Purpose: The impact of supply disruptions from unplanned events can cause goods shortage, limited responsiveness and high opportunity cost thus compromising development aid programmes' achievement targets. These situations force humanitarian aid agencies to develop new strategies for effectively managing their supplies. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the foundation of humanitarian supply chain resilience through the development of an adapted Kraljic portfolio model.Design/methodology/approach: Action research was used to adapt and validate the Kraljic portfolio model to the development aid context. The research team worked with a humanitarian aid agency in developing criterions and used Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) in weighting those key criterions.Findings: The adapted portfolio model was able to evaluate purchases done by the aid agency by incorporating different perspectives related to the strategic importance of purchase and supply vulnerability. In particular, development aid programmes require large supplies annually. Better classification offers improved visualisation of purchases, leading to a more precise adoption of mitigation strategies and policies to minimise supply disruption risks.Research limitations/implications: Adapting the Kraljic portfolio model is a stepping-stone to building humanitarian supply chain resilience. The proposed humanitarian supply chain resilience framework is based on the foundation that current humanitarian supply chain needs to be re-engineered. In order to re-engineer, the supply base strategy must first be revisited.Practical implications: Many aid agencies do not have a holistic view on their purchases and commonly apply a transactional classification of purchases that only considers the consumption values. Purchasing strategies mostly focus on cost minimisation, whereas risk mitigations have been disregarded. The proposed portfolio model overcomes these drawbacks. Societal impact may be limited but development aid agencies will be able to offer more reliable aid delivery as part of their mandate.Originality/value: The proposed portfolio model is among the first tool to guide humanitarian aid agencies to develop procurement strategies to alleviate supply disruptions and increase development aid programmes resilience.

Purpose. The disaster management cycle (DMC) is often considered part of the essential efforts to handle disaster risk and consists of four key phases, namely preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. The purpose of this conceptual article is two‐fold. The first is to identify dominant risks, and the second is to propose risk mitigation strategies for these four phases in the DMC. Design/Methodology/Approach. The study uses primary and secondary data to identify the dominant risks in each DMC phase. The primary data sources include responses from an online questionnaire and transcripts from three semi‐structured interviews with stakeholders in the humanitarian supply chain. The secondary data sources include practitioner reports and archival data triangulation. Findings. The findings reveal five dominant risk factors in the DMC and classify them within the DMC phases, which are (1) demand risk, (2) supply risk, (3) operational risk, (4) infrastructure risk, and (5) disruption risk. The severity and frequency of each risk vary in each DMC phase. We found that several supply chain strategies (SCSs), such as raising risk awareness and horizontal and vertical collaboration and coordination among the key stakeholders in the DMC, can be essential risk mitigation strategies that apply across the four DMC phases. Research Limitations/Implications. The study highlighted dominant risks and the appropriate SCSs for mitigating the risk factors within each DMC phase. These findings are encapsulated in a conceptual framework for guiding risk prioritisation, decision‐making, and policy‐making. Our study has several limitations. First, although we followed a systematic process in computing the risk scores based on the likelihood of occurrences and impacts, the scores are nonetheless considered subjective perceptions of the respondents. Second, the number of respondents was limited. Broader coverage of respondents across geographical regions will provide further insights into the perspectives on the relevant risk factors in the DMC phases. This leaves possibilities for future research, comparison with other risk computation methods, and evaluation. Originality/Value. This study is one of the few that collected multiple data to extend the knowledge of risk identification and mitigation within the DMC.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate strength of supply chain integration based on social exchange theory and its resultant impact on supply chain cost and responsiveness. The study surveyed Korean export firms and obtained 182 usable responses. Data were analysed using cluster analysis and analysis of variance. Findings confirm that the strength of supply chain integration provides a mechanism for measuring the width of integration for both suppliers and customers. Further, identifiable gaps in cost performance and responsiveness were found based on strength of supply chain integration. This paper contributes through the development and testing of a conceptual model based on social exchange theory and also offers managerial suggestions in the understanding of customer needs and the importance of sharing information with suppliers in achieving improved cost performance and responsiveness in the supply chain.

Existing performance-measurement systems in the supply-chain literature have been designed for specific supply chains. Without a business-appropriate performance-measurement system, practitioners devise strategies that are neither scientific nor supported by data. The objective of this paper was to propose a performance-measurement system to support the enabling of supply-chain strategies. The proposed performance-measurement system (PMS), combining the Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle (PDCA) with the evidence-based management (EBM) concept, served as the basis for developing a procedural framework. The PMS was validated using the case logistics service providers (LSPs). The PDCA methodology was used to develop a structural framework for fourth-party logistics (4PL). In the Plan step, the research team identified the business problems of fourth-party logistics (4PL). In the Do step, the LSP literature was reviewed, to identify five performance dimensions (‘Service Quality’; ‘Social and Environmental’; ‘Inter-organizational Relationship’; ‘Financial’; and ‘Efficiency and Effectiveness’), and key performance indicators (KPIs). The 4PL management team participated in the finalization of the five performance dimensions and the 53 KPIs, which were used to propose a preliminary version of the structural framework for the 4PL. In the Check step, the data collected from 478 subcontractors of the 4PL were analyzed, using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling, and were used to validate the proposed structural framework for the 4PL. The validated structural framework was further presented at an academic conference, and to the 4PL for feedback, and was used to formulate supply-chain strategies through brainstorming. The findings include a validated structural framework containing five performance dimensions and 32 KPIs. The research revealed that input performance (‘Service Quality’, ‘Social and Environmental’, and ‘Inter-organizational Relationship’) positively affected output performance (‘Financial’ and ‘Efficiency and Effectiveness’). Supply-chain strategies were further suggested to the 4PL. The validating case in this study demonstrated that the employed procedural framework (PDCA and EBM) was applicable, and could be used to derive a structural framework and supply-chain strategies for the 4PL. This study contributes to the literature, by proposing a PMS for supply-chain strategy development. The paper’s illustrative case provides a practical application of how to develop a performance-measurement system.

Background: Cross-border suppliers have always been points of disruption, further impacting international trade, businesses, and societies along the chain. Understanding the current resilience capabilities of cross-border suppliers is a stepping-stone to implementing resilience initiatives and policies to mitigate disruptions. However, no guidelines or practical tools exist to help cross-border suppliers conduct a deep-dive analysis of their resilience. Therefore, this paper proposes an assessment tool to guide cross-border suppliers in assessing their resilience capabilities. Methods: The supplier-focused resilience assessment approach was adapted from the Logistics Performance Index concept. The questionnaire and its resilience assessment dimensions were established through a literature review with the support of experienced cross-border professionals. Case study validation was further conducted to demonstrate the tool’s applicability. Results: The assessment evaluation through the Cross-Border Resilience Performance Index facilitates detailed analysis and benchmarking, enabling recommendations for necessary resilience initiatives and policies. Conclusions: This study contributes to the supply chain literature by adding a more practical resilience assessment approach focusing on cross-border suppliers. The Cross-Border Resilience Performance Index is the study’s primary contribution and is novel to the literature. The tool’s advantages include ease of use, replication potential, and its ability to glean comprehensive insights, ultimately improving supplier resilience and supply chain robustness. By implementing more precise initiatives, the tool increases the chances of cross-border suppliers being selected and maintained by buyers, helping them sustain their businesses and better respond to changing conditions to mitigate disruptions.