The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2516-7502.htm

Practices and mechanisms for The supply

chain resilience
increasing supply chain resilience: sheaf

the supply chain resilience sheaf

Adelson Pereira do Nascimento 79
Engenharia de Automaç~ao e Controle, Instituto Federal do Espırito Santo,
Serra, Brazil Received 11 December 2020
Revised 4 March 2021
Marcos Paulo Oliveira Accepted 9 March 2021

Administraç~ao, UFES, Vitoria, Brazil

Timothy J. Pettit
Arts in Management Degree, National University System, Los Angeles,
California, USA, and
Marcelo Bronzo
Department of Management, UFMG, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Abstract
Purpose – This paper approaches the dynamics of supply chain resilience from the company from customer’s
point of view, seeking to illuminate which mechanisms and practices are used (intentionally or unintentionally)
to increase the resilience of their critical suppliers, and thus to evaluate the impact of these mechanisms and
practices on its entire supply chain (SC).
Design/methodology/approach – The authors explore some emerging developments in organizational
resilience with an embedded case study of a group of focal companies operating in the automotive SC.
Therefore, semi-structured interviews have been conducted with buyers and sellers using content analysis, in
the light of the prospect theory and the resource dependency theory.
Findings – The results indicate the existence of a resilience sheaf that runs through the entire supply chain,
formed by a set of 11 formal mechanisms and informal practices.
Practical implications – This resilience sheaf can guide managers thorough SC resilience development by
taking its components as a reference and optimizing the use of resources both effectively and efficiently.
Originality/value – SC resilience has been conceptualized as a function of an organization’s situational
awareness, the identification and management of key vulnerabilities and the ability to successfully react in a
complex, dynamic and interconnected environment. These propositions highlight the features of both internal
and external mechanisms to enhance organizational resilience.
Keywords Dynamic capabilities, Supply chain management, Supply chain resilience
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The last decades have been characterized by frequent and rapid technological, social and
economic transformations, marked by increasing uncertainty and the organizational
environment adversity, in some cases with significant effects on entire supply chains
(Pettit et al., 2010; Trkman et al., 2016; Chowdhury et al., 2021). Amongst other reasons, this
context entails the need for a higher organizations’ adaptability to overcome obstacles and
disturbances to minimize their negative impacts, especially disruptions, collapses
and bankruptcies (Seville, 2008; Thomas et al., 2016).
The analysis of resilience catalysts in turbulent and uncertain environments represents
one of the most relevant topics addressed in business administration. Recent research shows Continuity & Resilience Review
Vol. 3 No. 1, 2021
pp. 79-100
Marcos Oliveira acknowledges the CNPq productivity research financially supported part of this © Emerald Publishing Limited
2516-7502
research effort. DOI 10.1108/CRR-12-2020-0035
CRR that resilience is a topic of paramount importance today and has great future potential
3,1 (Wieland et al., 2016; Ivanov, 2020). Woods (2006) argues that resilience is more than an
internal capacity to adapt. He introduces the idea that the resilience of one system influences
other systems’ capabilities, as organizations are interconnected, and the flow of goods and
services discontinuity affects both buyers and suppliers in the supply chain.
Particularly in developing countries such as Brazil, the uncertainty and adversity can be
pointed out as even greater. With political instability in 2016, the country was plunged into an
80 unprecedented crisis that dragged organizational stability with it (Economist, 2016; Alban,
2018). In a scenario of rising inflationary risk, Brazil continues to experience a drop in GDP
performance in the last 4 years, mainly due to the decrease in household consumption and in
private investments, causing government accounts to run out of money in 2020 (Martello,
2020; Saad-Filho, 2020).
This paper presents the main results of qualitative research investigating a set of
Brazilian companies in the automotive industry. According to National Automotive Vehicle
Manufacturers Association (ANFAVEA, 2018), Brazil has 27 automakers, with a total of 65
factories (not including 1st, 2nd, and 3rd tier suppliers). The Brazilian automotive supply
chain is broad and involves many processes, products, requirements, suppliers and
subcontractors. In this supply chain are included the basic supply industries such as ferrous
metals, non-ferrous metals and non-metal. The automotive industry has been considered a
benchmark for other industries because of its complexity and the needed integration to
develop, present, monitor, review and improve business concepts, especially in the supply
chain area (Scavarda et al., 2015). Also, the choice of this sector was also not fortuitous given
our knowledge that relationships between automotive suppliers and automakers are complex
and involve many capabilities, amongst them, resilience capabilities.
Our study sought to answer the strategic questions: Which and how effective are the
mechanisms and practices that companies use (intentionally or unintentionally) to influence
their critical suppliers to increase resilience in their upstream supply chain?
For parsimony and feasibility purposes, the data collection was limited to the upstream
supplier of the third tier on the supply chain considered. Ten sales and purchasing executives
(experienced key informants) in four companies were interviewed about the mechanisms and
practices used to enhance the supply chain’s resilience. The empirical research allowed the
proposal of a model in which resilience sheaf concept involves a set of formal and informal
actions of the firm for the benefit of the greater resilience of its supply chain.
Our findings suggest that these actions, in which qualities and properties are distinct and
apparently fragile and isolated, together form a kind of sheaf that will be stronger and more
homogeneous throughout the supply chain. This sheaf will ultimately strengthen suppliers,
especially in the time of crisis, resulting in resilience throughout the supply chain.

2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Supply chain resilience: an evolving research path
Resilience is a multidisciplinary and multidimensional concept (Ponomarov and Holcomb,
2009; Ponomarov, 2012; Pettit et al., 2013). It ismultidisciplinary because it is a phenomenon
researched in different areas of knowledge, such as physical sciences, engineering and human
sciences, particularly social psychology, and, more recently, organizational management and
supply chains. It is multidimensional because it is a domain that can be studied from multiple
perspectives or possible focuses of analysis.
Some studies point out that organizational resilience can be achieved through multilevel
strategies in which organizations and their stakeholders perform collaborative activities
(Miller and Xiao, 2007; Pettit et al., 2013), resulting in the so-called resilience engineering in a
complex socio-technical system (Patterson et al., 2007). This thinking reinforces Woods’s
(2006) argument defending the collaborative resilience concept, supported mainly by the The supply
interconnection of organizations (B2B), which are treated at the network level (Kim et al., chain resilience
2014). Using this same principle, supported by resource-based logic, Simon et al. (2011)
indorse that organizations orchestrate their resources to create competitive advantage and,
sheaf
consequently, resilience. Blackhurst et al. (2011) defend that stakeholders positively and
negatively impact a supply chain’s resilience. Engemann (2019) points out that a supply
chain’s resilience involves addressing a range of business risks.
However, it has been observed that the theoretical contribution of SCR proved to be 81
insufficient for the theme evaluation since it does not consider how the dependence on
resources and cognitive aspects can affect behavior, mechanisms and practices exerted by
clients, especially the buyers, in the process of selecting, qualifying and maintaining their
critical suppliers (Chen and Chen, 2019). Thus, we sought to add to the SCR theme using
prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979), considering that some risky choices have
significant cognitive biases. We also ground on the resource dependency theory (Pfeffer and
Salancik, 1977), which offers arguments about power formation in inter-organizational
relations in an uncertain environment.
Kahneman and Tversky (1979) propose a theory of expected utility for risky decision-
making, where decision-making is seen as a set of three elements: option choice, choice
outcomes and probabilities associated with each option. This study used prospect theory
elements in the initial selection and critical suppliers’ maintenance. It can be observed that in
developing and contracting such suppliers, many client companies recognize the need to
formalize the suppliers’ choice and the outcomes of such decisions.
The resource dependency theory has as its basic premise that decisions are made within
organizations. Their focus is on the external environment, and they claim that organizations
live a relationship of interdependence with the environment. Tversky and Kahneman (1992)
also defend that people’s willingness to bet on an uncertain event depends not only on the
degree of uncertainty but also on the origin of the event, which is the origin dependence.
Usually, institutions tend to be influenced by those who control the resources they need
(Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003). Thus, from this point of view, it has been observed, from the
perspective of the company, what are the practices and mechanisms (implicit or not) that they
adopt, intentionally or unintentionally, to catalyze the resilience of those suppliers classified
as critical to their supply chain.
Ponomarov and Holcomb (2009) and Pettit et al. (2019) highlight that organizational
resilience and SC resilience remains areas of study that are still insipient, of low analytical
maturity, something out of step given the recognized importance of the theme for companies.
In their assessment, building a theory about organizational and SC resilience requires an
integrative and more holistic approach. This integrative approach can advance knowledge
about inter-organizational collaboration, process integration and operational capabilities.

2.2 Supplier criticality, mechanisms and practices in the supply chain

The criticality of supply is identified as a factor that essentially interferes with the maturity of
a supplier’s management, as stated by do Nascimento et al. (2013) in an extensive survey of
nearly 200 suppliers. In another survey carried out on 175 companies located in North
America and Brazil during the period of the global recession that started in 2008, de Oliveira
and Handfield (2017) developed a theoretical model proposing that the communication
between the buyer and critical suppliers leads to preventive actions which can prevent the
supplier’s financial default and decrease supply interruptions. This does not limit the
sampling but ensures a greater wealth of details in the customer/supplier relationship, as
some studies found that few suppliers are responsible for most of the poor performance of the
supply chain (Sharma and Yu, 2013).
CRR Resource dependency theory (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003) helps to understand the power
3,1 asymmetries present in supply chains. When one client company has power over another, it
may require its suppliers to absorb more costs, ship supplies more efficiently and provide
more services than before, often without increasing prices (Daft, 1999).
The prospect theory, proposed by Kahneman and Tversky (1979), seeks to explain
cognitive biases in the decision-making process. These authors propose a new theory of the
expected utility for decision-making under risky conditions. The decision-making process is
82 seen as a set of three elements: choice option, results of these choices and probabilities
associated with each option. This study used elements of the prospect theory in the initial
selection and maintenance of critical suppliers, since it is observed that in the process of
development and contracting of such suppliers, many client companies recognize the need to
formalize the options for choosing suppliers and the results of these choices, mainly through
selection criteria, contracts and formal audits of their suppliers, as a way of mitigating risks,
but these formal options are often insufficient (J€ uttner, 1966).
SCR is more than an internal process since organizational management cannot be held
solely responsible for building more robust capabilities and processes. It is noted that SCR
can be achieved through multilevel strategies. Organizations and their stakeholders engage
in collaborative activities, “orchestrating” their resources to create competitive advantage,
increase capabilities and thereby enhance their SCR. Therefore, we propose the concept of
“Supply Chain Resilience Sheaf,” defined as an orderly set of mechanisms and practices,
formally or informally established by the customers for the suppliers, which broadens the
capabilities of these suppliers and results in an increased resilience for both the suppliers and
the entire supply chain.

2.3 Research theoretical model

The use of the sheaf theory to study networks is not new (Mansourbeigi, 2017). Still, to the
best of our knowledge, no prior studies have used the concept of sheaf for resilience
development. Just like a stick that does not support a lot of weight, but when coupled with
other sticks, ends up with a higher load, the resilience sheaf connotation seeks to demonstrate
that an isolated mechanism or practice may not provide a supplier with the ability to
withstand and return conditions considered normal, but a set of mechanisms and practices,
organized as a sheaf (bundle of sticks), allow the resilience a supplier to increase and, as a
result, throughout the supply chain, as this supplier also replicates to its suppliers the
mechanisms and practices required by its buyers. Thus, Figure 1 illustrates the main
concepts associated with the SCR sheaf.
The research model measure what and how effective are the mechanisms and practices
that buyers use to influence their critical suppliers to increase resilience in their supply chain.
This study aimed to describe supply chain resilience beyond the customer–supplier dyad
perspective. As conceptual and measurement dimensions, and based on the relative overall
resilience (ROR) model (Mcmanus et al., 2008), three categories outline the SCR sheaf model:
(1) Situation perception – conceptualized as an organization’s capability of anticipation,
understanding of its “business landscape” with an exact awareness of what is
happening around it and what environmental information means to the organization,
now and in the future. Buyers can increase the resilience of the supply chain by
increasing the adaptive capacity of their critical suppliers. A key concept in
increasing organizational resilience is building an organization that focuses on
positive strategies to deal with change (Kayes, 2015). The orientation of critical
suppliers in adapting, absorbing, renewing, reconfiguring and constantly recreating
essential resources, capacities and capabilities responding to external changes allows
organizations to approach crises as a potentially positive experience (Woods, 2006).
 The supply
chain resilience
sheaf

83

Figure 1.
The supply chain
resilience sheaf concept
(based on ROR model)

(2) Key vulnerability management – conceptualized as identifying, proactively managing

and addressing vulnerabilities that, if perceived, would threaten the organization’s
ability to survive. Buyers influence supply chain resilience by managing the
vulnerabilities of their critical suppliers. Suppliers who are unaware of or do not
monitor their vulnerabilities are susceptible to internal and external disturbances.
They do not recognize a potentially disturbing event and do not develop the
capabilities necessary to allow the organizations to respond effectively to future
events (Burnard, 2011). The constant review and update of vulnerabilities allow
critical suppliers to set priorities in managing and planning in emergencies, giving
them a greater degree of resilience (Sapountzaki, 2007; Limnios and Mazzarol, 2011).
(3) Adaptability – defined as the organization’s capability to continuously evolve and
meet or exceed the needs of its operating environment before those needs become
critical. Buyers can increase the resilience of the supply chain by making their critical
suppliers perceive unfavorable situations and react to them. Adaptability is an
organization’s ability to interpret information about its business environment and
understand what this information means for it in the present and future (Endsley,
2015). The perception of the situation by critical suppliers is also an essential
component of resilience, as it is shown as an essential requirement for competent
performance in a complex, dynamic and interconnected environment, such as that in
which the organizations currently find themselves in (Hosseini et al., 2016).

3. Methodology
This is descriptive/explanatory research with an embedded case study. The research subjects
were four companies in the automotive supply chain: a carmaker, an auto body steel parts
manufacturer, a pig iron processing plant and an automation and control maintenance
service provider. The criticality of researched suppliers was determined, considering the
prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979) and the resource dependence theory (Pfeffer
and Salancik, 1977). Starting at the automaker, we asked buyers to identify their critical
suppliers based on the unavailability of the resources (scarcity), risks (uncertainties and
CRR problems) with the products/services and the resource importance (its absence might
3,1 interrupt the activities of the company). Based on such selection, we sought to identify formal
(contractual mechanisms and requirements) or informal (practices used) elements, used
intentionally or unintentionally by clients to ensure business continuity and, consequently,
its suppliers’ resilience.
Data have been collected from two fronts for each company, aiming to approach the
dyads’ perspective (Figure 2). Semi-structured interviews have been conducted with both
84 professionals directly involved in the procurement process (key informants in the purchasing
area) and professionals directly involved in the sales and customer service process (key
informants from sales). Two different scripts were used (one for sales area and another for
purchasing area), containing 34 questions each, along with observation in field during the
seven-month period. A summary of the companies is presented in Table 1.
As depicted in Figure 2, the automaker buys auto body steel parts from the auto body steel
parts manufacturer. The auto body steel parts manufacturer buys pig iron directly from the
pig iron supplier. The pig iron supplier buys automation services from the automation
engineering supplier.
The interviews took place in person, at the interviewees’ workplaces, or via e-mail,
telephone or Skype. The interviewer asked permission to record interviews for a better
later transcription of the content. A total of 10 specialists were interviewed, selected by
the following criteria: experience (minimum of 5 years in the function). The interviewees
had between 6 and 35 years of experience in their area of activity. Therefore, they were
professionals with considerable experience. We follow Spradley (1979), informing the
research objectives, contextualizing the subject and starting from semi-structured
questions to new questions, as the interview took place. Thus, it was possible to capture a
large volume of information, perceptions and experiences from these professionals.
Table 2 provides a panoramic view of the interviewees’ profiles, the means used and the
duration of each interview.

Figure 2.
Observation units /
Relations
Company Features
The supply
chain resilience
The automaker Established in Japan in 1933, it currently produces vehicles in 20 countries; its sheaf
revenue for the twelve months ending September 2019 was $99.885B. It has
about 22,000 direct and over 137,000 indirect employees and has
manufactured more than 5,600,000 cars in 2016 (AutomotiveWorld, 2019).
The Brazilian unit studied was inaugurated in April 2014 in Resende-RJ. It is
a complete industrial complex that exports to the Latin American markets, 85
employs 2,400 people and can produce up to 200,000 vehicles and 200,000
engines per year
The auto body steel parts It has been appointed as one of the automaker’s critical suppliers located in
manufacturer Resende-RJ for steel blanks intended for the automaker’s car structure. The
ArcelorMittal group controlled the company – the world’s largest steel group
– and its revenue for the twelve months ending September 2019 was
$73.428B. The company specializes in flat steel, with an integrated
production unit with an installed production capacity of 7.5 million tons of
steel slabs per year, and employs more than 4,500 people directly and more
than 6,000 indirectly (ARCELORMITTAL TUBARAO, ~ 2018)
Pig iron supplier It is a Brazilian multinational mining company, the world’s second-largest
mining company, the largest producer of iron ore and ore pellets and the
world’s second-largest nickel explorer (VALE, 2018). Headquartered in Brazil
and operating in over 35 countries, it is present in 14 Brazilian states, has
about 154,000 own and third-party employees and its net income for the
twelve months ending September 2019 was $3.700B. The company was
researched because it was appointed as one of the critical suppliers of the
auto body steel parts manufacturer
Automation engineering Headquartered in Serra – ES, it is a company focused on the industrial
supplier automation systems engineering market. The company was mentioned as a
critical provider of automation services to the pig iron company during the
interviews. Founded in 2008, it serves throughout South America, offering
consulting, training, engineering projects, integration, startup, support and Table 1.
maintenance services in industrial automation and control systems A summary of the
(AUTVIX, 2018) selected companies

4. Research results
We used the content analysis technique with the transcripts of the ten interviews. Following
Bardin (2009), three conceptual labels were identified (situation perception, key vulnerability
management and adaptability). We also used QDA Miner Lite 4 ® software to identify the
main factors related to the resilience theme and highlight the main keywords cited in the
interview responses.
The identified conceptual labels (situation perception, key vulnerability management and
adaptability), obtained through the analysis of all interviews, were grouped according to the
repetition and relations amongst them to create broader concepts that could explain the
identified aspects. The next step was to create thematic categories from the label analysis and
its relations with other research concepts. Thus, by using the symmetric elements pointed out
between buyers and suppliers, buyer companies’ mechanisms and practices result in
increased resilience in their suppliers. Open coding has identified eleven (11) items defined as
mechanisms and the practices of companies’ client, linked to SCR, listed in Table 3:
Buyers’ content matched the identified mechanisms (taken by this research effort as
formally defined resources) and practices (taken as informal resources). Prospect theory,
developed by Kahneman and Tversky (1979), which uniquely addresses decision-making and
risk relations, was used to support the analysis. After open coding, the axial coding was
performed. The three previously identified categories were subdivided into subcategories
CRR The
3,1 Class maximum Interview
(functional level of Experience Type of time
ID Company area) education Function (years) interview (minutes)

I1 Automaker Purchasing Graduate Process 6 Telephone 110

Engineer and email
86 I2 Auto body Sales MBA Technical 31 In-person 120
steel parts assistant and
manufacturer telephone
I3 Auto body Sales MBA Salesman 16 Email and 90
steel parts telephone
manufacturer
I4 Auto body Purchasing graduate Buyer 35 In-person 110
steel parts degree
manufacturer
I5 Auto body Purchasing graduate Buyer 27 In-person 150
steel parts degree and
manufacturer telephone
I6 Pig Iron Sales graduate Commercial 25 Telephone 90
supplier degree analyst and email
I7 Pig Iron Purchasing graduate Planning 15 Telephone 60
supplier degree specialist and email
I8 Pig Iron Purchasing graduate Buyer 15 Telephone 90
supplier and email
I9 Automation Sales Graduate Commercial 13 In-person 120
engineering degree director
supplier
Table 2. I10 Automation Sales MBA Operational 13 In-person 120
Profile of respondents engineering director
and types of interviews supplier

according to the buyers’ companies’ practices and mechanisms. The “Mechanisms and
Practices Identified,” column of Table 3, reports those subcategories. To complement the
analysis, QDA Miner Lite 4 ® software indicates that the most cited items were information
sharing, systems and infrastructure (13%); disturbance sharing and solutions (12%); remote
monitoring of the supplier through performance indicators (11,7%); fostering associations
and networking (10%); compliance with legal requirements – contracts (9.3%); and risk
assessment and compliance assurance (9.3%), as shown in Figure 3.
In the following three subsections, we will theoretically conceptualize each of the 11
mechanisms and practices identified, supported by empirical evidence from the interviews.

4.1 Situation perception

The perception of the situation is defined by Seville (2008) as an organization’s understanding of its
business context, with an exact awareness of what is happening around it and what environmental
information means to the organization, at present and in future. Situation awareness has become a
widely used concept in recent years. It has been used mainly to assess human factors in the
development of automated systems, information fusion algorithms and new approaches for training
individuals and teams under pressure (Endsley, 2015). The term, coming from military organizations,
sought to study the understanding, assimilation and projection of large volumes of information to
perform their functions (Endsley and Connors, 2008). In the context of the supply chain, it denotes the
ability of an organization to interpret information about its business environment and understand
what this information means for its present and future (Lee et al., 2013).

Conceptual Labels
Perception actions
and supplier’s
reaction
Key vulnerability
management actions
for suppliers
Actions to increase
the adaptive capacity
of suppliers
Elements of Classification
The supply
resource Mechanisms and practices Mechanisms Practices chain resilience
dependency theory identified (formal) (Informal) sheaf
Resources 1. Certification requirements X
importance 2. Compliance with legal X
requirements - contracts
3. Risk assessment and X 87
compliance assurance
4. Open book accounting X
Risks 5. Information sharing, X X
(uncertainties and systems and infrastructure
problems) 6. Remote monitoring of the X X
supplier through
performance indicators
7. On-site evaluations X
8. Fostering associations and X X
networking
Resource 9. Professionalization of X
availability supplier management
10. Sharing disorders and X X Table 3.
solutions Mechanisms and
11. Assignment of specialized X practices identified and
technical advice theoretical relations

Distribution of codes (Frequency)

Information sharing, systems, and infrastructure

Sharing disturbance and Solutions

Remote monitoring of the supplier through performance indicators

Fostering associations and networking

Compliance with legal requirements - contracts

Items

Risk assessment and compliance assurance

Certification Requirements

Supplier management professionalization

Assignment of specialized technical consultancy

On-site evaluations

Open book accounting

Figure 3.
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 Distribution of codes
Frequency

The three levels of situational awareness (perception, assimilation and projection) among
buyers and their suppliers are essential components of SCR as they are critical requirements
CRR for competent performance in a complex, dynamic and interconnected environment, to which
3,1 organizations are currently exposed to (Dalziell and Mcmanus, 2004). The situational
perception and the need for greater control of suppliers are evident as all respondents
highlight operational issues (quality loss, downtime and production break), financial issues
(bankruptcy, high cost, shortages) and image (compliance, child labor, quality), emphasizing
that buyers are aware of these risks and seek to reduce them to the maximum. Four
mechanisms/practices related to the perception of the situation have been identified:
88 4.1.1 Certification requirements. Certification consists of demonstrating the conformity of
the characteristics of a product, service or system against an accurate reference document
that establishes and quantifies the parameters that must be independently verified (Aven,
2011). In the buyers’ interviews of the surveyed companies, the intensive requirement of
certification as a form of supply guarantee has been observed. Notably, the ISO 9001
(International Organization for Standardization, 2015) and IATF 16949 (IATF, 2016) quality
standards have been mentioned, which establish quality assurance, customer satisfaction
measurement and risk assessment requirements. (Tomic and Brkic, 2019). In the buyers’
replies, we may also highlight the requirement for certification of some suppliers to ISO 14001
(environment) and ISO 45001 (health and safety) as supply requirements.
. . . In addition to contracts with a very clearly defined technical part, we also demand quality
certification - ISO 9001 for all critical suppliers, for some environmental certification (ISO 14001) and
even Health and safety (ISO 45001) is also required. In addition to signing the code of conduct, golden
rules of safety, measurement and monthly monitoring. . . (I5- Buyer at Auto body steel parts
manufacturer)
4.1.2 Compliance with legal requirements (contracts). Another mechanism pointed out by
buyers demonstrates the formalization of productivity clauses, fines for variation in
production or quality, proof of origin (no harmful substances), compliance with chemical
composition provided in standards, techniques, and planning and schedule compliance (JIT)
clauses. In the automotive sector, the predominant contract is of the relational type,
maintained between two parties (customer–supplier), which expresses the desire to continue
the relationship and is characterized by being flexible, and often renegotiable, but formal.
From the perspective of resource dependency theory, clients’ organizations’ strategies are
viewed as a means by which they seek to minimize their dependencies or increase those of
other organizations with them (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1977). The main premise of resource
dependence on these strategies is that solving the interdependence problems and uncertainty
involves increased coordination, which means increased mutual activities control from both
parties (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003).
. . . Contracts are the foundation of suppliers’ knowledge of requirements. There is no way to require
the supplier to comply with implicit items if not via a contract. Even a supplier’s fine must be based
on a contract established between the parties. . . (I2-Salesman at Auto body steel parts manufacturer)
4.1.3 Risk assessment and compliance assurance. In another highlight, surveyed people
pointed out control mechanisms to reduce exposure to financial risks and brand risks, and to
guarantee the confidentiality of customers. These items aim to reduce supply risks and
consist many regulatory issues raised by buyers, such as the signing of the code of conduct
and golden safety rules, express warranties, default risk, valid trading permits and
certificates of regularity at municipal, state and federal levels; health and safety regulatory
standards and permits and licenses to operate. de Oliveira and Handfield (2017) and
Engemann (2019) suggest that risk perception can be improved by compliance mechanisms
which occur through open communication, a better understanding of the supplier’s financial
status and buyers’ actions to improve contractual terms, thus resulting in fewer supply
disruptions and better chain performance. In light of the resource dependency theory, it is
noted that increased risk may be linked to material scarcity, price increases or lack of The supply
customer inventory, all with negative consequences for the customer organization. In the chain resilience
light of the prospect theory, in addition to the disruption risk, what happens to suppliers, from
an ethical, confidentiality and image standpoint, also results in a direct impact on the buyer’s
sheaf
results.
. . .A series of risks linked to suppliers can expose our company: Bankruptcy; compliance; Child
labor; shortages with reduced or stopped production, image risk, financial risk (high cost), quality 89
risk, because we have to change suppliers - impact on process parameters and tax risks. We are
clearly aware of all these risks, and we try to reduce them to the minimum. . . (I1 – Buyer at
Automaker)
4.1.4 Open book accounting. This mechanism is not found in the theoretical frameworks of
resilience, and the interviewees indicated that as a result of their clients’ growing demand for
greater control over prices, formally inserting as control of the joint cost management, the
formal presentation of a spreadsheet of pricing and disclosure of product/activity cost
information. This is a relatively new cost management approach, which allows the total cost
of the network to be reduced and is a widely used practice in the automotive sector. The
authors list that this practice involves the adoption of five relevant factors: interdependence,
stability, cooperation, mutual benefits and trust (Cooper and Slagmulder, 1999). Hoffjan and
Kruse (2006) state that the higher the level of interdependence, the more this relationship
tends to remain active, being more favorable to the adoption of open accounting items. The
degree of trust between organizations is determined by their ability to predict each other’s
behavior. The higher the degree of confidence, the lower the use of management mechanisms
to support open book accounting activities (Caglio, 2017)
. . .In some cases, due to the increasing demand from our customers concerning prices, we pass on
these cost requirements to our suppliers, such as joint cost management (open book accounting). . .
(I4 – Buyer at Auto body steel parts manufacturer)

4.2 Management of key vulnerabilities

Lee et al. (2013) define key vulnerability management as identifying, proactively managing
and addressing vulnerabilities that, if perceived, would threaten the organization’s ability to
survive. This item is pointed out by Burnard and Bhamra (2019) as an indispensable item for
SCR because companies that are unaware or are not monitoring their vulnerabilities are
susceptible to internal and external disturbances and may not develop the necessary
capabilities to allow the organization to respond effectively to future events. The constant
review and updating of key vulnerabilities enable critical suppliers to prioritize management
and planning in emergencies, giving them a greater degree of resilience (Dalziell and
Mcmanus, 2004; Sapountzaki, 2007). From the interviewees’ testimonials, buyers mainly use
four formal mechanisms and informal practices for managing key vulnerabilities of their
suppliers:
4.2.1 Information sharing, systems and infrastructure. By inducing or requiring its
suppliers’ operations to take place in an integrated manner, whether via physical structure,
shared systems or aligned procedures, customers gain greater control of these suppliers,
either by electronic management—inventory, or by monitoring the quality or suppliers’
knowledge. In verifying the basic premise of resource dependency that “decisions are made
within organizations by changing their boundaries, both formally and informally” (Pfeffer
and Salancik, 1977), there is a wide variety of inter-organizational strategies in the
organization to extend these boundaries between client and supplier organizations (Pettit
et al., 2013; Shou et al., 2018). Among the items verified, the following stand out: the
computerized systems sharing (scheduling and production control system, supply house and
CRR supplier portal systems, product shipping system, financial module, among others),
3,1 information sharing (technical and operational procedures, documents, certificates and
reports) and infrastructure sharing (stockyards, conveyor belt, car dumper, coal terminal,
receiving port, among others).
. . . We maintain a portal, which can integrate all information, documents, reports, and updated
volume of the products received. We currently share structure, conveyor belt, car dumper, and
90 shipping terminal. We also share operating procedures and a financial module in SAP. The supplier
controls the receipt of invoices that can be integrated with banking systems based on the credit
available for payment. . . (I5 – Buyer at Auto body steel parts manufacturer)
4.2.2 Remote monitoring of supplier through performance indicators. Several indicators are
pointed out in the literature as useful for managing supplier vulnerabilities: pricing, product
delivery, payment, product quality, transportation evaluation, receipt, shipment verification
and transfer to manufacturing facilities indicators (de Oliveira and Handfield, 2017).
Respondents have shown that vulnerability monitoring occurs by adopting a set of
standards that allow quantifying, measuring and evaluating, in quantitative and/or
qualitative terms, the efficiency and effectiveness of their critical suppliers. These
indicators used individually or in conjunction are used to define a supplier’s status or
qualification, resulting in a supplier performance comparison form, referred to as Supplier
Development Index (SDI). The method used by the investigated companies is relatively
simple: 1) a weight is defined according to the importance of each item (product quality,
delivery time, safety, total order fulfillment, certificates, etc.); 2) the supplier is evaluated
according to its performance with a score from 0 to 100 for each requirement; 3) a weighted
score is made, multiplying the weight by the informed score; and 4) all the scores of all
requirements are added for the generation of the supplier’s final performance score
percentages. Overall performance targets range from 75 to 90% and are apparently linked to
vendor vulnerabilities or criticality. The literature also points out that a supplier evaluation
system, in addition to monitoring and directing supplier performance with preestablished
goals, diagnoses future problems faster, motivates the people involved and indicates when a
course correction is needed (Gerolamo et al., 2003).
. . . Our company monitors and qualifies the performance of suppliers, to verify that we are not just
waiting for notifications from them in cases of crises. Thus, we do continuous measurement and
monitoring. The factory directly controls all performance management through KPI’s (on-time, in-
full deliveries, quality and defect level, product certificates, level of complaints, among others). . . (I1-
Buyer at Automaker).
. . . We monitor and are monitored constantly. We have indicators for all stages of the process. Since
the customer can access some systems or receive special technical information when requested, the
flow of products, documents and reports are constant. . . (I2 – Salesman at Auto body steel parts
manufacturer)
4.2.3 On-site evaluations. Interviewees have demonstrated that evaluations performed at
supplier’s premises play an important role in supplier qualification, maintenance and control.
These visits occur from the client company’s first contacts with its suppliers and are
perpetuated for the business relationship duration. They occur in technical visits, meetings,
inspections, support solutions and condition analysis of each supplier. It is noted that such
visits may or may not be formalized and sometimes unscheduled between the parties. The
purchasing team makes the visits, although technically assisted by those that use the product
or service provided.
. . . The monitoring of the supplier is constant. We evaluate our suppliers remotely, using indicators,
and we often make technical steps to investigate situations that the indicators that are not very
 useful. On-site monitoring is often necessary to give us greater peace of mind in purchasing and The supply
improving supplier processes. . . (I7- Buyer at Pig Iron Supplier)
chain resilience
According to customer testimonials, confidence in the supplier increases considerably by sheaf
checking on-site supply conditions, suggesting cognitive conditions pointed out in the
prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). Scholten and Schilder (2015) indicate that
local visits are strong proximity indications and that collaboration is essential to build
resilience and reduce the impact of possible unavoidable disruptions. 91
4.2.4 Fostering associations and networking. Respondents of client companies stressed
that they encourage the sharing of information and the formation of associations between
suppliers. Scholten and Schilder (2015) pointed out that the more the companies work
together, the more resilient they become due to greater visibility and speed. From the
customer’s point of view, this association seems to have a twofold purpose: standardizing
management actions and stimulating learning from new suppliers. In addition to
the incentives to join companies through supply consortia and turnkey projects, clients
also use institutional partners (industry federation, business associations, technical schools
and universities) to carry out projects. Such projects deal with studies of local production
systems coordinated by institutions that assume the function of coordinating different
suppliers’ actions, seeking to promote cooperation agreements among them, encouraging the
consortia formation, improving labor and equipment, and promoting courses, visits and
contacts with other companies in Brazil and abroad to foster improvements in production
processes and supplier performance.
. . .Our suppliers know each other, and if a problem occurs with any of them, the problem is quickly
spread to prevent it from occurring similarly with another. We encourage joint learning and hold
periodic meetings with all groups of suppliers, such as business roundtables, seminars in which the
entire network learns together (. . .) we have some projects in which suppliers take on the shared form
(turnkey), where their vulnerabilities are reduced by being in a group. . . (I8 – Buyer at Pig Iron
Supplier)

4.3 Adaptability
Adaptive capacity is defined as an organization’s ability to identify and capitalize on
emerging market challenges and opportunities (Patterson et al., 2007; Pettit et al., 2010). The
critical suppliers’ orientation in constantly adapting, absorbing, renewing, reconfiguring and
recreating essential resources and capabilities to make them more reliable is the component of
resilience (Lee et al., 2013), which enables that they can respond to external changes and allow
them to approach crises as a potentially positive experience (Wang and Ahmed, 2007; Woods,
2015). Interviews demonstrated that buyers develop the adaptive capacity of their critical
suppliers through three distinct actions:
4.3.1 Supplier management professionalization. This is based on the assumption that
adaptive capacity is a measure of an organization’s culture and dynamics that enables it to
make timely and appropriate decisions – daily and in crises – that involve aspects of an
organization that may include the leadership and decision-making structures, acquisition,
dissemination and retention of information and knowledge (Fenwick et al., 2009). These
actions manifest themselves as formal mechanisms, such as supplier forums, seminars,
meetings, reports of lessons learned from suppliers, the professionalization of small suppliers
in quality management, safety and the environment, through the hiring of consulting
companies and training companies for the managers of the supplier companies. This evidence
is in line with the literature since several authors point out that the adaptive capacity of
organizations seems to be rooted in the ability of leaders and the overall team to approach
crises from a positive and opportunistic perspective (Lee et al., 2013; Mcmanus et al., 2008;
CRR Wieland and Wallenburg, 2013), resulting in better leadership quality and increased supplier
3,1 management empowerment (Sheffi and Rice, 2005).
. . . Some of our suppliers have a structured size and management systems, but we had some
experiences with small suppliers that, despite being known, lacked management and systems
(Quality, safety, and Environment). In this case we did several events, we hired a managerial/
technical assistance company to professionalize the company and give greater guarantees of
supply. . . (I4 – Buyer at Auto body steel parts manufacturer)
92
4.3.2 Sharing disturbance and solutions. Mallak (1998) argues that organizations that focus on
their resilience in the face of disruption often adopt adaptive qualities and proactive
responses by sharing supply chain problems. Interest in building increased adaptive capacity
during and immediately following a disaster has led some researchers to propose a set of
adaptive resources to improve SCR (Kendra and Wachtendorf, 2003; Weick et al., 2005), which
includes the so-called bricolage, which is the ability to adapt known information and apply it
to the current situation creatively, seeking additional information and respectful interaction,
which results in positive adaptive behavior and the development of tolerance for uncertainty.
It has been observed that this practice of disseminating information on undesirable
occurrences, described in the form of failures, delays, quality crises and accidents and claims,
is encouraged by client companies, either in the same occurrence context (same type of
supply) or in a different context (suppliers of materials and services other than the one in
which the failure occurred), to encourage suppliers to develop new responses and apply them
to a problem.
. . . it is already a company practice so that each problem experienced, a document called “lessons
learned” is created, where we analyze the difficulties and their causes, propose immediate and
definitive countermeasures and share with everyone involved. Also, we share the problems that have
occurred between partners and suppliers, so that the entire supply chain is aware of the challenges
and can be prepared. . . (I1 – Buyer at Automaker)
4.3.3 Assignment of specialized technical consultancy. The development of adaptive capacity is
often accompanied by organizational firms’ evolution (Dalziell and Mcmanus, 2004). It has
been observed that, in addition to fostering the improvement of administrative suppliers’
issues, there is also an attempt to evolve the suppliers’ technical capacity through the
assignment of technical consultations by the team of client companies, demonstrating that
measures to increase adaptive capacity are multidimensional (Wang and Ahmed, 2007).
Client companies’ buyers reported intense technical synergy between their companies and
their suppliers, helping suppliers increase their technical knowledge of the products or
services provided. Knowledge exchange occurs through technical visits by professionals
from the client companies, resulting in product improvement, cost reduction, productivity
increase and occurrence reduction. It has been observed that sometimes professionals from
client companies are “assigned” to act as consultants to suppliers to promote their supply
conditions’ faster adaptation, ensuring that information and technical knowledge circulate
freely among their companies.
. . . Our client usually has a specialist who knows our production system a lot, so that he can
technically evaluate our product. Often the specialist visits us and recommends improvements to the
process and anticipating solutions . . . (I3- Salesman at Auto body steel parts manufacturer)

5. Discussion and research implications

According to institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), the institutional environment
influences not only the organizations’ relationship with the market but also their beliefs,
norms and traditions. This institutional environment is characterized by the elaboration of
rules, practices, symbols, beliefs and normative requirements to which individuals and The supply
organizations need to conform to receive support and legitimacy (Johnsen et al., 2008). chain resilience
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) offer a macro-institutional analysis, defined as isomorphism,
that focuses on the organizational similarity of three types: coercive, mimetic and
sheaf
normative. The first results from formal and informal pressures (senses such as strength,
persuasion, the invitation to join) exerted by other organizations with which the
organizations relate. From a mimetic point of view, organizations model themselves,
reflecting other organizations unintentionally, through employee transfer, consulting or 93
contact with industry organizations and associations. The third source of institutional
isomorphism is normative and stems mainly from the strengths of prescriptive values and
professionalization.
Besides, Argote and Fahrenkopf (2016) provide a theoretical framework that contributes
to knowledge transfer in organizations, including staff movement, training practices, formal
communication and informal observation, technology transfer, replication routines, patents,
scientific publications and presentations. The authors also point out that much of the
knowledge transfer in organizations occurs through interactions with suppliers and buyers,
alliances and other forms of inter-organizational relationships.
Research interviews showed that business-to-business interactions encourage knowledge
transfer and institutionalization of mechanisms and practices.
. . .Our interdependence is total. We contribute a lot so that our customers and suppliers
continuously improve and remain active in the market. . . (I9- Salesman at Automation Engineering
supplier)
. . .Our company contributes a lot to the resilience of our suppliers, either by requiring them to
comply with contractual requirements or by offering resources or indicating participation in
qualification programs. But we cannot think that this is our merit alone. I believe that the entire
supply chain helps and is helped with this synergy. (I2 – Salesman at Auto body steel parts
manufacturer)
The transference of mechanisms and practices between buyer and supplier’ organizations is
partially explained in literature, either by institutional theory on organizational isomorphism
(DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) or by reservoir structure and knowledge transfer (Argote and
Fahrenkopf, 2016). The only item that cannot be classified based on the theoretical
framework used was the open book accounting mechanism, which is a relatively new cost
management approach. Figure 4 identifies the classification used for organizational
similarity and learning between buyers and suppliers in the investigated chain.
We sought to identify among the mechanisms and practices which would be more
effective to improve resilience. The synthesis of buyer and seller responses identified
whether there was an alignment in perceptions of both buyers and sellers interviewed,
pointing out the following as the most relevant items for the suppliers’ resilience (and the
supply chain): (1) meeting legal requirements – contracts, (2) certification requirements and
(3) remote monitoring of the supplier through performance indicators. Table 3 details the
classification of these items into mechanisms and practices and how they are distributed
throughout the supply chain. Such detail demonstrates that most items are formal in
nature (mechanisms) and are disseminated throughout the supply chain by enforcement
techniques.
Figure 5 presents a conceptual SCR sheaf model that adopts multilayer mechanisms and
practices, widespread throughout the supply chain. These formal mechanisms and informal
practices are replicated throughout the chain through coercive, mimetic, normative and
knowledge transfer devices. The figure illustrates that the items identified as more relevant
are, respectively, certification requirements; compliance with legal requirements – contracts;
and remote monitoring of the supplier through performance indicators (underlined items).
CRR
3,1

94

Figure 4.
Mechanisms used for
similarity and
organizational learning
between buyers and
suppliers

Figure 5.
Conceptual model of
supply chain
resilience sheaf

These items would be, in the conceptual model, larger diameter sticks, which confer greater
resistance to the sheaf without, however, implying that the other identified items may be
neglected in the structure of the resilience sheaf.
 The model also demonstrates that the most effective items are mostly linked to the The supply
situational perception and formal mechanisms passed on the supply chain in an enforceable chain resilience
manner. The figure also emphasizes that other practices and mechanisms not identified in
this research may occur that may also permeate the supply chain, conferring resilience to all
sheaf
actors involved.

6. Conclusions and recommendations 95

This purpose of this research was to understand what and how effective the mechanisms
and practices that buyers use to influence their critical suppliers are in increasing
resilience in their supply chain. SCR lens was pointed beyond a single company
perspective or even beyond the customer–supplier dyad perspective. The methodological
focus has allowed us to extend the literature by proposing a model based on SCR sheaf’s
concept based on resource dependence and cognitive factors that underlie the buyer–
supplier relationship. This approach has helped to understand that critical suppliers need
differentiated management, with important mediating, collaborative and synergistic
relationships.
The study identified 11 distinct practices and mechanisms in which buyers formally and
informally influence their suppliers’ processes. These mechanisms and practices have been
labeled as (1) certification requirements; (2) compliance with legal requirements - contracts; (3)
risk assessment and compliance assurance; (4) open book accounting; (5) information sharing,
systems and infrastructure; (6) remote monitoring of the supplier through performance
indicators; (7) on-site evaluations; (8) fostering associations and networking; (9) supplier
management professionalization; (10) sharing disorders and solutions; and (11) assignment of
specialized technical advice.
These mechanisms and practices are organized into three groups: (1) perception and
reaction actions; (2) key vulnerability management actions; and (3) adaptive capacity
enhancement actions. These actions are passed on to other suppliers in the chain in an
expository or enforceable manner through mimetic, coercive, normative and knowledge
transfer devices to favor the leveling of these practices and mechanisms throughout the
supply chain, which strengthens it and makes it more resilient.
It is noteworthy that this study was conducted in the midst of one of the most serious
crises that plagued the Brazilian economy, which benefits the study formation and the
effectiveness of actions to overcome difficulties in organizations. Although such historical
context may favor studies on resilience, it is noteworthy that the findings of this research are
not specific to such context. The evidenced information may contribute to the adoption of
preventive mechanisms and practices.
Our study contributes in many ways. First, this study develops and operationalizes
mechanisms and practices developing resilience throughout the supply chain. Also, the
results of this research contribute to investigations on the SCR, highlighting the replication
role of mechanisms and practices throughout the supply chain. From the theoretical point of
view, this work allows a better understanding of the factors relevant to the SCR and their
perception by buyers and suppliers, using theoretical elements in a broader perspective
(dependence on resources and cognitive elements of the prospect theory). Moreover, the
refinement and improvement of the research instruments adopted a methodology that
analyzes various elements from the supply chain as well as the customer–supplier dyad
relation. Empirically, this paper provides insights demonstrating that collaboration is
essential for building resilience and reducing the impact of possible unavoidable
disruptions. Finally, the eleven factors identified make it possible to assess which are the
SCR highlights and create a priority order that can guide the management development of
actions.
CRR 7. Limitations and future research directions
3,1 While we have done our best to provide a valid and reliable study, there may be some
limitations related to this research. The model used was first applied in Brazil, and in the
international studies conducted, the influence on supplier resilience has not been
supported by the opinion of its buyers. For these reasons, further studies will be needed
to identify whether the eleven identified factors are appropriate to the organizations’
reality.
96 Two relevant facts occurred during the final phase of this research. One is a major
accident at the Vale company mine, located in Brumadinho, MG (The Guardian, 2019).
Classified as the biggest accident in Brazil to date, this unfortunate occurrence will
certainly impact the whole mining industry. The effects of this tragic accident on the
resilience of the company and its supply chain have not yet been investigated. Another is
the COVID-19 pandemic that caused disruptions in several industries and affected the
world. It is suggested that future research assess whether the mechanisms and practices
remain relevant after those episodes and will prove to be sufficient to withstand the
interruptions in the investigated supply chain.
Concluding the recommendations, it is suggested that future research should broaden the
SCR investigation involving a larger group of companies in different countries, to make
inferences that provide a more generalizable view of the resilience sheaf formation in several
segments, not only automotive, allowing to prove the existence of such behavior not just in
Brazilian companies, and can also stratify them according to their sectors of activity, the
number of employees and participation or not of foreign capital.

References
Alban, M. (2018), “The degradation of Brazilian socioeconomics”, Brazilian Journal of Political
Economy, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 167-183, doi: 10.1590/0101-31572018v38n01a10.
ANFAVEA (2018), Anu ustria Automobilıstica Brasileira, Anuario, available at: http://www.
ario da Ind
anfavea.com.br/anuarios.html.
Argote, L. and Fahrenkopf, E. (2016), “Knowledge transfer in organizations: the roles of members,
tasks, tools, and networks”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 136,
pp. 146-159, doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.08.003.
AutomotiveWorld (2019), “Nissan reports results for fiscal year 2018”, available at: https://global.
nissannews.com/en/releases/release-38d144e67f3bedef1b961fff830b6e0a-190514-01-e
Aven, T. (2011), “On the new ISO guide on risk management terminology”, Reliability Engineering and
System Safety, Vol. 96 No. 7, pp. 719-726, doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2010.12.020.
Bardin, L. (2009), Analise de Conte
udo, 5th ed., Lisboa.
Blackhurst, J., Dunn, K.S. and Craighead, C.W. (2011), “An empirically derived framework of global
supply resiliency”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 374-391.
Burnard, K. (2011), “Organisational resilience : development of a conceptual framework for
organisational responses”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 18,
pp. 5581-5599, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2011.563827.
Burnard, K.J. and Bhamra, R. (2019), “Challenges for organisational resilience”, Continuity and
Resilience Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 17-25, doi: 10.1108/crr-01-2019-0008.
Caglio, A. (2017), “To disclose or not to disclose? An investigation of the antecedents and effects of
open book accounting”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 263-287.
Chen, Y. and Chen, I.J. (2019), “Mixed sustainability motives, mixed results: the role of compliance and
commitment in sustainable supply chain practices”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 24 No. 5,
pp. 622-636, doi: 10.1108/SCM-10-2018-0363.
Chowdhury, P., Paul, S.K., Kaisar, S. and Moktadir, M.A. (2021), “COVID-19 pandemic related supply The supply
chain studies: a systematic review”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, Vol. 148 August 2020, p. 102271, Elsevier, doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2021.102271. chain resilience
Cooper, R. and Slagmulder, R. (1999), “Develop profitable new products with target costing”, MIT
sheaf
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 4, p. 23.
Daft, R.L. (1999), Leadership: Theory and Practice, Harcourt College Pub.
Dalziell, E.P. and Mcmanus, S.T. (2004), “Resilience , vulnerability, and adaptive capacity : 97
implications for system performance”, System, p. 17, available at: http://www.ifed.ethz.ch/
events/Forum04/Erica_paper.pdf.
de Oliveira, M.P.V. and Handfield, R. (2017), “An enactment theory model of supplier financial
disruption risk mitigation”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 22 No. 5,
pp. 442-457, doi: 10.1108/SCM-03-2017-0121.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 147-160, doi: 0034-7590.
do Nascimento, A.P., de Oliveira, M.M.P.V. and Zanquetto, H. (2013), “Maturidade de Sistemas de
Gest~ao da Qualidade como um Construto de Segunda Ordem”, Revista Gest~ao and Tecnologia,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 23-50, available at: http://revistagt.fpl.edu.br/ (accessed 8 September 2016).
Economist, T. (2016), “Irredeemable? Brazil’s crisis”, The Economist, available at: http://www.
economist.com/news/briefing/21684778-former-star-emerging-world-faces-lost-decade-
irredeemable.
Endsley, M.R. (2015), “Situation awareness misconceptions and misunderstandings”, Journal of
Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 4-32, doi: 10.1177/
1555343415572631.
Endsley, M.R. and Connors, E.S. (2008), “Situation awareness: state of the art”, 2008 IEEE Power and
Energy Society General Meeting - Conversion and Delivery of Electrical Energy in the 21st
Century, pp. 1-4, doi: 10.1109/PES.2008.4596937.
Engemann, K.J. (2019), “Emerging developments in organizational risk”, Continuity and Resilience
Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 26-35, doi: 10.1108/crr-03-2019-0011.
Fenwick, T., Brunsdon, D. and Seville, E. (2009), Reducing the Impact of organisational Silos on
Resilience, available at: http://www.resorgs.org.nz/images/stories/pdfs/silos.pdf.
Gerolamo, M.C., Esposto, K.F. and Carpinetti, L.C.R. (2003), “Model for identifying performance
improvement actions combined with the Strategy”, Revista Produç~ao Online, Vol. 3 No. 1,
doi: 10.14488/1676-1901.v3i1.610.
The Guardian (2019), “Brazil: shocking video captures moment of deadly dam collaps”, Feb, available
at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/01/brazil-mining-dam-video-captures-moment-
collapse.
Hoffjan, A. and Kruse, H. (2006), “Open book accounting in supply chain: when and how is it used in
practice?”, Cost Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 40-47.
Hosseini, S., Barker, K. and Ramirez-marquez, J.E. (2016), “A review of definitions and measures of
system resilience”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 145, pp. 47-61, doi: 10.1016/j.
ress.2015.08.006.
IATF (2016), “International automaotive task force. IATF 16949:2026 - technical specification”, p. 56.
International Organization for Standardization (2015), ISO 9001:2015 - Quality Management Systems -
Requirements, Geneve.
Ivanov, D. (2020), “Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: a
simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) case”,
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, Vol. 136
March, p. 101922, doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2020.101922.
CRR Johnsen, T.E., Lamming, R.C. and Harland, C.M. (2008), “Inter-organizational relationships, chains, and
networks: a supply perspective”, The Oxford Handbook of Inter-organizational Relations,
3,1 pp. 61-89.
uttner, U. (1966), “Supply chain risk management”, Journal of the American Medical Womens
J€
Association 1972. doi: 10.1108/09574090510617385.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), “Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk”,
Econometrica, Vol. 47 No. 2, p. 263.
98
Kayes, C. (2015), “Organizational resilience: how learning sustains organizations in crisis, disaster, and
breakdowns”, Administrative Science Quarterly. doi: 10.1177/0001839215615333.
Kendra, J.M. and Wachtendorf, T. (2003), “Elements of resilience after the world trade center
Disaster : reconstituting New York city’s emergency operations centre”, Disasters, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 37-53.
Kim, Y., Chen, Y.-S. and Linderman, K. (2014), “Supply network disruption and resilience: a network
structural perspective”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 33, pp. 43-59, doi: 10.1016/j.
jom.2014.10.006.
Lee, A.V., Vargo, J. and Seville, E. (2013), “Developing a tool to measure and compare organizations’
resilience”, Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 14, February, pp. 29-41, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-
6996.0000075.
Limnios, E.A.M. and Mazzarol, T. (2011), “Resilient organisations: offense versus defense”, 25th
Annual ANZAM Conference, pp. 1-15, available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
256029752 (accessed 4 August 2016).
Mallak, L. (1998), “Putting organizational resilience to work”, Industrial Management (Norcross,
Georgia), pp. 8-13.
Mansourbeigi, S. (2017), “Sheaf theory approach to distributed applications: analysing heterogeneous
data in air traffic monitoring”, International Journal of Data Science and Analysis, Vol. 3 No. 5,
p. 34, doi: 10.11648/j.ijdsa.20170305.11.
Martello, A. (2020), “Government reduces GDP growth forecast to 0.02% in 2020 and admits recession
risk”, G1, available at: https://g1.globo.com/economia/noticia/2020/03/20/governo-reduz-
previsao-do-pib-de-alta-de-21percent-para-estabilidade-em-2020.ghtml.
McManus, S., Seville, E., Vargo, J. and Brunsdon, D. (2008), “Facilitated process for improving
organizational resilience”, Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 81-90.
Miller, A. and Xiao, Y. (2007), “Multi-level strategies to achieve resilience for an organisation operating
at capacity: a case study at a trauma centre”, Cognition, Technology and Work, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 51-66, doi: 10.1007/s10111-006-0041-0.
Patterson, E.S., Woods, D.D., Cook, R.I. and Render, M.L. (2007), “Collaborative cross-checking to
enhance resilience”, Cognition, Technology and Work, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 155-162, doi: 10.1007/
s10111-006-0054-8.
Pettit, T.J., Fiksel, J. and Croxton, K.L. (2010), “Ensuring supply chain resilience: development of a
conceptual framework”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-21, doi: 10.1002/j.2158-
1592.2010.tb00125.x.
Pettit, T.J., Fiksel, J. and Croxton, K.L. (2013), “Ensuring supply chain resilience: development and
implementation of an assessment tool”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 46-76.
Pettit, T.J., Croxton, K.L. and Fiksel, J. (2019), “The evolution of resilience in supply chain
management: a retrospective on ensuring supply chain resilience”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 56-65, doi: 10.1111/jbl.12202.
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (1977), “Who gets power - and how they hold on to it”, Organizational
Dynamics.
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (2003), The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence
Perspective, Stanford University Press.
Ponomarov, S.Y. (2012), “Antecedents and consequences of supply chain resilience: a dynamic The supply
capabilities perspective”, Doctoral Dissertations University, pp. 1-151.
chain resilience
Ponomarov, S.Y. and Holcomb, M.C. (2009), “Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience”,
The International Journal of Logistics Management. doi: 10.1108/09574090910954873.
sheaf
Saad-Filho, A. (2020), “Inflation and stabilisation in Brazil”, Growth and Change in Neoliberal
Capitalism, 2021st edn., Leiden, pp. 199-221, doi: 10.1163/9789004440418.
Sapountzaki, K. (2007), “Social resilience to environmental risks: a mechanism of vulnerability 99
transfer?”, Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 274-297, doi: 10.1108/14777830710731743.
Scavarda, L.F., Ceryno, P.S., Pires, S. and Klingebiel, K. (2015), “SUPPLY chain resilience analysis: a
BRAZILIAN automotive case”, Revista de Administraç~ ao de Empresas, Vol. 55 No. 3,
pp. 304-313, doi: 10.1590/S0034-759020150306.
Scholten, K. and Schilder, S. (2015), “The role of collaboration in supply chain resilience”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 471-484, doi: 10.1108/SCM-11-
2014-0386.
Seville, E. (2008), “Resilience: great concept but what does it mean?”Paper Presented at the US Council
of Competitiveness Workshop, Risk and Resilience, Wilmington, USA, November 2008, p. 10,
(November), available at: http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/2966.
Sharma, M.J. and Yu, S.J. (2013), “Selecting critical suppliers for supplier development to improve
supply management”, Opsearch, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 42-59, doi: 10.1007/s12597-012-0097-y.
Sheffi, Y. and Rice, J.B. Jr (2005), “A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 47 No. 1, p. 41.
Shou, Y., Li, Y., Park, Y. and Kang, M. (2018), “Supply chain integration and operational performance:
the contingency effects of production systems”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,
Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 352-360, doi: 10.1016/j.pursup.2017.11.004.
Spradley, J.P. (1979), Ethnography and Culture. The Ethnographic Interview, Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, FL.
Thomas, A., Byard, P., Francis, M., Fisher, R. and White, G.R. (2016), “Profiling the resiliency and
sustainability of UK manufacturing companies”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 82-99, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-06-2014-0086.
Tomic, B. and Brkic, V.K.S (2019), “Customer satisfaction and ISO 9001 improvement requirements in
the supply chain”, TQM Journal, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 222-238, doi: 10.1108/TQM-07-2017-0072.
Trkman, P., de Oliveira, M.P.V. and McCormack, K. (2016), “Value-oriented supply chain risk
management: you get what you expect”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 116
No. 5, pp. 1061-1083, doi: 10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0368.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1992), “Advances in prospect-theory - cumulative representation of
uncertainty”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 297-323, doi: 10.1007/Bf00122574.
Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2007), “Dynamic capabilities: a review and research agenda”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 31-51, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.
2007.00201.x.
Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M. and Obstfeld, D. (2005), “Organizing and the process of sensemaking”,
Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 409-421, doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0133.
Wieland, A. and Marcus Wallenburg, C. (2013), “The influence of relational competencies on supply
chain resilience: a relational view”, in T€oyli, J., Lorentz, H. and Oja, L. (Eds), International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Emerald Group Publishing, Vol. 43
No. 4, pp. 300-320, doi: 10.1108/IJPDLM-08-2012-0243.
Wieland, A., Handfield, R.B. and Durach, C.F. (2016), “Mapping the landscape of future research
themes in supply chain management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 205-212,
doi: 10.1111/jbl.12131.
CRR Woods, D.D. (2006), “Essential characteristics of resilience”, Resilience Engineering: Concepts and
Precepts, pp. 21-34.
3,1
Woods, D.D. (2015), “Four concepts for resilience and the implications for the future of resilience
engineering”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, Vol. 141, pp. 5-9, doi: 10.1016/j.
ress.2015.03.018.

100 Further reading

Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000), “Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 150-169, doi: 10.1006/
obhd.2000.2893.
Robinson, M. (2013), “Understanding networks and their behaviors using sheaf theory”, Svone, IEEE,
pp. 911-914, doi: 10.1109/GlobalSIP.2013.6737040.

About the authors

Dr Adelson Pereira do Nascimento is associate professor at the Department of Automation Engineering
of Instituto Federal do Espırito Santo, Brazil, and head of the NUGEIN (Innovation Management and
Entrepreneurship) research center. Prof. Adelson holds a PhD in business management from
Universidade Federal do Espırito Santo. He has published in different scientific journals. His research
focuses on different topics of business process management and organizational performance fields, such
as maturity models, organizational resilience, firm’s supply chain and quality management systems.
Adelson Pereira do Nascimento is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: adelsonpn@ifes.
edu.br
Dr Marcos Paulo Oliveira is associate professor at the Department of Management of Universidade
Federal do Espırito Santo – Brazil, and head of the TecPro (Technologies and Processes) research center.
Prof. Oliveira holds a PhD in operations management from Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. He
was a visiting scholar at North Carolina State University (USA), Northwood University (USA),
University of Shangai Jiao Tong (China) and University of Peking (China). Prof. Oliveira has received 487
citations regarding Web of Science. His research interests comprise business analytics, decision making,
business process management, supply chain management, maturity models and operational strategy.
Dr Timothy J. Pettit is associate professor and academic program director for the bachelor of arts in
management degree, the BBA concentration in logistics and supply chain management and the MBA
specialization in supply chain management within the College of Professional Studies at National
University. He instructs graduate and undergraduate courses in management, supply chain
management, leadership, technology innovation and management science. In addition, he is a
member of his field’s premier professional organization, the Council of Supply Chain Management
Professionals. He is a world-wide lecturer and researcher on supply chain risk and resilience.
Dr Marcelo Bronzo is associate professor at the Department of Management of Universidade Federal
de Minas Gerais, Brazil. Prof. Bronzo holds a PhD in operations management from Universidade Federal
de Minas Gerais. He was a visiting scholar at Universita degli Studi di Bologna (Italy). He has published
in different international scientific journals, such as Business Process Management Journal,
Management Decision, Supply Chain Management: an International Journal and Harvard Business
Review. His research focuses on different topics of business process management and organizational
performance fields, such as maturity models, organizational resilience, firm’s supply chain agility and
business analytics.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.