4.5 Article

The role of the consistency between objective and perceived environmental uncertainty in supply chain risk management

Journal

INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT & DATA SYSTEMS
Volume 118, Issue 7, Pages 1365-1387

Publisher

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/IMDS-09-2017-0410

Keywords

Supply chain risk management; Consistency; Relationship flexibility; Perceived environmental uncertainty; Logistics flexibility; Objective environmental uncertainty

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71672189, 71774182]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality [9162015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to understand how the consistency between objective and perceived environmental uncertainty might affect supply chain flexibilities that cope with supply chain risk. Design/methodology/approach - This study adopted a case study of comparative four companies in order to obtain an in-depth knowledge of the environmental conditions under which the companies implement different types of supply chain risk management (SCRM) strategies: logistics flexibility and relationship flexibility. Findings - The case analysis not only distinguished the different effects of objective and perceived environmental uncertainty on supply chain flexibility, but also established the propositions about the effects of the consistency between objective and perceived environmental uncertainty on logistics flexibility and relationship flexibility in SCRM. Originality/value - In principle, supply chain flexibility aims to cope with complex and turbulent environments. Yet, empirical findings about the effects of environmental uncertainty on supply chain flexibility are inconclusive. This study addressed this question by differentiating between objective and perceived environmental uncertainty as well as between logistics and relationship supply chain flexibilities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available