Future Business Journal

Supply Chain Disruptions and Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (SMEs) Resilience
in Post COVID-19 Era
--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: FBUJ-D-23-00230

Full Title: Supply Chain Disruptions and Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (SMEs) Resilience
in Post COVID-19 Era

Article Type: Research

Funding Information:

Abstract: This study examined how supply chain disruption impacts SMEs resilience. Three
dimensions of supply chain disruption: supply chain orientation, resource configuration
capabilities, and risk management were investigated, while SMEs resilience was
proxied using strategic and relationship resilience. A cross-sectional survey research
design was employed in the study. The study population consists of small and
medium-scale enterprises in Benin City that cut across different sectors such as
wholesale, retail and distribution, manufacturing, and service sectors. One hundred
and fifty copies of the questionnaire were administered to the selected organizations.
However, one hundred and thirteen copies were validly completed and used for data
analyses. The data collected were evaluated using descriptive statistics such as
frequency distribution, mean, and standard deviation, while the structural equation
modeling (SEM) method was used to estimate the research model using SmartPLS 4.
The study's findings indicate that supply chain orientation positively and significantly
impacts strategic and relationship resilience. However, resource configuration
capabilities and risk management do not significantly impact SMEs (strategic and
relationship) resilience. Therefore, the study recommends that SMEs could build or
develop resilience against supply chain disruption through regular assessment of
business risks, diversifying and strengthening supplier bases, effective communication
and collaboration, constant investment in technology, and automation of business
operations.

Corresponding Author: Simon Ayo Adekunle, PhD

University of Benin Faculty of Management Sciences
NIGERIA

Corresponding Author Secondary

Information:

Corresponding Author's Institution: University of Benin Faculty of Management Sciences

Corresponding Author's Secondary

Institution:

First Author: Oiza Lauren DIMOWO, B.Sc, M.Sc

First Author Secondary Information:

Order of Authors: Oiza Lauren DIMOWO, B.Sc, M.Sc

Simon Ayo Adekunle, PhD

Order of Authors Secondary Information:

Opposed Reviewers:

Additional Information:

Question Response

Are you submitting this manuscript to a No

Thematic Series?

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Blinded Manuscript Click here to access/download;Blinded Manuscript;FBUJ
MANUSCRIPT DIMOWO_ADEKUNLE.docx
Click here to view linked References

Supply Chain Disruptions and Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (SMEs)
1
2 Resilience in Post COVID-19 Era
3
4
5
6 ABSTRACT
7
8 This study examined how supply chain disruption impacts SMEs resilience. Three
9
10 dimensions of supply chain disruption: supply chain orientation, resource configuration
11
12 capabilities, and risk management were investigated, while SMEs resilience was proxied
13
14 using strategic and relationship resilience. A cross-sectional survey research design was
15 employed in the study. The study population consists of small and medium-scale enterprises
16
17 in Benin City that cut across different sectors such as wholesale, retail and distribution,
18
19 manufacturing, and service sectors. One hundred and fifty copies of the questionnaire were
20
21 administered to the selected organizations. However, one hundred and thirteen copies were
22
23 validly completed and used for data analyses. The data collected were evaluated using
24
25 descriptive statistics such as frequency distribution, mean, and standard deviation, while the
26 structural equation modeling (SEM) method was used to estimate the research model using
27
28 SmartPLS 4. The study's findings indicate that supply chain orientation positively and
29
30 significantly impacts strategic and relationship resilience. However, resource configuration
31
32 capabilities and risk management do not significantly impact SMEs (strategic and
33
34 relationship) resilience. Therefore, the study recommends that SMEs could build or develop
35
36
resilience against supply chain disruption through regular assessment of business risks,
37 diversifying and strengthening supplier bases, effective communication and collaboration,
38
39 constant investment in technology, and automation of business operations.
40
41
42
Keywords: COVID-19, Disruption, Resilience, SMEs, Supply Chain.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1
2
3 Business enterprises in the supply chain are subject to disruptive events in today's turbulent
4
5 and uncertain economic landscape (Shashi, Cerchione & Ertz, 2020). As a result, knowing
6
7 how organizations may effectively deal with supply chain disruptions has become a critical
8 issue for scholars and industry practitioners (Butt, 2021; Shahid, Azeem, Ali & Moktadir,
9
10 2021). A supply chain disruption is defined as an incident or occurrence that disrupts or
11
12 impedes the usual movement of products, services, information, or resources across a supply
13
14 chain network (Ambulkar, Blackhurst & Grawe, 2015). Such disruption can have a
15
16 significant negative impact on a company's financial performance, market position, and
17
18 operational efficiency (Butt, 2021; Shashi et al., 2020). As found by World Economic Forum
19 (2013), 80% of organizations realize the significance of strengthening resilience against
20
21 supply chain disruptions. Firms are emphasizing the development of resilience solutions to
22
23 limit the impact of supply chain disruptions in response to the knowledge that such
24
25 disruptions might have negative implications (Wieland & Wallenburg, 2013).
26
27 It is impossible to overestimate the importance of resilience in the face of supply chain
28
29 interruptions. Resilient businesses are less vulnerable to supply chain disruptions and have
30
31 more robust competence in dealing with them when they occur (Mishra, Singh &
32
33 Subramanian, 2022). Firms that are resilient can efficiently handle supply chain interruptions
34
35
and guarantee that their products and services continue to be delivered to customers. Sheffi
36 and Rice (2005) underline the need to develop resilience to deal with unforeseeable and
37
38 immeasurable dangers. As a result, it is critical to determine the elements that influence
39
40 company resilience in the face of supply chain interruptions.
41
42 Based on previous studies, resilience is an effective risk management and recovery technique
43
44 in the case of a supply chain interruption (Ambulkar et al., 2015; Chopra & Sodhi, 2014).
45
46 Hendricks and Singhal (2005) underline the need to create resilience as businesses confront
47
48 disruptions and advocate for more study in this area. Although resilience appears critical for
49
50 enterprises in handling supply chain disruptions, research on the strategies or methods in
51
52
which organizations nurture resilience to manage such disruptions is lacking (Moosavi,
53 Fathollahi-Fard & Dulebenets, 2022). This study seeks to fill that research gap by studying
54
55 the elements that lead to the development of resilience in organizations facing supply chain
56
57 disruptions.
58
59
60
61
62 1
63
64
65
 This study focuses on three elements that influence the development of organizational
1
2 resilience in the face of supply chain disruptions. The first element examined is supply chain
3
4 orientation, which entails a company's knowledge and awareness of possible disruptions and
5
its capacity to evaluate and learn from previous disruptions (Bode, Wagner, Petersen &
6
7 Ellram, 2011). Bode et al. (2011) explain further that building a solid supply chain
8
9 orientation helps improve a firm's responsiveness to disruptions. Other elements or
10
11 dimensions of supply chain disruption investigated include resource reconfiguration
12
13 capabilities and risk management. Resource reconfiguration is the ability of a business
14
15 enterprise to adapt, realign, and restructure its resources in response to changes in the external
16 environment. At the same time, risk management refers to a company's collection of
17
18 resources that are expressly tailored to managing risks in the supply chain (Ambulkar et al.,
19
20 2015).
21
22
1.1 Research Objectives
23
24
25 This study seeks to empirically investigate the relationship between supply chain disruption
26
27 and SMEs resilience among small and medium-scale enterprises. Specifically, the study seeks
28
to:
29
30
31 i. determine the relationship between supply chain orientation and SMEs resilience;
32
33 ii. examine the effect of resource reconfiguration capabilities on SMEs resilience; and
34
35
iii. ascertain the relationship between risk management and SMEs resilience.
36
37 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
38
39 2.1 SMEs Resilience
40
41
42
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) play an important role in most economies,
43 contributing to growth via innovation and competition (Sahut & Peris-Ortiz, 2014). They are
44
45 critical for economic as well as social growth (Ribeiro-Soriano, 2017). The significance of
46
47 SMEs may be demonstrated in their potential to generate funds, create employment, and
48
49 improve the trade balance (World Trade Organization, 2016). They are the major way of
50
51 rejuvenating and developing national economies through the wealth creation and the
52
53
generation of job opportunities (Grant et al., 2019).
54
55 The lack of a clear definition of resilience has created difficulty in defining resilience in the
56
57 context of supply chain disruptions. Several scholars have attempted to define the concept of
58
59
SMEs resilience in different ways. Weick et al. (1999) defined organizational resilience as
60 “the capacity of organizations to cope with unanticipated dangers after they have become
61
62 2
63
64
65
 manifest,” while Rice and Caniato (2003) defined it as “the ability to respond to disruptions
1
2 and restore normal operations”. Pettit et al. (2013) defined resilience as “the capability to
3
4 anticipate and overcome supply chain disruptions.” Based on these definitions, SMEs
5
resilience can be defined as the capacity of a company or organization to foresee, respond to,
6
7 and recover from various internal and external disruptions, shocks, or difficulties while
8
9 sustaining core activities, operations, and value delivery to stakeholders. It entails the ability
10
11 to adapt, learn, and transform in the face of adversity, assuring the organization's survival,
12
13 viability, and long-term success (Chen, Xie & Liu, 2021). The combination of strategies,
14
15 procedures, resources, and competencies enables proactive risk management, effective crisis
16 response, continuous improvement, and the ability to exploit opportunities in the face of
17
18 uncertainty and change. It entails developing a resilient culture throughout the business,
19
20 supporting cooperation, flexibility, agility, and creativity, and connecting resilience activities
21
22 with the firm's strategic goals and values.
23
24 Based on the work of Chen et al. (2021), organizational resilience can be categorized into
25
26 five. They include capital resilience, strategic resilience, cultural resilience, relationship
27
28 resilience, and learning resilience. Capital resilience refers to a company's capacity to
29
30 continue operating regularly while also recapitalizing against risk in turbulent times
31
32 (Acciarini, Boccardelli & Vitale, 2021). Strategic resilience entails companies retaining
33 strategic consistency throughout time, allowing them to discover and eliminate disadvantages
34
35 and adopt the best development model (Davenport & Cronin, 2000). Cultural resilience
36
37 focuses on employees' entrepreneurial spirits and devotion to the firm as sharpened by
38
39 corporate culture (Denison & Mishra, 1995). Relationship resilience is when business and
40
41 stakeholders have a mutually beneficial connection, while learning resilience is companies'
42
43
capacity to deal with learning stresses and problems (Shore et al., 1990; Tejeiro & Koller,
44 2016). In this study, two dimensions, namely: strategic and relationship resilience, were
45
46 selected for discussion and empirical validation. The choice of strategic and relationship
47
48 resilience is based on the several benefits they confer on firms, such as adaptation, sustained
49
50 performance, competitive advantage, innovation, and collaborative advantage.
51
52 Strategic Resilience: It is defined as an organization's capacity to manage and adapt to
53
54 internal and external disruptions, shocks, and uncertainties while retaining strategic
55
56 objectives and long-term sustainability (Colberg, 2022). It entails anticipating, responding to,
57
58 and recovering from difficulties, changes, and crises to ensure long-term competitive
59
60
advantage, value generation, and organizational success. Strategic resilience entails actively
61
62 3
63
64
65
 recognizing and predicting possible disruptions or risks and proactively modifying strategies,
1
2 processes, and resources to lessen their impact (Shin & Park, 2021). It goes beyond
3
4 reactionary answers and encompasses a forward-thinking viewpoint. Strategically resilient
5
organizations are flexible and nimble in their decision-making and resource allocation. In
6
7 reaction to changing market conditions, client requirements, or unanticipated occurrences,
8
9 they may swiftly change and realign their operations, skills, and goals (Iborra, Safon & Dolz,
10
11 2020).
12
13 Relationship Resilience: This refers to an organization's capacity to preserve and enhance
14
15 relationships with important stakeholders such as suppliers, customers, partners, and other
16
17 business collaborators in the face of disruption, change, or uncertainty (Roostaie, Nawari &
18
19 Kibert, 2019). It entails developing trust, open communication, mutual support, and
20
21 teamwork to overcome obstacles and maintain excellent working relationships.
22
Organizational resilience guarantees that corporate activities continue throughout
23
24 interruptions. Partners may rely on one another for assistance, keep products and services
25
26 flowing, and limit the effect of interruptions on their joint activities. Strong relationships help
27
28 partners work together to identify and manage possible risks, execute mitigation techniques,
29
30 and establish contingency plans, all with the goal of lowering the possibility and effect of
31
32 interruptions (Santoro et al., 2020). It also promotes learning and creativity as organizations
33 share knowledge, ideas, and best practices. It also enhances continual development and
34
35 collaborative exploration of new prospects.
36
37
38 2.2 COVID-19 and Supply Chain Disruption
39
40 Craighead et al. (2007) state that “supply chain disruptions are unplanned and unanticipated
41
42 events that disrupt the normal flow of goods and material in a supply chain and, as a
43
44 consequence, expose firms to operational and financial risks.” Supply chain disruptions are
45 caused by several factors such as natural disasters, supplier-related problems, demand
46
47 fluctuation, logistics issues, quality control, and product recalls, regulatory and compliance
48
49 issues, pandemic and health-related issues, among others (Azadegan et al., 2020; Stecke &
50
51 Kumar, 2009). For instance, unfavorable natural occurrences such as earthquakes, hurricanes,
52
53 floods, wildfires, and extreme weather can disrupt transportation networks, destroy
54
55 infrastructure, and impede the flow of goods and services.
56
57 One of the significant sources of supply chain disruption in recent times is health-related
58
59 issues caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has caused significant disruptions
60
61
62 4
63
64
65
 to enterprises globally (Butt, 2021). According to Ivanov (2020), the COVID-19 pandemic
1
2 has been the most severe health-related challenge in the last decade, resulting in widespread
3
4 disruption and collapse of global supply systems. The pandemic negatively impacted
5
manufacturing and service activities which prompted the installation of stringent measures
6
7 such as trade barriers and export restrictions. The global impact of COVID-19 created
8
9 extensive disruption in supply networks, hurting various businesses. Governments throughout
10
11 the world enacted lockdown measures, limiting the free flow of commodities and putting
12
13 enormous strain on supply systems. This is an unusual difficulty, as enterprises are obliged to
14
15 suspend the transfer of raw materials, causing substantial challenges for suppliers and their
16 logistics departments. Price increases have resulted from limited supply and a dramatic drop
17
18 in demand.
19
20
21 Furthermore, COVID-19 has halted manufacturing, resulting in a considerable decline in
22
demand for specific items. As reported by Magzter (2020), the food business experienced a
23
24 severe drop in sales of roughly 80-100% as a result of the lockdown measures. Furthermore,
25
26 the pandemic has resulted in labor scarcity due to the lockdown precautions. This scarcity
27
28 wreaked havoc on the tourist, retail, and hospitality industries, negatively influencing goods
29
30 manufacturing and final product delivery (Magzter, 2020).
31
32 2.3 Dimensions of Supply Chain Disruption
33
34
35
Three dimensions of supply chain disruption and how they impact SMEs resilience are
36 discussed in this section. These include supply chain orientation, resource reconfiguration
37
38 capabilities, and risk management.
39
40
41
2.3.1 Supply chain orientation
42
43 The term “supply chain orientation” refers to an organizational strategy that stresses the
44
45 necessity of cooperation, coordination, and integration within the supply chain network. It
46
47
entails matching the actions and objectives of multiple supply chain stakeholders, such as
48 suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and customers, in order to achieve overall supply chain
49
50 effectiveness and efficiency (Jadhav, Orr & Malik, 2019). A supply chain-oriented business
51
52 acknowledges the interdependence and interrelationships between different supply chain
53
54 entities and strives to exploit these linkages to improve operational performance, customer
55
56 satisfaction, and competitive advantage. It entails a holistic viewpoint that extends beyond
57
specific roles or departments within a business and considers the end-to-end flow of goods,
58
59 services, and information (Tukamuhabwa, 2023). The need for collaboration and integration
60
61
62 5
63
64
65
 among supply chain participants is emphasized by supply chain orientation. This improves
1
2 communication, visibility, and cooperation, allowing firms to respond to disturbances more
3
4 rapidly and efficiently. Organizations can improve their capacity to adjust to disruptions and
5
continue the flow of goods and services by coordinating operations and pooling resources.
6
7
8 Supply chain orientation improves organizational flexibility and agility when responding to
9
10 disruption. Organizations can access alternate sources of supply, develop contingency plans,
11
12
and swiftly adapt production and distribution methods in the event of interruptions by
13 creating strong connections with suppliers, manufacturers, and other stakeholders (Hussain et
14
15 al., 2023). This adaptability enables firms to respond to changing conditions and recover
16
17 more quickly. Supply chain orientation also helps firms design their supply chains with
18
19 redundancy and resilience. This may entail having several suppliers, redundant
20
21 manufacturing sites, and flexible distribution networks. Organizations may reduce the effect
22
of interruptions and preserve operational continuity by diversifying supply sources and
23
24 establishing redundant capabilities.
25
26
27 2.3.2 Resource configuration capabilities
28
29 The successful management and reconfiguration of resources in response to changing
30
31 environmental conditions are critical for the survival and development of organizations
32
33 (Ambulkar et al., 2015). Supply chain disruptions are occurrences characterized by high
34
35
uncertainty that disrupt the usual flow of products and services throughout the supply chain
36 (Bode et al., 2011). When faced with disruptions, companies may find new threats or
37
38 opportunities and may need to refresh, reconfigure, or realign their resources to reduce threats
39
40 and capitalize on opportunities. In instances of high uncertainty, such as new product
41
42 development or entering new markets, an organization's capacity to reorganize and
43
44 reconfigure its resource base has been proven to be critical in establishing competencies that
45 contribute to the organization's survival and growth (Vega, Arvidsson & Saiah, 2023).
46
47
48 Organizations must reorganize and realign their existing innovation resources and processes
49
50 to increase their innovation capacity to adapt to market developments successfully. Similarly,
51
firms must reorganize their resource base when they experience large environmental shocks
52
53 or industry discontinuities. This entails acquiring, discarding, and restructuring current
54
55 resources to create skills that allow them to adapt to a changing environment. Organizations
56
57 that can rearrange and restructure their resource base in dynamic situations have a better
58
59 chance of developing capacities to reduce the impact of disruptions.
60
61
62 6
63
64
65
 2.3.3 Risk management
1
2 Supply chain risk management is the diversity in potential outcomes, likelihood, and
3
4 subjective values within a supply chain (Ambulkar et al., 2015). They define risk as a
5
6 disruption in the flow of information, resources, and products between supply chain
7
8 components. This unpredictability has the potential to affect the usage of people and
9
10 equipment resources. Sitkin and Pablo (1992) define risk as the degree of uncertainty about
11
12
the realization of potentially major and disappointing events resulting from actions. Zsidisin
13 et al. (2005) conducted research in the aerospace sector and enlarged the concept by
14
15 including supply risk. They defined supply risk as the likelihood of an event involving
16
17 inbound supply from a single supplier failure or the supply market. Such accidents may cause
18
19 the purchasing business to be unable to satisfy client demand or endanger the customer's life
20
21 and safety.
22
23 A supply chain-focused firm takes a proactive approach to identifying and mitigating risks
24
25 throughout the supply chain. Organizations may better understand possible risks and establish
26
27 effective mitigation plans by encouraging collaboration and information exchange across
28
supply chain partners. This proactive risk management strategy strengthens the organization's
29
30 resilience by lowering the likelihood and severity of interruptions.
31
32
33 2.4 Conceptual Framework
34
35 In line with the reviewed extant literature, this study proposes a conceptual framework, as
36
37 depicted in Figure 1. The framework focuses on determining the impact of supply chain
38
39 disruption on SMEs resilience. Specifically, the framework diagrammatically shows how the
40
41
different dimensions of supply chain disruption, identified by Ambulkar et al. (2015), such as
42 supply chain orientation, resource configuration capabilities, and risk management, impact
43
44 SMEs resilience measured by strategic and relationship resilience. The relationships are
45
46 shown in Figure 1 below:
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 7
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 Supply Chain
SMEs
5 Disruption
Resilience
6
7
8 Supply Chain
9 Orientation
10
11 Strategic
12 Resilience
13
14
15
Resource
16
17 Configuration
18 Relationship
19 Resilience
20
21
22 Risk
23 Management
24
25
26
27 Figure 1: Conceptual Framework
28 Source: Researchers’ conceptualization (2023)
29
30
31 2.5 Theoretical Underpinning
32
33 This study is built on the dynamic capabilities theory. The dynamic capabilities theory's
34
35 proponents include well-known scholars and researchers in strategic management and
36
37 organizational theory. They include David Teece, Gary Pisano, and Constance Helfat. For
38
39 instance, Teece (2014) has contributed important to the evolution and comprehension of
40
41 dynamic capabilities theory. He is largely regarded as a significant proponent of the theory.
42 Teece's important work on dynamic capabilities influenced how the theory was
43
44 conceptualized and applied in strategic management and organizational studies.
45
46
47 The dynamic capabilities theory assumes that organizations may create and exploit their
48 distinctive skills to adapt to changing surroundings, shape their competitive advantage, and
49
50 achieve better performance (Kapoor & Aggarwal, 2020). According to this theory, firms must
51
52 constantly detect and capitalize on opportunities and reconfigure and refresh their resources
53
54 and competencies in response to dynamic and uncertain market conditions. The theory also
55
56 assumes that strategic decision-making and organizational learning processes are required for
57
58 the creation and deployment of dynamic capabilities. To improve their adaptability and
59 responsiveness, businesses must make strategic decisions regarding resource allocation,
60
61
62 8
63
64
65
 investment in new skills, and organizational structures. Organizational learning is critical for
1
2 obtaining and integrating new information, refining current competencies, and boosting the
3
4 firm's capacity to detect and capitalize on opportunities (Blome, Schoenherr & Rexhausen,
5
2013).
6
7
8 Though the dynamic capacities theory has significantly impacted strategic management, it is
9
10 not without criticism. One of the criticisms against the theory is that it is ambiguous and lacks
11
12
clear definitions and operationalization, making measuring and applying the theory in
13 practice challenging. Critics also argued that the dynamic capabilities theory overemphasizes
14
15 a firm's internal processes and capacities while ignoring the importance of external elements,
16
17 including industry dynamics (Beske, Land & Seuring, 2014), market circumstances (Barreto,
18
19 2010), and institutional considerations (Kuuluvainen, 2012).
20
21 Despite its criticisms, the dynamic capabilities theory is extremely useful in studying supply
22
23 chain disruption and resilience. The theory emphasizes the relevance of organisations'
24
25 capabilities to adapt to dynamic and unpredictable settings. Firms with high dynamic
26
27 capabilities can adapt to supply chain disruptions proactively, reorganize their resources, and
28
build new skills to offset the effect of disruptions (Kapoor & Aggarwal, 2020). The theory
29
30 also highlights the need for organizations to reconfigure their resources in response to
31
32 changing conditions. Firms can use their dynamic skills to discover alternative suppliers,
33
34 adapt manufacturing processes, and rebuild their supply chain networks in the event of supply
35
36 chain interruptions to maintain continuity and resilience. Therefore, dynamic capabilities
37
38 contribute to a competitive advantage by sensing and shaping possibilities. The key to
39 success and long-term competitive advantage is to build and deploy capabilities faster and
40
41 more effectively than competitors. In conclusion, dynamic capabilities are organizational and
42
43 strategic processes that can provide a competitive advantage and create new resource
44
45 configurations in response to changing environments.
46
47 2.6 Empirical Review
48
49
50 Ambulkar et al. (2015) developed and validated a scale to better understand the elements that
51
contribute to developing company resilience in the face of supply chain disruptions. The
52
53 findings suggest that more than simply focusing on supply chain disruption is needed for
54
55 organizations to create resilience. To build resilience, supply chain disruption-oriented
56
57 organizations must be able to change their resources or have risk management resource
58
59 architecture. It was also found that the circumstances of the disruption determine the precise
60
61
62 9
63
64
65
 technique taken by supply chain disruption-oriented organizations to improve resilience,
1
2 whether it is classified as a severe or low effect. Resource reconfiguration has an important
3
4 mediating function between supply chain disruption and company resilience in the case of
5
high-impact disruptions. In low-impact disruption situations, however, a synergistic benefit
6
7 exists between supply chain disruption orientation and risk management architecture in
8
9 supporting business resilience development.
10
11
12
Rai, Rai, and Singh (2021) examined how socioeconomic sustainability is impacted by
13 organizational resilience in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in India. The study
14
15 determined how an organization's resilient structure affects its social and economic
16
17 sustainability amid the COVID-19 pandemic and assessed the influence of individual
18
19 organizational resilience factors on social and economic sustainability. A cross-sectional
20
21 survey was used to gather quantitative data from respondents from four industries, namely:
22
textile, electronics, hospitality, and Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) industries.
23
24 Structural equation modeling was used to estimate the research model. It was found that
25
26 predicting crises and disruptions and establishing resilience and recoverability have a
27
28 significant impact on both the social and economic dimensions of sustainability.
29
30 Mahajan and Tomar (2021) investigated the food supply chain disruption caused by the
31
32 COVID-19-induced economic shutdown in India. The study examined the influence of food
33
34 supply chain disruption on product stockouts and pricing using a dataset from one of the top
35
36 online food shops. It was found that product availability declines by 10% for vegetables,
37
38 fruits, and edible oils, while the price impact is minor. It is represented by a 20% drop in the
39 quantity arrivals of vegetables and fruits at the farm gate. The study demonstrated that supply
40
41 chain disruption is the primary cause of the decrease. Distance to production zones from
42
43 retail centers was calculated, which shows that the drop in product availability and number of
44
45 arrivals is greater for products grown or made farther away from the ultimate point of sale. It
46
47 was also revealed that long-distance food supply systems were significantly impacted with
48
49
negative effects for urban consumers and farmers.
50
51 Butt (2021) investigated the steps/countermeasures that purchasing and distribution
52
53 companies implemented to resolve supply chain disruption induced by COVID-19. The study
54
55 adopts a multiple case study technique, conducting 36 semi-structured interviews with senior
56 executives from nine companies from China and other heavily impacted South Asian areas
57
58 (Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and India). The study found that in addressing the issues provided by
59
60 COVID-19, purchasing and distribution companies are shifting to agile manufacturing,
61
62 10
63
64
65
 improving inbound material visibility, and temporarily shutting production facilities.
1
2 Furthermore, distribution centers are changing their inventory rules and exploring alternate
3
4 outward routes and sources of supplies to deal with the interruptions created by the COVID-
5
19 pandemic.
6
7
8 Musa and Ali (2023) investigated the strategies for mitigating supply chain disruption in
9
10 Kaduna, Nigeria. The study examined the measures utilized to reduce the effects of COVID-
11
12
19 on the supply chain by KADHSMA. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted
13 with management and suppliers of the case organization in Kaduna, Nigeria. The findings
14
15 showed that the KADHSMA employed strategies such as frequent online meetings with
16
17 stakeholders, drone delivery to places with logistical and environmental issues, last-mile
18
19 delivery, and new communication technologies to mitigate supply chain disruption.
20
21 3.0 METHODOLOGY
22
23 This study employed a cross-sectional survey research design. The rationale for its usage in
24
25 this study is that it is less expensive and provides important insights into the features of a
26
27 population (Lee, Kang & You, 2021). The study population consists of small and medium-
28
scale enterprises in Benin City. One hundred and fifty copies of the questionnaire were
29
30 administered to the selected organizations. However, one hundred and thirteen copies were
31
32 validly completed and used for data analyses.
33
34
35 Data for this study were gathered through the use of primary sources. A questionnaire was
36
37 utilized to collect data. The questionnaire was divided into two major parts. The first part
38
39
contains questions on the gender, age, and experience of the respondents. The second part of
40 the questionnaire contains items on the five constructs or variables used for the study. The
41
42 19-item scale used in this study was adapted and modified from previous studies. The scale
43
44 used to measure supply chain disruption dimensions (supply chain orientation, resource
45
46 configuration capabilities, and risk management) was adapted from the work of Ambulkear et
47
48 al. (2015), while the scale for measuring SMEs resilience was adapted from the work of Chen
49 et al. (2021). All the scale items in the second section of the questionnaire were in a 5-point
50
51 Likert format, with 5 representing strongly agree and 1 representing strongly disagree.
52
53
54 The pool of items in the questionnaire was subjected to meticulous scrutiny and evaluation by
55
56 the supervisors. The comments and suggestions made by them on the content of the
57
58 questionnaire were incorporated, thus enriching the quality of the final questionnaire. Table 1
59
60
61
62 11
63
64
65
 shows the operational definition and reliability scores of the different constructs as contained
1
2 in related previous studies.
3
4
5
Table 1: Operational definitions of variables, item source and reliability values
6 Item Reliability
7 Variable Operational definition
8 Source values
9
10 SMEs strategy that stresses the
11
12 Supply chain necessity of cooperation, Ambulkar et
13 0.84
14 orientation coordination, and integration within al. (2015)
15
16 the supply chain network
17 It represents SMEs ability to
18 Resource
19 efficiently manage and utilize Ambulkar et
20 configuration 0.83
21 available resources to optimize its al. (2015)
22 capabilities
23 supply chain operations.
24
25 It represents the process SMEs use in
26
27 identifying, assessing, and mitigating
28
potential risks and uncertainties that Ambulkar et
29 Risk management 0.92
30 can disrupt the smooth flow of goods, al. (2015)
31
32 services, and information across the
33
34 supply chain network.
35
36 It involves the capacity of SMEs to
37
38 adapt, respond, and maintain
39
operations despite unforeseen events, Chen et al.
40 Strategic resilience 0.86
41 such as natural disasters, economic (2021)
42
43 downturns, geopolitical conflicts, or
44
45 supply chain disruptions.
46
47 It is the ability of SMEs to maintain
48
49 strong and resilient relationships with
50
Relationship Chen et al.
their partners, customers, and other 0.90
51 resilience (2021)
52 stakeholders within the supply chain
53
54 network.
55
56 Source: Researchers’ compilation (2023)
57
58
59
60
61
62 12
63
64
65
 The data collected were evaluated using descriptive statistics such as frequency distribution,
1
2 mean, and standard deviation. The structural equation modeling (SEM) method was used to
3
4 estimate the research model. SEM, as defined by Smith and Langfield-Smith (2004), is a
5
method of expressing a sequence of structural equations that is beneficial when a dependent
6
7 variable in one equation becomes an independent variable in another. SEM is also helpful in
8
9 estimating multiple dependent variables simultaneously. Data analysis was done in this study
10
11 using SEM since it is a strong multivariate approach for assessing causal models with
12
13 estimates of measurement and structural components (Lin et al., 2017). Different components
14
15 of the SEM, such as factor loading, reliability, average variance extracted (AVE), path
16 coefficients, and model fit parameters, were obtained using SmartPLS 4 software. SmartPLS
17
18 4 has an easy-to-use interface allows researchers, even those without considerable statistical
19
20 understanding, to run SEM studies. The software also has comprehensive model evaluation
21
22 and validation features. It allows users to analyze the overall fit of their SEM models and the
23
24 reliability and validity of measuring items and latent variable collinearity.
25
26 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
27
28 4.1 Description of respondents’ demographic profile
29
30 Table 2 shows the demographic profile of the respondents.
31
32 Table 2: Respondents’ demographic profile
33 Demographic Percent
34 Category Frequency
35 Profile (%)
36
37 Male 62 54.9
38
Gender Female 51 45.1
39
40 Total 113 100.0
41
42 Below 30years 27 23.9
43
44 31-40years 31 27.4
45 Age 41-50years 37 32.7
46
47 Above 50years 18 15.9
48
49 Total 113 100.0
50
51
Below 7years 25 22.1
52 7-14years 45 39.8
53
54 Business experience 15-22years 23 20.4
55
56 Above 22years 20 17.7
57 Total 113 100.0
58
59 Source: Researchers’ computation (2023)
60
61
62 13
63
64
65
 54.9% of the responders are male, while 45.1% are female. The age distribution shows that
1
2 the majority of respondents (37, 32.7%) were between the ages of 41 and 50. 31 (27.4%) are
3
4 between 31 and 40 years. Only 23.9% and 15.9% of the respondents are below 30 and above
5
50, respectively. The respondents' business experience shows that the bulk of them (45,
6
7 39.8%) had been in business for between 7 to 14 years. 22.1% had been in business for less
8
9 than 7 years, while the remaining respondents, jointly accounting for 38.1%, have been in
10
11 business for more than 14 years. This implies that the SME owners have wealth of experience
12
13 and knowledge to make educated decisions and manage different business challenges and
14
15 opportunities.
16
4.2 Descriptive statistics of research variables
17
18 Table 3 shows the research variables' mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis.
19
20 Table 3: Descriptive statistics
21
22 Standard Cramér-von
23 Items Mean Kurtosis Skewness
24 deviation Mises p value
25 SCO1 3.513 1.090 -0.654 -0.305 0.000
26
27 SCO2 3.248 1.209 -0.909 -0.094 0.000
28
29 SCO3 3.230 1.190 -0.679 -0.265 0.000
30 SCO4 3.080 1.390 -1.191 -0.124 0.000
31
32 RMG1 4.513 0.843 6.637 -2.381 0.000
33
34 RMG2 4.336 0.879 2.527 -1.512 0.000
35
36 RMG3 4.460 0.810 6.828 -2.252 0.000
37 RMG4 4.558 0.786 6.695 -2.351 0.000
38
39 RCO1 4.177 0.971 2.768 -1.541 0.000
40
41 RCO2 4.080 0.913 1.048 -1.007 0.000
42
RCO3 4.133 0.945 0.810 -1.035 0.000
43
44 STR1 3.558 0.977 -0.202 -0.279 0.000
45
46 STR2 3.673 0.916 -0.809 -0.138 0.000
47
48 STR3 3.788 0.857 -0.573 -0.258 0.000
49 STR4 3.717 0.887 -0.352 -0.178 0.000
50
51 RER1 3.708 0.966 0.108 -0.517 0.000
52
53 RER2 3.770 0.893 -0.750 -0.208 0.000
54
RER3 3.770 0.922 -0.374 -0.347 0.000
55
56 RER4 3.646 0.940 -0.458 -0.334 0.000
57
58 Source: Researchers’ computation (2023)
59
60
61
62 14
63
64
65
 Table 3 shows that the mean scores of the supply chain orientation (SCO) items ranged
1
2 between 3.080 and 3.513, while that of risk management (RMG) ranged between 4.336 and
3
4 4.558. The mean scores of the items used in measuring resource configuration capabilities are
5
4.177, 4.080, and 4.133 for RCO1, RCO2, and RCO3, respectively. Table 2 also shows that
6
7 the mean scores of the strategic resilience (STR) items ranged between 3.558 and 3.788,
8
9 while that of relationship resilience (RER) ranged between 3.646 and 3.770. The absolute
10
11 values of individual items for skewness ranged from 0.094 to 2.381, while kurtosis ranged
12
13 from 0.108 to 6.828. All the values were less than the benchmarks of 3.0 for skewness and
14
15 8.0 for kurtosis, as established by Kline (2011).
16
17 4.3 Preliminary analysis
18
19 Table 4: Factor loading, reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE)
20
21 Composite Cronbach's
Items Factor Loading AVE
22 Reliability Alpha
23
24 SCO1 0.817
25
26 SCO2 0.866
27
0.882 0.875 0.726
SCO3 0.859
28
29 SCO4 0.864
30
31 RMG1 0.780
32
33 RMG2 0.773
0.800 0.862 0.684
34 RMG3 0.859
35
36 RMG4 0.891
37
38 RCO1 0.908
39 RCO2 0.836 0.944 0.866 0.776
40
41 RCO3 0.897
42
43 STR1 0.832
44
45 STR2 0.884
0.904 0.901 0.772
46 STR3 0.895
47
48 STR4 0.901
49
50 RER1 0.886
51
RER2 0.911
52 0.910 0.910 0.788
53 RER3 0.895
54
55 RER4 0.858
56
57 Source: Researchers’ computation (2023)
58
59
60
61
62 15
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Figure 2: Structural model showing factor loadings and Cronbach’s Alpha
26
Source: Researchers’ compilation using SmartPLS 4
27
28 Table 4 and Figure 2 show that the factor loading of the supply chain orientation (SCO) items
29
30 ranged between 0.817 and 0.866, while that of risk management (RMG) ranged between
31
32 0.773 and 0.891. The factor loading of the items used in measuring resource configuration
33
34 capabilities (RCO) is 0.908, 0.836, and 0.897 for RCO1, RCO2, and RCO3, respectively.
35
36 Table 3 and Figure 2 also show that the factor loading of the strategic resilience (STR) items
37 ranged between 0.832 and 0.901 while that of relationship resilience (RER) ranged between
38
39 0.858 and 0.911.
40
41 Fornell and Larcker (1981) stipulated that AVE should exceed 0.5. The AVE values of all the
42
43 constructs reported in Table 3 are all greater than 0.5 establishing the instrument's
44
45 convergence validity. The composite reliability of supply chain orientation (SCO), risk
46
47
management (RMG), resource configuration capabilities (RCO), strategic resilience (STR)
48 and relationship resilience (RER) are 0.882, 0.800, 0.944, 0.904 and 0.910, respectively. The
49
50 reported scores align with Nunnally and Berstein's (1994) benchmark of ≥ 0.7. Table 3 and
51
52 Figure 2 also show that Cronbach’s Alpha for SCO, RMG, RCO, STR, and RER are 0.875,
53
54 0.862, 0.866, 0.901, and 0.901, respectively. The reported values align with Hair et al. (2010)
55
56 benchmark of ≥ 0.7. This shows that the instrument is reliable.
57
58
59
60
61
62 16
63
64
65
 4.4 Model Estimation and Interpretation
1
2 Table 5: Results of the estimated structural model
3
4 Standard
5 t-statistics
6
Path Coefficient (β) deviation p-values
(|β|/|STDEV|)
7 (STDEV)
8
9 SCO STR 0.652 0.045 14.561 0.000
10
11 SCO  RER 0.674 0.047 14.341 0.000
12
13 RCO  STR -0.003 0.096 0.034 0.973
14
15 RCO  RER -0.033 0.083 0.398 0.690
16
17 RMG  STR -0.085 0.116 0.738 0.460
18
19 RMG  RER -0.059 0.096 0.619 0.536
20
R-Square: STR = 0.441; RER = 0.469
21
22 Adjusted R-Square: STR = 0.425; RER = 0.454
23
24 Model Fit: SMSR = 0.063; NFI = 0.920
25
26 Source: Researchers’ computation (2023)
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53 Figure 3: Structural model showing path coefficients and r-square
54
55 Source: Researchers’ compilation using SmartPLS 4
56
57 Table 5 and Figure 3 show the impact of supply chain disruption on strategic resilience and
58
59
relationship resilience. The results revealed that supply chain orientation (β = 0.652, t =
60 14.561) has a positive and significant impact on strategic resilience. However, the
61
62 17
63
64
65
 relationship between strategic resilience and resource configuration capabilities (β = -0.003, t
1
2 = 0.034) and risk management (β = -0.085, t = 0.738) is negative and statistically
3
4 insignificant. The R2 is 0.441, indicating that the predictor factors account for 44.1% of
5
strategic resilience.
6
7
8 Results in Table 5 and Figure 3 also revealed that supply chain orientation (β = 0.674, t =
9
10 14.341) has a positive and significant impact on relationship resilience. However, resource
11
12 configuration capabilities (β = -0.033, t = 0.398) and risk management (β = -0.059, t = 0.619)
13
14 have a negative and statistically insignificant relationship resilience. The R2 is 0.469,
15
16
indicating that the predictor factors account for 46.9% of relationship resilience.
17
18 The SRMR value is 0.065 in Table 5. This is less than the 0.08 cut-off established by
19
20 Henseler et al. (2014). The normed fit index (NFI) value of 0.920 is within the acceptable
21
22 range of 0.0 to 1.0, as specified by Hooper et al. (2008). Based on these indices, it could be
23
24 inferred that the model fit indices for the research model demonstrated an adequate fit.
25
26 4.5 Discussion of Research Findings
27
28 This study found that supply chain orientation has a positive and significant impact on
29
30 strategic and relationship resilience. This is supported by Christopher and Peck’s (2004)
31
32
finding that organizations with a high supply chain orientation are better suited to withstand
33 disruption and achieve organizational resilience. They underline the need to adopt strategies
34
35 and practices that improve supply chain flexibility and adaptability in order to respond to and
36
37 recover from disruptions successfully. Kochan and Nowicki (2018) also emphasized that
38
39 supply chain orientation, as a proactive strategy for recognizing and managing disruptions, is
40
41 positively connected to organizational resilience. This emphasizes the need for companies to
42
43
be aware of potential disruptions and actively implement resilience measures into their supply
44 chain plans. Studies have shown that organizations that focus on supply chain disruption are
45
46 able to learn from previous disruptions and remain watchful about the environment, allowing
47
48 them to deal with future disruptions successfully (Hussain et al., 2023; Jadhav et al., 2019).
49
50 This study also found that resource configuration capabilities do not significantly impact
51
52 organizational (strategic and relationship) resilience. This research outcome is contrary to
53
54 Ambulkar et al.'s (2015) finding that resource configuration capabilities significantly impact
55
56 firm resilience. Resource configuration capabilities enable an organization to respond to and
57
58 adapt to interruptions successfully. When confronted with unforeseen occurrences or
59
environmental changes, organizations with excellent resource configuration capabilities may
60
61
62 18
63
64
65
 swiftly rearrange their resources, reallocating them to areas that demand immediate attention
1
2 or diverting them to other processes or places. This flexibility allows the company to
3
4 maintain operations while mitigating the detrimental effects of disruption. However, while
5
resources are necessary for an organization to be resilient, they are not sufficient enough to
6
7 guarantee resilience. The capacity to harness and rearrange those resources is also critical for
8
9 corporate resilience.
10
11
12
Finally, it was found that risk management does not have a significant impact on
13 organizational (strategic and relationship) resilience. However, Ambulkar et al. (2015)
14
15 finding revealed that risk management does significantly impact firm resilience because it
16
17 plays a critical role in reducing the effects of disruptions. Firms that focus on supply chain
18
19 disruption build a better risk management architecture, which increases their resilience
20
21 (Ambulkar et al., 2015). A well-structured supply chain risk management framework clarifies
22
roles and responsibilities and allows for job specialization, eliminating operational
23
24 uncertainty during supply chain interruptions. This allows the company to respond to
25
26 disruptions quickly.
27
28
29
5.0 CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
30 This study investigated the dimensions of supply chain disruption that influence
31
32 organizational resilience in selected SMEs in Nigeria. Three dimensions of supply chain
33
34 disruption, namely: supply chain orientation, resource configuration capabilities, and risk
35
36 management, while organizational resilience was examined using two proxies which are
37
38 strategic and relationship resilience. The study's findings indicate that supply chain
39 orientation has a positive and significant impact on strategic and relationship resilience.
40
41 However, resource configuration capabilities and risk management do not have a significant
42
43 impact on SMEs (strategic and relationship) resilience. Therefore, the study concludes that
44
45 the supply chain orientation of an organization plays a significant role in promoting
46
47 resilience.
48
49 The study's findings have substantial implications for SME owners and managers who plan
50
51 for and prepare for supply chain disruptions. The outcome of the study suggests the need to
52
53 have a supply chain disruption perspective or orientation as a starting point for building
54
55 business resilience. This approach drives decisions about the establishment and
56 reconfiguration of other vital resources. Regular communication and monitoring reinforce
57
58 this approach, ensuring that employees at different levels of the organization are aware of the
59
60 disruptions and take proactive steps to learn how they can be handled.
61
62 19
63
64
65
 It is also recommended that SME owners and managers prioritize the development of a
1
2 formal risk management infrastructure, which includes assigning people and information
3
4 resources to specialized risk management and response. This infrastructure should address
5
actual and perceived operational hazards and sustain smooth operations during disruption.
6
7
8 Other suggested ways SMEs could build or develop resilience against supply chain disruption
9
10 include regular assessment of business risks, diversifying and strengthening supplier bases,
11
12
effective communication and collaboration, constant investment in technology, and
13 automation of business operations.
14
15
16 Future studies should focus on large manufacturing and logistics organizations by developing
17
18
models for managing supply chain disruption and building resilience. Also, the sample size of
19 future studies should be increased to provide a more robust and in-depth understanding of the
20
21 subject matter.
22
23
24
25
26 REFERENCES
27
28 Acciarini, C., Boccardelli, P., & Vitale, M. (2021). Resilient companies in the time of Covid-
29
30
19 pandemic: a case study approach. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public
31 Policy, 10(3), 336-351.
32
Ambulkar, S., Blackhurst, J., & Grawe, S. (2015). Firm's resilience to supply chain
33
34 disruptions: Scale development and empirical examination. Journal of Operations
35 Management, 33, 111-122.
36
37 Azadegan, A., Mellat Parast, M., Lucianetti, L., Nishant, R., & Blackhurst, J. (2020). Supply
38 chain disruptions and business continuity: An empirical assessment. Decision
39 Sciences, 51(1), 38-73.
40
41 Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the
42 future. Journal of Management, 36(1), 256-280.
43
44 Beske, P., Land, A., & Seuring, S. (2014). Sustainable supply chain management practices
45 and dynamic capabilities in the food industry: A critical analysis of the
46 literature. International Journal of Production Economics, 152, 131-143.
47
48 Blome, C., Schoenherr, T., & Rexhausen, D. (2013). Antecedents and enablers of supply
49 chain agility and its effect on performance: a dynamic capabilities
50 perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 51(4), 1295-1318.
51
52 Bode, C., Wagner, S. M., Petersen, K. J., & Ellram, L. M. (2011). Understanding responses to
53 supply chain disruptions: Insights from information processing and resource
54
55 dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 833-856.
56 Butt, A. S. (2021). Strategies to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on supply chain
57
58 disruptions: a multiple case analysis of buyers and distributors. The International
59 Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-
60 print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-11-2020-0455
61
62 20
63
64
65
 Chen, R., Xie, Y., & Liu, Y. (2021). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring organizational
1 resilience: A multiple case study. Sustainability, 13(5), 2517.
2
3 Chopra, S., & Sodhi, M. S. (2014). Reducing the risk of supply chain disruptions. MIT Sloan
4 Management Review, 5(2), 239-249
5
6 Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the resilient supply chain. International
7 Journal of Logistics Management, 15(2), 1-13.
8
9 Colberg, T. (2022). Strategic Resilience: A systematic review of leading literature. Journal of
10 Business Management, 20, 1-22.
11
12 Craighead, C. W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M. J., & Handfield, R. B. (2007). The
13 severity of supply chain disruptions: Design characteristics and mitigation
14 capabilities. Decision Sciences, 38(1), 131-156.
15
16 Davenport, E., & Cronin, B. (2000). Knowledge management: semantic drift or conceptual
17 shift? Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 294-306.
18
19 Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and
20 effectiveness. Organization Science, 6(2), 204-223.
21
22 Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981).Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
23 variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
24
25 Grant, K. A., Aziz, O., & Arshed, N. (2019). The impact of entrepreneurial activity on
26 poverty alleviation. Economic and Social Development: Book of Proceedings, 215-
27 224.
28
29 Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis
30 (7th edition). New Jersey: Prentice-hall, Englewood Cliffs.
31
32 Hendricks, K. B., & Singhal, V. R. (2005). Association between supply chain glitches and
33
34 operating performance. Management Science, 51(5), 695-711.
35 Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W.,
36
37 ... & Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on
38 Rönkkö and Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182-209.
39
40 Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008, September). Evaluating model fit: a synthesis
41 of the structural equation modelling literature. In 7th European Conference on
42 Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies (pp. 195-200).
43
44
45
Hussain, G., Nazir, M. S., Rashid, M. A., & Sattar, M. A. (2023). From supply chain
46 resilience to supply chain disruption orientation: the moderating role of supply chain
47 complexity. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 36(1), 70-90.
48
49 Iborra, M., Safon, V., & Dolz, C. (2020). What explains the resilience of SMEs?
50 Ambidexterity capability and strategic consistency. Long Range Planning, 53(6),
51 101947.
52
53 Ivanov, D. (2020). Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: A
54 simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2)
55 case. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 136,
56
57
101922.
58
59
60
61
62 21
63
64
65
 Jadhav, A., Orr, S., & Malik, M. (2019). The role of supply chain orientation in achieving
1 supply chain sustainability. International Journal of Production Economics, 217, 112-
2 125.
3
4 Kapoor, M., & Aggarwal, V. (2020). Tracing the economics behind dynamic capabilities
5 theory. International Journal of Innovation Science, 12(2), 187-201.
6
7 Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. Guilford Press.
8
9 Kochan, C. G., & Nowicki, D. R. (2018). Supply chain resilience: a systematic literature
10 review and typological framework. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
11 Logistics Management, 48(8), 842-865.
12
13 Kuuluvainen, A. (2012). How to concretize dynamic capabilities? Theory and
14 examples. Journal of Strategy and Management, 5(4), 381-392.
15
16 Lee, M., Kang, B. A., & You, M. (2021). Knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) toward
17 COVID-19: a cross-sectional study in South Korea. BMC Public Health, 21, 1-10.
18
19 Lin, K.Y., Wang, Y. T Hsu, H. S. (2017). Why do people switch mobile platforms? The
20 moderating role of habit. Internet Research, https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-04-2016-
21 0087.
22
23 Magzter. (2020). Double Battle: Northeast Fights Both Corona and Racism. Available:
24 https://www. magzter.com/article/News/Northeast-Today/Double-Battle-Northeast-
25
26 Fights-Both-Corona-AndRacism.
27 Mahajan, K., & Tomar, S. (2021). COVID‐19 and supply chain disruption: Evidence from
28
29 food markets in India. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 103(1), 35-52.
30 Mishra, R., Singh, R. K., & Subramanian, N. (2022). Impact of disruptions in the agri-food
31
32 supply chain due to COVID-19 pandemic: contextualized resilience framework to
33 achieve operational excellence. The International Journal of Logistics
34 Management, 33(3), 926-954.
35
36 Moosavi, J., Fathollahi-Fard, A. M., & Dulebenets, M. A. (2022). Supply chain disruption
37 during the COVID-19 pandemic: Recognizing potential disruption management
38 strategies. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 102983.
39
40 Musa, A., & Ali, I. L. (2023). An Investigation of Supply Chain Disruption Mitigation
41 Strategies: Evidence from Kaduna-Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Management
42 Sciences, 24(1b), 295-302.
43
44 Nunnally, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory 3E.Tata McGraw-hill education.
45
46 Pettit, T. J., Croxton, K. L., & Fiksel, J. (2013). Ensuring supply chain resilience:
47 development and implementation of an assessment tool. Journal of Business
48 Logistics, 34(1), 46-76.
49
50 Rai, S. S., Rai, S., & Singh, N. K. (2021). Organizational resilience and social-economic
51 sustainability: COVID-19 perspective. Environment, Development and
52
53
Sustainability, 23, 12006-12023.
54 Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2017). Small business and entrepreneurship: their role in economic and
55
social development. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 29(1-2), 1-3.
56
57 Rice, J. B., & Caniato, F. (2003). Building a secure and resilient supply network. Supply
58 Chain Management Review, 7(5), 22-30.
59
60
61
62 22
63
64
65
 Roostaie, S., Nawari, N., & Kibert, C. J. (2019). Sustainability and resilience: A review of
1 definitions, relationships, and their integration into a combined building assessment
2 framework. Building and Environment, 154, 132-144.
3
4 Sahut, J. M., & Peris-Ortiz, M. (2014). Small business, innovation, and
5 entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 42, 663-668.
6
7 Santoro, G., Bertoldi, B., Giachino, C., & Candelo, E. (2020). Exploring the relationship
8 between entrepreneurial resilience and success: The moderating role of stakeholders'
9
10 engagement. Journal of Business Research, 119, 142-150.
11 Shahed, K. S., Azeem, A., Ali, S. M., & Moktadir, M. A. (2021). A supply chain disruption
12
13
risk mitigation model to manage COVID-19 pandemic risk. Environmental Science
14 and Pollution Research, 1-16.
15
16
Shashi, C. P., Cerchione, R., & Ertz, M. (2020). Managing supply chain resilience to pursue
17 business and environmental strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3),
18 1215-1246.
19
20 Shashi, Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., & Ertz, M. (2020). Managing supply chain resilience to
21 pursue business and environmental strategies. Business Strategy and the
22 Environment, 29(3), 1215-1246.
23
24 Sheffi, Y., & Rice Jr, J. B. (2005). A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise. MIT Sloan
25 Management Review. Available on: sloanreview.mit.edu
26
27 Shin, N., & Park, S. (2021). Supply chain leadership driven strategic resilience capabilities
28 management: A leader-member exchange perspective. Journal of Business
29 Research, 122, 1-13.
30
31 Shore, L. M., Newton, L. A., & Thornton III, G. C. (1990). Job and organizational attitudes in
32 relation to employee behavioral intentions. Journal of Organizational
33
Behaviour, 11(1), 57-67.
34
35 Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk
36 behavior. Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 9-38.
37
38 Smith, D., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2004). Structural equation modelling in management
39 accounting research: Critical analysis and opportunities. Journal of Accounting
40
41 Literature, 23, 49-86.
42 Stecke, K. E., & Kumar, S. (2009). Sources of supply chain disruptions, factors that breed
43
44 vulnerability, and mitigating strategies. Journal of Marketing Channels, 16(3), 193-
45 226.
46
47
Teece, D. J. (2014). A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational
48 enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 8-37.
49
50
Tejeiro, M., & Koller, M. R. (2016). Exploring adaptability in organizations: Where adaptive
51 advantage comes from and what it is based upon. Journal of Organizational Change
52 Management, 29(6), 837-854.
53
54 Tukamuhabwa, B. R. (2023). Supply chain orientation and supply chain risk management
55 capabilities: Mechanisms for supply chain performance of agro-food processing firms
56 in Uganda. Journal of African Business, 1-24.
57
58 Vega, D., Arvidsson, A., & Saiah, F. (2023). Resilient supply management systems in times
59 of crisis. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 43(1), 70-
60 98.
61
62 23
63
64
65
 Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual
1 Review of Psychology, 50(1), 361-386.
2
3 Wieland, A., & Wallenburg, C. M. (2013). The influence of relational competencies on
4 supply chain resilience: a relational view. International Journal of Physical
5 Distribution & Logistics Management, 43(4), 300-320.
6
7 World Economic Forum, 2013. Global Risks 2013. World Economic Forum, Davos,
8 Switzerland
9
10 Zsidisin, G. A., Melnyk, S. A., & Ragatz, G. L. (2005). An institutional theory perspective of
11 business continuity planning for purchasing and supply management. International
12
13
Journal of Production Research, 43(16), 3401-3420.
14
15
16 ABBREVIATIONS
17
18 AVE - Average Variance Extracted
19
20 FMCG - Fast-Moving Consumer Goods
21
22 RCO - Resource Configuration Capabilities
23
24
25 RER - Relationship Resilience
26
27 RMG - Risk Management
28
29 SCO - Supply Chain Orientation
30
31
32
SEM - Structural Equation Modeling
33
34 SMEs - Small and Medium Scale Enterprises
35
36 STR - Strategic Resilience
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 24
63
64
65
Title Page Click here to access/download;Title Page;FBUJ Title Page and
List of Declarations 20062023.docx

Supply Chain Disruptions and Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (SMEs)
Resilience in Post COVID-19 Era

DIMOWO Oiza Lauren1 & ADEKUNLE Simon Ayo PhD2*

1,2
Department of Business Administration
Faculty of Management Sciences, University of Benin,
Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria
Corresponding Author’s Email: adeksim@yahoo.com

LIST OF DECLARATIONS
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The research instrument was validated by a Professor in the field of Operations Research and

Finance. SMEs owners/managers that participated in the study were assured that their responses

would be kept confidentially and that any information provided would be used solely for

academic reasons.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable

Availability of data and materials

The data collected for the study were analysed and reported in the body of the work. However,

the raw datasets used for data analysis are accessible in Microsoft Excel or CSV file upon

reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Funding
Not Applicable. The authors do not receive financial support or grant from any funding body.

Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

1
Authors' contributions
OL, the first author initiated the idea for the study. She drafted and proofread the manuscript after

the completion of the study.

SA, the second as well as the corresponding author worked on the initial draft. He also

harmonized the different sections of the paper in line with the Journal Template.

Acknowledgements
Not applicable

Authors' information
OL is a Doctoral candidate and Lecturer in the Department of Business Administration. Her

research interests include inventory management, supply chain management and computer

application to business.

SA is a Lecturer and Certified Data Analyst. SA has published in reputable national and

international journals. He reviews manuscripts for several Scopus-indexed journals. He is

currently the Business Editor of Nigeria Journal of Business Administration – a journal

domiciled in the Department of Business Administration, University of Benin. His research

interest and areas of specialization are operations management, business analytics, risk

management, corporate sustainability and marketing. He is a member of The Academy of

Management Nigeria (TAMN) and Nigerian Institute of Management (Chartered). Email

Addresses: adeksim@yahoo.com and simon.adekunle@uniben.edu; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-

4171-8903