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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0957-4093.htm

IJLM
32,2 Supply risk identification in
manufacturing supply networks
Marc Wiedenmann
Graduate School of Excellence Advanced Manufacturing Engineering,
650 University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, and
Received 6 February 2020
Andreas Gr€oßler
Revised 24 July 2020 Department of Operations Management, Institute of Business Administration,
18 September 2020
Accepted 27 October 2020 University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany

Abstract
Purpose – Managing supply risk is gaining in importance in the tightly interconnected global economy.
Identifying the relevant risks is the foundation of any risk management process. Therefore, the purpose of this
paper first is to provide a short introduction to supply risk management, before focussing on the identification
of such risks in more detail. A holistic framework of the identified supply risks, which distinguishes between
risk dimensions and risk factors in manufacturing upstream supply networks, is proposed.
Design/methodology/approach – This study applies a mixed methods research approach. Data are
collected based on a structured literature review in combination with the analysis of company-specific
documents and semi-structured expert interviews. Subsequently, a deductive content analysis is carried out to
derive a holistic framework of supply risks, adapted to the manufacturing industry. For the external validation
of the conceptual supply risk framework, additional experts from several manufacturing companies were
consulted.
Findings – Based on the definition and delimitation of supply risk, a categorization of supply risks is
developed. The relevant literature, as well as expert interviews, lead to the distinction of six supply risk
dimensions: quality, delivery, collaboration, economic, ambience and compliance. A total of 27 risk factors can
be assigned to these dimensions. A holistic foundation for the management of supply risk is thus created.
Originality/value – This study provides a holistic framework of relevant supply risks in the context of the
manufacturing industry. This overview of identified risks offers a novel perspective on risk in manufacturing
supply networks that can be helpful in researching assessment and mitigation strategies. Despite the high
relevance and popularity of this field of research, such an overview with a focus on manufacturing had not yet
been made available in the literature. Building thereon, management approaches can now be developed to
handle the risk arising from the upstream of the supply network.
Keywords Supply risk management, Manufacturing industry, Risk identification, Mixed methods
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The development of a company’s corporate goals and their achievement through managerial
decision-making is the core of management (Drucker, 1974). As Smallman (1996) stated more
than 20 years ago, risk and risk-taking in decision-making is a crucial part of business.
Therefore, risk management is an integral component of ensuring the long-term sustainable
development of companies. Risk management identifies and assesses risks that could
adversely affect the success of companies and attempts to control these risks through
appropriate measures. The identification of potential risks, which constitutes the focus of this
paper, forms the basis of any risk management process. In order to manage risks effectively,
they must be known to the company (Romeike, 2018).
As in other fields of research, risk is also inherent when managing supply networks. In
recent years, many manufacturing companies have realized that outsourcing non-core
The International Journal of
Logistics Management business activities and focussing on their core competencies is the right way to compete on
Vol. 32 No. 2, 2021
pp. 650-672
global markets (Dolgui and Proth, 2010). Thus, most individual companies do not act entirely
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0957-4093
independently as they have become part of a globally connected supply network in order to
DOI 10.1108/IJLM-02-2020-0081 remain competitive. According to Tang (2006), four basic approaches for managing risk in
supply chains can be distinguished: product risk management (Ramdas, 2003), upstream risk Supply risk
management (Giunipero and Aly Eltantawy, 2004), information risk management identification
(Wakolbinger and Cruz, 2011) and downstream risk management (Yano and Gilbert, 2005).
The main emphasis of this paper is on identifying upstream risks arising from the upstream
supply network. This is referred to as supply risk in the following.
Increasing attention is being devoted to supply risk management, both in scientific
discourse and in the practical context (Ho et al., 2015; Fan and Stevenson, 2018a, b). This
discussion is based on two pillars. On the one hand, due to recent crises and catastrophes, 651
particular attention is directed to the management of these risks to avoid supply disruptions
(Guertler and Spinler, 2015). On the other hand, modern, multibranched and strongly
synchronized supply networks are inherently more vulnerable than traditional integrated
production methods (Wagner and Bode, 2006).
The focus within this paper is on the identification of relevant supply risks within
manufacturing supply networks. Particularly in this industrial sector, where the value added
by a company is often less than one-third, supply risk management is increasingly gaining in
importance (Weber, 2019). In addition, various trends, including just-in-time delivery, shorter
product lifecycles as well as outsourcing strategies, render the consideration of associated
risks indispensable (Trkman et al., 2010). There is a variety of reasons that could lead to
disruptions in inbound supply. Although there are several publications dealing with the
illustration of possible risk factors, there is, especially regarding manufacturing supply
networks, no comprehensive overview which could serve as a basis for supply risk
management initiatives. This gap in research can also be identified in a broader context: to
date, no comprehensive review that compiles and analyses various supply risk frameworks
and categorization approaches is available in the literature. Furthermore, as various authors
such as Lim et al. (2013) describe, there is a lack of systematic approaches to supply risk
management; to the best of our knowledge, this situation has not improved since that study.
This work is intended to provide a foundation on which such an integrative approach can be
based. Therefore, the research question (RQ) “What are relevant supply risks in manufacturing
supply networks and how can they be categorized?” is answered in the following.
To answer this research question, the relevant literature is analysed and empirical
research in collaboration with several manufacturing companies is carried out. By applying a
mixed methods approach, a comprehensive framework for supply risk can be developed,
which includes relevant supply risk factors assigned to different risk dimensions according
to their specific characteristics.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides the theoretical
basis in terms of a common understanding of supply risk, manufacturing supply networks as
well as the identification process of supply risk. Thereupon, Section 3 describes the applied
methodology for deriving a comprehensive supply risk framework. Subsequently, Section 4
provides an overview of the relevant literature in this field. The proposed categorization
approach for supply risk is presented and discussed in Section 5.1. Section 5.2 then examines
the deduction and allocation of supply risk factors to the developed supply risk dimensions in
more detail. Finally, in Section 6, a conclusion as well as a discussion based on the validation
of the developed supply risk framework is provided. In addition, insights are highlighted,
leading to recommendations for future research.

2. Supply risk in manufacturing supply networks

Managing risk addressing supply networks is also referred to as supply risk management,
upstream supply chain risk management or inbound risk management (Wu et al., 2006;
Wagner and Bode, 2006; Zsidisin, 2003a, b). It is assumed that the separate analysis of the
entire supply chain system, which means the individual analysis of upstream and
IJLM downstream supply chains, can be a pertinent approach to address the complex issue of risk
32,2 in the entire system (Kern et al., 2012). Supply networks usually consist of multiple tiers,
including several operators at each tier, which provide goods or services to suppliers at the
next level of the supply chain. Failure to manage supply risk can be very costly for companies
and can cause significant delays in the subsequent supply chain (Schneeberger, 2010). A
company’s success therefore heavily depends on understanding, measuring and effectively
managing supply risk (Harland et al., 2003).
652

2.1 Supply risk management

Risk is the possibility of the failure to achieve specific objectives (Braun, 1984). Risk
associated with inbound supply is conceptually vague. Terms such as inbound risk,
upstream risk or supplier risk are used synonymously to characterize supply risk. In their
definition of supply risk, Matook et al. (2009) refer to any risk that could disrupt the flow of
materials, information or goods in the supply chain. Similar to Zsidisin et al. (2000) and J€uttner
et al. (2003), they refer exclusively to the potential consequences of supply risk. In contrast, the
definitions of Wu et al. (2006) and Zsidisin (2003a, b) also consider possible causes of such
risks. Additionally, various frameworks of supply risk differ regarding their general
perspective on risk. The potential effect of occurring risk can induce either a negative or a
positive deviation in relation to defined target values (Fiege, 2006). The latter is often referred
to in the literature as an “opportunity” (Romeike, 2018). While some authors also consider the
possibility of a positive effect, most definitions of supply risk refer to the negative dimension
of risk. Therefore, in this paper, the focus is also limited to the negative consequences of risk.
Two different aspects of supply risk can be distinguished with reference to the authors
mentioned above: the sources of potential supply risk and the outcomes. The sources of
supply risk can be associated with uncertainty in conjunction with attributes of the upstream
supply network. Comparatively, the outcome of an occurring supply risk is understood as the
negative effects associated with the inbound supply performance. Based on these findings,
and with reference to the notion of risk according to Aven and Renn (2009), the following
definition of supply risk is proposed:
Supply risk refers to the uncertainty and severity of the events and consequences of any activity that
adversely affects the inbound supply performance in terms of its target values.
Alongside the creation of company-wide risk awareness as well as transparency concerning
current risks, the implementation of a systematic and continuous identification and
assessment process of risk, as well as the derivation of possible treatment strategies
including control mechanisms, seems indispensable. The process of risk management is
therefore distinguished by four main constituents: risk identification, risk assessment, risk
treatment and risk monitoring (Winter, 2007; Diederichs, 2013). The identification of potential
risks constitutes the basis of the risk management process. In order to manage risks
effectively, they must be known to the company (Romeike, 2018). Thereupon, the identified
risks are quantified and evaluated within risk assessment (Gleißner, 2011). Risk assessment
provides the basis for distinguishing between highly relevant risks that pose threats to
businesses and risks of minor importance (Fiege, 2006; Raj Sinha et al., 2004). Once the
relevant risks have been identified and assessed, a company should, after careful
consideration by management, identify the resources required to manage specific risks.
Hence, the objective of risk treatment is to keep the overall risk to which a company is
exposed within an acceptable range (Pfohl et al., 2008). The fourth and final phase of the risk
management process, risk monitoring, verifies the effectiveness of the measures adopted.
Target-performance comparisons are conducted to determine whether the company is
operating within its specifically defined risk limit (Reichling, 2003). Furthermore, risk
monitoring is often associated with the early detection of potential risks to evaluate the Supply risk
developments and effects impacting the company’s success as early as possible by identification
systematically reviewing the available information (Fiege, 2006). An iterative approach to
risk management is therefore a prerequisite (Kern et al., 2012). Thus, risk management
comprises all the organizational measures and processes involved in identifying, assessing,
treating and monitoring risks as well as in shaping the overall risk situation. Based on this
theoretical foundation, the following definition of supply risk management is derived as a
basis for this study: 653
Supply risk management comprises the systematic and continuous process of identifying, assessing,
treating, and monitoring risk that might adversely affect the inbound supply performance in terms
of its target values.
Target values are defined as continuously fulfilling customer requirements and therefore
preventing supply disruption (Hoffmann, 2012). Hou et al. (2010) define supply disruption as
the unexpected unavailability of supply caused by incidents that prevent one or more sources
of supply from becoming available.

2.2 Supply risk identification

The identification of potential risks constitutes the basis of the risk management process. In
order to manage risks effectively, they must be known to the company (Romeike, 2018). Risk
identification thus plays a decisive role in risk management (Diederichs, 2013). Therefore, the
aim of this process step is to systematically and structurally identify all the relevant risk
dimensions and subordinate risk factors that could have an impact on the inbound supply
performance of the investigated company (Gleißner and Klein, 2017). In this paper, risk
dimensions and risk factors are selected as the taxonomy. Synonyms for risk dimensions in
the literature are, for example, risk types, risk classes or risk categories (Ho et al., 2015; J€
uttner
et al., 2003; Ellegaard, 2008). These terms delineate a grouping of risk factors which can be
assigned to one category because of their similarity regarding certain specifics. In line with
the definition of supply risk and supply risk management, risk dimensions represent those
variables that cannot be predicted with certainty and that might adversely affect the inbound
supply performance in terms of its target values. Accordingly, risk factors describe specific
events and situations that drive a risk dimension. Therefore, they depict the potential source
of a risk. Synonyms frequently used in the literature for the term risk factors are risk events,
risk indicators, risk drivers or risk sources (Manuj and Mentzer, 2008; Norrman and Jansson,
2004; Guan and Zhao, 2014; J€ uttner et al., 2003). In parts of the literature, the distinction
between risk dimensions and factors does not exist or only to a limited extent, which often
leads to misunderstandings (Ho et al., 2015).
In the literature, various, mostly qualitative methods for risk identification are
applied (Ho et al., 2015). These methods include expert interviews (Kumar et al., 2014),
workshops (Blackhurst et al., 2008), surveys (Hoffmann et al., 2013), literature reviews
(Wu et al., 2006), Ishikawa diagrams (Wiendahl et al., 2008) as well as brainstorming
(Norrman and Jansson, 2004). The choice of appropriate methods for risk
identification is ultimately case-related and depends on the complexity of the object
of investigation, availability of resources and previous experience. Regardless of
which method is applied to identify supply risk, it is important to ensure that the data
collected is complete and as up-to-date as possible. Obsolete or incomplete data can
severely limit or even completely eliminate the effectiveness of timely
countermeasures (Fiege, 2006). In addition, when identifying risks, the ratio
between comprehensive risk gathering and an economically justifiable effort must
be ensured (Diederichs, 2013).
IJLM 2.3 Manufacturing supply networks
32,2 As the sources of supply risk, as well as the potential impacts, vary according to the context
and industry (Zsidisin, 2003a, b), the discussion in this paper is limited to manufacturing
supply networks. The term supply network was coined in the research results of Harland
(1999). Therein, the author refers to interorganizational supply networks as “sub-networks
nested within interorganizational networks that include the actors, resources and activities
associated with value adding processes converting resources to goods [. . .]” (Harland, 1999).
654 Supply networks vary both in the width and length of the network. Contrary to intuitive
understanding, the concept of supply networks not only includes the upstream network of
suppliers but also the downstream network of distributors and customers (Lamming et al.,
2000). Nevertheless, in line with the definition of supply risk given, this paper only considers
the upstream supply network originating from the focal company in the centre.
Supply networks are often described from the perspective of the focal company, which
produces the end product and therefore has the largest revenue and the most power in the
supply network (Mentzer et al., 2001). The focal company also represents the unit of analysis
of the present research: the holistic framework of identified supply risks is intended to
support the focal company in its risk identification efforts and thus create the basis for a
holistic risk management approach that analyses the entire manufacturing supply network.
The direct suppliers of the focal company are referred to as tier-1 suppliers. The suppliers
upstream of these tier-1 suppliers are tier-2, tier-3 and so on, accordingly. In manufacturing
supply networks, these individual nodes are production facilities such as raw material
suppliers, assembly plants or storage facilities. These different units are connected to each
other via material, information and monetary flows and cannot be managed in isolation as
each node affects the other nodes in the supply network. Figure 1 schematically summarizes
the fundamental understanding of manufacturing supply networks within this paper.
One hurdle that often has to be overcome, however, is the availability of data along the
entire network. In many cases, the responsibility for the management of the upstream supply
network is transferred to the tier-1 supplier. Transparency across the entire manufacturing
supply network is therefore often limited. Companies even tend to have marginal interest in
creating more transparency in this respect, as a study from 2018 revealed: 40% of the
companies surveyed did not even analyse the supply disturbances that affect them
(Wildgoose, 2018). Nevertheless, awareness of supply risk is growing rapidly, particularly

MANUFACTURING SUPPLY NETWORKS

TIER-3 TIER-2 TIER-1
SUPPLY SUPPLY SUPPLY FOCAL
NETWORK NETWORK NETWORK COMPANY
NETWORK BREADTH

Figure 1.
Manufacturing supply
networks [own figure
based on
(Harland, 1999)] NETWORK LENGTH
amongst large manufacturers of high value products (Fan and Stevenson, 2018a, b). Supply risk
Regarding the management of risk, a shift away from the consideration of dyads or triads identification
(Choi and Wu, 2009) to a consideration of the entire supply network and the correspondingly
numerous different supply relations within this network can be monitored (Zsidisin and
Henke, 2019).

3. Methodology 655
This study applies a mixed methods research approach. Mixed methods research is
considered to be the class of research in which quantitative and qualitative research
techniques, methods or approaches are combined in a single study (Johnson and
Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The paper comprises a combination of a structured literature review,
semi-structured expert interviews, document analyses, a qualitative content analysis as well
as structured validation interviews. The objective is to develop and validate a holistic
framework of supply risk in the manufacturing industry based on existing literature and
enriched through collaboration with several companies from this sector.
In Section 4, a systematic literature review is conducted to identify articles containing and
discussing different supply risk dimensions as well as supply risk factors. According to
Denyer and Tranfield (2009), four phases of a literature review can be distinguished, which
are discussed in the following. The first step includes the definition of the research question to
be answered. This step can be seen in the first section of this paper. Subsequently, search
terms are defined and relevant databases as well as further criteria of the search queries are
determined. Thereupon, evaluation criteria for the selection of relevant studies are defined.
An additional search based on citation reviews and via additional search engines is
conducted. The current state of the literature is enriched by semi-structured explorative
expert interviews and document analyses. The explorative expert interviews as well as the
document analyses were conducted within a German manufacturing company producing
industrial machine tools.
In Section 5, a categorization approach of different risk dimensions is developed by
examining the relevant literature, the company-specific documents and the results of the
explorative, semi-structured expert interviews. In the context of the analysis of company-
specific documents, relevant strategic and operational reports from the last three years were
analysed. Based on the evaluation of this data, six explorative, semi-structured interviews
were conducted in order to expand the existing database with additional knowledge and new
ideas regarding supply risks to be identified. The respondents came from the areas of supply
chain management, risk management, purchasing, supplier quality management, logistics
and the administrative level of the company. Based on this information, and by
supplementing the findings collected by means of a structured literature review, the entire
data are reviewed line-by-line and in vivo coded. Thereupon, a deductive content analysis
according to Mayring (2014), based on the proposed supply risk dimensions was carried out
by reviewing the retrieved in vivo codes one by one. The relevant risk factors can thus be
assigned to the risk dimensions derived.
Applying a systematic approach, this qualitative content analysis enables the tracking
and verification of the process and thus the establishment of intersubjectivity. The resulting
supply risk framework was then presented to several manufacturing experts for external
validation to ensure the relevance of the conceptual framework beyond the company-specific
constraints of the partner company. For this purpose, further experts from four other
manufacturing companies were consulted. The experts were specialists either in supply chain
or risk management. The manufacturing companies from which they originated are either
German or American mid- to large-sized manufacturers of pneumatic and electrical
components, plastic packaging solutions, automotive components and industrial forklift
IJLM trucks with at least 15,000 employees. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the surveyed
32,2 experts who were asked for an industry-specific validation of the supply risk framework.
The validation interviews were conducted in a semi-structured manner, based on a
guideline that was sent to the participants in advance. At the beginning of the interview, the
designed framework was presented holistically to ensure a common understanding.
Afterwards, the designed risk dimensions were processed in detail by means of open- as well
as closed-ended questions. The questions and subsequent discussion with the interviewees
656 include aspects related to both the classification approach and the individual risk factors in
terms of meaningfulness, categorization, comprehensibility and completeness. Figure 2
illustrates the methodological approach described.

4. Systematic literature review on supply risk management

Today, applying search queries in online databases is the prevailing method of identifying
relevant literature to collect, structure and synthesize existing knowledge. The following
major online databases were considered: Business Source Premier, Emerald Insight,
ScienceDirect and Web of Science.

Work Company Geo-

Professional experience Number of revenue (in graphical
Expert designation (years) Industry type employees bn V) location

I Supply Chain 10þ Automotive 250,000þ 150þ Germany

Management:
Supplier Quality
II Supply Chain 5þ Packaging 50,000þ 10þ USA
Management solutions
III Supply Chain Risk 10þ Industrial 15,000þ 3þ USA
Table 1. Management forklift trucks
Organizational and IV Supply Chain 15þ Industrial 20,000þ 3þ Germany
interviewee Management control
characteristics devices

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
SUPPLY RISK DIMENSIONS SUPPLY RISK FACTORS
EXPLORATIVE EXPLORATIVE
LITERATURE DOCUMENT LITERATURE DOCUMENT
EXPERT EXPERT
REVIEW ANALYSES REVIEW ANALYSES
INTERVIEWS INTERVIEWS

SUPPLY RISK SUPPLY RISK

DIMENSIONS IN THE FACTORS IN THE
CONTEXT OF CONTEXT OF
MANUFACTURING MANUFACTURING
COMPANIES COMPANIES

SUPPLY RISK FRAMEWORK IN THE CONTEXT OF MANUFACTURING COMPANIES

DEDUCTIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS

Figure 2.
Methodological VALIDATION
approach VALIDATION INTERVIEWS
 Two different combinations of terms related to the research field were used to identify the Supply risk
relevant literature sources: “supplier risk” and “supply risk”. The search queries were limited identification
to the title, abstract and specified keywords. The search for relevant literature took place in
February and March 2019. Studies which were published in a language other than English or
German were not included. No explicit starting point of the literature review was chosen.
Furthermore, it was necessary that the investigation focusses on the identification of supply
risk in a manufacturing context by discussing or at least mentioning supply risk dimensions
or supply risk factors in the abstract (1st check). In some cases, the abstract did not clarify 657
whether the paper fulfilled these criteria. Those publications were kept for further analysis
(2nd check).
To include articles published as conference papers or book chapters, search queries using
the Google search engine were performed. As mentioned in the introduction, since there is not
yet a comprehensive overview of identified supply risks, it was considered important also to
include these types of publications in order to ensure that the supply risk framework
established is reflective of a holistic overview of all existing supply risks in the context of risk
identification. Furthermore, keyword searches in databases can be misleading because
keywords are not used consistently across publications (Lecy and Beatty, 2012). Therefore,
snowball sampling was applied to effectively expand the relevant literature for this review.
Studies reviewing or evaluating risk factors as well as possible categorization approaches of
supply risk were included in the analysis. The further analysis is based on these studies, as
they represent preliminary work which has already been carried out by summarizing several
risk factors and risk dimensions in a single paper.
In summary, by scanning the documents in line with the defined evaluation criteria and
the removal of duplicates, the search queries resulted in 105 articles (1st check). In the next
step, an in-depth examination of the remaining literature was carried out. As a result, 40
articles proved to have limited relevance in relation to the defined RQ. Thus, the final sample
consists of 65 articles, as shown in Table 2.
Figure 3 shows the publications considered according to the year of publication. The
starting point of the research stream can be traced back to the US researchers Zsidisin and

Database Results 1st check 2nd check

ScienceDirect 277 26 11
Web of Science 516 41 16
Emerald Insight 44 21 12 Table 2.
Business Source Premier 366 45 14 Distribution of papers
Snowball – 12 according to the
Total 1,203 133 (105 without duplicates) 65 databases included

12
PUBLICATIONS
NUMBER OF

10
8
6
4
Figure 3.
2
Annual distribution of
0 publications from 2000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 to 2019
YEAR
IJLM colleagues, not only because of their early publication in 2000 but also because of several
32,2 further publications between 2003 and 2005.
This is also reflected in the analysis of the country of origin of the research institutes. With
21 publications, the United States has the highest total, followed by China (7), the UK (6) and
Germany (5). Three publications each can be associated with Italian, Indian and Australian
research while the remaining 16 can be assigned to the rest of the world. One publication
could not be classified geographically. Eight of the publications considered were published in
658 “Supply Chain Management: An International Journal”. Another 36 of the 65 publications
considered were also published in double-blind peer-review journals. A further nine were
published in single-blind peer-reviewed journals. The remaining 12 articles were either
published in the form of conference papers (8), book chapters (3) or one doctoral thesis. Within
the scope of risk identification, potentially relevant supply risk factors must be listed as well
as categorized in line with the risk management objectives. While some publications rather
focus on listing relevant supply risk factors and do not attempt categorization, other authors
focus exclusively on the latter without dealing further with the corresponding risk factors.
Overall, 42 of the 65 screened publications differentiate between supply risk dimensions to
some extent. Furthermore, 47 out of the total 65 publications list supply risk factors,
according to our terminology. 24 publications propose both a listing of supply risk factors
and derived categorization approaches. 23 publications exclusively list risk factors, 18
publications are limited to the derivation of risk dimensions only. Based on this quantitative
evaluation, the subsequent sections deal with the qualitative examination of these
publications as well as the derivation of supply risk dimensions and factors in the context
of manufacturing supply networks.

5. A framework for supply risk in manufacturing supply networks

The conceptual framework for supply risk, which consists of both supply risk dimensions
and assigned supply risk factors, is described in more detail below. In Section 5.1, the
retrieved literature is first examined regarding existing categorization approaches.
Thereupon, experts from the manufacturing industry are consulted as to which
characteristics such a classification should have. Finally, the categorization approach is
validated by further interviews with experts from different manufacturing companies. A
categorization approach of supply risk in the context of manufacturing companies can
therefore be derived. Section 5.2 examines the relevant literature with regard to existing
supply risk factors. Based on the available knowledge, which was either recorded in company
documents or resulted from the interviews, further risk factors were included in this analysis.
Subsequently, these are deductively assigned to corresponding risk dimensions and
meaningfully synthesized within the framework of a qualitative content analysis. Finally,
comprehensibility, completeness and the assignment of the individual risk factors to the
various risk dimensions is validated by means of structured interviews with four other
experts from different manufacturing companies.

5.1 Supply risk dimensions in manufacturing supply networks

Overall, 42 of the 65 screened publications consider a categorization approach distinguishing
different supply risk dimensions. As already stated, definitions of supply risk often contain
two different aspects: the source of the potential supply risk and its outcomes. Existing
frameworks of supply risk in the literature can be classified accordingly. Eleven of the
examined publications distinguish risk dimensions based on supply risk sources. These
supply risk sources are either product-related, supplier-related or originate due to external
issues. In addition, 16 of the examined publications distinguish risk dimensions based on
potential supply risk outcomes which can be categorized as: technological risk, economic risk Supply risk
(also referred to as financial risk, price risk or cost risk), quality risk, delivery risk (also identification
referred to as lead time risk or transport risk), capacity risk (also referred to as quantity risk or
order correctness risk), collaboration risk (also referred to as service risk or information
exchange risk) and compliance risk. The remaining 15 publications do not make a distinction
regarding specific risk dimensions. Subsequently, these remaining publications are used to
add missing components based on the experts’ opinions derived from the interviews. Figure 4
summarizes the impact-related supply risk dimensions derived from the selected literature 659
and the number of references per risk dimension.
Based on the experts’ opinions, the following risk dimensions are considered, which
streamlines and synthesizes the categories from the literature review: quality risk, delivery
risk, collaboration risk, economic risk, ambience risk as well as compliance risk. Quality risk
refers to the risk that the delivered goods do not meet the specified quality standards of the
focal company (Zsidisin et al., 2004; Matook et al., 2009). Delivery risk aggregates those risk
factors that pose a threat to the ability to provide the right goods in the right quantity at the
right time to the correct location (Ganguly and Guin, 2013). As expressed in the definition of
delivery risk, capacity risk (listed separately in Figure 4 is included in within this dimension).
Collaboration risk covers all risk factors relating to operational interaction with the supplier
as well as the supplier’s ability to anticipate and respond to enquiries (Matook et al., 2009).
The dimension economic risk refers to the possibility that macro-economic circumstances
may adversely affect partners within the supply network and therefore may lead to supply
failure and disruptions. Consideration is thereby given to the supplier, the supply market in
general as well as the competitive environment (Ganguly and Guin, 2013; Matook et al., 2009).
Furthermore, ambience risk was added based on the experts’ opinions. It refers to any events
occurring in the vicinity of the supply network which cause harmful effects on the focal
company (Ho et al., 2015). These can, for example, be the result of accidents, natural disasters
or given geopolitical conditions. The developments within each risk dimension can only be
influenced by the operating companies to a limited extent (Guertler and Spinler, 2015).
Compliance risk mainly results from infringements or incompatibilities with the regulatory
environment, sustainability aspects and ethical principles (Buzdogan-Lindenmayr et al.,
2018). Since technological risk (see Figure 4), as such, has no direct impact on inbound supply
performance in terms of target values, risk factors belonging to this dimension are assigned
to corresponding risk dimensions according to their actual effects on the inbound
performance. Therefore, a separate analysis of this risk dimension is not necessary.
During the course of the validation interviews, the “ambience risk” dimension was renamed,
as the previous “environmental risk” designation was considered misleading and ambiguous.
Figure 5 concludes this section as it summarizes the developed supply risk dimension-
framework.

25
PUBLICATIONS
NUMBER OF

20
15 Figure 4.
10 Number of
5 considerations of
0 various risk
Quality Risk Economic Risk Delivery Risk Collaboration Capacity Risk Compliance Risk Technological dimensions in the
Risk Risk literature
IMPACT-RELATED RISK DIMENSIONS
IJLM 5.2 Supply risk factors in manufacturing supply networks
32,2 For these supply risk dimensions, a comprehensive list of supply risk factors is compiled for
each dimension based on a literature analysis as well as existing documents and expert
interviews within the partnering manufacturing company. As stated, risk factors describe
different events and situations that drive a specific risk dimension. They therefore depict the
potential source of risk. All in all, 47 of the 65 publications list various risk factors. To
thoroughly review the relevant literature discussing various supply risk factors, the articles
660 were reviewed line by line and the specified factors were extracted in vivo. In this way, words
or short sequences were selected to identify the relevant risk factors found in the articles
retrieved. After further risk factors resulting from the document analysis and the expert
interviews were added, a total of 963 in vivo codes could be identified. With reference to
Mayring (2014), these in vivo codes were deductively assigned to the six supply risk
dimensions. 166 in vivo codes were not considered in this synthesis. This can be attributed to
three major reasons: (1) either the risk factors mentioned are highly generic (e.g. “security” or
“quality”), (2) or they are industry-specific, but not to the manufacturing industry (e.g. “food
safety” or “food fraud”), (3) or they already represent company-specific ratios (e.g.
“cooperation score” or “quality problems – experience”). In a next step, the remaining 797
in vivo codes were analysed more thoroughly within the different dimensions and partially
summarized at a higher level of abstraction. For example, “part price increase”, “excessive
costs”, “logistics cost”, “energy price increase”, “labour cost”, “freight cost” or “unexpected
material price due to yield problems” were combined to form the more general “purchase price
increase” risk factor. Through this analysis and synthesis and the subsequent validation
interviews, a holistic illustration of supply risk could be developed. A total of 27 supply risk
factors could be derived, which are presented in Figure 6 and described below considering the
assigned risk dimension.
5.2.1 Quality risk factors. Quality risk refers to the risk that the goods provided do not
comply with the specified quality standards of the focal company. In total, four different risk
factors were derived which are described in detail in the following. A lack of manufacturing
process capability constitutes the first quality risk factor discussed. A process is considered
capable if it is highly probable that the evaluated quality characteristics of the manufactured
goods lie within the defined specification limits (Kane, 1986). Deviations from the specific
target value within the tolerance limits are referred to as intrinsic variation. Deviations
beyond these limits are called special cause variations (Deming, 1986). These can be traced
back to deviations of the input factors directly involved in the transformation process: human
labour, operating resources such as facilities, tools, machinery and equipment as well as
materials that can be classified as raw materials, semi-finished products and indirect
materials (Gutenberg, 1951). In manufacturing, quality assurance describes the process of

SUPPLY RISK
QUALITY DELIVERY COLLABO- ECONOMIC AMBIENCE COMPLIANCE
RIS K RIS K RATION RIS K RIS K RIS K RIS K

Quality risk refers Delivery risk Collaboration risk Economic risk Ambience risk Compliance risks
to the risk that the aggregates those covers all risk refers to the refers to any events result mainly from
delivered goods do risk factors that factors relating to possibility that occurring in the infringements or
not meet the pose a threat to the the operational macroeconomic vicinity of the incompatibilities
specified quality ability to provide interaction with the circumstances may supply network with the regulatory
Figure 5. standards of the the right goods in supplier as well as adversely affect causing harmful environment,
focal company. the right quantity at the supplier´s partners within the effects on the focal sustainability
Supply risk the right time to the ability to anticipate supply network and company. aspects and ethical
dimensions in correct location. and respond to therefore may lead principles.
manufacturing supply inquires. to supply failure
and disruptions.
networks
 SUPPLY RISK Supply risk
QUALITY DELIVERY COLLABO- ECONOMIC AMBIENCE COMPLIANCE identification
RISK RISK RATION RISK RISK RISK RISK
Lack of Lack of Lack of Supplier Natural hazards Breach of law /
manufacturing manufacturing proactive management contracts
process process stability problem-solving issues Man-made
capability initiative incidents Implementation
Insufficient Company‘s of unethical
Lack of
common quality
production
capacity /
Low
information
dependence on
supplier
Detrimental
incidents due to
practices
661
assurance capacity quality / geopolitical Neglect of
strategy planning / transparency Supply market conditions environmental
capacity development sustainability
Improper flexibility Lack of social and competition aspects
material compatibility in issues
handling Lack of cooperation
production Supplier
Lack of input factors Lack of insolvency / lack
innovation willingness to of financial
capability / Transportation cooperate stability
technological issues (private /
competences institutional) / Confidence Purchase price
lack of issues and increase Figure 6.
transportation opportunistic
capacity behaviour Detrimental
Supply risk framework
incidents due to including risk
Purchase part Lacking IT
compatibility /
economic
conditions
dimensions and risk
cancellation by
subcontractor IT breakdowns factors

ensuring that clients receive flawless products which meet their needs. Ideally, defects are
detected and corrected before the product leaves the supplier’s production plant. Therefore,
the lack of a common quality assurance strategy risk factor describes the possibility that the
quality assurance strategy, including specific measurement and testing scenarios, is not
considered and implemented as a basic requirement and has not been co-ordinated with the
client. Furthermore, improper material handling refers to the possibility that the quality of a
manufactured product may be affected by external influences during storage and transport
both within the supplying company as well as on its way to the customer. Lastly, the lack of
innovation capability/technological competences risk factor can be considered from two sides.
On the one hand, innovation capability in the present context describes the ability to adapt
the product itself, the production process or the technologies applied in an innovative way to
ensure a certain quality level. This guarantees both that the supplier is up-to-date with the
latest technology and can therefore compete with rivals in the market and that he has the
required know-how to further develop technological competences based on changing
requirements. A lack of innovation capability and/or technological competences thus refers to
the technological backwardness of a supplier, which can have detrimental effects not only on
the quality of the product but also on the long-term cooperation between the focal company
and supplier. This risk factor also includes the supplier’s ability to further develop the state-
of-the-art in existing technologies and thus push the technological feasibility limits which
exist on the market. Within the framework of the validation interviews, three factors, which
were based on the literature and the previous expert interviews, were combined into this risk
factor due to their similarity and based on the opinions of several experts. These are lack of
technological competences to remedy quality problems, reaching the technological feasibility
limit and lack of innovation capability.
5.2.2 Delivery risk factors. Delivery risk summarizes those risk factors that jeopardize the
ability to deliver the correct goods in the required quantity at the specified time and place.
Five delivery risk factors were derived. Process stability describes that state of production at
which the manufacturing processes run economically (Kletti and Schumacher, 2014).
Economic efficiency is achieved with predictable, timely manufacturing of the products in the
required quantity. A lack of manufacturing process stability can cause delays to the supply of
IJLM ordered goods. Furthermore, the insufficient production capacity/capacity flexibility/capacity
32,2 planning risk factor reflects the inability of the supplier to increase or decrease capacity levels
or to react to capacity fluctuations. During the validation interviews, it was repeatedly
mentioned that the extent to which the supplier performs capacity planning should also be
considered here. Accordingly, insufficient capacity planning was also taken into account in
this risk factor. A lack of capacity planning or insufficient production capacity and capacity
flexibility may lead to delays in the production and thus in the delivery process to the focal
662 company. Another risk factor that can also be assigned to this dimension is the potential lack
of production input factors. Due to the unavailability of required input factors incorporated
into the supplier’s production process, delays may occur in the delivery of finished products.
This can be traced back to input factors involved in the transformation process: personnel,
resources and materials. Specific know-how, which is indispensable in this context, can also
be understood as a production factor.
The transportation issues (private/institutional)/lack of transportation capacity risk factor
is defined as any event that may affect or prevent the transport of goods and thus lead to
delays in the subsequent production process of the focal company. This consideration
includes local transport risk (correct destination), quantitative transport risk (correct amount)
as well as temporal transport risk (correct time) (Henzler, 1961). Several suggestions were
made during the validation interviews that a distinction should be drawn between problems
caused by the private logistics sector, and thus by logistics providers and those caused by
institutional constraints on transport. Accordingly, this differentiation has been taken into
account here. Examples of possible institutional impairments to the transport of goods are
import and export restrictions, transhipment restrictions or customs controls. Accidents
during transport or an insufficient transport capacity are examples of transportation issues
caused by companies from the private logistics sector. Lastly, the risk arising from the
cancellation of purchase parts at subcontractors concludes the consideration of delivery risks.
This risk relates to the unexpected unavailability of parts in the upstream supply chain,
which has a direct impact on the inbound supply performance of the focal company. Before
the validation interviews were conducted, this risk factor was included in the economic risk
dimension but was assigned to the delivery risk dimension according to the results of the
interviews.
5.2.3 Collaboration risk factors. Collaboration risk encompasses all risk factors in
conjunction with the operational interaction with suppliers along with their ability to
anticipate and respond to enquiries. Six risk factors belonging to this dimension were
identified: lack of proactive problem-solving initiative, low information quality/transparency,
lack of social compatibility in co-operation, lack of willingness to co-operate, confidence issues
and opportunistic behaviour as well as lacking IT compatibility/IT-breakdowns. These are
further specified below. The lack of proactive problem-solving initiative risk factor, belonging
to collaboration risk, is rather intuitive. It refers to the risk that the supplier does not
proactively address emerging problems in order to solve them, but rather in response to
customer enquiries. Moreover, the exchange of information between the focal company and
suppliers can enhance the overall supply chain performance (Wu et al., 2014). In order to
improve performance, decision-makers need high-quality information regarding different
aspects of information, i.e. timeliness, accuracy, completeness, adequacy and credibility
(Omar et al., 2010). Delayed, inaccurate, incomplete, inappropriate or unreliable information
could have a negative impact on the collaboration between manufacturer and client and thus
reflect the risk of low information quality/transparency. The reasons for a low quality and
transparency of information do not necessarily have to be due to a lack of interest in
cooperation. They may also result from cultural differences, global interaction with suppliers
and the resulting time shift, or cross-functional collaboration (Christopher et al., 2011).
Accordingly, this risk factor is closely related to the lack of social compatibility in co-operation
risk factor. This risk can generally be defined as the risk to business interests resulting from Supply risk
interpersonal social issues such as social order, culture or language, affecting all aspects of identification
cooperation in global businesses. Before the validation interviews, this factor was considered
part of the ambience risk dimension and was aggregated to “Detrimental incidents due to
social, economic and political conditions”. Following the feedback of several interviewees,
however, this risk factor was divided into three parts. Accordingly, the “lack of social
compatibility in cooperation” factor was subsequently classified here. Furthermore, a lack of
willingness to co-operate is also one of the risk factors assigned to the collaboration risk 663
dimension. This risk can be caused by, for example, differences in interest between the focal
company and supplier with regard to economic objectives (Lockamy, 2014; Zhong et al., 2010).
In addition, the confidence issues and opportunistic behaviour risk factor refers to the hazard
posed by a lack of mutual trust and unilateral opportunistic behaviour such as prioritizing
other customers. This could, for example, lead to a loss of know-how regarding production
processes and product specifications. Although this factor was initially assigned to the
compliance risk dimension, it was repositioned under the collaboration risk dimension based
on the results of the validation interviews. The last risk factor listed here refers to lacking IT-
compatibility/IT breakdown. Information technology (IT) enables communication and the
exchange of information amongst partners. An information system failure or limited system
compatibility can therefore have a direct impact on collaboration performance between the
focal company and suppliers.
5.2.4 Economic risk factors. Economic risk refers to the possibility that macro-economic
circumstances may adversely affect partners within the supply network and may therefore
lead to supply failure and disruptions. The supplier itself, the supply market in general as
well as existing competitors are considered. Six risk factors were derived from this. Risk
arising from the attitude or structure of the management team which may affect the long-term
business relationship with the supplier is referred to as supplier management issues. For
example, missing succession arrangements, frequent position changes in the management
team, missing future prospects, shifts in the supplier’s business strategy or a lack of
competence in the management team may lead to lasting issues in terms of the inbound
supply performance. Another factor that can be classified as an economic risk is the
company’s dependence on suppliers. This risk factor results from the focal company’s
dependence on a specific supplier, which may affect its relationship. This risk factor is of
importance regarding the nature of sourcing (sole, single, dual, multiple). Risk arising both
from changes in the supply market and the competitive situation are referred to as supply
market development and competition issues which may significantly affect the long-term
relationship between the focal company and suppliers. Possible elements that should be
taken into account within this risk factor are the growth patterns of the market, the overall
economic situation, the market structure or the market strength of the supplier itself. Factors
such as the risk of acquiring competitors should also be considered. Another risk factor that
must be noted in this context is the risk that results from the insolvency or the financial
instability of the supplier and thus the loss of the source of supply. Furthermore, the purchase
price increase risk factor, which has attracted considerable interest both in literature and
practice, can adversely affect the business continuity and economic sustainability of the focal
company. The last risk factor assigned to this dimension is detrimental incidents due to
economic conditions. This factor refers to business interests resulting from the overall
economic situation. One very striking example of this risk is the global economic crisis in
2009, triggered by the bursting of a real estate bubble. The occurrence of this risk obviously
has an impact on the economic performance of a company and leads to change and instability
affecting all aspects of global business. As previously mentioned in the context of the
collaboration risk dimension, the former “detrimental incidents due to social, economic and
political conditions” risk factor was divided into three parts in accordance with expert
IJLM opinions. Consequently, the economic component of this factor is referred to as detrimental
32,2 incidents due to economic conditions in this risk dimension.
5.2.5 Ambience risk factors. Ambience risk, which includes three risk factors, comprises all
the occurrences in the supply network environment that could adversely affect the inbound
supply performance. The potential occurrence of natural hazards in the surroundings of a
supplier’s plant represents the first risk factor of ambience risks to be considered. Examples
of such incidents are earthquakes, tsunamis, floods or storms. This type of ambience risk has
664 the potential to shut down the entire supply source when it occurs. In addition, the man-made
incidents risk factor refers to, for example, transportation accidents, fire at the premises of a
supplier or cyber risk due to lacking IT-security at a subcontractor. The latter is a very recent
topic, especially in a practical context. It generally refers to unauthorized intrusion into a
network to alter system or security features and steal important information. Before the
external validation was carried out, the two risk factors listed above were combined under the
“disastrous events (man-made / natural)” factor. However, they were separated on the basis of
several remarks received from the experts consulted. Furthermore, the “lack of IT security”
risk factor was subordinated to the man-made incidents risk factor and is not considered
separately. Lastly, the detrimental incidents due to geopolitical conditions risk factor can
generally be defined as the risk to business interests resulting from political change and
instability affecting all aspects of global business. Examples include wars, strikes or even
terrorist attacks.
5.2.6 Compliance risk factors. Compliance risks arise primarily from breaches or
discrepancies with the legal framework or the neglect of sustainability aspects and ethical
principles. Based on this notion, three compliance risk factors belonging to this risk
dimension were determined. The first one is breach of law/contracts which specifies the
hazard of potential failure of a supplier within the supply network to comply with legal
requirements such as laws, state regulations, patent rights or individual contracts. Therefore,
this compliance risk factor can lead to regulatory or contractual penalties if breaches of the
legal framework and contractual agreements are discovered. This may have a negative
impact on the overall performance of the focal company. In addition, unethical behaviour
denotes practices that are beyond what is considered morally correct or appropriate (e.g. child
labour, human rights violations, forced labour, working hours violations, health and safety
issues, disregard of cultural and moral values). The implementation of unethical practices
factor takes this risk into account in the business context. In addition to financial
implications, such as fines, if such an infringement is uncovered, reputation also has to be
considered. The implementation of unethical practices can lead to a loss of trust or corporate
image for the focal company, which, in turn, may be reflected in the company’s key financial
indicators. Finally, the neglect of environmental sustainability aspects also poses a threat that
the company must be aware of in terms of its target values. Environmental sustainability, in
this context, describes a concept regarding how resources should be utilized to preserve the
natural regenerative capacity of the systems involved. This can be understood regarding
ecologically sustainable production, a sustainable, recyclable design of products, as well as
with regard to the use of non-renewable raw materials in the production context. While the
official regulations in this respect currently exist only to a very limited extent, the main
emphasis here is the loss of image and reputation of the focal company with its related
potential financial consequences.

6. Conclusion
The first part of this paper focusses on the derivation of definitions for the terms supply risk
as well as supply risk management in the context of manufacturing companies. Based on a
structured literature review, a comprehensive theoretical list of risk factors and
categorization approaches of supply risk has been developed. This was followed by semi- Supply risk
structured expert interviews and document analyses to derive a holistic framework. To identification
ensure that the resulting framework is applicable to the manufacturing industry, it was
validated by conducting interviews with experts from different companies within that sector.
To the best of our knowledge, a holistic framework of supply risk in the context of the
manufacturing industry has not yet been made available in the literature.
665
6.1 Implications for practice
Whereas, in the past, the focus in risk management was on either dyadic or triadic
relationships between suppliers and customers, this perspective is now changing towards
considering the entire supply network, taking a multitude of supply relations into account.
The extensive listing of supply risk factors we have presented is designed to offer managers a
tangible and salient illustration of how leading-edge, real-world companies could perceive
risk arising from their supply network. Developing measures that accurately and fully reflect
the broader picture of risk in global supply networks will encourage managers to take
appropriate, well-investigated risks. This development goes beyond the scope of this paper,
but certainly offers substantial opportunities both for managers and scientists. The
identification of relevant risks constitutes the theoretical basis for implementing any risk
management approach. Building on the proposed framework, holistic management
approaches can now be developed to handle the risks arising from the upstream of the
supply network. Additionally, by listing and clarifying the various supply risk dimensions
and factors, an intuitive understanding of their nature can be achieved, which facilitates its
use in a practical context and therefore supports managerial decision-making. Moreover, the
diversity of the identified supply risks shows that, with regard to the composition of a risk
management team, it should be ensured that a certain heterogeneity, in terms of the coverage
of different company divisions, is guaranteed. In addition to “classical” areas such as
purchasing or supply chain management, the inclusion of specialists from other areas such as
compliance or information technology should be considered. Finally, by focussing on one
specific industry, an overview of possible risks arising from the upstream supply network of
manufacturing companies is created. This industry-specific view enables supply chain
managers from corresponding companies to perform a target-oriented, reconciled analysis of
all the existing risks on the basis of the dedicated supply risk framework.

6.2 Implications for research

Based on the literature analysed, further research needs can be derived regarding the
interrelationships of both individual risk factors and superordinate risk dimensions. The fact
that the elaborated risk factors cannot be considered in isolation from one another was also
outlined by the experts consulted. These relationships are rarely addressed and only vaguely
outlined in the extant literature. Moreover, there is a need for future research on the potential
impact of the identified risks. While some risks, such as natural hazards, tend to cause long-
term supply disruption upon occurrence, others, such as the low information quality/
transparency risk factor, might be fully compensated at the time of the occurrence, without
adversely affecting inbound supply performance. These linkages should be investigated in
prospective studies. Lastly, many of the cited authors refer to the need for further research on
risk monitoring (Blackhurst et al., 2008; Ho et al., 2015). In an operations and supply chain
management context, an often-quoted definition of risk monitoring by Hallikas et al. (2004)
states that the business environment of a company is dynamic, which makes the monitoring
of risk factors necessary “to identify the potential increasing trends in their probability or
consequences”. A practical and widely proposed approach to supply risk monitoring is the
use of risk indicators (Hoffmann et al., 2013). While supply risk factors describe events that
IJLM can adversely impact the inbound supply performance, a risk indicator, in general, is defined
32,2 as “a simple and easy-to-implement measure based on some observable data that acts as a
proxy for actual risk levels” (Gorrod, 2004). Building upon this taxonomy, risk indicators
finally serve to answer the question of whether there is evidence of imminent or previous
changes in risk. Such measurable, data-based risk indicators can pave the way to fully
automated, predictive risk monitoring. Accordingly, the supply risk framework proposed in
this paper could be extended in further studies by adding such supply risk indicators per risk
666 factor and risk dimension.

6.3 Research limitations

Some limitations of this study can be identified. The assignment of the various risk factors to
the superordinate risk dimensions cannot be performed completely without overlaps. For
example, the lack of innovation capability supply risk factor, which is assigned to the quality
risk dimension, can also affect the long-term co-operation between the focal company and
supplier and, for example, have a negative effect on the purchase price of the manufactured
parts by insisting on outdated production methods. Additionally, this paper refers to a
specific industry, i.e. the manufacturing industry. Accordingly, the empirical research was
conducted exclusively with experts in this sector. The analysis of the extent to which further
or other risks exist in different industrial sectors reveals a need for further research.
Furthermore, the validity of the developed framework can only be ensured within the
geographical boundaries of the co-operating companies. Adjustments resulting from the
geographical and cultural characteristics of other regions must also be further researched.

References
Aven, T. and Renn, O. (2009), “On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain”, Journal of
Risk Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Blackhurst, J.V., Scheibe, K.P. and Johnson, D.J. (2008), “Supplier risk assessment and monitoring for
the automotive industry”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 143-165.
Braun, H. (1984), Risikomanagement, Toeche-Mittler, Darmstadt.
Buzdogan-Lindenmayr, E., Kara, G. and Selcuk-Kestel, A.S. (2018), “Assessment of supplier risk for
copper procurement”, Communications Faculty of Sciences University of Ankara Series A1-
Mathematics and Statistics, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1045-1060.
Choi, T.Y. and Wu, Z. (2009), “Triads in supply networks: theorizing buyer-supplier-supplier
relationships”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 8-25.
Christopher, M., Mena, C., Khan, O. and Yurt, O. (2011), “Approaches to managing global sourcing
risk”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 67-81.
Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis: Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Denyer, D. and Tranfield, D. (2009), “Producing a systematic review”, in Buchanan, D.A. and
Bryman, A. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, Sage Publications,
pp. 671-689.
Diederichs, M. (2013), Risikomanagement und Risikocontrolling, 3rd ed., Vahlen, Munich.
Dolgui, A. and Proth, J.-M. (2010), Supply Chain Engineering: Useful Methods and Techniques,
Springer-Verlag, London.
Drucker, P.F. (1974), Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, Heinemann, London.
Ellegaard, C. (2008), “Supply risk management in a small company perspective”, Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 425-434.
Fan, Y. and Stevenson, M. (2018a), “A review of supply chain risk management: definition, theory, and Supply risk
research agenda”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 205-230. identification
Fan, Y. and Stevenson, M. (2018b), “Reading on and between the lines: risk identification in
collaborative and adversarial buyer–supplier relationships”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 23
No. 4, pp. 351-376.
€
Fiege, S. (Ed.), (2006), Risikomanagement- und Uberwachungssystem nach KonTraG: Prozess,
Instrumente, Tr€ager, 1st ed., DUV Deutscher Universit€ats-Verlag, s.l. 667
Ganguly, K. and Guin, K. (2013), “A fuzzy AHP approach for inbound supply risk assessment”,
Benchmarking, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 129-146.
Giunipero, L.C. and Aly Eltantawy, R. (2004), “Securing the upstream supply chain: a risk
management approach”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 34 No. 9, pp. 698-713.
Gleißner, W. (2011), Grundlagen des Risikomanagements im Unternehmen: Controlling,
Unternehmensstrategie und wertorientiertes Management, 2nd ed., Vahlen, Munich.
Gleißner, W. and Klein, A. (2017), Risikomanagement und Controlling: Chancen und Risiken erfassen,
bewerten und in die Entscheidungsfindung integrieren, 2nd ed., Haufe Lexware Verlag, Munich.
Gorrod, M. (2004), Risk Management Systems: Technology and Trends, Palgrave Macmillan,
Basingstoke.
Guan, H. and Zhao, A. (2014), “Reduction and optimization of supplier risk indicators based on rough
set”, TOCSJ, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 513-518.
Guertler, B. and Spinler, S. (2015), “Supply risk interrelationships and the derivation of key supply
risk indicators”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 92, pp. 224-236.
Gutenberg, E. (1951), Grundlagen der Betriebswirtschaftslehre, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York,
London, Paris, Tokyo.
Hallikas, J., Karvonen, I., Pulkkinen, U., Virolainen, V.-M. and Tuominen, M. (2004), “Risk management
processes in supplier networks”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 90 No. 1,
pp. 47-58.
Harland, C. (1999), “Supply network strategy and social capital”, in Leenders, R.T.A.J. and Gabbay,
S.M. (Eds), Corporate Social Capital and Liability, Springer US, Boston, MA, pp. 409-427.s.l.
Harland, C., Brenchley, R. and Walker, H. (2003), “Risk in supply networks”, Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 51-62.
Henzler, R. (1961), Außenhandel: Betriebswirtschaftliche Hauptfragen von Export und Import, Gabler
Verlag, Wiesbaden.
Ho, W., Zheng, T., Yildiz, H. and Talluri, S. (2015), “Supply chain risk management: a literature
review”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 16, pp. 5031-5069.
Hoffmann, P. (2012), “Innovative supply risk management”, in Bogaschewsky, R., Eßig, M., Lasch, R.
and St€olzle, W. (Eds), Supply Management Research, Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp. 79-104.
Hoffmann, P., Schiele, H. and Krabbendam, K. (2013), “Uncertainty, supply risk management and their
impact on performance”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 199-211.
Hou, J., Zeng, A. and Zhao, L. (2010), “Coordination with a backup supplier through buy-back contract
under supply disruption”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review, Vol. 46, pp. 881-895, doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2010.03.004.
Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004), “Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose
time has come”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 14-26.
uttner, U., Peck, H. and Christopher, M. (2003), “Supply chain risk management: outlining an agenda
J€
for future research”, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 197-210.
IJLM Kane, V.E. (1986), “Process capability indices”, Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 41-52.
32,2 Kern, D., Moser, R., Hartmann, E. and Moder, M. (2012), “Supply risk management: model
development and empirical analysis”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 60-82.
Kletti, J. and Schumacher, J. (2014), Die perfekte Produktion: Manufacturing Excellence durch Short
Interval Technology (SIT), 2nd ed., Springer Vieweg, Berlin.
668 Kumar, S., Himes, K.J. and Kritzer, C.P. (2014), “Risk assessment and operational approaches to
managing risk in global supply chains”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 873-890.
Lamming, R., Johnsen, T., Zheng, J. and Harland, C. (2000), “An initial classification of supply networks”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 675-691.
Lecy, J.D. and Beatty, K.E. (2012), “Representative literature reviews using constrained snowball
sampling and citation network analysis”, SSRN Electronic Journal, pp. 1-15, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.
1992601.
Lim, J.J., Zhang, A.N. and Tan, P.S. (2013), “A practical supply chain risk management approach using
VaR”, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering
Management, IEEE, pp. 1631-1635.
Lockamy, A. (2014), “Assessing disaster risks in supply chains”, Industrial Management and Data
Systems, Vol. 114 No. 5, pp. 755-777.
Manuj, I. and Mentzer, J.T. (2008), “Global supply chain risk management strategies”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 192-223.
Matook, S., Lasch, R. and Tamaschke, R. (2009), “Supplier development with benchmarking as part of
a comprehensive supplier risk management framework”, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 241-267.
Mayring, P. (2014), Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and
Software Solution, Klagenfurt, available at: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173.
Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2001),
“Defining supply chain management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 1-25.
Norrman, A. and Jansson, U. (2004), “Ericsson’s proactive supply chain risk management approach
after a serious sub-supplier accident”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 434-456.
Omar, R., Lo, M.-C., Sang, T.Y. and Siron, R. (2010), “Information sharing, information quality and
usage of information technology (IT) tools in Malaysian organizations”, African Journal of
Business Management, available at: http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM.
Pfohl, H.-C., Gallus, P. and K€ohler, H. (2008), “Konzeption des supply chain Risikomanagements”, in
Pfohl, H.-C. (Ed.), Sicherheit und Risikomanagement in der Supply Chain: Gestaltungsans€atze und
praktische Umsetzung, pp. 7-94.
Raj Sinha, P., Whitman, L.E. and Malzahn, D. (2004), “Methodology to mitigate supplier risk in an
aerospace supply chain”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 154-168.
Ramdas, K. (2003), “Managing product variety: an integrative review and research directions”,
Production and Operations Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 79-101.
Reichling, P. (Ed.), (2003), Risikomanagement und Rating: Grundlagen, Konzepte, Fallstudie, Gabler
Verlag, Wiesbaden.
Romeike, F. (2018), Risikomanagement, Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.
Schneeberger, F. (2010), “Supplier rating as basis for an efficient supplier risk management”, Thesis,
TU Wien, Vienna.
Smallman, C. (1996), “Risk and organizational behaviour: a research model”, Disaster Prevention and
Management, Vol. 5, pp. 12-26, doi: 10.1108/09653569610112880.
Tang, C.S. (2006), “Perspectives in supply chain risk management”, International Journal of Supply risk
Production Economics, Vol. 103 No. 2, pp. 451-488.
identification
Trkman, P., McCormack, K., de Oliveira, M.P.V. and Ladeira, M.B. (2010), “The impact of
business analytics on supply chain performance”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 49 No. 3,
pp. 318-327.
Wagner, S.M. and Bode, C. (2006), “An empirical investigation into supply chain vulnerability”,
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 301-312.
669
Wakolbinger, T. and Cruz, J.M. (2011), “Supply chain disruption risk management through strategic
information acquisition and sharing and risk-sharing contracts”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 13, pp. 4063-4084.
Weber, T. (Ed.), (2019), Technologien in den Prozessketten des Automobilbau, Stuttgart, Vaihingen
(accessed January 26 2019).
Wiendahl, H.-P., Selaouti, A. and Nickel, R. (2008), “Proactive supply chain management in the forging
industry”, Production Engineering. Research and Development, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 425-430.
Wildgoose, N. (2018), “Supply chain resilience: where are we in 2018?”, Z€ urich Insider, available at:
https://insider.zurich.co.uk/risk-mitigation/supply-chain-resilience-2018/.
Winter, P. (2007), Risikocontrolling in Nicht-Finanzunternehmen: Entwicklung einer tragf€ahigen
Risikocontrolling-Konzeption und Vorschlag zur Gestaltung einer Risikorechnung. Zugl, 1st ed.,
Mannheim, Univ., Diss., Lohmar.
Wu, T., Blackhurst, J. and Chidambaram, V. (2006), “A model for inbound supply risk analysis”,
Computers in Industry, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 350-365.
Wu, I.-L., Chuang, C.-H. and Hsu, C.-H. (2014), “Information sharing and collaborative behaviors in
enabling supply chain performance: a social exchange perspective”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 148, pp. 122-132.
Yano, C.A. and Gilbert, S.M. (2005), “Coordinated pricing and production/procurement decisions: a
review”, in Chakravarty, A.K. and Eliashberg, J. (Eds), Managing Business Interfaces:
Marketing and Engineering Issues in the Supply Chain and Internet Domains, Springer
ScienceþBusiness Media, Boston, MA, pp. 65-103.
Zhong, S., Feng, D. and Zeng, M.-Q. (2010), “An empirical analysis of supplier risk”, 2010 International
Conference on e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, IEEE, pp. 627-631.
Zsidisin, G.A. (2003a), “A grounded definition of supply risk”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, Vol. 9 Nos 5-6, pp. 217-224.
Zsidisin, G.A. (2003b), “Managerial perceptions of supply risk”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 14-26.
Zsidisin, G.A. and Henke, M. (Eds), (2019), Revisiting Supply Chain Risk, Springer International
Publishing, Cham.
Zsidisin, G.A., Panelli, A. and Upton, R. (2000), “Purchasing organization involvement in risk
assessments, contingency plans, and risk management: an exploratory study”, Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 187-198.
Zsidisin, G.A., Ellram, L.M., Carter, J.R. and Cavinato, J.L. (2004), “An analysis of supply risk
assessment techniques”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 397-413.

Further reading
Achzet, B. and Helbig, C. (2013), “How to evaluate raw material supply risks – an overview”, Resources
Policy, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 435-447.
Alikhani, R., Torabi, S.A. and Altay, N. (2019), “Strategic supplier selection under sustainability and
risk criteria”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 208, pp. 69-82.
IJLM Arabsheybani, A., Paydar, M.M. and Safaei, A.S. (2018), “An integrated fuzzy MOORA method and
FMEA technique for sustainable supplier selection considering quantity discounts and
32,2 supplier’s risk”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 190, pp. 577-591.
Aven, T. (2012), “The risk concept – historical and recent development trends”, Reliability Engineering
and System Safety, Vol. 99, pp. 33-44.
Aven, T. (2016), “Risk assessment and risk management: review of recent advances on their
foundation”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 253 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
670
Aydin, G., Babich, V., Beil, D. and Yang, Z. (2011), “Decentralized supply risk management”, in
Kouvelis, P., Dong, L., Boyabatli, O. and Li, R. (Eds), The Handbook of Integrated Risk
Management in Global Supply Chains, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, pp. 387-424.
Bernstein, P.L. (1996), Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk, Wiley, New York.
Brusset, X. and Teller, C. (2017), “Supply chain capabilities, risks, and resilience”, International Journal
of Production Economics, Vol. 184, pp. 59-68.
Chakravarty, V. (2013), “Managing a supply chain’s web of risk”, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 41
No. 2, pp. 39-45.
Chan, F.T.S. and Kumar, N. (2007), “Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy
extended AHP-based approach”, Omega, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 417-431.
Chan, H.K. and Wang, X. (2013), “An integrated fuzzy approach for aggregative supplier risk
assessment”, in Chan, H.K. and Wang, X. (Eds), Fuzzy Hierarchical Model for Risk Assessment,
Springer, London, pp. 45-69.
Chen, P. and Zhang, X. (2018), “Research on the risk early warning method of material supplier
performance in power industry”, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,
Vol. 108, 52052.
Chen, J., Sohal, A.S. and Prajogo, D.I. (2013), “Supply chain operational risk mitigation: a collaborative
approach”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 7, pp. 2186-2199.
Chopra, S. and Sodhi, M. (2004), “Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 53-61.
Chowdhury, P., Lau, K.H. and Pittayachawan, S. (2019), “Operational supply risk mitigation of SME
and its impact on operational performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 478-502.
Chuddher, B.A. (2015), “A novel knowledge discovery based approach for supplier risk scoring with
application in the HVAC industry”, Diss. Brunel University London.
Conte, A. and Diederichs, M. (2005), “Supplier risk-management”, CON, Vol. 17 No. 12, pp. 745-756.
Fischl, M., Scherrer-Rathje, M. and Friedli, T. (2014), “Digging deeper into supply risk: a systematic
literature review on price risks”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 19 Nos 5/6, pp. 480-503.
Ganguly, K. (2013), “A case study approach for understanding inbound supply risk assessment”,
Decision, Vol. 40 Nos 1-2, pp. 85-97.
Gross, T., MacCarthy, B.L. and Wildgoose, N. (2018), “Introduction to dynamics of manufacturing
supply networks”, Chaos, Vol. 28 No. 9, 93111.
Gualandris, J. and Kalchschmidt, M. (2014), “A model to evaluate upstream vulnerability”,
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 249-268.
€
Kara, M.E. and Firat, S.U.O. (2018), “Supplier risk assessment based on best-worst method and
K-means clustering: a case study”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 4, p. 1066.
Kito, T., Brintrup, A., New, S. and Reed-Tsochas, F. (2014), “The structure of the toyota
supply network: an empirical analysis”, SSRN Electronic Journal, pp. 1-23, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.
2412512.
Kull, T.J. and Talluri, S. (2008), “A supply risk reduction model using integrated multicriteria decision
making”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 409-419.
Lee, A.H.I. (2009), “A fuzzy supplier selection model with the consideration of benefits, opportunities, Supply risk
costs and risks”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 2879-2893.
identification
Lesisa, T.G., Marnewick, A. and Nel, H. (2018), .The identification of supplier selection criteria within a
risk management framework towards consistent supplier selection, 2018 IEEE International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), IEEE, pp. 913-917.
Levary, R.R. (2007), “Ranking foreign suppliers based on supply risk”, Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 392-394.
671
Levary, R.R. (2008), “Using the analytic hierarchy process to rank foreign suppliers based on supply
risks”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 535-542.
Li, X. and Barnes, I. (2008), “Proactive supply risk management methods for building a robust supply
selection process when sourcing from emerging markets”, Strat Outs, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 252-267.
Liu, J., An, R., Xiao, R., Yang, Y., Wang, G. and Wang, Q. (2017), “Implications from substance flow
analysis, supply chain and supplier’ risk evaluation in iron and steel industry in Mainland
China”, Resources Policy, Vol. 51, pp. 272-282.
Lockamy, A. (2019), “Benchmarking supplier external risk factors in electronic equipment industry
supply chains”, Benchmarking, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 176-204.
Lockamy, A. and McCormack, K. (2012), “Modeling supplier risks using Bayesian networks”,
Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 112 No. 2, pp. 313-333.
Long, H.H., Zhao, A.W. and Guan, H.J. (2013), Elements of supplier risk assessment based on network
AHP. AMR 760-762 1992–1996.
Micheli, G.J.L., Cagno, E. and Zorzini, M. (2008), “Supply risk management vs supplier selection to
manage the supply risk in the EPC supply chain”, Management Research News, Vol. 31 No. 11,
pp. 846-866.
Micheli, G.J.L., Cagno, E. and Di Giulio, A. (2009), “Reducing the total cost of supply through risk-
efficiency-based supplier selection in the EPC industry”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 166-177.
Nan, J., Jia-Zhen, H. and Hao-Hua, L. (2009), “Supply chain purchasing risk evaluation of
manufacturing enterprise based on fuzzy-AHP method”, 2009 Second International
Conference on Intelligent Computation Technology and Automation, IEEE, pp. 1001-1005.
Nepal, B. and Yadav, O.P. (2015), “Bayesian belief network-based framework for sourcing risk
analysis during supplier selection”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 20,
pp. 6114-6135.
Rao, S. and Goldsby, T.J. (2009), “Supply chain risks: a review and typology”, International Journal of
Logistics Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 97-123.
Sarker, S., Engwall, M., Trucco, P. and Feldmann, A. (2016), “Internal visibility of external supplier
risks and the dynamics of risk management silos”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 451-461.
Sinrat, S. and Atthirawong, W. (2013), “A conceptual framework of an integrated fuzzy ANP and
TOPSIS for supplier selection based on supply chain risk management”, 2013 IEEE
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, IEEE,
pp. 1607-1611.
Truong, H.Q. and Hara, Y. (2018), “Supply chain risk management: manufacturing- and service-
oriented firms”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 218-239.
Tummala, R. and Schoenherr, T. (2011), “Assessing and managing risks using the supply chain risk
management process (SCRMP)”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 474-483.
Vedel, M. and Ellegaard, C. (2013), “Supply risk management functions of sourcing intermediaries: an
investigation of the clothing industry”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 509-522.
von Cube, J.P., H€artel, L. and Schmitt, R. (2016), “Model-based decision support in supply chains –
requirements for monetary supply risk quantification”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 57, pp. 171-176.
IJLM Xiao, Z., Chen, W. and Li, L. (2012), “An integrated FCM and fuzzy soft set for supplier selection
problem based on risk evaluation”, Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 36 No. 4,
32,2 pp. 1444-1454.
Zsidisin, G.A. and Ellram, L.M. (2003), “An agency theory investigation of supply risk management”,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 15-27.
Zsidisin, G.A. and Smith, M.E. (2005), “Managing supply risk with early supplier involvement: a case
study and research propositions”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 44-57.
672
Zsidisin, G.A., Petkova, B., Saunders, L.W. and Bisseling, M. (2016), “Identifying and managing supply
quality risk”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 908-930.

About the authors

After completing his studies at the University of Stuttgart, Marc Wiedenmann started a doctorate at
the Graduate School of Excellence advanced Manufacturing Engineering in 2017. The Graduate
School, as an institution, takes care of the content and the organization of research work and the
qualification of doctoral researchers in advanced Manufacturing Engineering. It promotes young
scientists in a straightforward way on the basis of a specifically developed cooperative,
interdisciplinary doctoral programme. Under the supervision of Prof. Dr Andreas Gr€oßler at the
Department of Operations Management, Marc Wiedenmann conducts research in the field of Supply
Chain Risk Management. Marc Wiedenmann is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
[email protected]
In February 2016, Andreas Gr€oßler took over the newly founded Department of Operations
Management at University of Stuttgart. Previously, he was researching and teaching as an associate
professor at Radboud University in Nijmegen (NL) Andreas Gr€oßler studied Business Informatics at
Mannheim University (D) and at Aristoteles University in Thessaloniki (GR). He received his doctoral
degree (2000) and habilitated (2006) in Business Administration at Mannheim University. Prof. Gr€oßler
has been an editor of the System Dynamics Review until 2017 and currently is editor of Operations
Management Research. He holds/held leading positions in the European Operations Management
Association, the System Dynamics Society, the German Society for System Dynamics, and the Society
for Business and Social Cybernetics.

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: [email protected]