomes may evidence critical losses on the operations of SCs. The simulation and optimization (S&O) methods could support
⁎
Corresponding author at: Industrial Engineering and Management Institute, 1303 BPS Avenue, 37500903 Itajuba, Brazil.
E-mail address: josenildo.brito@ufcg.edu.br (J.B. Oliveira).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2018.11.007
Received 27 June 2018; Received in revised form 16 October 2018; Accepted 15 November 2018
Available online 16 November 2018
1569-190X/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J.B. Oliveira et al. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 92 (2019) 17–44
Fig. 1. Dimensions addressed in this systematic review.
the analysis of risk impacts on the SC processes and assist managers in selecting risk mitigation strategies.
Many factors justify the importance of the triangulation among S&O tools, SCRM approach, and performance. The supply chain
simulation has been widely applied, essentially when the environment is plagued by variance associated to risks and uncertainties
[11], facilitating, for instance, ``what-if” analysis, and evaluations of benefits and impacts [12]. Simulation methods have been
successfully achieved in SCP research involving Supply Chain Network Design – SCND [13]; inventory inaccuracy [14]; collaborative
transportation management [15]; object-oriented simulation meta-model and SCP metrics [16], for example. What advantages for the
decision-making process could be exploited from the use of supply chain simulation? Various benefits, such as, predicting inter-
dependences between SC network players and performance parameters [13,17]; for instance, analyzing the dynamic of SCs and
modeling improvements [18]; evaluating impacts on the costs and service level [15]; understanding the SCP [19], and others.
According to Aqlan and Lam [20] the simulation method is a tool to visualize SCR and deal with the stochastic nature and uncertainty
in supply networks.
Optimization methods have been widely performed to apply risk mitigation strategies for SC, as observed in the literature [21,22]
to select efficient approaches to mitigate SCRs [23] and propose optimal responses in trade-off problems, involving, for instance, SCP
measures [24], costs and service level under disruption risks [25], SCND [26,27] under uncertainties [28], and others. Simulation-
based optimization techniques may support SC managers to improve the quality of their decisions, since for some cases; they provide
the best alternatives where analytical methods dominate [29]. These methods combined can be used to solve numerous problems,
such as, determination and control of inventory levels [30], costs management [31], facility location [32], etc. From the SCRM
viewpoint, what is the role of S&O methods? How are the S&O tools being applied to address SCR? What is the connection with SCP?
Considering the previous comments on the relevance of simulation and optimization methods for SCs, we have identified around
36 relevant review/survey papers on SCRM. At first, we assessed five axes: (1) descriptive analysis –aspects on the structure of the
paper, like journal title, year of publication, research themes, etc.; (2) SCRM phases – processes supported by the ISO 31000:2009
[33]; and [34], as identification, assessment, management, monitoring and controlling, and communication; (3) performance
measurement system (PMS) – overall models, systemic approaches, as Supply Chain Operation Reference Model® [35]; (4) S&O
methods – a review in-depth on the applications of these tools and mathematical approaches; and lastly, (5) Systematic Literature
Review (SLR) – an explicit method to investigate specific subjects. We evaluated this sample of papers aiming to find works that
fulfilled these five requirements, positioning the current literature on the themes against our research needs.
We applied two viewpoints to examine the 36 papers: vertical view and cross-analysis. On the first one, most of the papers
[36–55] include descriptive results such as year of publication, keywords, journal titles, Citation Network Analysis, research field/
methodology, authorships, Author's affiliation, country and location of authors, cluster analysis, key themes, industry sectors, etc.
Few articles [5,46,50,56–60] involved all SCRM phases. Most covered just identification, assessment, and management processes.
Despite the observed contributions, the analyses on S&O tools are typically descriptive. Aspects like profile, nature of the models, and
solution approaches were not added to the reviews, whereas qualitative and quantitative methods have been identified by us. Chiu
and Choi [56] revise mean-variance models regarding optimization topics; however, the simulation tools were not discussed. Seven
papers addressed an overview of quantitative models [41,46,43]. In this sense, on the review scope, some of them enclosed specific
subjects, like: complex systems technologies [45], agribusiness [60], resilience [55], and supplier selection [42].
We checked whether the articles included the PMS subject as part of their studies. Most of the works [3,5,37,38,61,62] did not
consider this perspective. These papers just highlight a couple of performance measures or the relevance of this theme; though, three
others pay more attention to the topic, including it as research questions [37,48,55]. Some papers have applied the SLR as a survey
method [37,39–41,48–55,58]. Resilience in SCs has been an issue studied by various authors [52–55,59]. Some of these works
involve risk topics. Wang et al. [52] offer a typology and discuss resilience of SC networks. Kamalahmadi and Parast [53] presents a
SLR on principles and strategies focused on SC resilience. In line, Hohenstein et al. [54] reveal limitations of qualitative researches in
assessing and measuring SC resilience performance under potential risks and disruptions. In this sense, Simba et al. [59] conducted a
survey with grocery manufactures in South Africa on SCRM and resilience; however, no quantitative approach was revised by the
authors. Ribeiro and Barbosa-Povoa [55] performed a SLR regarding quantitative methods, and SC resilience. We evaluated other
relevant groups of papers [63–70]; however, the key topics were not related by the authors. Therefore, our review presents a three-
fold perspective that overcomes the objective, scope and level of detail of the works mentioned. A cross-analysis view is depicted in
Fig. 1. This one shows a transversal assessment among SCRM phases – S&O theme, and PMS, with its respective authors.
18
According to Fig. 1, although some articles have explored quantitative methods, we did not perceive in-depth discussions linking
S&O tools and SCRM phases, as seen in [41–43,45,46,55,60]. Just a paper Ribeiro and Barbosa-Povoa [55] involved PMS, and S&O
methods. These authors have discussed risks on SC resilience, resilience quantitative metrics, and risk mitigation strategies; however,
they did not relate in detail the SCRM phases. Kilube and Co-workers [37,48] presented interesting insights on SCP, nevertheless
without including the other two axes. Instead, Tummala and Co-workers [5,50,56–59] developed studies that covered the full cycle of
SCRM processes. These review and survey papers reveal a lack of connection among SCRM, SCP, and S&O methods. In addition,
regardless of the subjects worked by other authors, our purpose is expanding their analyses on each axis adding aspects, such as, risks
and consequences; risk measures and evaluation; risk strategies and responses; risk performance outcomes; a survey in-depth on the
profile of the S&O models (e.g. real-life cases, software, methods). Furthermore, we present numerous solution approaches applied by
the optimization models. Particularly, our contribution is revealing how the S&O techniques and tools could improve the SCRM
processes.
Therefore, according to Fig. 1, our SLR purposes to fulfill the gap on the triple risk perspectives. In conclusion, the key motivations
for this research are: (a) check how the S&O methods have been applied in SCRM phases; (b) analyze the contributions of the S&O
tools for the SCRM; and (c) evaluate potential relationships among SCRM phases, S&O methods, and PMS. From the SLR technique,
the objective of this paper is to analyze the roles and contributions of the S&O approaches regarding SCRM phases and PMS with the
intention of identifying gaps and developing insights to refine the process of risk mitigation in SCs. Lastly, we presented four key
contributions: (1) a proposal of a relational framework for SCRM procedures to address several gaps identified in this SLR; (2) a
review on the state of the art and relations among SCRM, S&O methods and SCP; (3) an in-depth analysis on modeling approaches
supported by S&O applications, and (4) a highlight of tools and solution methods applied on the papers.
2. Literature analysis procedure
Literature review is a useful method to explore research fields [7,57]. Another exploratory research technique is the SLR. This one
provides guidelines for implementation of survey procedures, because it involves search, selection, critical evaluation and synthesis
of the main results [71]. An advantage of this method is to reduce the opportunity of bias and possible distortions in research and data
analysis. As a result, the SLR inserts rigor and criticism on methodological implementation of their stages. In this research, we used
the following phases to perform the SLR procedures, according to Denyer and Co-workers [72,73]: planning, search and selection,
analysis and synthesis, and presentation of results.
2.1. Planning phase
The first step is to form a research panel composed of researchers and experts whose aim is to develop the survey bases. In
sequence, an exploratory search about the main research topics was carried out by researchers from the Web of Science (WoS) and
Scopus databases using the following search engine keywords: ``Supply Chain”, AND ``Risk”, AND ``Management”, ``Simulation”
AND ``Optimization” AND ``Performance”. This initial screening focused on some review papers, and survey works. As outcome, no
paper links the triple perspectives to the research themes. In sequence, the researchers performed an analysis of review and survey
papers to identify the research need. Hence, the objective of this research was to perform a comprehensive systematic review to
analyze the role of S&O methods related to the SCRM phases and PMS. The next step was to define the search criteria to filter and
select the review sample size of the papers. We defined these criteria, such as: keywords in title; papers written in the English
language, papers published by journals, papers peer reviewed, and full papers downloaded. Next, four research questions (RQs) were
developed by the researchers:
RQ1: How are the papers structured?

RQ2: What are the main aspects on the SCRM phases addressed by the papers?
RQ3: What are the profiles and roles of S&O methods regarding SCRM?
RQ4: What are the SCP approaches applied in SCRM?
RQ5: What relationships may be established between SCRM, S&O, and PMS?
The researchers developed a research protocol containing the RQs to be surveyed, the search criteria and selection of papers, and
other details on the study. Fig. 2 illustrates the pillars of this research.
2.2. Searching/screening phase
A meta-search was conducted in fourteen bases of research (ACS Publications, Compendex, Directory of Open Access Journals,
EBSCO, Emerald Insight, Gale Academic OneFile, IEEE Xplore, Medline, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Springer Link, Taylor & Francis, WoS,
and Wiley Online Library) to track the articles to be reviewed. Title keywords were used in the search engines by reviewers, such as
``Supply Chain”, ``Risk”, AND ``Management”. Additionally, ``Simulation” OR ``Optimization words were filled in the abstract field.
After the application of these criteria, the search returned 298 papers. Next, the articles published by peer reviewed journals were
selected, totaling 138 papers. The papers published in conference proceedings were excluded in our literature review sample. Next,
only the papers written in English were included, reducing the quantity for 134 works. Then, after the download of full papers, our
sample was reduced for 86 papers. Duplicated articles and those identified in several databases were eliminated, totaling 65 full
19
Fig. 2. Research constructs framework.
papers. Afterward, the reviewers moved on to the qualitative assessment phase. The papers on literature review, conceptual de-
velopments, and surveys, considered out of the research scope were excluded, reducing this amount to 57 articles. For these papers,
the abstracts, objectives, results and discussions were reviewed to select suitable works according to the RQs on S&O methods,
computational applications, and SCP. Hence, 52 articles were selected for review sample size, moving to the data extraction.
2.3. Analysis/synthesis phase
The data were broken down and codified to facilitate their handling. The dataset was extracted and transferred in an encrypted
form to spreadsheets. The papers were closely evaluated in detail according to RQs. In sequence, the data were tabulated and
statistically processed with the support of software. All data were reviewed to check for inconsistencies. In sequence, the content was
summarized to enable the analyses. The main findings have been synthetized to develop the discussions on the topics. Discussions
were held among researchers to generate insight and define relations and interfaces among the research topics. Therefore, from a
summary of the key outcomes, the reviewers developed a body of evidence around the triple SCRM perspectives.
2.4. Presentation phase
Tables, figures and graphs were used to systematize and facilitate the presentation of the main findings, according to the con-
structs depicted in Fig. 2. The state of the art about the triple perspectives was updated. An interpretive approach was applied to
identify gaps and develop insights. Discussions were held after the presentation of the findings. For this phase, the reviewers dis-
cussed the contributions surveyed in this SLR to the academic developments, highlighting perspectives not covered in other articles.
In this sense, a relational framework was developed to address relationships linked to SCRM, S&O and PMS. In conclusion, future
research directions were recommended by researchers that will allow the development of new works involving aspects that were not
addressed in this review. Fig. 3 depicts our research framework, synthesizing the comments on the literature analysis procedure.
3. Findings and discussion
This section addresses the presentation and discussions of the primary findings according to the research construct framework
described in previous Section 2.1 and in line with the RQs.
3.1. Relevant papers and descriptive results
Table 1 illustrates the aspects reviewed on relevant papers, showing the top three descriptive results and its authorship.
On year of publication, around 82.69% out of papers were published between 2011 and 2016. This high percentage may indicate
a growing interest of scholars in this theme. This outcome was compared with the articles indexed in WoS, ScienceDirect and Scopus
databases. We used the keywords ``Supply Chain”, AND ``Risk”, AND ``Management” to endorse the growth of the publications,
according to Fig. 4. The first recorded article was elaborated by Applequist et al. [123]. Between 2000 and 2017, we recorded two
special issues on SCRM: (1) ``Supply Chain Risk Management - 2012”, published by the International Journal of Production Eco-
nomics, and (2) ``Supply Chain Risk Management in China - 2011”, issued by Supply Chain Management: An International Journal.
However, only four articles formed these two special publications.
20
Fig. 3. Research framework.
Table 1
Descriptive results.
Relevant papers N Authorship
Year of publication
2011–2017 43 [74–116]
2006–2010 6 [117–122]
2000–2005 3 [123–125]
Total 52
Journal title
International Journal of Production Economics 4 [76,79,98,101]
Computers and Chemical Engineering 3 [104,107,123]
Computers in Industry 3 [84,108,122]
Total 10
Country of first author's affiliation
China 13 [75,83,87,88,91–94,105,111,114–116]
United State of America 12 [74,78,86,89,90,97,98,100,117,119,120,123]
United Kingdom 4 [79,104,124,125]
Total 29
Research method
Mathematical modeling 18 [75,76,80,83,85,87,88,92,98,99,105,106,114,117–119,123,124]
Mathematical modeling | Case study 16 [78,79,82,84,90,94,95,97,102,103,107,109,112,115,116,121]
Mathematical modeling | Simulation 6 [74,93,100,101,108,120]
Total 40
Industrial sector
Chemical 4 [104,107,120,123]
Electronics 4 [102,108,122,124]
Healthcare 3 [78,81,97]
Total 11
Central theme
Portfolio theory and Supply Chain Design 12 [78,82,85,90,92,97,107,109,117,118,120,121]
Inventory and logistics planning 6 [80,86,91,108,119,124]
Risk management phases 5 [94,95,111,113,115]
Total 23
The publications are sprayed in 41 titles of journals, 34 out of them had just one record. The top three journals amount to
19.23%. The International Journal of Production Economics published four papers, three of them formed a special issue as men-
tioned. The top 10 journals represent 40.38% out of the review sample. The 2016 Journal Citation Report® was used to rank the Top
ones: International Journal of Production Economics; Computers and Chemical Engineering, Computers in Industry, Computers &
21
Fig. 4. Time series comparison in SCRM issues.
Operations Research, AIChE, Expert Systems with Applications, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Journal of Cleaner Production,
and finally Food Control. All reviewed journals were categorized according to the following subject areas: computer science
(21.95%); business administration (21.95%); environmental science (12.20%); operations management (12.20%); operational re-
search (9.76%); agricultural and biological sciences (7.32%); engineering (7.32%); multidisciplinary (4.88%); and to finish,
mathematics (2.44%).
In terms of country of first author's affiliation, China had the most publications with 25%, followed by the United States of
America, and the United Kingdom. The first two countries account for more than half of the papers. The representative volume of
publications of these countries, in various fields of science, has been a trend. Additionally, the top 10 ranking is formed by Germany
[76,96,110], Iran [85,93,96], Turkey [103,106,122], Italy [82,109], Singapore [77,118], Australia [99], and Brazil [121]. As for the
scientific method, 76.32% out of the articles applied mathematical modeling [98]. Most of the papers applied pure mathematical
methods [123] or combined with case study [109] or simulation [108]. The Simulation/case study combination was observed in five
records [77,81,89,122,125]. Only two papers [86,91] performed the simulation as the primary tool, according to the approaches
proposed by Balci and Co-workers [126,127]. The simulation was integrated with other tools or implemented in specific conditions
[89,91,125].
We identified 24 industrial sectors. The chemical, electronics, and healthcare industries lead, with 1/3 out of paper SC appli-
cations. Other sectors encompass the top 10 ranking, such as: oil & gas [89,95,121]; bioenergy/biomass [82,90,109]; automotive
[98,103], milk products [79,116]; disaster relief [91,119]; retail [84,86], and virtual enterprises [83,96]. In 14 papers the industrial
sector was not identified. We clustered the central themes addressed in the papers due to the diversity of topics. The top three topics
are formed by the portfolio theory and SCND; inventory and logistics planning, and RM phases, accounting for 50% of review sample
size. Most of the authors involved themes such as selection of suppliers [99], replenishment [124], risk mitigation strategies [113],
and many others. From methodological procedures for SCRM approaches, some papers addressed interesting discussions on the
theme. For instance, Elleuch et al. [81] developed a SCRM framework implementing techniques and procedures to support decision
makers to manage SCR, and Manuj et al. [89] built a simulation model to test SCRM approaches under different risk conditions.
3.2. Supply chain risk management phases
SCRM is a strategic area of research, defined as the identification of potential sources of risk and implementation of proper
strategies through a coordinated approach among partners of SCs to reduce vulnerability [39]. Adapted from Jüttner et al. [128], this
definition takes a risk management approach. In the last years, various approaches have been developed to manage SCR
[6,62,129,130]. As stated earlier, the following SCRM phases are considered: risk identification, risk assessment, risk management,
22
Table 2
Detailed features on risk identification phase.
Identification phase N Authorship
Risk type
Multiple risks 20 [74,76,81,82,89,91,94,95,97,98,102,106,108,111–115,122,124]
Financial 9 [77,87,101,107,109,117,120,121,123]
Disruption 7 [80,86,90,92,93,96,119]
Supply 6 [78,92,99,103,110,118]
Operational 4 [75,79,85,104]
Demand 2 [100,125]
Relational 2 [83,88]
Consumer health 1 [116]
Informational 1 [84]
Total 52
Risk impact
Financial 25 [74,76–79,83,85,87,89,92,93,97,98,100,103,104,107,109,110,113,114,116,120,121,123]
Performance 6 [75,81,94,99,102,106]
Financial | Operational 5 [101,108,118,119,124]
Operational 4 [86,96,112,115]
Financial | Performance 4 [80,90,122,125]
Informational | Operational 1 [91]
Performance | Relational 1 [84]
Financial | Environmental 1 [82]
Financial | Operational | Relational 1 [117]
Demand 1 [88]
Environmental 1 [111]
Social 1 [105]
Risk perceptions 1 [95]
Total 52
Table 3
Detailed features on the risk assessment phase.
Assessment phase N Authorship
Risk measure
Value-at-Risk and variations 15 [76,82,87,92,100,101,105,107,111,112,116,119–121,124]
Risk index ranking 11 [74,79,81,95,99,102,103,106,114,115,122]
Probability relations 8 [80,86,90,93,94,104,108,113]
Mean-variance/Standard deviation 5 [77,85,89,91,118]
Risk function 5 [78,83,97,98,117]
Other metrics 6 [75,84,88,109,110,123]
Not identified 2 [96,125]
Total 52
Risk analysis
Financial 15 [77,78,88,89,91,97,103,107,108,110,113,116,118,120,121]
Performance measures 13 [81,85,86,91,93,102,104,106,111,115,119,124,125]
Financial | Performance measures 11 [74,76,80,82,90,100,101,105,109,112,123]
Ranking index system 5 [75,94,95,99,114]
Ranking index system | Performance measures 2 [79,122]
Financial | relational 1 [117]
Financial | visibility 1 [98]
Decision making strategies 1 [83]
Visibility 1 [96]
Parameters setting 1 [87]
Side effects versus Sensitive Association Rule 1 [84]
Total 52
risk monitoring and control, and risk communication. Tables 2–4 depict the key findings on the construct “SCRM phases” (RQ2) and
its key features.
Risk identification phase includes the definition of events and uncertainties [3]; tracking of their sources and drivers [131]; SC
risk mapping; classification and categorization of factors [132], and analysis of the risk. Due to the miscellany of approaches, Rangel
et al. [133] proposed a novelty for SCR classification founded on the Supply Chain Operation Reference Model®. We applied this
proposal to classify the risks in SCs. The SCR classification procedure should consider three aspects: (a) the non-uniformity of risk
classifications and taxonomies; (b) some risks could not be classified by the lack of proper approaches; and (c) the perception of who
is evaluating risks. According to Table 3, several papers involved multiple risk types/categories. For example, Chatterjee and Samarjit
[102] studied the following risks types: environmental, demand, supply, control, process, and insurance. Most of these articles
comprise risks connected to the operational performance, such as supplier risk, capacity-inventory risk, and operational risk
23
Table 4
Detailed features on the risk management phase.
Management phase N Authorship
Risk strategy
Mitigation 42 [74,77–83,85–87,90–93,96–104,106–115,117,118,120–125]
Hybrid strategy 4 [75,76,89,95]
Sharing/Transferring 4 [88,105,116,119]
Avoidance 1 [84]
No applied 1 [94]
Total 52
Risk response
Portfolio | Supply Chain Network Design 15 [78,79,82,85,90,92,93,103,107,109,117,118,120–122]
Hybrid approaches 7 [77,89,91,97,110,111,116]
Inventory management 5 [80,86,108,124,125]
Supplier selection 5 [99,102,106,112,114]
Outsourcing and partnerships 3 [74,83,99]
Decision-making systems 3 [75,96,115]
Parameters and scenarios setting 2 [81,87]
Insurance/Risk Premium construct 2 [119,123]
Transportation 2 [100,104]
Association rule hiding 1 [84]
Balancing among risk measures 1 [76]
Cooperative relationships 1 [113]
Deposit contract 1 [88]
Equilibrium conditions 1 [105]
Visibility 1 [98]
Operational hedging strategy 1 [101]
No applied 1 [94]
Total 52
[97,122]. Individually, disruption risks were studied most by Wu and Co-workers [86,93]. From a practical standpoint, this kind of
risk could cause serious damage to SCs, for example, rupture of SC flows, especially physical flows. Financial risks also have been
explored in this review [77,117,121] in terms of price, costs, profit, return, and income, for example. Supply risks are linked to the
purchasing/procurement process, order processing, or supplier activities [78,92]. Operational risks are commonly associated with
failures in processes, manufacturing systems, procedures, among others, as seen in [75,85].
Impacts, consequences or losses produced by risk events are closely connected to risk types. We classified the SCR impacts in eight
groups: financial, performance, operational, demand, informational, relational, hybrid, and other. Financial impacts were the con-
sequences most exploited in the papers, usually evaluated in terms of cost [134]. Other economic risk effects were recorded in this
review, for instance, cost [77,78], profit [87,100], price [74,92], and revenue [123]. Combined groups of risk impacts were also
identified, as follows: financial/ operational [101,119]; financial/performance [122,125]; operational/informational [91]; perfor-
mance/relational [84], financial/environmental [82], and operational/ relational/financial [117]. Operational impacts are con-
nected to features of the processes, for example, stockouts, logistics operations, reliability, capacity, etc. Risk effects on performance
relate measures, metrics, indicators, and outcomes [75,84]. On the other hand, informational impacts involve, for instance, in-
formation delay [91]. The relational risks are related to how the SC members develop their relationships with each other involving
mechanisms of coordination, collaboration, cooperation, etc. Environmental risk relates aspects like weather, temperature, perishable
conditions [111], noise, vibrations, etc. We identified other impacts related to demand, social issues, and weighted perceptions on
risks [95]. To define SCR consequences is an appropriate activity to model what risks will be managed. Consequently, this phase
provides meaningful information to measure, rank, and assess risks, according to their severities and likelihood of occurrence. Table 3
shows the features on the risk assessment phase.
In risk assessment phase, three critical steps guide the development of this SCR phase: (1) risk measurement quantifies the
likelihood of risks and its corresponding impacts; (2) risk prioritization ranks the most critical SCR; and (3) risk evaluation analyses
which risks will be selected for the RM phase. First, we reviewed key risk measurement approaches, embedding them in six classes.
Mean-variance group comprises metrics generally used in economics and finance fields, such as: Utility Function - a risk measure
developed by Von Neumann Morgenstern [135]; mean-risk [136] and variants, like mean-variance and mean-downside-risk. This top
four risk measure cluster was applied by authors like [77,85,89,118]; however, there are so many limitations, for instance, to assess
closed-form expressions and perform calculus of variance. To overcome the mean-variance problems, Chiu and Choi [56] suggested
the use of downside-risk, like the variance [137], but as the probability weighting functions of deviations below some targets return
[138]. Value-at-Risk and variations include the downside-risk measure. Value-at-Risk is a metric widely applied, and well known in
the financial field [139]. The key criticism on this measure is its need to get analytical solutions from computer applications. In
addition, Value-at-Risk does not consider the magnitude of losses [140]. From Value-at-Risk measure, other applications of risk
metrics were recorded, as expected downside-risk [82]; Downside-risk [88,120]; Value-at-disruption risk model [119]; and Demand-
at-risk/Inventory-at-risk [124]. The flaws of Value-at-Risk and Mean-risk were solved by the Conditional Value-at-Risk [141].
On the practical and implementation viewpoints, Conditional Value-at-Risk presents various pros and cons [56,121,138,140], for
24
example, consistency, suitable mathematical properties, coherence, good computational characteristics, modeling as linear con-
straints, providing explicit solutions. Conversely, its mathematic modeling is not easily understood by many practitioners and
managers. Conditional Value-at-Risk describes the risk aversion, however neglects or encompasses a large part of the profit. However,
other approaches assume risk neutrality. In this review, for instance, Conditional Value-at-Risk metric was applied in a supply
portfolio allocation problem [92]; a stochastic optimization model to maximize the Net Present Value [121], and a tri-level pro-
gramming model for three-stage SC [87].
We identified different risks index ranking approaches. Most of them were used to classify, prioritize, or select aspects regarded to
SCR. Risk Priority Number, a metric well-known in the reliability field, was used by Elleuch and Co-workers [81,122]. Failure Modes
and Effect Analysis tool applies this score-based ranking. Risk indices can be developed from the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
methods, for example, Analytic Network Process, Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory, Analytic Hierarchy Process,
Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution, Fuzzy Inference System, and many others, as seen in
[75,95,99,106]. Linear programing [103], and Data Envelopment Analysis [74] were applied to develop prioritization rankings. As a
final point, Tse and Tan [79] produced a Marginal Incremental Analysis-based framework to prioritize decision criteria.
The third group includes probability relationships. Some risk probability applications involve standard deviation/variance aiming
to measure the risk variability. The risk probability view is a classical approach to measure the risk intensity (risk likelihood versus
risk impact). Several relations have been applied, as event probability and event consequence [94,104], risk losses and probability of
risk event [83], probability of failures and costs [90], risk probability and profit [86], probability of supply disruptions [93], and risk
matrix [113]. According to the literature, other risk measures could be employed, such as, risk map [137], smoothened two-di-
mensional histogram [34], risk wheel diagnostic [142], etc. Some works used risk measures coupled with mathematical risk functions
and weighted approaches [97,117], risk attitudes [78], a multi-objective SC model comprising visibility, cost, and risk [98]. In other
papers specific risk measures are based on risk premium [123], and deposit rate [88]. Three articles presented applications involving
Regret Theory [109], and Social Utility Rate [105,116]. In addition to risk measures mentioned, the literature [131,138,139] reveals
other indices, such as, market of risk, prospect theory, supplier performance indexes, total cost models, country risk indexes, life-cycle
cost models, time-to-recovery, risk exposure index, rough cut supplier capacity analysis, etc.
Another aspect explored in the literature for risk assessment phase is the risk analysis. Mostly, the analyses were sustained by
financial dimensions, such as, overall costs and variance [118]; cost and risk [77,97]; procurement/transportation costs [103];
expected cost, probabilistic financial risk, and variability index [120]; deposit index, profit and expected Net Present Value
[88,105,121], etc. Analysis grounded in performance measures comprised reliability, fluidity of drug, and budget consistence [81];
transportation (capacity and time), inventory, and order fulfillment rate [104]; probability of production disruption risk [93]; risk
impacts and order quantity [107]; supply rate, lead time, and inventory level [91]; inventory level-unmet demand [124]; mean and
standard deviation of cost related to investments, processes and transport [85]; stockout duration and initial store market share [86];
bullwhip effects and risks [125]; temperature and time [111]; closeness coefficients [106]; and many others.
We recorded the combination between performance measures and financial issues, as follows: production versus revenue, Net
Present Value, and risk premium [123]; Economic Value Added, variation level, overtime, inventory, upside potential, downside-risk,
risk preference, and expected value of perfect information [76]; order quantities, fill rate, and expected profit [86]; expected price,
failure (product, organizational, political), and costs [74]; Greenhouse Gas impact, expected Net Present Value, expected downside-
risk, and Value-at-Risk [82]; coefficient of variation versus profit, transportation capacity, shipment, and flexibility [100]; costs,
reliability and disruption scenarios [90]; Net Present Value, risk aversion, probability distribution, power plant efficiency, regret
[109]; Value-at-Risk, standard deviation, price volatility, lead time, opportunity cost [101]; financial risk, delivery delay, defective
products [112], and other. Numerous ranking index-based approaches, as Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory/Analytic
Hierarchy Process matrix [95]; supplier ranking index [99]; stochastic weight matrix, converged weight matrix, and priorities of
alternatives and elements [75] were applied by the authors, otherwise; combined with ranking indices and performance measures,
like Marginal Incremental Analysis – supplier selection [79]; Risk Priority Number – Risk exposure level – order rates [122]; profit
and social networks [117]; visibility, cost and risk [98]; real-time risk monitoring and visibility [96]. To conclude, other analyses
were performed from decision-making mechanisms [83]; side effects – Sensitive Association Rules – computational complexity [84],
and parameters setting [87].
Risk management aims to define SC responses against the vulnerabilities. Two decisions are applicable: (1) selecting the best risk
response strategy; and (2) designing how the strategy will be applied. There are various approaches about the RM strategy in the
literature [8,89]. Basically, two general risk strategies can be applied to address risks: risk preferences/attitudes include risk averse,
risk neutral, and risk seeking strategies - risk response strategy comprises risk avoidance, risk prevention, risk sharing/transfer, risk
acceptance, and risk mitigation. Table 4 describes two aspects surveyed in this SLR: risk strategies and risk responses, both relevant to
the management phase.
We investigated these five strategies [131,143]. According to Fig. 5, most of the articles developed alternatives to reduce the
likelihood of risk occurrence and/or risk impacts. Some authors focused on models to minimize risk effects, analyze risk losses,
propose responses, and apply mechanisms based on ranking and selection indexes, for instance, a multi-modal transportation network
response under probabilistic disruption [90]. Combined strategies were observed in [89]. These authors tested hedging, assuming,
postponement, and speculation approaches. Xia and Chen [75] created a decision-making model with the following strategies: se-
paration, transfer, weakening, avoidance, and insurance. Similar ones were applied by Fazli et al. [95], including avoidance, ac-
ceptance, transference, cooperation, and insurance approaches. Risk sharing means transferring or sharing a portion of a risk to
reduce or mitigate it [131]. We observed the application of mechanisms as equilibrium solutions [105], payments/optimal level of
chemical/punishment [112] insurance premium [77], and deposit contract [76]. On the risk avoidance strategy, the SC players aim
25
Fig. 5. Risk response strategies.
to eliminate processes, activities and correlated aspects that could produce major risks for the companies. One article applied the
avoidance strategy from an algorithm to remove sensitive knowledge in sharing data [84]. We did not identify the risk prevention and
risk acceptance strategies
Huge risk drivers related to natural disasters, labor disputes, supplier bankruptcy, and terrorism were single sourcing, earth-
quakes, hurricanes, as well as other factors according to Chopra and Co-workers [8,129]. In many cases, the SC operations are
affected by these risk events. An emerging subject in SCRM is SC resilience, particularly, resilient SC facing disruption risks.
Christopher and Peck [11] define resilience as ``the ability of a system to return to its original state or move a new, more desirable
state after being disturbed”. According to authors this concept carries on the notion of flexibility. In line, Schlegel and Trent [131]
mention ``the ability to recover from or adjust to misfortune or change”. To Zsidisin and Ritchie [143], this ability means to return to
a new stable situation after an accidental event under the assumption that not all risks and vulnerabilities can be avoided, controlled,
or eliminated. Tang [62] defines resilience as a strategy to sustain and recover quickly the firm operations, respectively, during and
after a disruption. Walters [134] highlights resilience as an ability when the SC returns to a previous state or moves to an alternative,
more desirable one. Colicchia and Strozzi [39] associate resilience to keywords such as adaptation, proactive attitude, recovery, and
return to a new stable position. From multiple perspectives, Ponomarov and Holcomb [154] describe SC resilience as ``the adaptive
capability of the supply chain to prepare for unexpected events, respond to disruptions, and recover from them by maintaining
continuity of operations at the desired level of connectedness and control over structure and function”. These authors point out that
resilience is a core element of SCRM. Therefore, SC resilience means the adaptive capability to overcome vulnerability [7]; reduce the
likelihood of critical disturbances, maintenance over structures and operations, recover and respond quickly by reactive plans aiming
to restore the state of the business processes [53,55] when facing situations of disruptions.
The literature clearly points out the intersection between SC resilience and SCRM [155]. The resilience is a key aspect developed
at SCRM processes, because it deals with multiple risks and involves different mechanisms of RM [154]. The authors mention that “SC
resilience is one of such constructs for SCRM. Disruptions connect the concepts of SCRM, resilience, and SC design principles [156]. In
line, Christopher and Peck [11] presented four principles to create resilient SCs: SC engineering, SC collaboration, agility, and SCRM
culture. Kamalahmadi and Parast [53] adapted their framework and linked two dimensions for each principle: flexibility and re-
dundancy; trust and information sharing; visibility and velocity; and leadership and innovation. These drivers provide relevant
directions to address risks in SCs by management procedures. Ponomarov and Holcomb [154] proposed a conceptual SC resilience
framework comprising of three phases: (a) event readiness; (b) efficient response; and (c) recovery, combined with three principles of
resilience: connectedness, control, and coherence. Kamalahmadi and Parast [53] include anticipation, resistance, and recover/re-
sponse phases. The first one assumes a preventive perspective and involves proactive attitudes, and contingency plans for emer-
gencies. The second one aims to maintain control over structure and functions of the SC. In situations of SC disruptions, one risk
responses should be planned to mitigate the impacts, recover and restore the original steady state pre-disturbance. From the SC
resilience review, Hohenstein et al. [54] presented a portfolio of elements (flexibility, capacity, redundancy, visibility, collaboration,
and information sharing) for four phases: readiness, response, recovery, and growth. Blackhurst et al. [157] discussed three SC
disruption management aspects: disruption discovery, disruption recovery, and SC design. Since Scholten et al. [158] introduced a
proactive disaster management framework composed of four-fold phases: mitigation, preparedness, immediate response, and re-
covery.
Risk recovery construct is a relevant stage for SCRM [43] and provides the ability of a SC to recover from damage or disruption
[52]. According to Ghadge et al. [41], recovery models demand proactive planning, information, and human intervention. Under
disruptive risk events, it is crucial to have and design contingency and recovery planning systems [137,144,153], including designing
emergency plans [134]. A well-known approach to address risks in SCs is business continuity management that includes strategies,
26
risk responses, and action/recovery plans to ensure the performance and stability of SCs, partners, customers, members and stake-
holders [131,145] under disruption risks. Some measures have been applied to monitor the risk impacts after the disruption, such as
market share level [86]; lost profit during the recovery period, recovery level [60]; recovery time/point objective, time-to-recovery
[131], and many other. Numerous risk strategies can be implemented to mitigate impacts and became SCs more resilient, mostly at
response, and recovery phases.
Risk response strategy means how SC players manage their vulnerabilities. Manuj and Mentzer [3] explored RM strategies in
global SCs providing insights for SC managers to choose SCR responses. SCR literature [8,144] indicates many strategies, such as
strategic stock, postponement, flexible supply base, economic supply incentives, make-and-buy, revenue management, dynamic
assortment planning, add capacity/inventory, silent product rollover, flexible transportation, redundant suppliers, increase respon-
siveness, aggregate or pool demand, increase capabilities, customer accounts, etc. To add capacity/inventory decreases disruption
risks [8]. Pricing [149,150], centralization and decentralization of stocks [145–148], visibility of inventory buffers [142], contracts/
collaboration/coordination mechanisms [151,152]; flexibility/redundancy such as inventory buffer [23] have been risk responses
applied in SCR. We identified various risk response solutions; most of them focused in portfolio optimization theory and SCND
approaches. For example, Georgiadis et al. [159] designed SC networks comprising multiproduct facilities under uncertain demand.
Harrison et al. [160] proposed an approach named ``resiliency enhancement analysis via deletion and insertion” and demonstrated its
application with network redesign, and reconfiguration.
Under disruption events and uncertainty, Klibia and Martel [161] designed resilient networks for the location–transportation
problem. In line, Mari et al. [162] developed a model for a sustainable and resilient SCND need of understanding global SC cost trade-
offs and developing flexible and robust SC optimization tools. On the recovery phase, they also discussed the real-time SC re-
configuration issue. The risk mitigation strategy has been used with this risk response. SCND is strategic when addressing risks,
according to Lynch [153].
We recorded risk responses related to inventory management, as replenishment [124], optimal location of material [125], safety
stock and inventory tracking system [86], and optimal order allocation [80]. Hybrid approaches combined forecasting methods and
price monitoring [77], risk response scenarios [89], cost recovery-transparency [97], inventory decisions-forecasting methods [91],
etc. Outsourcing and partnership selection were strategies employed by Olson and Co-workers [74,83,99,102], for example. Allo-
cation of parameters and scenarios were explored by Elleuch and Co-workers [81,87], and Lodree and Co-workers [119,123] used
risk premium, and insurance policy since Sahay and Co-workers [100,104] explored transportation decisions involving capacity and
quantities. Decision-making systems were developed by Xia and Co-workers [75,96]. Le et al.[84] applied the intersection lattice of
frequent item-sets to propose an algorithm. Keilhacker and Minner [110] used multiple responses such as substitution, recycling, and
interplay of strategies. Mulyati and Geldermann [113] reported a cooperative strategy, and Hahn and Kuhn [76] balanced risk
attitudes. In addition, we observed improvement of visibility [98], deposit contracts [88], and warning alarm and continuing pro-
cesses [111]. Still, the literature presents other risk responses: alignment, flexibility, adaptability, agility, and redundancy [34],
avoidance, postponement, speculation, hedging, control/transferring/sharing risk, security [3], contingency planning, real-time
disruption management [102], business continuity planning, practices of relationships and governance, implementation of in-
formation technology-based systems, etc.
When specifically studying recover phase, Ponomarov and Holcomb [154] presented a matrix with some logistics capabilities, like
cycle-time reduction, efficiency of warehouse operations, customer service, knowledge management, delivery competency, highly
integrated systems and processes. We identified a couple of risk response, such as multi-modal transportation network [90], a generic
bill-of-materials-based SC network [93], proactive procurement plan [103], adding of transportation capacity [104], designing of
robust SCs [118] and inventory level [119], usage of simulation algorithm plus multiple pipeline inventory/delivery strategies [125],
etc. Lastly, [54] mention agility (e.g. visibility), collaboration (e.g. supplier development), flexibility (e.g. distribution channels),
redundancy (multiple sourcing), and human resource management (e.g. cross-functional teams). RM approaches require proactive
actions to avoid damages produced by environmental and organizational uncertainty.
On the risk monitoring and control phase, Handfield and McCormack [142] highlight the importance of identifying the risk
factors to be monitored to have a prompt detection and event response. SCs are dynamics, and therefore, subject to changes (e.g.
policies, guidelines, etc.), justifying the monitoring of risks after implementation of risk response plans [163] to check the effec-
tiveness and progress of actions [164,165], verify corrective actions, and find deviations on expected performance. Critical risk
impacts should be continuously monitored, even after the introduction of risk response [4]. In this SLR, little attention was paid to the
risk monitoring phase. Just one article addressed this RM stage [57], whose authors developed a simulation model with real-time risk
information to visualize data from natural disasters, manmade crises, and financial instability. Considering the paucity of studies on
this phase and the analyses carried out on the articles, we relate a top 10 category of outcomes that could be applied to monitor and
control the SCR. We recorded 57 types distributed in 128 occurrences. Top 10 categories account for 57.81% of frequency, as
revealed in Fig. 6. Risk issues are regarded to risk profile, risk measures, and risk preferences, as well. Most companies focused on cost
outcomes (e.g. stockout cost, transportation cost). Risk scores provided by ranking index systems are options founded in criteria of
prioritization which can be employed to compare performances. Inventory performance-based outcomes also were applied (e.g.
inventory level, supply rate). Profit and Net Present Value were measures widely used by the authors.
Order fulfillment rates could be applied to check the risk behavior. Demand performance (e.g. Bullwhip effect) is an important
aspect to be observed by SC players, since it can increase the SCR intensity. Many other performance outcomes could be formed from
probability indices. Analyses based in time dimension are also valuable to monitor risk impacts, for instance, risk event duration. Risk
maps and matrices are useful to observe SCR. The application of key risk measures to verify SC disruption and contingency plans are
relevant [166]. On the other hand, countless limitations may make it difficult to monitor risks, for example, some outcomes require a
27
Fig. 6. Categories of outcomes and risk monitoring phase.
major organizational effort to collect data, analyze, and update the information on SCR. The information technology, communication
systems, and tools (e.g. early warning systems) could support the risk monitoring phase, especially if the risk performance is followed
in real-time.
Risk communication phase is related to the dissemination and integration of information for decision makers. The information
obtained in previous SCRM phases must be effectively communicated. According to Zsidisin and Ritchie [143], communication phase
is an iterative process that involves exchange and sharing of information and opinions among everyone involved in the project. From
this standpoint, just one paper, Güller et al. [96], explored the role of communication among the risk management phases, parti-
cularly the integration of risk information for each stage. Despite this, we recorded papers that worked the risk visibility [79,98],
transmission, and information sharing topics, for example, information technology systems [99,115], effect of information delay
[91], information flow [100], collaboration and communication [104], environment and transmission information [111], and
communication and information sharing [122]. Another group involved the information from relations developed among SC part-
ners, such as, social networks/view [113,117], trust relationships [88], collaboration/coordination mechanisms [83,84], and com-
petitive/cooperative policies [105]. Other articles just added the information risk as risk category in their studies, mostly from Multi-
Criteria Decision-Making applications [94,95,106,114]. Expected value of perfect information was explored by Hahn and Kuhn [76]
to calculate the impact of uncertainty.
To finish Section 3.2, we also identified the main risk phases addressed by the authors in the articles, according to Fig. 7. Most of
the articles addressed the RM phase, focusing on innovative developments or new combinations of methods to deal with SCR. Papers
based on the risk identification, risk assessment, and RM phases applied questionnaires, interviews, literature reviews, statistical
methods, S&O techniques, and scenario analysis to model SCR. Since Tabrizi and Co-workers [85,97,103] used risk evaluation index
system e linear programming in risk assessment procedures. These top three groups represent 86.54% of the sample review.
3.3. Simulation and optimization methods
This section includes discussions about S&O methods covering aspects such as, application cycle, model's profile, real-life ap-
plication, role played by S&O methods, and software tools, according to Table 5. We checked the application cycle involving S&O
methods. Most of the articles (48.08%) applied a stand-alone optimization, usually supported by portfolio theory and SCND
[78,85,109,121]. Improvements obtained by optimization employed balancing techniques to address risk issues [82] from a Mixed
Integer Linear Programming model, as well. Analytical methods have been widely applied in problems linked to SC configuration.
Simulation cycle was explored to evaluate SCR impacts or testing risk scenarios supported by methods, as Agent-Based Simulation
[86,96], Discrete Event Simulation [89], Monte Carlo Simulation [77], and System Dynamics Simulation [91, 104, 110]. Multi-
Criteria Decision-Making applications have been developed from the multi-criteria methods, e.g., Decision Making Trial and Eva-
luation Laboratory - Analytic Hierarchy Process [95], and Analytic Network Process [75]. Mulyati and Geldermann [113] applied the
Delphi method to analyze potential risks, and multi-criteria decision analysis to evaluate mitigation strategies. Mostly, these ap-
proaches present normative mathematical models. On the optimization-based simulation cycle (O →S) a small number of papers
28
Fig. 7. Main SCRM phases and authorship

Note: I (Risk Identification); A (Risk Assessment); M (Risk Management); Mt (Risk Monitoring).
applied this two-folder combination. Olson and Wu [74] employed an analytical procedure combining Data Envelopment Analysis
technique → Monte Carlo Simulation to analyze the expected performance of partners considering the outsourcing risk scenario
analysis. Data Envelopment Analysis was performed to define best practices, identify inefficient vendors, estimate magnitudes and
improvements. Monte Carlo Simulation was applied to generate probability distributions in regards to prices and cost indexes, and
support analysis based in vendor performances.
Few articles employed the simulation-based optimization (S →O) and most of them aimed to optimize performance variables
(outputs), as seen in [100,101]. For example, Elleuch et al. [81] applied Discrete Event Simulation to analyze risk effects on per-
formance measures based on risk mitigation scenarios and desirability optimization to indicate a final score of global solutions for
optimal setups under risk exposure levels. About data mining topic, Le et al.[84] used the concept of Association Rule Hiding as risk
avoidance strategy in a retail SC when data were shared in collaboration processes. Song et al. [115] propose a Decision-Making Trial
and Evaluation Laboratory -based rough strength-relation analysis method to evaluate risk factors. Lastly, Mulyati and Geldermann
[114] proposed a method based on Grey correlation degree to assess and rank suppliers. Linear programming was applied to de-
termine the final ranking.
Model profile describes the approaches applied by authors to develop and solve the problems related to risk modeling. The
modeling and simulation covers applications, from conceptual developments to real-life SC usages. Four types of simulation were
identified. For example, Discrete Event Simulation was employed to analyze risk impacts and mitigation actions in a pharmacy [81];
System Dynamics was created by Forrester [167] to model systems and structures of high complexity and great levels of uncertainty,
e.g. post-seismic SC [91]; and chemical SC transportation [104]. Monte Carlo Simulation was applied by Liew and Lee [77] to model
the risks in a marine/offshore industry; Wu et al. [86] applied Agent-Based Simulation to investigate the stockout effects in a two-
stage SC. Further, other types of simulation could also be applied, such as distributed simulation, continuous simulation, object-
oriented simulation, etc.
Second group covers models created to determine trade-offs amongst different perspectives, for instance, visibility, cost (waste,
operational, quality of products), risks, value, Conditional Value-at-Risk, variance, profit, and others [78,79,87,90,92,97,98]. Sto-
chastic programming is an optimization method used to model problems with risk and uncertainty. A number of papers applied two-
stage stochastic programming models with Conditional Value-at-Risk and Net Present Value [121]; robust optimization and risk-
averse preference [76]; rolling horizon theory [100], and inventory/transportation/shipments - customer services [120]. We also
observed multiobjective stochastic Mixed-Integer Linear Programming [82], single period newsvendor stochastic inventory [86], and
stochastic linear programming model [124]. These models were usually supported by other approaches, such as, scenario analysis,
Monte Carlo Simulation, sample average approximation, and statistical methods. In this review, the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
methods have been employed to select suppliers [99,102,106]. The following techniques were recorded: Fuzzy Sets and Technique
for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution [102,106], Fuzzy-Grey and Analytic Hierarchy Process [94], Preference
Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment Evaluation [113], Fuzzy Inference System [99], Analytic Network Process [75],
Rough weighted DEcision MAking Trial and Evaluation Laboratory [115], and DEcision MAking Trial and Evaluation Laboratory and
Analytic Network Process [95]. In addition, further methods could be applied, such as Matrix Cross-Reference Multiplication Applied
to a Classification; VlseKriterijuska Optimizacija I Komoromisno Resenje (VIKOR), Potentially all pairwise rankings of all possible
alternatives (PAPRIKA), etc.
The most SCR index rankings were developed from Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods to support risk analysis, mainly,
classify and prioritize risks impacts. Inputs requested by this modeling are provided via judgments of experts, usually based on
29
Table 5
Simulation and optimization methods’ features.
Aspect N Authorship
Application cycle
Optimization 25 [76,78–80,82,83,85,87,88,90,92,93,97,98,100,103,105,109,112,116–119,121,124]
Simulation 10 [77,86,89,91,96,104,110,111,122,125]
Multi-criteria decision making 8 [75,94,95,99,102,106,113,115]
Optimization-based simulation 4 [74,107,120,123]
Simulation-based optimization 3 [81,101,108]
Multi-criteria-based optimization 1 [114]
Data-mining 1 [84]
Total 52
Model profile
Modeling and simulation 10 [77,81,86,89,91,96,104,110,111,122]
Multiobjective optimization 9 [78,79,87,90,92,93,97,98,107]
Stochastic programming 8 [76,80,82,100,101,120,121,124]
Multi-criteria decision modeling 8 [75,94,95,99,102,106,113,115]
Linear programming 6 [74,103,108,109,112,114]
Equilibrium conditions/Game theory 5 [88,105,116,117,119]
Non-Linear Programming 2 [85,123]
Heuristic approach 2 [83,84]
Decision support system 1 [125]
Quadratic/Integer programming 1 [118]
Total 52
Real-life application
Real-world Supply Chain 27 [77–79,81,82,84,89,90,94,95,97,100–104,106,108,110,111,113,115,116,120–122,125]
Generic Supply Chain 16 [75,76,80,85–88,91–93,98,99,105,117–119]
Characterized Generic Supply Chain 8 [74,83,96,107,109,114,123,124]
Not mentioned 1 [112]
Total 52
Role played by model
Improve performance 28 [76,78,82–85,87,88,90,92,93,97,98,100,101,103,105,107–109,116–121,123,124]
Decision-making support 12 [75,79,94–96,99,102,106,112–115]
Test and evaluate 6 [77,81,89,110,111,122]
Analyze impacts and effects 5 [80,86,91,104,125]
Compare alternatives 1 [74]
Total 52
Software tool
CPLEX- GAMS and combinations 11 [76,82,85,90,98,100,107,109,120,121,123]
Matlab 3 [78,92,99]
Arena 2 [81,108]
Fortran and combinations 2 [97,117]
Microsoft Excel 2 [103,118]
Super Decisions 2 [75,95]
Total 22
qualitative scales. In this sense, a major criticism of this method is its subjectivity of judgment. Linear programming is a classical
method to model problems with linear functions included in the objective function and/or constraint [168]. For instance, a Mixed-
Integer Linear Programming was implemented by d'Amore and Bezzo [109] to optimize the profitability of a biomass-based SC. Since
nonlinear programming considers that the model contains nonlinear functions connected to decision variables, as seen in [85], whose
authors created a Mixed-Integer Nonlinear Fuzzy model for RM, and SCND. Five papers reported applications that involved Game
theory [135], especially in newsvendor problems, and equilibrium conditions/Nash equilibrium [169], Stackelberg Game was used
by Han et al. [88] to determine retailer's demand and supplier's production quantity. Lodree and Taskin [119] introduced four
newsvendor variants to explore the effects of SC disruptions on the inventory decisions. Cruz et al. [117] explored equilibrium
conditions for a supernetwork model aiming to satisfy the optimality conditions among transactions of products, regarded to prices,
and relationships levels.
Heuristic approaches represent a group of contemporary optimization methods influenced by the biological and neurobiological
research fields. These methods aim to find a proximal solution when the most classical techniques fail in obtaining optimal responses
[168]. Le et al. [84] developed the Heuristic for Confidence and Support Reduction based on the Intersection Lattice algorithm to
hide sensitive association rules mined from a given transaction database. Huang et al. [83] designed a Particle Swarm Optimization-
based algorithm to model a problem involving decision-making attributes. Remaining papers [118,124] used, in turn, a Markowitz
theory-based Integer Quadratic Optimization model [136] to select an optimal partner, and APIOBPCS algorithm, a king of decision
support system after proper settings of the software parameters.
Two more features were investigated in this SLR: (1) the objective of the optimization model, that is, maximize, minimize or fix a
target (value); and (2) the optimization model structure on linearity, dimensionality of the objective function, and risk statement [7].
Fig. 8 depicts the number of occurrences, according to the optimization objectives, and shows, respectively, the dimensions related to
30
Fig. 8. Optimization objectives.
maximization (upside), and ones linked to minimization (downside).

In most cases, profit and Net Present Value were maximized, as seen in [116]. Two papers maximized the performance score from
Data Envelopment Analysis method [74], and desirability function [81]. Other aspects were improved, such as benefits [83,119],
downside risk [76], production flow [103], relationship values [117], risk functions [82], risk premium [123], Upside potential [76],
Utility Function [116], social utility [105], visibility [98], and intervals of weights [114].
On the minimization objectives, risk [117–119], and cost [90,92] were the dimensions most addressed by the authors, followed
by Conditional Value-at-Risk [92], delivery delay and defective parts [112], Greenhouse Gas emissions [82], variance [92], and
intervals of weights [114]. About the linearity of models, the articles focused on linear/nonlinear functions, both accounting for
75.76% of the papers which used optimization methods. On the dimensionality of models, mixed integer approaches, both nonlinear
and linear, represent 24.24% of optimization applications. In order, multi-objective functions and single-objective functions respond
with 51.42% and 48.48%. Most of the papers modeled the risk function into objective function (54.55%). Articles that included the
risk function in both objective function and constraints account for 21.21%. Other papers modeled risks into constraints (21.21%).
Typically, the articles developed normative models (80.77%) supported by mathematical modeling, particularly optimization
methods. Mainly, the descriptive models (19.23%) were assisted by simulation methods.
On the real-life application, 51.92% out of articles used real-world SC cases, some of them from secondary data. We highlight the
following industrial sectors: oil/gas/bioenergy/biomass [82,89,90,95,121], electronics [102,108,122], healthcare [78,81,97], che-
mical [104,120], and milk [79,116]. From the model profile standpoint, we recorded the following number of real-life applications: 7
– simulation [89], 6 – Multi-Criteria Decision Making [102], 4 – stochastic programming [121], 4 – multiobjective optimization [79],
2 – linear programming [108], 1 – decision support systems [125], 1 – equilibrium conditions/Game theory [116], and lastly, 1 –
heuristic method [84]. Case studies were widely explored in real-world SC applications. In contrast, we identified 24 applications
developed from generic SC – based models (46.15%), which included the characterized generic SC – based models, that is, the authors
used an industrial sector as illustration, for instance, chemical industry [123].
From the real-world applications, we analyzed their major benefits highlighted by the authors, for example, the relevance of SCR
for problems of investment portfolio optimization [121]. The Multi-Criteria Decision-Making tools contributed to identify and assess
risk levels, select risk responses, manage, and control SCR [95,102]. These activities can help SC managers in focusing critical risks
that could affect the SC performance [115]. From the performance view, Bandaly et al. [101] demonstrate that their model may
optimize the performance of a complex SC system by reducing the variability of lead time. According to Park and Kim [108], a hybrid
strategy for the inventory of distribution centers could improve the profitability of global SCs subject to substantial risks. Kirilmaz and
Co-authors [103,104] comment that their approaches can be generalized and used in different industrial sectors to evaluate overall
performance and usefulness as a managerial tool. In this sense, the adaptation, generality, and practicality of their models are also
contributions mentioned by Nagurney et al. [78,97]. The proposal offered by Sahay and Ierapetritou [100] can be extended for
problems with numerous agents, and different decision-making policies. For instance, Marufuzzaman and Co-workers [90,79]
highlight the design of a logistics network, and a multi-sourcing strategy for a multi-layer SC environment from Marginal Incremental
Analysis. Some papers report their developments as support to the decision makers [81], for instance, the APIOBPCS software could
be turned on a decision support system [125], a real-time decision-making tool to design and evaluate SCs under uncertainty and
risks [122]. In line, Mulyati and Geldermann [113] propose a framework as reference for early detection of risks in a seaweed SC. The
31
data and information sharing with SC partners was mentioned by Le and Co-workers [84,111]. It is evident that the application of
S&O methods can produce gains and benefits for SCs. These were the main benefits identified in this SLR.
We classified the role played by model in five categories according to our review: improve performance; support to the decision-
making process; test and evaluate potential alternatives of solutions; analyze impacts or effects connected to risks; and compare
scenarios, methods, or risk strategies. Mostly, the S&O methods were applied to improve or optimize aspects related to SCR and
performance of decision variables, such as enhance the overall performance of RM in a virtual SC [83], optimize operations of
medical nuclear SCs [97], and model uncertainties by using Fuzzy Set theory [85], for example. Other articles developed tools to
support the decision-making process, especially from S&O techniques, and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods. These multi-
criteria approaches were used to classify, select, and evaluate SCR topics, such as, risk evaluation index system [94], ranking of risks
[95], average overall performance [74], a SCR system supported by Analytic Network Process method [75], supplier ranking index
[99], and many others. S&O supported analysis of impacts and SCR effects. From System Dynamics simulation, Li et al. [104]
analyzed the effects of operational risks and risk mitigation scenarios. Peng et al. [91] evaluated the information delay, road con-
ditions, and shipment schedule impacts on the transportation rate in SCs. Towill [125] explored the business risk effects on the
bullwhip phenomenon by applying the APIOBPCS software. Xanthopoulos et al. [80] determined a trade-off between inventory
policies and disruption risks. Agent-based Simulation was used by Wu et al. [86] to investigate retail stockouts. Elleuch et al. [81]
tested and evaluated scenarios and selected the best risk strategy. Manuj et al. [89] applied simulation and statistical methods to test
RM strategies. Tuncel and Alpan [122] explored Petri Net to support performance analysis from SCRM scenarios. In this sense, this
tool was also used by Liu et al. [111] to evaluate the information on RM and shelf-life estimation for perishable products. From the
System Dynamics simulation model, Keilhacker and Minner [110] tested and evaluated risk mitigation strategies for different sce-
narios in a rare earth elements SC. Olson and Wu [74] applied the Data Envelopment Analysis model and Monte Carlo Simulation to
compare the performance of vendors. In conclusion, the simulation methods were typically used to test and evaluate risk mitigation
strategies, and risk response scenarios, as well as, analyze risk effects, and provide outputs to sensitivity analysis. Basically, the
optimization models were developed to improve the performance of RM aspects.
We investigate the software tools that supported the S&O models. Fifteen articles did not mention or apply software. Essentially,
the optimization software tools were used to solve problems and obtain computational solutions requested by the models. Papers
addressed by mathematical approaches applied CPLEX® - GAMS®, Matlab®, Fortran® combined with SUN System [117], and Unix-
based System [97], MS Excel® [118], Dash Optimization's Xpress-MP® [124], Mathcad® [80], and Lingo® [108]. In addition, we also
list optimization software, such as Gurobi®, FortMP® - ForSP®, Wolfran Mathematica®, Maple®, and other. For Multi-Criteria Decision-
Making applications, we recorded Super Decisions® [75], Gomez® [112], and Yaahp® software [94]. We could include Decision Lens®,
PriEsT®, Expert Choice®, M-MACBETH®, etc. Crystal Ball® [74], Risk Solver® [77], @Risk [101] were used to perform Monte Carlo
Simulation. Business risk impacts were analyzed by the APIOBPCS® software [125]. Anylogic® and Umberto NTX Software® were
employed to develop the dynamics of SCs [110] and understand material and energy flows among partners [113]. ARENA® was
applied to assess risk factors and their impacts [122]. A Petri Net was created with Artifex PN® software for a SC. Manuj et al. [89]
tested mitigation scenarios from the Supply Chain Guru®. Agent-based Simulation and System Dynamics were developed, respec-
tively, with NetLogo® [86], and Vensim® [104]. We highlight other well-known simulation software, such as Promodel®, FlexSim®,
Simul8®, Simio®, Witness®, etc.
Risk assessment and resilience was addressed by Berle et al. [170] in a liquefied natural gas system under disruption risk. The
authors developed a SC simulation-based optimization combining Monte Carlo simulation, and heuristic methods, respectively, to
simulate the stochastic behavior of disruption, and mitigate risk measures. Three risk phases were applied: risk identification, risk
assessment, and risk mitigation. Since Klibi and Martel [161] proposed stochastic programming models add resilience formulations in
a location-transportation problem under uncertainty. The authors modeled and designed supply networks under disruptions from
several scenarios. Risk neutral and risk averse decision making were added to the models. The Monte Carlo simulation was also
applied to generate scenarios. Mixed-Integer Programming-based were modeled to solve this problem of supply chain network design.
In line, Georgiadis et al. [159] used a case study to illustrate their approach. They modeled a problem of supply chain network design
under uncertain demand as a Mixed-Integer Linear Programming solved by branch-and-bound methods. Still, Mari et al. [162]
developed a sustainable and resilient supply chain network framework facing disruption risks with a sequence of mathematical
models encompassing a mixed-integer linear programming, and a weighted goal programming to optimize total SC cost. Harrison
et al. [160] proposed an optimization approach to mitigate disruptions in a supply chain network design problem.
We explored the solution approaches applied by the authors and clustered in ten categories, according to Tables 6 and 7. We
highlight the Mixed-Integer Linear Programming, and Liner Programming optimization techniques. The combination among Mixed
Integer Programming models, stochastic approaches, and robust optimization were extensively used. We recorded modern heuristic
methods, such as, Particle Swarm Optimization, Genetic Algorithms, Neural Networks, and Simulated Annealing.
We noted that several models were developed from Game theory and equilibrium conditions (Nash equilibrium), involving, for
example, Stackelberg Game, and a newsvendor problem. Usually, Monte Carlo Simulation was used to develop scenarios, determine
parameters and values, and compare performances. A multi-agent perspective (e.g. SC processes, partners, and complex behaviors)
was considered in simulation applications involving Discrete Event Simulation, Agent-based Simulation, Petri Net, System Dynamics,
etc. Numerical simulation and random number simulation were used to model parameters associated to performance, calculus and
generation of random numbers. Around 50% of papers applied post S&O tools, such as scenario analysis, and sensitivity analysis.
These techniques are useful to test the confidence and effects of outputs, understand the relation inputs/outputs, calibrate models,
etc. [134]. Forty papers obtained computational solutions, most of them used in mathematical modeling. Statistical methods were
applied to develop the models and analyze their findings. From probability theory, other related concepts were applied, such as,
32
Table 6
Solution approaches (Part 1).
Paper Optimization Simulation (S) Post modeling CS Statistical Methods
[74] Data Envelopment Analysis Monte Carlo S Scenario analysis Yes Mean – Standard deviation - Probability theory
[75] Not Not Not Yes Not
[76] Robust optimization Not Scenario | Yes Coefficient of variation - Confidence interval - Expected
Sensitivity value
[77] Not Monte Carlo S Scenario analysis Yes Mean | Standard deviation | Mode
[78] Multi-criteria optimization Not Sensitivity Yes Not
[79] Genetic Algorithms Not Not NM Not
[80] Stochastic newsvendor model Not Not Yes Not
[81] Desirability function Discrete Event S Scenario analysis Yes Design of experiments
[82] Mixed Integer Linear Programming Not Scenario analysis Yes Not
[83] Enumeration method/Particle Numerical S Sensitivity NM Not
Swarm Optimization
[84] Association Rule Hiding Not Not Yes Not
[85] Mixed Integer non-linear Fuzzy Not Sensitivity Yes Mean - Standard deviation
[86] Not Agent-based S Scenario analysis Yes Design of experiments | Statistic significance (P-Value
and estimation)
[87] Tri-level programming Not Sensitivity NM Not
[88] Stackelberg Game Numerical S Not NM Probability theory
[89] Not Discrete Event S Scenario | Yes Hypothesis testing – Analysis of Variance - General
Sensitivity linear model -Tukey's W procedure
[90] Mixed Integer Linear Programming Not Scenario analysis Yes Not
[91] Not System Dynamics Scenario analysis Yes Mean – Maximum value – Standard deviation
[92] Convex multi-criteria optimization Not Not Yes Not
[93] Genetic Algorithms | Neural Random number S Not Yes Not
Networks | SA
[96] Not Agent-based S Not Not Not
[97] Multi-criteria optimization Not Not Yes Not
[98] Multiple-objective Integer Not Not Yes Not
Programming
[100] Mixed Integer Linear Programming Agent-based S | Monte Scenario analysis Yes Coefficient of variation
Carlo S
[101] Genetic Algorithms Monte Carlo S Not Yes Linear regression | Design of experiments
[102] Not Not Sensitivity NM Not
[103] Linear Programming Not Not Yes Data normalization
[104] Not System Dynamics Scenario analysis Yes Statistical significance testing
[105] Equilibrium conditions/Nash Not Not NM Not
equilibrium
[106] Not Not Not NM Not
[107] Mixed Integer Linear Programming Monte Carlo S Scenario analysis Yes Hypothesis testing (P-Value)
[108] Mixed Integer Linear Programming Discrete Event S Scenario analysis Yes Not
[109] Mixed Integer Linear Programming Not Not Yes Probability theory
[110] Not System Dynamics Scenario | Yes Not
Sensitivity
[111] Not Discrete Event S Not Yes Design of experiments
[112] Linear Programming Not Not Yes Not
[113] Not Not Not Yes Probability theory
[114] Linear Programming Not Sensitivity Yes Not
[116] Equilibrium conditions Not Sensitivity Yes Not
[117] Equilibrium conditions Not Not Yes Not
[118] Integer Quadratic Programming Not Not Yes Probability theory
[119] Newsvendor approach Not Sensitivity NM Probability theory
[120] Robust optimization Monte Carlo S Scenario | Yes Confidence interval – Variance – Variability –
Sensitivity Probability theory - Histograms
[121] Linear Programming Numerical S Scenario analysis Yes Not
[122] Not High-level Petri Net Scenario analysis Yes Mean – Standard deviation – Hypothesis testing -
Statistic significance (P-Value)
[123] Mixed Integer Linear Programming Monte Carlo S Not Yes Mean – Standard deviation – Probability theory
[124] Stochastic Linear Programming Not Scenario analysis NM Not
[125] Not System Dynamics Scenario analysis Yes Not
33
Table 7
Solution approaches (Part 2).
Paper Multi-criteria tool Algorithm Framework Algebraic Manipulations MM Other tools
J.B. Oliveira et al.
[74] Not Not Not Not Yes Analytical procedures

[75] Analytic Network Process Not Not Not Yes Not
[76] Not Not Not Not Yes Discretization method – Here and Know | Wait-and-see
[77] Not Not Risk mitigation Not Not Not
[78] Not Euler method Not DT – VIF – Leibniz's integral Yes Not
[79] Not Genetic Algorithms Flow diagram DT – MIA – Calculus approach Yes Not
[80] Not Not NTM DT – CP – LR Yes Gradient search algorithms | Newsvendor model
[81] Analytic Hierarchy Process Not Not Not Yes FMECA – Conceptual model – Risk analysis group
[82] Not Not Not MM – Linearization techniques Yes Pareto curve – Multiobjective Optimization
[83] Not Particle Swarm Optimization Not Not Yes Not
[84] Not HCSRIL ARHP Not Yes Association rule mining tool
[85] Fuzzy/Analytic Network A three-step algorithm FIRM Not Yes Benders decomposition - Joint acceptation index - Fuzzy
Process validation
[86] Not Not Agent-based Simulation Not Not Agent decision rules
[87] Not Not Not MM – Bi-level programming Yes Not
[88] Not Not Not DT – Backward induction Yes Not
[89] Not Not Not Not Not Not
[90] Not Benders decomposition Not Not Yes Valid inequalities - Pareto-optimal cuts - Trust region – KI - FSBC
[91] Not Not Not Not Yes System dynamics - Decision tree – Causal loop diagram
[92] Not Proximal point algorithms Not Theoretical properties Yes Pareto optimum
[93] Not Smart integrating algorithm General algorithm flow Not Yes Random opportunity with constraint scheme and target plan
[94] Analytic Network Process/FGC Discrete-event algorithm Not Not Yes As low as reasonable possible
34
[95] DEMATEL-ANP Not Not Not Yes Not
[96] Not Not SBDM Not Not Not
[97] Not Exact equilibration Not DT – VIF – LM Yes Not
[98] Not Relaxation method | Projection Not Not Yes Not
[99] Fuzzy Inference System Not Not Not Yes Not
[100] Not Iterative – solution Overall solution Not Yes Rolling horizon approach | E-constraint
[101] Not Genetic Algorithms Not Financial DT | Calculus approach Yes Not
[102] Interval valued Fuzzy TOPSIS Not Not Not Yes Not
[103] Not Not Not Not Not Flowchart procedure
[104] Not Not System dynamics-CSCRM Not Not System dynamics
[105] Not Not Not DT – MM Yes Not
[106] Fuzzy TOPSIS Not Not Not Yes Shannon entropy weight method
[107] Not Sample Average Approximation Overview of the method Normalization technique Yes Pareto filters
[108] Not Multiple queen-bee evolutionary Not Not Yes Taguchi's L type loss function | Genetic Algorithms
algorithm
[109] Not Not Not LM | Regret theory Yes Not
[110] Not Not Not Not Not Not
[111] Not Not Correlation of risk factors Not Not Coloured Petri Net
[112] Fuzzy Rank Function Not Not MM Yes Fuzzy Numbers Set
(continued on next page)
Table 7 (continued)
Paper Multi-criteria tool Algorithm Framework Algebraic Manipulations MM Other tools
[113] PROMETHEE Not Theoretical and practical Not Not Pareto chart | Risk matrix
J.B. Oliveira et al.
[114] Grey correlation degree Not Not Not Yes Two-stage compound mechanism | Fuzzy Set Numbers
[115] Rough Weighted DEMATEL Not Risk factors identification MM Yes Impact-relation map | Interaction map of SSCM RF
[116] Not Not Not MM | Game Theory Yes Nash Equilibrium
[117] Not Not Not VIF – LM – Euler method Yes Dynamic network
[118] Not Not Not Not Yes Cause-consequence diagram
[119] Not Root finding – NIA Not Theorems – MM Yes Bisection method | Newton-Raphson - Simpson's rule | Romberg
integration
[120] Not Multi-cut/Standard L-shaped method Simulation flow-chart Not Yes Efficient frontier - Pareto curve - Rolling horizon approach
[121] Not Not Not Not Yes Not
[122] Not Not A timed Petri Net Not Yes Failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis
[123] Not Lasserre's algorithm Not Polytope integration – DT Yes Not
[124] Not Not Not Not Yes Not
[125] Not APIOBPCS algorithm Not Not Not Decision support system - Bullwhip On-costs Johari Window
Note: CS (Computer solution); MM (Mathematical modeling); FGC (Fuzzy-Grey Comprehensive); HCSRIL (Heuristic for Confidence and Support Reduction based on Intersection Lattice); NIA (Numerical
Integration Approximation); SBDM (Simulation-based decision making); SD-CSRM (System dynamics – Chemical SCRM); FIRM (Fuzzy Interactive Resolution method); NTM (Newsvendor-type modeling);
DT (Derivative techniques); VIF (Variational Inequality Formulation); LM (Lagrange Multiplier); CP (Convex programming); NR (Newton-Raphson); KI (Knapsack inequalities); FSBC (Feasibility Seeking
Benders cut); RF (Risk Factors); SSCM (Sustainable Supply Chain Risk Management); ARHP (Association Rule Hiding Process); NS (Numerical simulation); MIA (Marginal Incremental Analysis); LR
(Lagrange relaxation); FMECA (Failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis); DEMATEL (DEcision MAking Trial and Evaluation Laboratory); TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to
Ideal Solution); PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment Evaluation); SA (Simulated annealing); NM (Not mentioned), and APIOBPCS (automatic pipeline inventory and
order base
35
production control system).
histograms, probability distribution function, probability density function, cumulative probability function, etc. Some measures of
variability and centrality (e.g. range, standard deviation, variance, coefficient of variation, mean, mode, average values) were also
recorded. Design of experiments approach was applied to generate risk mitigation scenarios and plan experiments with risks. Hy-
pothesis testing, such as t-test, Analysis of Variance, Tukey's W test, confidence interval, and data normalization were observed in this
SLR.
Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process [171,172] are methods dedicated to model problems from the de-
composition and relational comparison among their elements considering overall priorities. These ones differ due to the in-
dependence amongst pairs required by Analytic Hierarchy Process. Analytic Network Process considers the concept of network.
Multi-criteria techniques were combined with other MCDM tools, as DEcision MAking Trial and Evaluation Laboratory, Fuzz Logic
and variants (e.g. Fuzzy Inference System). In short, most of the MCDM tools were applied in risk identification and assessment
phases. Various SCR problems were solved by algorithms to determine the volumes of polytopes (Lasserre's algorithm); solve a NP-
hard with nonlinear discrete variables (Genetic Algorithms), and multi-sourcing supplier selection problem (Particle Swarm Opti-
mization); delineate Pareto optimum solutions (proximal point algorithms); hide Sensitive Association Rules (HCSRIL algorithm); and
solve a multi-objective time-dependent (relaxation method) problem. Genetic Algorithms, Neural Networks, and Simulated An-
nealing were combined in a smart integrating algorithm. Other approaches were noted, for example, numerical integration ap-
proximation, exact equilibrium, accelerated Benders decomposition, multi-cut L-shaped method, multiple queen-bee evolutionary,
APIOBPCS – algorithms, etc.
Most of the frameworks have been created to guide the RM phases, as well as, support risk methodological approaches. Güller
et al. [96] developed an Agent-based Simulation framework which comprises data management/data source; SC visualization and
detection; simulation and prevention stages. Le et al. [84] elaborated an Association Rule Hiding process for data sharing in a retail
SC. Li et al. [104] added eight steps to the logical modeling, model quantification and model application phases. Other frameworks
linked risk mitigation process [77], overall risk assessments [111], multi-criteria decision making under uncertainty [107], risk factor
identification [115], SCRM for seaweed SC [113], an iterative loop for S&O model [100], a general algorithm flow with threefold
optimization methods [93], high-level Petri Net model [122], flow diagram of Marginal Incremental Analysis approach [79], a Fuzzy
Interactive Resolution method [85], a newsvendor modeling to study disruption risks [80], and lastly, a simulation procedure.
Most of the papers developed mathematical modeling solved by optimization methods. In this case, many algebraic manipulations
were used from derivatives techniques, integral calculus, and other approaches. For instance, bi-level programming, backward in-
duction, variational inequality formulation, Leibniz integral rule, theorems and mathematical properties, Marginal Incremental
Analysis method, convex programming, Lagrange multiplier/relaxation, polytope integration method, Euler method, Game theory,
Regret theory, linearization techniques, etc. We recorded tools and concepts that supported analytical models, such as, multiobjective
optimization, e-constraint method, Benders decomposition, joint acceptation index, Fuzzy validation, valid inequalities, trust region,
knapsack inequalities, feasibility seeking Benders cut, discretization method, gradient search algorithms, Here-and-Know, Wait-and-
See, Fuzzy Numbers Set, Newton–Raphson, bisection method, Coloured Petri Net, random opportunity target plan, random oppor-
tunity constraint, Simpson's rule Romberg integration, Taguchi's L type loss function, Shannon entropy weight method, Risk matrix,
Genetic Algorithms, Nash equilibrium conditions, two-stage compound mechanism, System Dynamics, and many others. Pareto
theory-based solutions have been used by the authors, including, Pareto curve, Pareto-optimal cuts, Pareto chart, Pareto optimum,
Pareto Filters, and efficient frontier. Graphical tools as cause-consequence diagram [118], decision tree and cause loop diagram [91]
were also recorded in this SLR. To finish, we highlight the following methods: Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis, As low
as reasonable possible principle, and rolling horizon approach.
3.4. Supply chain performance measurement system
SCP provides information about the capabilities of SC players to achieve a service level at the minimum cost. SCs, seen as a
complex system, request an overall performance viewpoint. In line, Persson and Olhager [13] developed a performance measurement
structure including several metrics, such as, cost, quality, lead-time and lead-time variability. A supply chain performance mea-
surement system (SCPMS), for instance, Balance Scorecard approach, should include metrics at all organizational levels [16].
Contributions have been developed to evaluate the SCP from a measurement system perspective [173,174]. This standpoint considers
strategic aspects [175,176], directions for SCPMS implementation [177], performance measures [178], and other minor topics. Two
well-known approaches assume a systemic view concerning SCPMS. The first one was developed by the Global Supply Chain Forum
[179]. The second one is the Supply Chain Operations Reference ® [36] – version 12.0 (2017) – an integrated approach widely applied
in SCs. About SCR, this last one adopts overall Value-at-Risk as risk measure. Considering the numerous well-known criticisms on this
risk index, serious concerns limit its application. For further details on SCP approaches, we recommend consulting an interesting
textbook [180]. About risk, usually, multiple-criteria are considered in terms of performance, for instance, lead time, cost, and quality
[181]. From a framework, Ritchie and Brindley [10] interrelated SCP to risk aspects, as risk source, profile, drivers, consequences,
and management responses.
We analyze the application of PMS and SCR. In this review, 82.69% of articles did not explore this relation. On the other hand,
nine papers studied some topics on SCPMS. Basically, the authors focused on performance measures. For instance, we observed
reliability, fluidity of drug circuit and budget consistency [81], transportation capacity, order fulfillment, inventory level, and
transportation time [104], operating revenues, operating costs, and penalty costs [89], price and failure [74], Net Present Value,
transportation cost, percentage of secondary shipment, and flexibility [100], quantity, cost, quality, and time [120], revenues,
customer order fill rate, cancelled product reliability risk orders, orders fulfilled on time, and orders delayed [122], product safety
36
risk, supplier visibility, product conformance risk [79], and many others [99].
Performance outcomes, as seen in Fig. 8, were used to evaluate impacts and effects caused by SCR, especially measures associated
to cost and inventory. Risk consequence analyses are mostly sustained by financial issues. Performance measures provide support for
managers tracking SC results when the risks affect their processes. The decision makers can direct their actions to address new risks,
as well as, continuously check their impacts [142]. According to Section 3.2, Value-at-Risk and variants and risk index ranking were
the risk measures most applied. Typically, evaluations of risk consequences are obtained from performance measures. A SCPMS-based
risk decision-making approach is crucial to signal the risk intensity.
3.5. Relationships, highlights and research constructs
Mathematical modeling and S&O methods have been developed to mitigate and analyze risk effects in SCs, and, hence, connect
mathematical modeling and risk mitigation strategy response. In this case, most papers focused their key researches in the RM phase
supported by portfolio optimization and SCND solution approaches. The optimization models presented a normative profile, usually
built to improve the performance of decision variables, parameters and other aspects. However, simulation models assumed a de-
scriptive characteristic playing numerous roles as mentioned. In line, simulation methods supported the analysis of risk mitigation
scenarios, risk impacts and effects, sensitivity analysis, and hypothesis testing. The dynamic of SC and risk behavior were performed,
particularly to assess disruption risks. Computational solutions to solve some mathematical problems were obtained by numerical
simulation. In short, the simulation methods contribute as a valuable tool to support the risk decision-making for risk analysts.
We observed that principles and concepts presented in the reviewed papers are influenced by the RM approaches, commonly
applied in the financial and economic fields. For this reason, the analyses and SCR outcomes were developed from financial and
operational performances. Mathematical modeling supported by optimization methods used Conditional Value-at-Risk, Value-at-
Risk, and Risk Premium, as risk measures. Differently, the simulation models applied risk metrics, such as, Risk Priority Number,
probability versus impact, and effect analysis. The optimization objectives are focused in financial perspective (e.g. profit, risks, and
cost) modeled by stochastic programming, linear and nonlinear programming, heuristic methods, multiobjective approaches, etc. In
addition, other methods and tools supported most of the models, such as, scenario/sensitivity analysis, conceptual frameworks, multi-
criteria tools, statistical methods, algebraic manipulations, algorithms, etc.
4. Gaps and insights
According to the risk classification adopted in this review, some types of risks do not fit very well, for example, logistics risks. On
SCRM procedures, no paper addressed all phases. From SC viewpoints, new risk metrics could be developed, although we have
identified Demand-at-Risk, and Inventory-at-Risk, both adapted from Value-at-Risk metric. The authors did not present research
developments about SCR-PMS. We observed the lack of linkage among PMS, risk impacts/effects, and risk measures related to the
SCR profile. This disconnection is the main gap observed in this SLR. In addition, there is no alignment among, risk response
strategies, risk solution approaches, and the profile of SC players in terms of risk preference. We consider that the risk response
strategy should be consistent with proper solutions aiming to mitigate critical risks. Some risk responses were not applied, as reserve
and redundancy, agility, flexibility, business continuity planning, and other issues. We did not identify a systematic procedure to
relate optimization objectives and SCR-PMS or performance outcomes.
The loop between S→O and O→S could be better explored, especially to reproduce the risk dynamic and risk impacts from the
advantages provided by the simulation methods. Modern optimization methods such as Ant Colony and Normal Boundary
Intersection could be applied in new RM models, since they were not observed in this review. Considering the complexity of SCs and
the potential risk situations, other types of simulations could be developed to support the decision-making process, especially to
demonstrate the dynamic of SCR. For example, Object Oriented Simulation may assist the building of dynamic models, a dashboard
for the SCPMS, etc. Still on the loop S→O→S, according to the approach commented by Kleijner [182], a simulation model is like a
black-box which converts inputs into outputs. This relation can be fitted by simulation meta-models [183,184]. A weighted approach
for multivariate models, applied to risk preferences, was not recorded. This gap could involve the S→O→S cycle to improve the SCRM
procedures. As a final point, there is a lack of SCRM procedures which integrate the advantages of the S&O methods, all RM phases,
and a PMS to improve the risk decision-making process facing SCs under critical risks. The theme resilience could be better explored
by authors since it holds a direct relationship with the risk mitigation process.
5. Relational framework for SCRM
From this SLR, we present a relational framework for SCRM which covers the contributions provided by the authors and addresses
some gaps and insights now revealed. Our objective is to improve the RM decision-making process from the S&O methods and
supplementary tools. This framework can be considered a set of guidelines to implement SCRM procedures. Fig. 9 illustrates the
proposed approach.
5.1. SCR identification
Considering the risk severity, we should define the main objective from a problem identified in a real-world SC. Afterwards, the
SC configuration will be set up to outline its architecture and a SC map, which involves, business processes, players, relationships, and
37
Fig. 9. SCRM relational framework.

Note: BPM (Business Process Mapping); SCOR (Supply Chain Operations Reference Model); GSCF (Global Supply Chain Forum model); SCP (Supply
Chain Performance); SCPMS (Supply Chain Performance Measurement System); SCR (Supply Chain Risk); FMEA (Failure Modes, Effects and
Analysis); DM (Decision-Making); VaR (Value-at-Risk); RP (Risk Profile); PO (Performance objectives); RM (Risk measures); PM (Performance
measures); AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process); ANP (Analytic Network Process); VIKOR (VlseKriterijuska Optimizacija I Komoromisno Resenje);
DEMATEL (DEcision MAking Trial and Evaluation Laboratory); MICMAC (Matrix Cross-Reference Multiplication Applied to a Classification);
MACBETH (Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique); PAPRIKA (Potentially all pairwise rankings of all possible
alternatives); PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment Evaluation); TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by
Similarity to Ideal Solution); DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis); MAUT (Multi-attribute utility theory); ELECTRE (ELimination Et Choix Traduisant
la REalité); GP (Goal Programming); FMECA (Failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis); FTA (Fault Tree Analysis); RS (Response strategy); RA
(Risk Attitudes); Risk RS (Risk Response Solution); RM (Risk measure); RE (Risk effect); RT (Risk Type); SA (Solution Approach); DES (Discrete
Event Simulation); ABS (Agent-based Simulation); OOS (Object Oriented Simulation); PMS (Performance Measurement System); MCS (Monte Carlo
Simulation); DOE (Design of Experiments); SP (Stochastic Programming); LP-NLP (Linear/Nonlinear Programming); QP (Quadratic Programming);
MIP (Mixed Integer Programming); HM (Heuristic methods); NBI (Normal Boundary Intersection); MO (Multi-criteria Optimization); RO (Robust
Optimization); Post (Post modeling); SM (Statistical methods); AG (Algorithms); AM (Algebraic Manipulations); PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, and
Action); CS (Computer solution); DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control).
other aspects. Risk analysts will design a SCPMS with Key Performance Indicators, comparison standards, resources, procedures, etc.
In this sense, approaches like Business Process Management, Supply Chain Operations Reference®, flowcharts, Global Supply Chain
model, Petri Nets, Bayesian Networks, and Markov processes will be applied to do this step. The next step is modeling the SCR profile
to determine risk types, risk events, risk sources, impacts and risk effects, likelihood of risks, risk attitudes, and risk responsibility.
Numerous techniques can be used to collect the data, especially qualitative ones, such as Delphi method, survey, interview, ques-
tionnaires, judgments of experts, literature database, Failure Modes, and Effects Analysis, consensus decision-making, etc. Two
viewpoints can be applied to choose the risk measures: (a) from quantitative data (e.g. Value-at-Risk, Conditional Value-at-Risk,
Mean-variance, risk functions); and (b) from qualitative data (e.g. risk index ranking, probability relationships, risk matrix, risk
maps). At that time, it is possible to delineate the decision-making variables associated to the SCR. All the tasks cited provide an
initial understanding of risks and their potential consequences for the SC. In short, the risk identification phase provides to the
analysts a relevant background on the risk profile.
5.2. SCR assessment
Risk assessment covers the risk measurement, risk ranking, risk evaluation, and risk selection. In this risk phase we need to align
the features to SCR-PMS. SC players may present conflicts and different risk attitudes on the risk factors and their consequences. We
could apply multi-criteria methods (see Fig. 9) to solve the tradeoffs aiming (1) to verify the interdependence among perspectives; (2)
to weigh the viewpoints of the SC players, and (3) to define an overall risk assessment scorecard. The perspectives encompass risk
profile, performance objectives, risk measures, performance measures, and key decision variables. The blend between multi-criteria
methods and other tools (e.g. Failure Modes, and Effects Analysis and Six Sigma) can be used to align and develop a SCR scorecard.
The risk ranking step should prioritize the SCR of greater intensity. From a practical standpoint, just critical SCR should be modeled
38
by S&O models. However, not all risks can be easily modeled (e.g. rare events), while other ones are hard to mitigate. The decision
maker will decide about which risks will be involved in the simulation. The analyses of risk impacts usually apply financial mag-
nitudes (e.g. cost, profit, and Net Present Value) to evaluate and select the risks, although other outcomes could also be applied, such
as lost sales, level of stockout, etc. In order, we should develop a suitable conceptual model. This one requires principles, such as
simplicity, parsimony, measurability, utility, flexibility, and applicability, and providing added value for users of SCRM systems. In
addition, the conceptual model includes the SCPMS, risk Key Performance Indicators, an initial setup (parameters and inputs),
decision-making variables, levels of detail, assumptions, simplifications, and data collection procedures.
5.3. SCR management
Next stage is to develop the computer model to implement the SC architecture and couple the Object-Oriented Simulation pro-
cesses and risk dynamics can be reproduced by Discrete Event Simulation, Agent-based Simulation, or System Dynamics Simulation.
The computational model should consider the risk intensity for the SCR-PMS, providing precise information on the SCR impacts.
Monte Carlo Simulation can be used to generate the probability distribution, parameters and risk scenarios. The input data should
receive a proper statistical processing to test properties, such as consistency, accuracy, robustness, and traceability.
Statistical methods are suggested to implement the tests (e.g. Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test, and Analysis of Variance). We will
apply the design of experiments tool to: (1) develop risk scenarios according to the risk intensity; (2) design scenarios according to
risk attitudes of SC players and risk response strategies from a weighted risk solution approaches; and (3) define the optimal ex-
periments for the simulation model. Subsequently, the modeler parameterizes the model and performs the planned experiments. PMS
dashboard should signal the scenarios played by the model. Risk Key Performance Indicators and performance outcomes will be
compared with reference standards aiming to identify deviations. In this sense, the decision-maker will mitigate critical risks that
affect the SCP. Statistical analysis can improve quality, precision, and accuracy of the results.
Optimization models may find the best risk solutions or approximate the responses to mitigate the critical SCR. However, should
simulation and optimization models be linked? From the ``black-box” concept, statistical methods (e.g. regression/multivariate
analysis) can be used to create metamodels, that is, an artifice that converts performance outputs provided by the simulation model in
inputs for the optimization model, creating a transfer function (meta-model). Design of experiments has a two-fold purpose: (1)
reduce the number of risk solution approaches, and (2) assist the metamodeling. Our optimization model should consider the re-
lationship between the risk profile and solution approaches. To maximize the performance outcomes in terms of scenarios, design of
experiments define best combinations for risk response strategies and SC setups. For each simulated scenario, the model will provide
corresponding outcomes. For implementation purposes, some unfeasible combinations can be discarded by the risk analyst. The
optimization model will be developed according to the metamodel to generate the optimal SCR solutions andimprove the decision
variables by minimizing or maximizing parameters of the performance measures (objective function), subjects or not to constraints.
As seen in this review, optimization methods offer significant results to the decision-maker, generating suitable solutions for SCRM
problems. According to the model profile, a solver solution approach must be proposed, considering the following aspects: linearity/
constraints of the model, nature of the objective (minimize, maximize or target), and single or multi-objective functions. In this sense,
as seen in Fig. 9, some optimization methods, tools, and software can be applied to solve the risk problem. After this step, a new SC
setup is designed by the optimization model to mitigate the SCR. In terms of implementation, the decision-maker will analyze
whether or not the solutions obtained are feasible. A new parameterization will be inserted in the simulation model to confirm if the
optimal solutions are suitable. For all steps executed in this phase, processes of a verification and validation must be carried out by
the modeler to guarantee that the conceptual model was correctly converted into the simulation model. On verification and vali-
dation techniques, the papers developed by Balci and Co-workers [126,185] can be consulted.
5.4. SCR monitoring and control
The simulation model will play the optimal setup and scenarios to confirm the improvements and calibrate the model. The SCPMS
dashboard provides relevant information for the risk analyst to evaluate if the solutions produced are satisfactory. Otherwise, we
should turn back to the development of new solutions. Some responses may require complex implementations. Sensitivity and
scenario analysis may assist the decision-maker to analyze the optimal setups. Afterward, we can close the S → O → S cycle and
develop the operational model for the real-life SC. The operational model contains optimal parameters of key variables and validation
procedures. The one shows that the solutions are suitable, aligning the conceptual, simulation, and optimization models. The actions
of implementation focused in supervision, monitoring, auditing and improving procedures are crucial for the success and main-
tenance of the results. A feedback for the previous steps must be provided to improve the functionality of the SCRM procedures using
action plans, as PDCA, DMAIC, and Kaizen (continuous improvement).
5.5. SCR communication
Finally, the communication stage denotes that all central information, concerning to risk phases, should be collected, processed,
filtered, shared and disseminated for the SC players involved in the SCRM. This procedure encourages teams and workforces to
maintain the foundations of these systematic procedures, turning the SC less vulnerable to the risks.
39
6. Conclusion and future research directions
SLR method has proven to be a relevant, suitable and efficient technique to update the SCRM theme, allowing the identification of
new frontiers and gaps. The objective of this paper was to analyze the roles and contributions of the S&O tools and PMS for the SCRM
procedures. The results showed a rising interest of scholars on SCR. We identified a major gap in the lack of a systematic process to
combine the SCRM phases, PMS and S&O perspective and better represent the diversity, dynamic, and complexity of SCs under risk
effects. The SCND and portfolio optimization approach was the risk mitigation strategy most applied by the authors. The integration
and synchronization between S→O and O→S are interesting approaches to manage SCR, since this relationship maximizes the
benefits of these methods, as shown in this SLR. The developed simulation models could be more robust to explore the potential of
this tool, particularly combined with optimization methods. On the other hand, it is evident the contribution of the S&O methods to
improve the performance, support the decision-making processes, analyze effects and impacts, test and evaluate risk solution ap-
proaches, mainly in the context of complex systems, such as SCs. Recently, researchers Dellino et al. [186] organized a special issue
reporting advances in S&O techniques and applications, as well as, their pros and cons to improve performance and design para-
meters for the analyzed problem.
From the S&O methods, we presented several contributions, for example, (1) a proposal of a relational framework for SCRM
procedures to address several gaps identified in this SLR; (2) a review on the state of the art and relations among SCRM, S&O methods
and SCP; (3) an in-depth analysis on modeling approaches supported by S&O applications, and (4) a highlight of tools and solutions
methods applied on the papers. In conclusion, we propose multiple future research directions, for instance, implement and validate
our SCRM framework in a real-world SC, according to the systematic procedures illustrated in Section 5, phase by phase. We suggest
improving the simulation-based optimization perspective through the metamodeling process involving a multivariate analysis on SCR
and PMS. Normal Boundary Intersection optimization approach can be employed and compared to other optimization methods. Six
Sigma-based risk measures can be developed to evaluate critical risk impacts on the SCP.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Research Foundation of the State of Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG), Brazil and CAPES Foundation,
Brazil.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
[1] G. Soni, R. Kodali, A decision framework for assessment of risk associated with global supply chain, J. Model. Manag. 8 (1) (2013) 25–53, https://doi.org/10.
1108/17465661311311969.
[2] A. Lockamy III, Assessing disaster risks in supply chains, Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 114 (5) (2014) 755–777, https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-11-2013-0477.
[3] I. Manuj, J.T. Mentzer, Global supply chain risk management, J. Bus. Logist. 29 (1) (2008) 133–155.
[4] A. Norrman, U. Jansson, Ericsson's proactive supply chain risk management approach after a serious sub-supplier accident, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag.
34 (5) (2004) 434–456, https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030410545463.
[5] R. Tummala, T. Schoenherr, Assessing and managing risks using the supply chain risk management process (SCRMP), Supply Chain Manag. 16 (6) (2011)
474–483, https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541111171165.
[6] O. Lavastre, A. Gunasekaran, A. Spalanzani, Supply chain risk management in French companies, Decis. Support Syst. 52 (4) (2012) 828–838, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.dss.2011.11.017.
[7] I. Heckmann, T. Comes, S. Nickel, A critical review on supply chain risk – definition, measure and modeling, Omega 52 (2015) 119–132, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.omega.2014.10.004.
[8] S. Chopra, M.S. Sodhi, Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown, MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 46 (1) (2004) 53–61.
[9] M.N. Faisal, D.K. Banwet, R. Shankar, Supply chain risk mitigation: modeling the enablers, Bus. Process Manag. J. 12 (4) (2006) 535–552, https://doi.org/10.
1108/14637150610678113.
[10] B. Ritchie, C. Brindley, Supply chain risk management and performance: a guiding framework for future development, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 27 (3) (2007)
303–322, https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570710725563.
[11] M. Christopher, H. Peck, Building the resilient supply chain, Int. J. Logist. Manag. 15 (2) (2004) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090410700275.
[12] S. Terzi, S. Cavalieri, Simulation in the supply chain context: a survey, Comput. Ind. Eng. 53 (1) (2004) 3–16, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-3615(03)
00104-0.
[13] F. Persson, J. Olhager, Performance simulation of supply chain designs, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 77 (3) (2002) 231–245, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(00)
00088-8.
[14] E. Fleisch, C. Tellkamp, Inventory inaccuracy and supply chain performance: a simulation study of a retail supply chain, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 95 (3) (2005)
373–385, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.02.003.
[15] F.T.S. Chan, T. Zhang, The impact of collaborative transportation management on supply chain performance: a simulation approach, Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (3)
(2011) 2319–2329, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.020.
[16] R. Cigolini, M. Pero, T. Rossi, An object-oriented simulation meta-model to analyse supply chain performance, Int. J. Prod Res 49 (19) (2011) 5917–5941,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2010.507606.
[17] S.K. Shukla, M.K. Tiwari, H.-D. Wan, R. Shankar, Optimization of the supply chain network: simulation, Taguchi, and Psychoclonal algorithm embedded
approach, Comput. Ind. Eng. 58 (1) (2010) 29–39, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2009.07.016.
[18] M. Holweg, J. Bicheno, Supply chain simulation: a tool for education, enhancement and endeavor, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 78 (2) (2002) 163–175, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0925-5273(00)00171-7.
[19] U. Ramanathan, Performance of supply chain collaboration – A simulation study, Expert Syst. Appl. 41 (1) (2014) 210–220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.
2013.07.022.
[20] F. Aqlan, S.S. Lam, A fuzzy-based integrated framework for supply chain risk assessment, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 161 (2015) 54–63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.
2014.11.013.
[21] A. Azadeh, S.M. Alemm, A flexible deterministic, stochastic and fuzzy Data Envelopment Analysis approach for supply chain risk and vendor selection problem:
simulation analysis, Expert Syst. Appl 37 (12) (2010) 7438–7448, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.04.022.
[22] K. Govindan, M. Fattahi, Investigating risk and robustness measures for supply chain network design under demand uncertainty: a case study of glass supply
40
chain, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 183 (2017) 680–699, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.09.033i.

[23] S. Talluri, T.J. Kull., H. Yildiz, J. Yoon, Assessing the efficiency of risk mitigation strategies in supply chains, J. Bus. Logist. 34 (4) (2013) 253–269.
[24] V. Dixit, N. Seshadrinath, M.K. Tiwari, Performance measures based optimization of supply chain network resilience: a NSGA-II + Co-Kriging approach,
Comput. Ind. Eng. 93 (1) (2016) 205–214, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2015.12.029.
[25] T. Sawik, On the fair optimization of cost and customer service level in a supply chain under disruption risks, Omega 53 (2015) 58–66, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.omega.2014.12.004.
[26] T. Pinto-Varela, A.F.D. Barbosa-Póvoa, A.Q. Novais, Bi-objective optimization approach to the design and planning of supply chains, Economic versus en-
vironmental performances, Comput. Chem. Eng. 35 (2011) 1454–1468, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2011.03.009.
[27] W. Ye, F. You, A computationally efficient simulation-based optimization method with region-wise surrogate modeling for stochastic inventory management of
supply chains with general network structures, Comput. Chem. Eng. 87 (1) (2016) 164–179, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.01.015.
[28] A. Azaron, K.N. Brown, S.A. Tarim, M. Modarres, A multi-objective stochastic programming approach for supply chain design considering risk, Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 116 (2008) 129–138, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.08.002.
[29] X. Wan, J.F. Pekny, G.V. Reklaitis, Simulation-based optimization with surrogate models— application to supply chain management, Comput. Chem. Eng. 29
(1) (2005) 1317–1328, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2005.02.018.
[30] J.D. Schwartz, W. Wang, D.E. Rivera, Simulation-based optimization of process control policies for inventory management in supply chains, Automatica 42 (1)
(2006) 1311–1320, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2006.03.019.
[31] A. Nikolopoulou, M.G. Ierapetritou, Hybrid simulation based optimization approach for supply chain management, Comput. Chem. Eng. 47 (2012) 183–193,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2012.06.045.
[32] F. Zhang, D. Johnson, M. Johnson, D. Watkins, R. Frose, J. Wang, Decision support system integrating GIS with simulation and optimisation for a biofuel supply
chain, Renew Energy 85 (2016) 740–748, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.07.041.
[33] ISO 31000, Risk Management: Principles and Guidelines: ISO 31000, (2009), pp. 1–24.
[34] M.S. Sodhi, C.S. Tang, Managing Supply Chain risk, first ed., Springer, New York, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3238-8.
[35] APICS, Supply Chain Operations Reference Model (SCOR), (2017) Version 12.0.
[36] O. Tang, S.N. Musa, Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain risk management, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 133 (1) (2011) 25–34, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.06.013.
[37] I. Kilube, Supply chain risk management enablers - a framework development through systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2015, Int. J. Bus. Sci.
Appl. Manag. 10 (1) (2015) 36–54.
[38] H. Rodgers, M. Srivastava, K.S. Pawar, J. Shah, Supply chain risk management in India – practical insights, Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 19 (4) (2016) 278–299,
https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2015.1075476.
[39] C. Colicchia, F. Strozzi, Supply chain risk management: a new methodology for a systematic literature review, Supply Chain Manag. 17 (4) (2012) 403–418,
https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211246558.
[40] B. Fahimnia, C.S. Tang, H. Davarzani, J. Sarkis, Quantitative models for managing Supply chain risks: a review, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 270 (1) (2015) 1–15, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.034.
[41] A. Ghadge, S. Dani, M. Chester, R. Kalawsky, Supply chain risk management: present and future scope, Int. J. Logist. Manag. 23 (3) (2012) 313–339, https://
doi.org/10.1108/09574091211289200.
[42] F. Hamdi, A. Ghorbel, F. Masmoudi, Optimization of supply portfolio in context of supply chain risk management : literature review, International Conference
on Advanced Logistics and Transport, 2014, pp. 374–379.
[43] W. Ho, T. Zheng, H. Yildiz, S. Talluri, Supply chain risk management: a literature review, Int. J. Prod Res. 53 (16) (2015) 5031–5069, https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2015.1030467.
[44] I. Kilube, Investigating current paradigms in supply chain risk management — a bibliometric study, Bus. Process Manag. J. 22 (4) (2016) 662–692, https://doi.
org/10.1108/BPMJ-05-2015-0060.
[45] Z. Li, P.S. Tan, Q.M.G. YEE, Q.C. Nguyen, Y.S. ONG, X. Chen, A review of complex systems technologies for supply chain risk management, 2013 IEEE Trans.
Syst. Man, Cybern. Syst. 2013, pp. 2783–2789, , https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC.2013.475.
[46] P. Singhal, G. Agarwal, M.L. Mittal, Supply chain risk management : review, classification and future research directions, Int. J. Bus. Sci. Appl. Manag. 6 (3)
(2011) 15–42.
[47] N. Vanany, S. Zailani, N. Pujawan, Supply chain risk management: literature review and future research, Int. J. Inf. Syst. Supply Chain Manag. 2 (1) (2009)
16–33.
[48] Q. Zhu, H. Krikke, MarjoleinC.J. Caniëls, Integrated supply chain risk management: a systematic review, Int. J. Logist. Manag. 28 (4) (2017) 1123–1141,
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-09-2016-0206.
[49] S. Prakash, G. Soni, A.P.S. Rathore, A critical analysis of supply chain risk management content: a structured literature review, J. Adv. Manag. Res. 14 (2017)
69–90, https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-10-2015-0073.
[50] Y. Fan, M. Stevenson, A review of supply chain risk management: definition, theory, and research agenda, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 48 (3) (2018)
205–230, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-01-2017-0043.
[51] O. Bak, Supply chain risk management research agenda: from a literature review to a call for future research directions, Bus. Process Manag. J. 24 (2) (2018)
567–588, https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-02-2017-0021.
[52] J. Wang, et al., Toward a resilient holistic supply chain network system: concept, review and future direction, IEEE Systems Journal 10 (2) (2016) 410–421,
https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2014.2363161.
[53] M. Kamalahmadi, M.M. Parast, A review of the literature on the principles of enterprise and Supply Chain Resilience: major findings and directions for future
research, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 171 (2016) 116–133, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.10.023.
[54] N.-O. Hohenstein, E. Feisel, E. Hartmann, L. Giunipero, Research on the phenomenon of Supply Chain resilience: a systematic review and paths for further
investigation, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 45 (1/2) (2015) 90–117, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2013-0128.
[55] J.P. Ribeiro, A. Barbosa-Povoa, Supply Chain Resilience: definitions and quantitative modelling approaches – a literature review, Comput. Ind. Eng. 115 (2018)
109–122, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.11.006.
[56] T. Chiu, C. Choi, Supply chain risk analysis with mean-variance models: a technical review, Ann. Oper. Res. 135 (2013) 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-
013-1386-4.
[57] D. Shi, A review of enterprise supply chain risk management, J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 13 (2) (2004) 219–244.
[58] U.R. Oliveira, F.A. Marins, H.M. Rocha, V.A.P. Salomon, The ISO 31000 standard in Supply chain risk management, J Clean Prod 151 (2017) 616–633, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.054.
[59] S. Simba, W. Niemann, T. Kotzé, A. Agig, Supply chain risk management processes for resilience: a study of South African grocery manufacturers, J. Transp.
Supply Chain Manag. 11 (0) (2017) 1–13, https://doi.org/10.4102/jtscm.v11i0.325.
[60] G. Behzadi, M.J. O'Sullivan, T.L. Olsen, A. Zhang, Agribusiness supply chain risk management: A review of quantitative decision models, Omega 79 (2018)
21–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2017.07.005.
[61] D.L. Olson, D.D. Wu, A review of enterprise risk management in supply chain, Kybernetes 39 (5) (2010) 694–706, https://doi.org/10.1108/
03684921011043198.
[62] C.S. Tang, Perspectives in supply chain risk management, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 103 (2006) 451–488, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.12.006.
[63] D. Bandaly, A. Satir, Y. Kahyaoglu, L. Shanker, Supply chain risk management – I: conceptualization, framework and planning process, Risk Manag. 14 (2012)
249–271, https://doi.org/10.1057/rm.2012.7.
[64] D. Bandaly, L. Shanker, Y. Kahyaoglu, A. Satir, Supply chain risk management – II: a review of operational, financial and integrated approaches, Risk Manag. 15
(2013) 1–31, https://doi.org/10.1057/rm.2012.8.
41
[65] F. Cucchiella, M. Gastaldi, Risk management in supply chain: a real option approach, J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 17 (6) (2006) 700–720, https://doi.org/10.
1108/17410380610678756.
[66] P. Finch, Supply chain risk management, Supply Chain Manag. 9 (2) (2004) 183–196, https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540410527079.
[67] H. Pfohl, H. Köhler, D. Thomas, State of the art in supply chain risk management research: empirical and conceptual findings and a roadmap for the im-
plementation in practice, Logist. Res. 2 (1) (2010) 33–44, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12159-010-0023-8.
[68] M.S. Sodhi, B. Son, C.S. Tang, Researchers’ perspectives on supply chain risk management, Prod. Oper. Manag. 21 (1) (2012) 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1937-5956.2011.01251.x.
[69] O. Khan, B. Burnes, Risk and supply chain management: creating a research agenda, Int. J. Logist. Manag. 18 (2) (2007) 197–216, https://doi.org/10.1108/
09574090710816931.
[70] S. Kumar, K.J. Himes, C.P. Kritzer, Risk assessment and operational approaches to managing risk in global supply chains, J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 25 (6)
(2014) 873–890, https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-04-2012-0044.
[71] D.J. Cook, N.L. Greengold, A.G. Ellrodt, S.R. Weingarten, The relation between systematic reviews and practice guidelines, Ann. Intern. Med. 127 (3) (1997)
210–216.
[72] D. Denyer, D. Tranfield, Producing a systematic review, in: D. Buchanan, A. Bryman (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2008.
[73] D. Tranfield, D. Denyer, P. Smart, Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review, Br. J.
Manag. 14 (1) (2003) 207–222.
[74] D.L. Olson, D.D. Wu, Risk management models for supply chain: a scenario analysis of outsourcing to China, Supply Chain Manag. 16 (6) (2011) 401–408,
https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541111171110.
[75] D. Xia, B. Chen, A comprehensive decision-making model for risk management of supply chain, Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (5) (2011) 4957–4966, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.eswa.2010.09.156.
[76] G.J. Hahn, H. Kuhn, Value-based performance and risk management in supply chains: a robust optimization approach, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 139 (1) (2012)
135–144, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.04.002.
[77] K.C. Liew, C.K.M. Lee, Modelling and risk management in the offshore and marine industry supply chain, Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 4 (1) (2012) 1–7.
[78] A. Nagurney, A.H. Masoumi, M. Yu, Supply chain network operations management of a blood banking system with cost and risk minimization, Comput. Manag.
Sci. 9 (2) (2012) 1–32.
[79] Y.K. Tse., K.H. Tan, Managing product quality risk and visibility in multi-layer supply chain, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 139 (1) (2012) 49–57, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijpe.2011.10.031.
[80] A. Xanthopoulos, D. Vlachos, E. Iakovou, Optimal newsvendor policies for dual-sourcing supply chains: a disruption risk management framework, Comput.
Oper. Res. 39 (2) (2012) 350–357, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2011.04.010.
[81] H. Elleuch, W. Hachicha, H. Chabchoud, A combined approach for supply chain risk management: description and application to a real hospital pharmaceutical
case study, J. Risk Res. 17 (5) (2014) 641–663, https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2013.815653.
[82] S. Giarola, F. Bezzo, N. Shah, A risk management approach to the economic and environmental strategic design of ethanol supply chains, Biomass Bioenergy 58
(2013) 31–51, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.08.005.
[83] M. Huang, X. Wang, F.-Q. Lu, H.-L. Bi, A coordination of risk management for supply chains organized as virtual enterprises, Math. Probl. Eng. 2013 (2013)
1–11, https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/931690.
[84] H.Q. Le, S. Arch-Int, H.X. Nguyen, N. Arch-Int, Association rule hiding in risk management for retail supply chain collaboration, Comput. Ind. 64 (7) (2013)
776–784, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2013.04.011.
[85] B.H. Tabrizi, J. Razmi, Introducing a mixed-integer non-linear fuzzy model for risk management in designing supply chain networks, J. Manuf. Syst. 32 (2)
(2013) 295–307, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2012.12.001.
[86] T. Wu, S. Huang, J. Blackhurst, X. Zhang, S. Wang, Supply Chain Risk Management: an agent-based simulation to study the impact of retail stockouts, 2013,
IEEE Trans Eng. Manag. 60 (4) (2013) 676–686, https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2012.2190986.
[87] X.S. Xu, Z.Q. Meng, R. Shen, A tri-level programming model based on Conditional Value-at-Risk for three-stage supply chain management, Comput. Ind. Eng. 66
(2) (2013) 470–475, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2013.07.012.
[88] G. Han, M. Dong, Q. Sun, Managing distrust-induced risk with deposit in supply chain contract decisions, Sci. World J. 2014 (2014) 1–15, https://doi.org/10.
1155/2014/961394.
[89] I. Manuj, T.L. Esper, T.P. Stank, Supply chain risk management approaches under different conditions of risk, J. Bus. Logist. 35 (3) (2014) 241–258.
[90] M. Marufuzzaman, S.D. Eksioglu, X. Li, J. Wang, Analyzing the impact of intermodal-related risk to the design and management of biofuel supply chain, Transp.
Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 69 (2014) 122–145, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2014.06.008.
[91] M. Peng, Y. Peng, H. Chen, Post-seismic supply chain risk management: a system dynamics disruption analysis approach for inventory and logistics planning,
Comput. Oper. Res. 42 (2014) 14–24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2013.03.003.
[92] S.J. Qu, M. Goh, R. De Souza, T.N. Wang, Proximal point algorithms for convex multi-criteria optimization with applications to supply chain risk management,
J. Optim. Theory Appl 163 (2014) 949–956, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10957-014-0540-8.
[93] T. Shu, S. Chen, S. Wang, K.K. Lai, GBOM-oriented management of production disruption risk and optimization of supply chain construction, Expert Syst. Appl.
41 (1) (2014) 59–68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.07.011.
[94] B. Cheng, S. Wang, Supply chain risk evaluation of hotel and catering industry and model construction of informatization management system, Carpath. J. Food
Sci. Technol. 7 (3) (2015) 16–23.
[95] S. Fazli, R.K. Mavi, M. Vosooghidizaji, Crude oil Supply chain risk management with DEMATEL – ANP, Oper. Res. Int. J. 15 (1) (2015) 453–480, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12351-015-0182-0.
[96] M. Güller, E. Koc, T. Hegmanns, M. Henke, B. Noche, A simulation-based decision support framework for real-time supply chain risk management, Int. J. Adv.
Logist. 4 (1) (2015) 17–26, https://doi.org/10.1080/2287108X.2015.1008948.
[97] A. Nagurney, L.S. Nagurney, D. Li, Securing the sustainability of global medical nuclear supply chains through economic cost recovery, risk management, and
optimization, Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 9 (6) (2015) 405–418.
[98] S.V. Nooraie, M.M. Parast, A multi-objective approach to supply chain risk management: integrating visibility with supply and demand risk, Int. J. Prod. Econ.
161 (2015) 192–200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.024.
[99] S.K. Paul, Supplier selection for managing supply risks in supply chain: a fuzzy approach, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. (2015) 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00170-015-6867-y.
[100] N. Sahay, M. Ierapetritou, Flexibility assessment and risk management in Supply Chains, AIChE J. 61 (12) (2015) 4166–4178, https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.
[101] D. Bandaly, A. Satir, L. Shanker, Impact of lead time variability in supply chain risk management, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 180 (2016) 88–100, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijpe.2016.07.014.
[102] K. Chatterjee, K. Samarjit, Multi-criteria analysis of supply chain risk management using interval valued fuzzy TOPSIS, OPSEARCH. 53 (2016) 474–479,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-015-0241-6.
[103] O. Kirilmaz, S. Erol, A proactive approach to supply chain risk management: shifting orders among suppliers to mitigate the supply side risks, J. Purch. Supply
Manag. 23 (1) (2017) 54–65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.04.002.
[104] C. Li, J. Ren, H. Wang, A system dynamics simulation model of chemical supply chain transportation risk management systems, Comput. Chem. Eng. 89 (1)
(2016) 71–83, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.02.019.
[105] S. Ma, Differential Dynamic Evolutionary Model of Emergency Financial Service Supply Chain in Natural Disaster Risk Management, Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc.
2016 (2016) 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5103716.
[106] R.K. Mavi, M. Goh, N.K. Mavi, Supplier selection with shannon entropy and fuzzy TOPSIS in the context of Supply Chain Risk Management, Procedia 235
42
(2016) 216–225, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.11.017.

[107] S. Medina-Gonzalez, C. Pozo, G. Corsano, G. Guillén-Gósalbez, A. Espuña, Using Pareto filters to support risk management in optimization under uncertainty:
application to the strategic planning of chemical supply chains, Comput. Chem. Eng. 98 (2017) 236–255, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.10.
008.
[108] Y.B. Park, H.S. Kim, Simulation-based evolutionary algorithm approach for deriving the operational planning of global supply chains from the systematic risk
management, Comput. Ind. 83 (2016) 68–77, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2016.09.003.
[109] F. d'Amore, F. Bezzo, Managing technology performance risk in the strategic design of biomass-based supply chains for energy in the transport sector, Energy
138 (2017) 563–574, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.074.
[110] M.L. Keilhacker, S. Minner, Supply chain risk management for critical commodities: a system dynamics model for the case of the rare earth elements, Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 125 (2017) 349–362, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.05.004.
[111] L. Liu, X. Liu, G. Liu, The risk management of perishable supply chain based on coloured Petri Net modeling, Inf. Process. Agric. 5 (2018) 47–59, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.inpa.2017.12.001.
[112] A. Mostafaeipour, M. Qolipour, H. Eslami, Implementing fuzzy rank function model for a new supply chain risk management, J. Supercomput. 73 (2017)
3586–3602, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-017-1960-7.
[113] H. Mulyati, J. Geldermann, Managing risks in the Indonesian seaweed supply chain, Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 19 (2017) 175–189, https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10098-016-1219-7.
[114] C. Rao, X. Xiao, M. Goh, J. Zheng, J. Wen, Compound mechanism design of supplier selection based on multi-attribute auction and risk management of supply
chain, Comput. Ind. Eng. 105 (2017) 63–75, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.12.042.
[115] 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, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.145.
[116] C. Song, J. Zhuang, Modeling a Government-Manufacturer-Farmer game for food supply chain risk management, Food Control 78 (2017) 443–455, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.02.047.
[117] J.M. Cruz, A. Nagurney, T. Wakolbinger, Financial engineering of the integration of global supply chain networks and social networks with risk management,
Nav. Res. Logist. 53 (7) (2006) 674–696, https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.20179.
[118] R.S. Gaonkar, N. Viswanadham, Analytical framework for the management of risk in supply chains, IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 4 (2) (2007) 265–273, https://
doi.org/10.1109/TASE.2006.880540.
[119] E.J. Lodree Jr., S. Taskin, An insurance risk management framework for disaster relief and supply chain disruption inventory planning, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 59
(2008) 674–684, https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602377.
[120] F. You, J.M. Wassick, I.E. Grossmann, Risk management for a global supply chain planning under uncertainty: models and algorithms, AIChE J. 55 (4) (2009)
931–946, https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.11721.
[121] M.C. Carneiro, G.P. Ribas, S. Hamacher, Risk management in the oil supply chain: a CVaR approach, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 49 (2010) 3286–3294, https://doi.
org/10.1021/ie901265n.
[122] G. Tuncel, G. Alpan, Risk assessment and management for supply chain networks: a case study, Comput. Ind. 61 (2010) 250–259, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compind.2009.09.008.
[123] G.E. Applequist, J.F. Pekny, G.V. Reklaitis, Risk and uncertainty in managing chemical manufacturing supply chains, Comput. Chem. Eng. 24 (2000)
2211–2222.
[124] M.S. Sodhi, Managing demand risk in tactical supply chain planning for a global consumer electronics company, Prod. Oper. Manag. 14 (1) (2005) 69–79.
[125] D.R. Towill, The impact of business policy on bullwhip induced risk in supply chain management, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 35 (8) (2005) 555–575,
https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030510623339.
[126] O. Balci, A life cycle for modeling and simulation, Simulation 88 (7) (2012) 870–883, https://doi.org/10.1177/0037549712438469.
[127] J. Banks, J.S. Carson II, B.L. Nelson, D.M. Nicol, Discrete-event System simulation, fourth ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle, 2004.
[128] U. Jüttner, H. Peck, M. Christopher, Supply chain risk management: outlining an agenda for future research, Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 6 (4) (2003) 197–210.
[129] P.R. Kleindorfer, G.H. Saad, Managing disruption risks in supply chains, Prod. Oper. Manag. 14 (1) (2005) 53–68.
[130] B. Kayis, SCRIS: a knowledge-based system tool for assisting manufacturing organizations in identifying supply chain risks, J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 23 (7)
(2012) 834–852, https://doi.org/10.1108/17410381211267682.
[131] G.L. Schlegel, R.J. Trent, Supply Chain Risk Management: An Emerging Discipline, first ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2015.
[132] S. Rao, T.J. Goldsby, Supply chain risks: a review and typology, Int. J. Logist. Manag. 20 (1) (2009) 97–123, https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090910954864.
[133] D.A. Rangel, T.K. Oliveira, M.S.A. Leite, Supply chain risk classification: discussion and proposal, Int. J. Prod. Res. (2014) 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2014.910620.
[134] C.D. Walters, Supply Chain Risk Management: Vulnerability and Resilience in Logistics, first ed., Kogan, London, 2007.
[135] J. Von Neumann, O. Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, first ed., Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1953.
[136] H. Markowitz, Portfolio selection, J. Finance 7 (1) (1952) 77–91.
[137] Handbook of Integrated Risk Management in Global Supply Chains, in: P. Kouvelis, L. Dong, O. Boyabatli, R. Li (Eds.), Handbook of Integrated Risk
Management in Global Supply Chains, first ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 2012.
[138] J. Li, J. Chen, S. Wang, Risk Management of Supply and Cash Flows in Supply Chains, first ed., Springer Science + Business Media, New York, 2011.
[139] K. Kogan, C.S. Tapiero, Supply Chain games: Operations Management and Risk Valuation, first ed., Springer Science + Business Media, New York, 2007.
[140] D.L. Olson, Supply Chain Risk management: Tools For Analysis, second ed., Business Expert Press, New York, 2014.
[141] R.T. Rockafellar, S. Uryasev, Optimization of Conditional Value-at-Risk, J. Risk 2 (3) (2000) 21–41, https://doi.org/10.21314/JOR.2000.038.
[142] B. Handfield, K. McCormack, Supply Chain Risk management: Minimizing Disruptions in Global Sourcing, first ed., Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, 2008.
[143] G.A. Zsidisin, B. Ritchie, Risk management system: a conceptual model, in: G.A. Zsidisin, B. Ritchie (Eds.), Supply Chain Risk: A Handbook of Assessment,
Management, and Performance, Springer, New York, 2008Chapter 1.
[144] C.S. Tang, Robust strategies for mitigating supply chain disruptions, Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 9 (1) (2006) 33–45, https://doi.org/10.1080/
13675560500405584 b.
[145] A.J. Schmitt, S.A. Sun, L.V. Snyder, Z.J.M. Shen, Centralization versus decentralization: risk pooling, risk diversification, and supply chain disruptions, Omega
52 (2015) 201–212, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.06.002.
[146] G.P. Cachon, The allocation of inventory risk in a supply chain: push, pull, and advance-purchase discount contracts, Manage. Sci. 50 (2) (2004) 222–238,
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.8.1030.0190.
[147] O. Khan, M. Christopher, B. Burnes, The impact of product design on supply chain risk: a case study, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 38 (5) (2008) 412–432,
https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030810882834.
[148] S.M. Wagner, C. Bode, An empirical examination of supply chain performance along several dimensions of risk, J. Bus. Logist. 29 (1) (2008) 307–325.
[149] J. Ma, L. Sun, Complex dynamics of a MC–MS pricing model for a risk-averse supply chain with after-sale investment, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul.
26 (1-3) (2015) 108–122, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2015.01.020.
[150] T. Xiao, T. Xu, Pricing and product line strategy in a supply chain with risk-averse players, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 156 (2014) 305–315, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpe.2014.06.021.
[151] X. Chen, S. Shum, D. Simchi-Levi, Stable and coordinating contracts for a supply chain with multiple risk-averse suppliers, Prod. Oper. Manag. 23 (3) (2014)
379–392, https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12073.
[152] G. Xu, B. Dan, X. Zhang, C. Liu, Coordinating a dual-channel supply chain with risk-averse under a two-way revenue sharing contract, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 147
(2014) 171–179, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.09.012.
[153] G.S. Lynch, Single Point of Failure: the Ten Essential Laws of Supply Chain Risk Management, first ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 2009.
43
[154] S.Y. Ponomarov, M.C. Holcomb, Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience, Int. J. Logist. Manag. 20 (1) (2009) 124–143, https://doi.org/10.1108/
09574090910954873.
[155] S. Mandal, An empirical investigation into supply chain resilience, IUP J. Supply Chain Manag. 9 (4) (2012) 46–61.
[156] S. Mandal, Supply chain resilience: a state-of-the-art review and research directions, Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 5 (4) (2014) 427–453, https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJDRBE-03-2013-0003.
[157] J. Blackhurst, C.W. Craighead, D. Elkins, R.B. Handfield, An empirically derived agenda of critical research issues for managing supply-chain disruptions, Int. J.
Prod. Res. 43 (19) (2005) 4067–4081, https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540500151549.
[158] K. Scholten, P.S. Scott, B. Fynes, Mitigation processes - antecedents for building supply chain resilience, Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 19 (2) (2014) 211–228,
https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-06-2013-0191.
[159] M.C. Georgiadis, P. Tsiakis, P. Longinidis, M.K. Sofioglou, Optimal design of supply chain networks under uncertain transient demand variations, Omega 39
(2011) 254–272, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2010.07.002.
[160] T.P. Harrison, P.J. Houm, D.J. Thomas, W. Christopher, Supply chain disruptions are inevitable — get READI : resiliency enhancement analysis via deletion and
insertion, Transp. J. 52 (2) (2017) 264–276.
[161] W. Klibi, A. Martel, Modeling approaches for the design of resilient supply networks under disruptions, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 135 (2012) 882–898, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.10.028.
[162] S.I. Mari, Y.H. Lee, M.S. Memon, Sustainable and resilient supply chain network design under disruption risks, Sustain 6 (2014) 6666–6686, https://doi.org/10.
3390/su6106666.
[163] A. Adhitya, R. Srinivasan, I.A. Karimi, Supply chain risk identification using a HAZOP-based approach, AIChE J. 55 (6) (2009) 1447–1463, https://doi.org/10.
1002/aic.11764.
[164] J. Hallikas, I. Karvonenb, U. Pulkkinenb, V. Virolainenc, M. Tuominena, Risk management processes in supplier networks, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 90 (2004) 47–58,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.02.007.
[165] S.K. Pradhan, S. Routroy, Analyzing the supply chain risk issues for an Indian manufacturing company, J. Adv. Manag. 11 (2) (2014) 144–162, https://doi.org/
10.1108/JAMR-11-2012-0047.
[166] A. Mullai, Risk management system: a conceptual model, in: G.A. Zsidisin, B. Ritchie (Eds.), Supply Chain Risk: A Handbook of Assessment, Management, and
Performance, Springer, New York, 2008Chapter 6.
[167] J.W. Forrester, Industrial Dynamics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press, Cambridge, 1961.
[168] S.S. Rao, Engineering Optimization: Theory and Practice, fourth ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2009.
[169] J.F. Nash, Equilibrium points in n-person games, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 36 (1) (1950) 48–49, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.36.1.48.
[170] Ø. Berle, I. Norstad, B.E. Asbjørnslett, Optimization, risk assessment and resilience in LNG transportation systems, Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 18 (3) (2013)
253–264, https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-03-2012-0109.
[171] T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, first ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
[172] T.L. Saaty, Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process: Decision Making With Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks, first ed., RWS, Pittsburgh,
2005.
[173] S. Holmberg, A systems perspective on supply chain measurements, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 30 (10) (2002) 847–868, https://doi.org/10.1108/
09600030010351246.
[174] C. Morgan, Structure, speed and salience: performance measurement in the supply chain, Bus. Process Manag. J. 10 (5) (2004) 522–536, https://doi.org/10.
1108/14637150410559207.
[175] B. C, J. Jayaram, Supply chain management: a strategic perspective, Int. J. Logist. Manag. 8 (1) (1997) 15–34, https://doi.org/10.1108/09574099710805565.
[176] P. Gilmour, Benchmarking supply chain operations, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 5 (4) (1999) 283–290, https://doi.org/10.1108/14635779810245143.
[177] U.S. Bititci, A.S. Carrie, L. McDevitt, Integrated performance measurement systems: a development guide, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 17 (5) (1997) 522–534,
https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579710167230.
[178] B.M. Beamon, Measuring supply chain performance, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 19 (3) (1999) 275–292, https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579910249714.
[179] D.M. Lambert, T.L. Pohlen, Supply chain metrics, Int. J. Logist. Manag. 12 (1) (2001) 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090110806190.
[180] D. Estampe, Supply Chain Performance and Evaluation Models, first ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 2014.
[181] N. Viswanadham, A. Samvedi, Supplier selection based on supply chain ecosystem, performance and risk criteria, Int. J. Prod. Res. 51 (21) (2013) 6484–6498,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.825056.
[182] J.P.C. Kleijner, Design and Analysis of Simulation Experiments, first ed., Springer Science + Business Media, New York, 2008.
[183] H. Pierreval, Rule-based simulation models, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 61 (1992) 6–17.
[184] S. Durieux, H. Pierreval, Regression metamodeling for the design of automated manufacturing system composed of parallel machines sharing a material
handling resource, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 89 (2004) 21–30, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(03)00199-3.
[185] R.G. Sargent, Verification and validation of simulation models, J. Simul. 7 (2013) 12–24, https://doi.org/10.1057/jos.2012.20.
[186] G. Dellino, C. Meloni, H. Pierreval, Simul. Model. Pract. Theory. 46 (2014) 1–3, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2014.05.001.
44

Oliveira 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oliveira 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 92 (2019) 17–44

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory

The role of simulation and optimization methods in supply chain

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Fig. 1. Dimensions addressed in this systematic review.

2. Literature analysis procedure

2.1. Planning phase

RQ1: How are the papers structured?

2.2. Searching/screening phase

Fig. 2. Research constructs framework.

2.3. Analysis/synthesis phase

2.4. Presentation phase

3. Findings and discussion

3.1. Relevant papers and descriptive results

Fig. 3. Research framework.

Fig. 4. Time series comparison in SCRM issues.

3.2. Supply chain risk management phases

Fig. 5. Risk response strategies.

Fig. 6. Categories of outcomes and risk monitoring phase.

3.3. Simulation and optimization methods

Fig. 7. Main SCRM phases and authorship

Fig. 8. Optimization objectives.

maximization (upside), and ones linked to minimization (downside).

[74] Not Not Not Not Yes Analytical procedures

Paper Multi-criteria tool Algorithm Framework Algebraic Manipulations MM Other tools

3.4. Supply chain performance measurement system

3.5. Relationships, highlights and research constructs

4. Gaps and insights

5. Relational framework for SCRM

5.1. SCR identification

Fig. 9. SCRM relational framework.

5.2. SCR assessment

5.3. SCR management

5.4. SCR monitoring and control

5.5. SCR communication

6. Conclusion and future research directions

chain, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 183 (2017) 680–699, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.09.033i.

(2016) 216–225, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.11.017.

You might also like