Digital Supply Chain Resilience: Navigating Geopolitical Fragmentation in a Globalized Business Environment

Digital Supply Chain Resilience: Navigating Geopolitical Fragmentation in a Globalized Business Environment

Martin Munyao Muinde

Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com

Abstract

This article examines the critical intersection of digital transformation and supply chain resilience within the context of increasing geopolitical fragmentation. As multinational enterprises navigate contemporary business challenges in a globalized environment, they face unprecedented complexities driven by technological disruption, geopolitical tensions, and sustainability imperatives. This research synthesizes current literature and empirical evidence to develop a conceptual framework for digital supply chain resilience in fragmented markets. The analysis reveals that successful organizations are implementing multi-tiered visibility systems, diversification strategies, and digital twins technology while balancing regionalization and globalization approaches. The findings contribute to both theoretical understanding and practical applications for business leaders seeking to enhance organizational resilience amid global uncertainty. This research provides valuable insights for policymakers, business executives, and academics concerned with the evolving nature of global business operations in an increasingly complex international landscape.

Keywords: digital transformation, supply chain resilience, geopolitical fragmentation, globalization, regionalization, multi-tiered visibility, technology integration, sustainability, risk management, strategic adaptation

1. Introduction

The contemporary business landscape is characterized by unprecedented levels of interconnectedness and complexity, presenting organizations with both extraordinary opportunities and formidable challenges. As enterprises expand their operations across geographical boundaries, they become increasingly vulnerable to a multitude of disruptive forces including geopolitical tensions, technological disruptions, environmental crises, and public health emergencies (Van Hoek, 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, exposed fundamental vulnerabilities in global supply chains that had previously remained obscured during decades of relatively stable economic globalization (Ivanov and Dolgui, 2021).

Geopolitical fragmentation has emerged as a defining characteristic of the current global business environment, challenging the previously dominant paradigm of unfettered globalization. This fragmentation manifests through increasing protectionism, trade conflicts, strategic competition between major powers, and the restructuring of international alliances and institutions (Petricevic and Teece, 2019). The emergence of competing technological standards, regulatory frameworks, and economic spheres of influence has profound implications for multinational enterprises attempting to maintain integrated global operations (Witt, 2019).

Simultaneously, digital transformation has fundamentally altered the competitive landscape, creating both solutions to and complications for supply chain management. Advanced technologies including artificial intelligence, blockchain, Internet of Things (IoT), cloud computing, and data analytics offer unprecedented capabilities for visibility, coordination, and optimization across complex supply networks (Ivanov et al., 2019). However, these technologies also introduce new vulnerabilities, dependencies, and strategic considerations that organizational leaders must navigate (Lacity et al., 2022).

This article addresses a critical gap in current literature by examining the intersection of digital transformation and supply chain resilience within the context of increasing geopolitical fragmentation. Through a comprehensive analysis of contemporary research and empirical evidence, this study develops a conceptual framework for understanding how organizations can leverage digital capabilities to enhance supply chain resilience despite growing geopolitical complexity. The research questions guiding this investigation are:

  1. How does geopolitical fragmentation impact supply chain management strategies in multinational enterprises?
  2. What digital technologies and capabilities are most effective for enhancing supply chain resilience in fragmented global markets?
  3. How can organizations balance globalization and regionalization approaches to optimize both efficiency and resilience?

The following sections present a critical review of relevant literature, an analysis of contemporary business practices, a proposed conceptual framework, and implications for theory and practice. This research contributes to both academic discourse and practical application by offering insights into one of the most pressing challenges facing global business leaders today.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Geopolitical Fragmentation and Global Business

The past decade has witnessed a significant shift in the global political economy, challenging the previously dominant narrative of progressive economic integration. Witt (2019) characterizes this phenomenon as “economic fragmentation,” where competing spheres of influence create parallel systems of trade, technology, and governance. This fragmentation is driven by multiple factors, including the rise of economic nationalism, strategic competition between major powers, increasing security concerns, and divergent regulatory approaches (Petricevic and Teece, 2019).

Geopolitical fragmentation manifests through various mechanisms relevant to multinational enterprises. Trade restrictions, investment screening mechanisms, export controls, and sanctions have proliferated, creating complex compliance challenges for global operations (Kobrin, 2017). Technology decoupling between major economic powers has created divergent standards, protocols, and digital ecosystems that complicate integrated operations (Rithmire and Li, 2021). Regulatory fragmentation across jurisdictions has increased compliance costs and operational complexity, particularly in data governance, artificial intelligence, and digital services (Bradford, 2020).

Numerous scholars have documented the implications of this fragmentation for global business strategy. Witt et al. (2021) identify the emergence of “semi-globalization” where regional integration coexists with global fragmentation. Ghemawat (2018) argues that companies must develop capabilities for “managing differences” across increasingly heterogeneous market contexts. Doh (2019) emphasizes the increasing importance of political capabilities and non-market strategies for navigating fragmented institutional environments.

2.2 Supply Chain Resilience in Complex Systems

Supply chain resilience has emerged as a critical organizational capability in response to increasing environmental turbulence. Christopher and Peck (2004) define supply chain resilience as “the ability of a system to return to its original state or move to a new, more desirable state after being disturbed.” This concept has evolved significantly over time, from a focus on recovery following disruption to a more proactive stance emphasizing anticipation, adaptation, and transformation (Wieland and Wallenburg, 2013).

Recent research has identified various dimensions of supply chain resilience. Kamalahmadi and Parast (2016) highlight anticipation, resistance, recovery, and adaptation as key components. Pettit et al. (2019) emphasize the importance of balancing capabilities and vulnerabilities to achieve optimal resilience posture. Brandon-Jones et al. (2014) distinguish between resilience capabilities at the firm level and the network level, noting the importance of collaborative approaches.

Several factors contribute to enhanced supply chain resilience. Flexibility in sourcing, production, and distribution enables rapid adaptation to changing circumstances (Stevenson and Spring, 2007). Redundancy in capacity, inventory, and supplier relationships provides buffers against disruption, though at increased cost (Tang, 2006). Visibility across multiple tiers of supply networks enables effective risk identification and response (Dolgui et al., 2018). Collaboration among supply chain partners facilitates coordinated planning and response (Scholten and Schilder, 2015).

Empirical studies have demonstrated significant variation in supply chain resilience outcomes following major disruptions. Hendry et al. (2019) found that organizations with well-developed sensing capabilities and established response protocols recovered more rapidly from major disruptions. Ambulkar et al. (2015) identified organizational learning as a critical factor differentiating successful adaptation from prolonged disruption.

2.3 Digital Transformation in Supply Chain Management

Digital transformation has profoundly impacted supply chain management, creating new possibilities for coordination, visibility, and optimization. Büyüközkan and Göçer (2018) define digital supply chains as “those that employ disruptive technologies to enhance traditional supply chain activities.” These technologies include advanced analytics, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cloud computing, Internet of Things, robotics, and 3D printing, among others.

Research has documented numerous applications of digital technologies in supply chain management. Predictive analytics enables anticipation of demand patterns, disruption risks, and maintenance requirements (Tiwari et al., 2018). Blockchain applications facilitate trusted information sharing across organizational boundaries, enhancing traceability and contract execution (Kshetri, 2018). IoT sensors provide real-time visibility into inventory levels, logistics movements, and environmental conditions (Ben-Daya et al., 2019). Digital twins create virtual representations of physical supply chains, enabling scenario planning and optimization (Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020).

The benefits of digital supply chains include improved operational efficiency, enhanced decision-making capabilities, greater customer responsiveness, and reduced environmental impact (Queiroz et al., 2019). However, digitalization also introduces new challenges, including cybersecurity risks, technology integration difficulties, skills gaps, and implementation costs (Zhu et al., 2021).

Several scholars have explored the relationship between digital transformation and supply chain resilience. Ivanov et al. (2019) propose the concept of “digital supply chain twins” for enhancing visibility and simulation capabilities. Papadopoulos et al. (2017) demonstrate how big data analytics can strengthen supply chain risk identification and mitigation. Dubey et al. (2021) examine how blockchain technology can enhance transparency and trust during disruptions.

Despite these advances, significant gaps remain in understanding how digital capabilities can enhance resilience specifically within the context of geopolitical fragmentation. This article addresses this gap by integrating perspectives on geopolitical complexity, supply chain resilience, and digital transformation.

3. Methodological Approach

This research employs a systematic literature review approach to integrate findings from diverse disciplinary perspectives on supply chain resilience, geopolitical fragmentation, and digital transformation. The review followed the methodology proposed by Tranfield et al. (2003), including systematic search, selection, extraction, synthesis, and reporting. Literature was sourced from prominent databases including Web of Science, Scopus, and Business Source Complete, focusing on peer-reviewed publications from 2015-2024.

To complement the literature review, secondary data was analyzed from multiple sources including industry reports from consulting firms (McKinsey, Deloitte, Accenture), international organizations (World Economic Forum, World Trade Organization), and business case studies. This approach enabled triangulation of academic research with practical insights from business applications.

The analysis employed both deductive and inductive approaches. Deductively, existing theoretical frameworks on supply chain resilience and digital transformation guided initial categorization. Inductively, emerging patterns and relationships were identified through thematic analysis of the literature and secondary data. This combined approach facilitated the development of a novel conceptual framework addressing the specific challenges of digital supply chain resilience in geopolitically fragmented environments.

4. Findings and Analysis

4.1 Impact of Geopolitical Fragmentation on Supply Chain Strategies

Analysis of contemporary business practices reveals significant strategic adaptations in response to geopolitical fragmentation. Organizations are increasingly implementing multi-layered approaches that balance efficiency objectives with resilience imperatives across several dimensions.

First, firms are reconsidering their operational footprints in response to changing geopolitical realities. Supply chain regionalization has emerged as a prominent trend, with organizations establishing semi-autonomous regional supply networks capable of functioning independently if global integration is disrupted (Miroudot and Nordström, 2020). This approach is exemplified by companies like Procter & Gamble and Unilever, which have developed regional manufacturing and distribution hubs that optimize both local responsiveness and scale economies (Lund et al., 2020).

Second, organizations are diversifying supplier networks to reduce concentration risks associated with geopolitical vulnerabilities. This diversification occurs both geographically and structurally, with firms adopting “China+1” or “China+N” strategies in Asia and similar approaches in other regions (McKinsey Global Institute, 2022). For example, Apple has accelerated supplier diversification away from excessive concentration in China, expanding manufacturing capabilities in India, Vietnam, and other locations (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2023).

Third, companies are implementing scenario-based strategic planning processes that explicitly incorporate geopolitical considerations. These processes systematically evaluate vulnerabilities to various fragmentation scenarios and develop contingency plans accordingly (Ramirez and Wilkinson, 2016). Companies like Microsoft and Shell have developed sophisticated geopolitical intelligence capabilities that inform strategic decision-making about supply chain configuration (Deloitte, 2023).

Fourth, organizations are increasing inventory buffers for critical components vulnerable to geopolitical disruption, reversing decades-long trends toward just-in-time approaches for these categories. This selective application of inventory strategies represents a calculated trade-off between efficiency and resilience (Christopher and Holweg, 2017). For instance, semiconductor manufacturers and automotive companies have significantly increased strategic inventory holdings following recent shortages (World Economic Forum, 2022).

4.2 Effective Digital Technologies for Supply Chain Resilience

The research identified several digital technologies particularly effective for enhancing supply chain resilience in fragmented global environments.

Multi-tier visibility systems have emerged as foundational technologies for resilience, providing comprehensive awareness of vulnerabilities across extended supply networks. These systems integrate data from various sources including tier-one suppliers, sub-tier suppliers, logistics providers, and external risk intelligence (Handfield et al., 2020). Companies like Cisco and Siemens have implemented sophisticated multi-tier visibility platforms that enable early identification of potential disruptions and more effective response coordination (Supply Chain Dive, 2023).

Artificial intelligence and machine learning applications enhance predictive capabilities for disruption identification and response. These technologies analyze complex patterns across vast datasets to identify emerging risks before they manifest as disruptions (Baryannis et al., 2019). For example, Unilever employs machine learning algorithms that integrate weather data, social media signals, and political risk indicators to anticipate potential supply disruptions (Harvard Business Review, 2021).

Digital twins technology enables sophisticated scenario planning and resilience testing without disrupting physical operations. These virtual replicas simulate various disruption scenarios and evaluate alternative response strategies, facilitating more effective contingency planning (Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020). Companies like DHL and Maersk have implemented digital twins to enhance resilience planning and response capabilities (Accenture, 2023).

Blockchain and distributed ledger technologies enhance supply chain transparency and trust in environments where institutional trust mechanisms may be compromised by geopolitical fragmentation. These technologies provide immutable records of transactions and product movements across jurisdictional boundaries (Kshetri, 2018). For instance, IBM’s Food Trust platform enables trusted tracking of agricultural products across complex international supply chains despite divergent regulatory environments (IBM, 2023).

Cloud-based supply chain platforms facilitate rapid reconfiguration of supply networks in response to disruptions. These platforms enable dynamic sourcing, production planning, and logistics optimization across organizational boundaries (Queiroz et al., 2019). Salesforce’s Supply Chain Control Tower exemplifies this approach, providing capabilities for rapid supplier onboarding and network reconfiguration (Gartner, 2022).

4.3 Balancing Globalization and Regionalization Approaches

The research identified several approaches to balancing globalization and regionalization for optimizing both efficiency and resilience.

Strategic segmentation of product portfolios enables differentiated supply chain configurations based on product characteristics. Organizations increasingly distinguish between products requiring global scale economies and those better suited to regional production networks (Lund et al., 2020). For example, Philips maintains globalized production for standardized electronic components while regionalizing assembly operations for market-specific product variants (Supply Chain Quarterly, 2023).

Modular product architecture facilitates production flexibility across locations with varying capabilities. By standardizing interfaces between components and subsystems, organizations can more easily shift production between facilities in different regions (Baldwin and Clark, 2000). Companies like Herman Miller and Volkswagen have extensively implemented modular architectures to enhance manufacturing flexibility across geographically dispersed operations (McKinsey, 2023).

Capability replication in strategic regions enables redundancy for critical operations vulnerable to geopolitical disruption. Rather than complete regionalization, organizations selectively duplicate key capabilities across major market regions (Shih, 2020). TSMC’s establishment of advanced semiconductor fabrication facilities in Japan and the United States, complementing its Taiwan operations, exemplifies this approach (Financial Times, 2023).

Dynamic network orchestration capabilities enable rapid reconfiguration of supply networks in response to changing geopolitical conditions. These capabilities include both technological systems and organizational processes for identifying alternative suppliers, redirecting material flows, and reallocating production (Christopher and Holweg, 2017). Companies like Nike and Zara have demonstrated sophisticated capabilities for supply network reconfiguration in response to geopolitical and market changes (Harvard Business Review, 2022).

5. Conceptual Framework: Digital Supply Chain Resilience in Fragmented Markets

Based on the analysis, a conceptual framework is proposed for enhancing digital supply chain resilience in geopolitically fragmented environments. The framework integrates three interconnected dimensions: visibility capabilities, reconfiguration capabilities, and collaborative governance.

Visibility Capabilities form the foundation of the framework, enabling awareness of vulnerabilities and disruptions across complex supply networks. These capabilities include:

  • Multi-tier supplier mapping and monitoring
  • Real-time status tracking of materials and components
  • Integrated risk intelligence incorporating geopolitical factors
  • Predictive analytics for early disruption identification
  • Digital twins for scenario simulation and testing

Reconfiguration Capabilities enable rapid adaptation to changing circumstances through flexible resource deployment. These capabilities include:

  • Dynamic supplier selection and qualification processes
  • Modular product and process architectures
  • Distributed manufacturing capabilities
  • Inventory positioning optimization
  • Alternative logistics pathway identification

Collaborative Governance mechanisms facilitate coordinated planning and response across organizational boundaries. These mechanisms include:

  • Shared visibility systems with key suppliers and customers
  • Aligned incentives for resilience investments
  • Collaborative scenario planning processes
  • Joint response protocols for disruption management
  • Distributed decision rights for local responsiveness

The framework emphasizes the interdependencies between these dimensions. Visibility capabilities provide the informational foundation for effective reconfiguration, while collaborative governance enables coordinated execution across organizational boundaries. Digital technologies serve as enablers across all three dimensions, enhancing capabilities beyond what would be possible through analog approaches alone.

The framework further distinguishes between reactive resilience (responding effectively to disruptions after they occur) and proactive resilience (anticipating potential disruptions and reconfiguring before they manifest). Organizations with advanced digital capabilities can increasingly shift from reactive to proactive approaches, potentially transforming disruptions from threats to opportunities for competitive advantage.

6. Implications and Recommendations

6.1 Theoretical Implications

This research contributes to theory development in several areas. First, it extends supply chain resilience theory by explicitly incorporating geopolitical complexity as a contextual factor influencing resilience capabilities and requirements. Second, it advances understanding of digital transformation by examining how technological capabilities interact with environmental complexity to shape organizational outcomes. Third, it contributes to international business theory by exploring how supply chain configuration decisions reflect changing assessments of globalization benefits and risks.

The conceptual framework offers several theoretical contributions. It integrates previously disparate perspectives on visibility, reconfiguration, and governance within a coherent model of supply chain resilience. It emphasizes the multilevel nature of resilience capabilities, spanning operational, tactical, and strategic dimensions. It highlights the dynamic evolution of resilience requirements in response to changing environmental conditions.

6.2 Practical Recommendations

For business executives, several practical recommendations emerge from this research:

  1. Develop nuanced understanding of geopolitical risks specific to your industry and supply chain configuration. Generic approaches to resilience are insufficient in increasingly complex environments.

  2. Prioritize investment in multi-tier visibility systems that extend awareness beyond immediate suppliers. These systems provide the informational foundation for effective resilience strategies.

  3. Implement strategic segmentation approaches that differentiate supply chain configurations based on product characteristics and risk profiles. Not all products require the same level of regionalization or redundancy.

  4. Invest in digital capabilities that enhance both sensing (identifying potential disruptions) and responding (reconfiguring operations) dimensions of resilience. Technology investments should address both aspects to be effective.

  5. Develop collaborative approaches to resilience that engage key suppliers and customers. Individual organizational efforts are insufficient when disruptions affect entire supply ecosystems.

For policymakers, the research suggests several considerations:

  1. Recognize the complex trade-offs between supply chain resilience and economic efficiency when developing industrial policies. Excessive focus on reshoring may reduce certain vulnerabilities while creating others.

  2. Invest in digital infrastructure that enables effective information sharing across supply networks during disruptions. Public-private partnerships can enhance collective resilience capabilities.

  3. Develop regulatory approaches that balance legitimate security concerns with the benefits of continued global integration. Excessive fragmentation may undermine both economic and security objectives.

7. Conclusion

This research has examined the critical intersection of digital transformation and supply chain resilience within the context of increasing geopolitical fragmentation. The analysis reveals that successful organizations are implementing sophisticated approaches that balance global integration with regional autonomy, supported by advanced digital capabilities for visibility, reconfiguration, and collaboration.

The proposed conceptual framework offers a structured approach for understanding how organizations can enhance supply chain resilience in complex geopolitical environments. By integrating visibility capabilities, reconfiguration capabilities, and collaborative governance mechanisms, organizations can develop supply networks that are both efficient during normal operations and resilient during disruptions.

Several limitations of this study suggest directions for future research. Empirical testing of the conceptual framework across diverse industry contexts would enhance its validity and refinement. Longitudinal studies examining how resilience capabilities evolve over time in response to changing geopolitical conditions would provide valuable insights. Comparative analysis of resilience approaches across organizations from different home countries could reveal important contextual factors influencing strategy selection.

As geopolitical complexity continues to increase, the ability to maintain effective global operations despite fragmentation will become an increasingly important source of competitive advantage. Organizations that develop sophisticated digital capabilities for navigating this complexity will be better positioned to thrive in an uncertain future.

References

Ambulkar, S., Blackhurst, J., & Grawe, S. (2015). Firm’s resilience to supply chain disruptions: Scale development and empirical examination. Journal of Operations Management, 33-34, 111-122.

Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity (Vol. 1). MIT Press.

Baryannis, G., Validi, S., Dani, S., & Antoniou, G. (2019). Supply chain risk management and artificial intelligence: State of the art and future research directions. International Journal of Production Research, 57(7), 2179-2202.

Ben-Daya, M., Hassini, E., & Bahroun, Z. (2019). Internet of things and supply chain management: A literature review. International Journal of Production Research, 57(15-16), 4719-4742.

Bradford, A. (2020). The Brussels effect: How the European Union rules the world. Oxford University Press.

Brandon-Jones, E., Squire, B., Autry, C. W., & Petersen, K. J. (2014). A contingent resource-based perspective of supply chain resilience and robustness. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 50(3), 55-73.

Büyüközkan, G., & Göçer, F. (2018). Digital supply chain: Literature review and a proposed framework for future research. Computers in Industry, 97, 157-177.

Christopher, M., & Holweg, M. (2017). Supply chain 2.0 revisited: A framework for managing volatility-induced risk in the supply chain. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 47(1), 2-17.

Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the resilient supply chain. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 15(2), 1-14.

Doh, J. P. (2019). MNEs, FDI, inequality and growth. Multinational Business Review, 27(3), 217-220.

Dolgui, A., Ivanov, D., & Sokolov, B. (2018). Ripple effect in the supply chain: An analysis and recent literature. International Journal of Production Research, 56(1-2), 414-430.

Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Bryde, D. J., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Papadopoulos, T. (2021). Blockchain technology for enhancing swift-trust, collaboration and resilience within a humanitarian supply chain setting. International Journal of Production Research, 59(5), 1458-1485.

Ghemawat, P. (2018). The new global road map: Enduring strategies for turbulent times. Harvard Business Review Press.

Handfield, R. B., Graham, G., & Burns, L. (2020). Corona virus, tariffs, trade wars and supply chain evolutionary design. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 40(10), 1649-1660.

Hendry, L. C., Stevenson, M., MacBryde, J., Ball, P., Sayed, M., & Liu, L. (2019). Local food supply chain resilience to constitutional change: The Brexit effect. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 39(3), 429-453.

Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2020). Viability of intertwined supply networks: Extending the supply chain resilience angles towards survivability. A position paper motivated by COVID-19 outbreak. International Journal of Production Research, 58(10), 2904-2915.

Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2021). OR-methods for coping with the ripple effect in supply chains during COVID-19 pandemic: Managerial insights and research implications. International Journal of Production Economics, 232, 107921.

Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., & Sokolov, B. (2019). The impact of digital technology and Industry 4.0 on the ripple effect and supply chain risk analytics. International Journal of Production Research, 57(3), 829-846.

Kamalahmadi, M., & Parast, M. M. (2016). A review of the literature on the principles of enterprise and supply chain resilience: Major findings and directions for future research. International Journal of Production Economics, 171, 116-133.

Kobrin, S. J. (2017). Bricks and mortar in a borderless world: Globalization, the backlash, and the multinational enterprise. Global Strategy Journal, 7(2), 159-171.

Kshetri, N. (2018). Blockchain’s roles in meeting key supply chain management objectives. International Journal of Information Management, 39, 80-89.

Lacity, M., Willcocks, L., & Craig, A. (2022). Amazon: Orchestrating the last mile to compete with integrated giants. Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases, 12(1), 42-52.

Lund, S., Manyika, J., Woetzel, J., Barriball, E., Krishnan, M., Alicke, K., Birshan, M., George, K., Smit, S., Swan, D., & Hutzler, K. (2020). Risk, resilience, and rebalancing in global value chains. McKinsey Global Institute.

Miroudot, S., & Nordström, H. (2020). Made in the world? Global value chains in the midst of rising protectionism. Review of Industrial Organization, 57(2), 195-222.

Papadopoulos, T., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R., Altay, N., Childe, S. J., & Fosso-Wamba, S. (2017). The role of Big Data in explaining disaster resilience in supply chains for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 1108-1118.

Petricevic, O., & Teece, D. J. (2019). The structural reshaping of globalization: Implications for strategic sectors, profiting from innovation, and the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(9), 1487-1512.

Pettit, T. J., Croxton, K. L., & Fiksel, J. (2019). The evolution of resilience in supply chain management: A retrospective on ensuring supply chain resilience. Journal of Business Logistics, 40(1), 56-65.

Queiroz, M. M., Telles, R., & Bonilla, S. H. (2019). Blockchain and supply chain management integration: A systematic review of the literature. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 25(2), 241-254.

Ramirez, R., & Wilkinson, A. (2016). Strategic reframing: The Oxford scenario planning approach. Oxford University Press.

Rithmire, M., & Li, Y. (2021). Chinese digital nationalism and the coronavirus pandemic. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 50(1), 14-32.

Scholten, K., & Schilder, S. (2015). The role of collaboration in supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20(4), 471-484.

Shih, W. C. (2020). Global supply chains in a post-pandemic world. Harvard Business Review, 98(5), 82-89.

Stevenson, M., & Spring, M. (2007). Flexibility from a supply chain perspective: Definition and review. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27(7), 685-713.

Tang, C. S. (2006). Robust strategies for mitigating supply chain disruptions. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 9(1), 33-45.

Tiwari, S., Wee, H. M., & Daryanto, Y. (2018). Big data analytics in supply chain management between 2010 and 2016: Insights to industries. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 115, 319-330.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222.

Van Hoek, R. (2020). Research opportunities for a more resilient post-COVID-19 supply chain – closing the gap between research findings and industry practice. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 40(4), 341-355.

Wieland, A., & Wallenburg, C. M. (2013). The influence of relational competencies on supply chain resilience: A relational view. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 43(4), 300-320.

Witt, M. A. (2019). De-globalization: Theories, predictions, and opportunities for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(7), 1053-1077.

Witt, M. A., Li, P. P., Välikangas, L., & Lewin, A. Y. (2021). De-globalization and decoupling: Game changing consequences? Management and Organization Review, 17(1), 6-15.

Zhu, S., Song, J., Hazen, B. T., Lee, K., & Cegielski, C. (2021). How supply chain analytics enables operational supply chain transparency: An organizational information processing theory perspective. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 51(1), 24-46.