Transportation Research Part E 188 (2024) 103609

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part E

journal homepage: [Link]/locate/tre

Building resilience or maintaining robustness: Insights from

relational view and information processing perspective
Hua Liu a, Xiaoping Xu a, *, T.C.E. Cheng b, Yugang Yu c
a
School of Business, Anhui University, Hefei, China
b
Department of Logistics and Maritime Studies, Faculty of Business, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong
c
School of Management, University of Science and Technology of China, 96 Jinzhai Road, Hefei 230026, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Drawing upon the relational view and information processing perspective, we investigate how
Supply chain integration supply chain integration (SCI) comprising supplier integration and customer integration influence
Supply chain resilience supply chain risk management (SCRM) practices embracing supply chain (SC) resilience and supply
Supply chain robustness
chain (SC) robustness, and subsequently influence supply chain (SC) performance. We further
BDA-enabled agility
Supply chain performance
examine how big data analytics (BDA)-enabled agility moderates the impacts of SCI on SC resilience
and SC robustness. Based on data collected from 121 match-paired surveys of manufacturing
firms in China, we find that supplier integration positively impacts SC resilience, whereas
customer integration positively impacts on SC robustness. BDA-enabled agility complements
supplier integration while substitutes customer integration to improve SC resilience and SC
robustness. Besides, our results reveal that SC resilience and SC robustness both improve SC
performance, and SC robustness mediates the relationship between SC resilience and SC
performance.

1. Introduction

Allianz Risk Barometer 20181 considered supply chain (SC) disruption risks as one of the most important risks worldwide. For
example, the explosion of China’s Tianjin Port in 2015 occurred as a shock to the global supply chain, driving many affected cor­
porations to long-term stagnation and shipping chaos.2 With increasing interdependence among firms in the supply chain through
digital enablement, firms across divergent geographical areas are often dragged into certain supply chain disruptions (Baham et al.,
2017; Kim et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2019). Once an adverse event occurs, it will bring operational disorder and financial losses to both
the affected firm and its supply chain partners because of the rippling and network effects (Kumar et al., 2023). As such, identifying and
managing SC disruption risks by means of a coordinated approach between the partners in the supply chain is very important (Li et al.,
2023c).
The literature has suggested SC resilience and SC robustness as critical SC risk management (SCRM) practices for dealing with supply
chain disruption risks (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014; Kwak et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2022). Specifically, SC resilience is the capability of a SC
to revert to its initial condition or to a new and desirable condition after a disturbance (Ge et al., 2022; Jiang et al., 2023a). In contrast,

* Corresponding author at: School of Business, Anhui University, Hefei, China.

E-mail address: xpxu@[Link] (X. Xu).
1
[Link]
2
[Link]

[Link]
Received 24 July 2023; Received in revised form 26 April 2024; Accepted 27 May 2024
Available online 7 June 2024
1366-5545/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.
H. Liu et al. Transportation Research Part E 188 (2024) 103609

SC robustness reflects the capability of a SC to sustain value creation despite internal or external disruptions (Klibi et al., 2010; Simchi-
Levi et al., 2018). The former highlights quick recovery and the latter highlights the maintenance of operations (Iftikhar et al., 2024;
Ruel and Baz, 2023). For instance, a supply chain resilience team of Cisco collaborated closely with its partners to resume operations
successfully from the 2011 Japanese tsunami (Maria Jesus Saenz et al., 2015), while Toyota started buffer stocks and allowed pro­
duction to continue in the wake of the Japanese tsunami (Simchi-Levi et al., 2018). Supply chain performance, reflects the ability to
keep meeting customer expectations with regard to product delivery (Gu et al., 2021; Queiroz et al., 2023). More and more firms
transform traditional reactive supply chains into proactive data-driven supply chains as robustness practices improve the sensing and
alertness to reduce the time and investment in the development of SC resilience (Arunachalam et al., 2018; Queiroz et al., 2022).
However, despite recognizing the importance of SC resilience and SC robustness to deal with a myriad of disruption risk vulnerabilities
(Ruel and Baz, 2023), exploration of enablers and mechanisms of different SC resilience and SC robustness to improve SC performance
remains limited.
Relational (supply chain integration) and technical (BDA capability) capabilities are identified to deal with supply chain disrup­
tions (Jiang et al., 2023b; Li et al., 2023a). For example, JD. com has handled SC disruptions well based on its integrated supply chain
structure and comprehensive intelligent platforms (Shen and Sun, 2023). Although prior studies have examined direct, mediation, and
synergy effects of strategic collaboration on different dimensions of SC performance and showed inconsistent findings (Li et al., 2022c),
the influences of partner-specific integration lack further exploration in SCRM field especially with digital technology use (Li et al.,
2023b). Different from an operational perspective with diverse operational indicators in SCRM literature (Qi et al., 2023), based on the
relational view (Dyer et al., 2018), SCI generally consists of supplier integration (SI) which shares information and coordinates with
upstream suppliers, and customer integration (CI), which shares information and coordinates with downstream customers (Schoenherr
and Swink, 2012). SI and CI provides firms with an opportunity to tap into current and valuable resources, such as materials, funds, and
information, and create “relational” resources through the combination of unique skills, knowledge, and joint capabilities, thereby
enabling firms to better develop risk reduction strategies and improve disruption mitigation capacity (Cohen and Lee, 2020; Lin and
Fan, 2024).
Besides, prior SCI studies have examined the moderation effect of product portfolio capabilities, relationship characteristics and
external environments (Li et al., 2023b; Qi et al., 2023; Squire et al., 2009; Wong et al., 2011), while some of them have emphasized the
IT use in empowering SCI for better performance (Vanpoucke et al., 2017). However, SC disruptions generates massive amounts of data
flows which need BDA tools to gather, process, and apply external information along SC from partners timely to achieve SC resilience
and SC robustness (Choi et al., 2018). BDA-enabled agility reflects a firm’s capability to use BDA to sense and respond to internal and
external changes (Arunachalam et al., 2018), which should be recognized as a boundary condition for SCI to improve SC resilience and
robustness. From the organizational information processing perspective, upstream and downstream SC partners involve different
information processing needs that require specific information processing capabilities (Choksy et al., 2022). Especially, a tremendous
external shock to a supply chain may change the original market structure and buyer–supplier power relationships, bringing both
opportunities and challenges (Jiang et al., 2023a). Catastrophic events such as COVID-19 resulted in a large demand–supply mismatch
and buyers switching suppliers (Li et al., 2022d). The recovery speed, required resources, and information sources of supply and
demand are different. Firms may need more resource backup from suppliers and more market-faced information from customers in
disruption contexts (Bode et al., 2011; Messina et al., 2020). Existing literature has revealed mixed effects of configurations between IT
capability and collaborative activities on performance (Andrade-Rojas et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2016), it is unclear how BDA-enabled
agility interacts with the partner-specific integration to influence SC resilience and SC robustness.
This study integrates relational view and information processing theory and proposes that BDA-enabled agility is a key technical
contextual variable for relational SCI to achieve SC resilience and SC robustness, and subsequently impact SC performance. Using data
collected from 121 match-paired surveys of Chinese manufacturing firms, we empirically validate our research model. Accordingly, we
make three theoretical contributions. First, we find supplier integration improves SC resilience while customer integration improves
SC robustness. Although the importance of SC collaboration in SCRM field is recongnized (Jiang et al., 2023b; Li et al., 2023c), we
attempt to contribute to SCRM literature by specifying the direct effects of partner-specific integration on SC resilience and SC
robustness. Second, different from the enabler effect of BDA use in SCRM decisions (Chen et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2022), we present
new insights on the moderating mechanisms of BDA-enabled agility, by revealing its complementary effect with supplier integration
and substitutive effect with customer integration on SC resilience and SC robustness. Third, existing studies have examined the parallel
relationship between SC resilence and SC robustness in influencing financial performance (El Baz et al., 2023; Ruel and Baz, 2023), we
provide a more nuanced understanding of the mediation effect of SC robustness between SC resilience and SC performance to
emphasize the importance to build a robustness-focused supply chain.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. First, in section 2, we review the literature on relational view and organizational
information processing theory, supplier integration and customer integration, SC resilience and SC robustness. In section 3, we
introduce our research model and develop our hypotheses. In sections 4 and 5, we then describe our methodology, data analysis, and
results. Finally, in section 6, we discuss these findings in terms of theoretical contributions and managerial implications, together with
limitations and directions for future research.

2. Literature review

2.1. SCI and SCRM practices

There are many studies about the direct, mediation, synergy effects of different dimensions of SCI on performance (Cao and Zhang,

2
 H. Liu et al.
Table 1
Summary of previous studies on the relationship between SCI and SCRM practices.
Study Method Dimensions of SCI Outcome Main findings

Cohen (2022) Interviews of senior supply-chain The degree to which a SC is interlinked and aligned with the SC resilience This study identifies three supply-chain archetypes based on two
executives supply chains of partners: Less dependency/engagement, dimensions: homogeneity of internal supply-chain processes and
coordination with key partners, integrated systems, integration with other actors in their end-to-end supply chains.
collaboration, vertical integration Resilience strategies should be matched with three supply-chain
archetypes: Product, Partnership, and Process complexity.
de Vries et al. (2021) Survey Internal integration SC robustness A cross- functional team with representatives from functional
departments facilitate sharing relevant information, enabling the
firm to respond effectively to SC disruption warnings.
Qi et al. (2023) Empirical research in a Chinese e- Integration between the e-commerce platform and suppliers SC resilience Information sharing, joint planning and logistics cooperation has
commerce platform positive impacts on SC resilience, while procurement automation has
the opposite effect.
Jiang et al., (2023b) Survey in Chinese manufacturing Information integration, operational integration, relational SC robustness, SC Different antecedent configurations involving SCI (information
firms, fuzzy-set qualitative integration resilience integration, operational integration, relational integration), and BDA
comparative analysis (fsQCA) capability (technical skills, managerial skills, data driven-decision
culture) can achieve SC robustness/ resilience and indicate
alternative effects across different antecedent.
Shen and Sun (2023) Case study The integrated supply chain structure: high level of SC resilience before and JD. com has handled well its supply chain management in response
3

collaboration, effective information sharing, high level of during pandemic based on its
agility integrated supply chain structure (high level of collaboration,
effective information sharing, high level of agility) and
comprehensive intelligent platforms (intelligent forecast platform,
smart replenishment platforms).
Jiang et al., (2023a) Empirical research in Chinese- Supplier integration, customer integration SC resilience in the Customer concentration is negatively related to resilience in the
listed firms disruption stage and the disruption stage but has no effect in the restoration stage. Supplier
restoration stage concentration is positively related to resilience in the disruption
stage but undermines resilience in the restoration stage.
Lin and Fan (2024) Survey in Chinese firms Internal integration, external integration SC resilience SCI has a positive impact on SC resilience. Digital technology usage
positively moderates the relationship between internal integration

Transportation Research Part E 188 (2024) 103609

and resilience, but insignificantly moderates the relationship
between external integration and resilience
Cui et al. (2022) Survey in Chinese firms Supplier integration, customer integration, internal integration SC resilience Supply chain integration plays a mediating role in the effect of digital
technologies on firm resilience
Munir et al. (2020) Survey in globe firms Supplier integration, customer integration, internal integration SCRM Internal, supplier and customer integration positively effects SCRM.
H. Liu et al. Transportation Research Part E 188 (2024) 103609

2011; Flynn et al., 2010; Li et al., 2022c). The effect of SCI could be positive, negative, or non-significant (Flynn et al., 2010; Zhao et al.,
2015). Besides, although some studies have emphasized the importance of information sharing and resource orchestration among SC
members in the development of SC resilience and SC robustness (El Baz et al., 2023), they have not distinguished the upstream and
downstream integration. Especially, many scholars have recognized the importance of supplier integration in information sharing,
technology integration, logistics management, and joint planning and response in SC resilience and SC robustness (Cohen et al., 2022;
de Vries et al., 2021; Shen and Sun, 2023), ignoring the mechanism of customer integration. Existing studies have indicated that firms
should not only integrate with SC members to share information network, available inventory, and demand forecasts, but also depend
on BDA to optimize current distribution systems (Li et al., 2023a). Recent studies on the BDA use in SCRM field have been gradually
emerging with increasingly volatile operational and market environments. We have summarized previous studies on the relationship
between SCI and SCRM based on our research focus in Table 1.

Table 2
Summary of previous studies on the role of BDA in the supply chain.
Study Role of BDA Outcome Main findings

Jiang et al., Antecedent SC robustness, SC resilience Different antecedent configurations involving SCI (information
(2023b) integration, operational integration, relational integration), and BDA
capability (technical skills, managerial skills, data driven-decision
culture) can achieve SC robustness/ resilience and indicate alternative
effects across different antecedent.
Li et al., Antecedent Innovation capability and disaster BDA and SCI are two second-order capabilities that help firms develop
(2023a) immunity, performance three first-order capabilities (i.e. proactive capabilities, reactive
capabilities, and resource reconfiguration) and eventually lead to
innovation capability and disaster immunity that allow firms to
survive in COVID-19 and improve SC performance.
Dubey et al. Antecedent SC resilience, competitive advantage BDA positively affects SC resilience and competitive advantage.
(2021) Organizational flexibility positively moderates the effect of BDA.
Munir et al. Antecedent Anticipation and improvisation, SC Data analytics capability positively affects anticipation and
(2022) resilience and responsiveness improvisation, which mediate the effect of data analytics on SC
resilience and responsiveness.
Chen et al. Antecedent Decision speed, decision quality Event criticality of COVID-19 strengthens the effects of IT-business
(2022) alignment on decision speed and quality but weakens the influence of
BDA on decision quality. Meanwhile, the event disruption of COVID-
19 weakens the influence of IT-business alignment on decision speed
and quality but strengthens the effect of BDA on decision speed and
quality.
Lin et al. Antecedent Production and market risk BDA has a significant positive impact on two risk management
(2022) management capabilities, alliance capabilities and alliance relationship.
relationship stability
Bhatti et al. Antecedent Platform and networking capabilities, BDA significantly improved platform and networking capabilities.
(2022) SC innovation, performance BDA also improved supply chain innovation and thus financial
performance.
Behl et al. Antecedent SC coordination and swift trust, SC risk BDA improves SC coordination and swift trust, and reduces SC risk to
(2022) and competitive advantage keep sustainable competitive advantage.
Iftikhar et al. Mediator SC resilience BDA mediates the relationships between structural and dynamic SC
(2022) complexities and SC resilience.
Raut et al. Mediator Sustainable supply chain business BDA mediates between lean practices, social practices, environmental
(2021) performance practices, organizational practices, supply chain practices, financial
practices, and total quality management and ‘sustainable supply chain
business performance’.
Singh (2022) Moderation Business risk resilience BDA positively moderates the impact of risk management
infrastructure on risk resilience.
Bag et al. Moderation: Supplier social sustainability BDA positively moderates the relationship between collaborative
(2022) BDA intelligence buyer–supplier relationships and supplier social sustainability.
assimilation
Cappa et al. Antecedent: big data Firm performance Big data volume has a negative effect on firm performance. Big data
(2021) volume, variety, veracity variety moderates the negative effects of big data volume. Big data
veracity improves performance.
Patrucco Antecedent BDA contribution to performance The exploration, assimilation, and transformation capabilities of
et al. purchasing departments are crucial in facilitating the use of BDA for
(2023) strategic decision-making in purchasing and supply management, and
in turn improves performance.
Hossain et al. Antecedent: sustained Customer relationship performance, A capability for creating, delivering, and managing customer value is
(2023) customer analytics market effectiveness critical for building a firm’s sustained customer analytics capability. In
capability turn, this may lead to improved customer relationship performance
and so, ultimately, enhanced market effectiveness
Akter et al. Antecedent: marketing Marketing effectiveness Pattern identification, real-time solutions and data governance as the
(2022) analytics capability antecedents of marketing analytics capability with its holistic effects
on marketing agility and marketing effectiveness.

4
H. Liu et al. Transportation Research Part E 188 (2024) 103609

2.2. Bda-agility and supply chain

According to resource-based view, existing literature has indicated that BDA building requires the integration of strategic re­
sources, including tangible, non-tangible, and human skills (technical and managerial skills) (Akter et al., 2016; Li et al., 2022a), and
regarded BDA use or capability as an enabler for different dimensions of performance, such as innovation (Bhatti et al., 2022; Li et al.,
2023a; Mikalef et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2020), cost and operational performance (Wamba et al., 2020), marketing performance (Akter
et al., 2022; Hossain et al., 2023), and financial performance (Maroufkhani et al., 2020). Existing research also holds inconsistent views
on the relationship between big data and performance sometimes the use of big data may even hurt performance (Cappa et al., 2021).
Most scholars argue that BDA can improve decision speed and quality through SC optimization and learning (Chen et al., 2021; Li et al.,
2022a), especially crisis decision-making in SC disruption contexts (Chen et al., 2022). The importance of BDA in SCRM should not be
ignored while most studies have mainly recognized the direct effect of BDA on SCRM due to the decision making support by BDA to
identify risks, recognize and monitor disruptions in real-time, and take appropriate actions for response and recovery (Munir et al.,
2022). In unpredictable environments, particularly in the face of SC disruptions, scholars have recognized that relational and technical
capability are both important to control entire supply chain processes and recover from SC disruptions (Jiang et al., 2023b; Li et al.,
2023a), while few studies have explored the moderating role of BDA in collaborative relationship to achieve SC robustness and
resilience (Singh, 2022). Besides, although some studies have examined the facilitating role of BDA in external SCRM (Liu and Wei,
2022), they have not distinguished the effect of information processing capability enabled by BDA to meet different information
processing needs of the upstream and downstream collaborative partners in SC disruptions. Our study extends the current under­
standing of enablers of BDA by differentiating the complementary and the substitutive role of BDA-enabled agility in different SCI. We
have summarized previous studies on the role of BDA in Table 2.

2.3. Research gaps and contributions

Through the literature survey and synthesis, there are some research gaps in the current literature and our study fills current
research gaps and produces important contributions. First, we aim to examine the effects of supplier integration and customer inte­
gration on SC resilience and SC robustness. While the direct, mediation, synergy effects of different SCI dimensions on financial,
operational, marketing, and innovation performance have been examined (Cao and Zhang, 2011; Flynn et al., 2010; Li et al., 2022c),
many scholars have recognized the importance of SCI in SC resilience and SC robustness (Cohen et al., 2022; de Vries et al., 2021; Shen
and Sun, 2023). Prior SCI studies have examined the moderation effect of product portfolio capabilities, relationship characteristics
and external environments on SC performance (Li et al., 2023b; Qi et al., 2023; Squire et al., 2009; Wong et al., 2011), few studies have
recognized the conditional effect of BDA-enabled capability in processing SCI. Second, considering different mechanisms of upstream
and downstream integration in disruption contexts, we aim to examine the distinctive moderating role of BDA-enabled agility in SCI-
SCRM practices relationships. Prior research has viewed BDA-enabled agility as an enabler for SC agility and performance (White et al.,
2005) while the use of BDA has mix effects. Recent studies have emphasized the coordinated role of big data and SCI in helping cope
with big disaster (Jiang et al., 2023b; Li et al., 2023a), but neglected the different role of BDA in partner-specific integration in SC
disruptions contexts. Third, we aim to examine the relationships among SC resilience, SC robustness, and SC performance. There is
scant research that compares and distinguishes the concepts robustness and resilience in the SCRM literature and identify the rela­
tionship between SC resilience and SC robustness in improving SC performance (El Baz et al., 2023; Faruquee et al., 2023; Ruel and
Baz, 2023).

3. Theory development and hypothesis formulation

The resource-based view (RBV) limits resources and capabilities within a firm’s boundaries in a stable market (Xu et al., 2014). As
an extension of RBV, the relational view suggests that resources can cross the boundaries of a firm and can be embedded within the
organization’s routines and processes, e.g., information sharing and collaborative relationships building (Barney, 2018; Dyer and
Singh, 1998). Researchers have employed the relational view to justify the mutual benefits that can be derived from relational assets,
routines for sharing knowledge, complementary resources and capabilities, and efficient governance (Dyer et al., 2018; Lavie, 2006).
Research has built arguments for the value of SCI based on the relational view (Verghese et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2014). Organizational
information processing theory (OIPT) posits that firms that match their needs for information to their capabilities of information
processing could generate superior performance (Daft and Macintosh, 1981; Srinivasan and Swink, 2015). OIPT has emerged as an
important theoretical perspective regarding a firm’s needs for information to grapple with the uncertainties arising from supply chain
disruptions (Premkumar et al., 2005; Sharma et al., 2022). Firms can either increase their information processing capabilities by
investing in information systems or reduce their information needs by creating self-contained tasks and/or creating idle resources. In
particular, the firm can boost its information processing capability through leveraging BDA-enabled capabilities to process data
efficiently and effectively (Akhtar et al., 2019; Dubey et al., 2019; Mikalef et al., 2019; Srinivasan and Swink, 2017).
However, what is less understood is how RV and OIPT together influence SCRM practices and performance in SC disruption
contexts. Two key aspects of our study signify its contribution to advancing a theory of SCRM with the BDA use. Firstly, we have
attempted to explain SC resilience and SC robustness using the theoretical lens of RV. In particular, SCI could leverage external in­
formation and resources across the SC that could help a firm respond to disruptions and adapt to the changing environment (Jiang
et al., 2023a). Although some scholars have attempted to examine the impacts of integration on SC resilience using RV (Liu and Lee,
2018; Qi et al., 2023; Verghese et al., 2022), the relationships between partner-specfic SCI and different SCRM practices, which are

5
H. Liu et al. Transportation Research Part E 188 (2024) 103609

analyzed in our study, have not been rigorously discussed so far in the literature. Hence, our study extends prior work in explaining
how supplier integration and customer integration, together, can explain SC resilience and SC robustness engaged by different actors.
Secondly, by utilizing OIPT, we add an understanding of how to leverage the firm’s BDA-enabled capability to fit different dimensions
of SCI in SC disruptions (Lin et al., 2023). When crisis brings a potential change to the resource dependence and power dynamics in
buyer–supplier relationships, changes in business environments caused by SC disruptions may disrupt competitive landscape and shift
customer preferences (Jiang et al., 2023a). On the one hand, BDA-enabled agility improves information processing capability to help
deal with abnormal information regarding raw material inventory and logistics transport from supplier integration (Choi et al., 2022).
On the other hand, BDA-enabled agility can directly improve market agility and effectiveness in a broader market, lowering the in­
formation processing needs of customer integration (Akter et al., 2022; Hossain et al., 2023). We further demonstrate how integration
of RV and OIPT can provide both relational perspective and technical perspective to explain the direct contribution of SCI to SC
resilience and SC robustness and the moderating role BDA-enabled agility to SCI in improving SC resilience and SC robustness. In the
next sections we elaborate on the constructs used in our framework and the hypothesized relationships between them.

3.1. Supplier integration and SCRM practices

From the relational view, supplier integration improves complementary competitive capabilities that help re-configure, re-align,
and re-organize SC assets, strategies, and operations to make immediate and effective responses. Integration with the supplier could
better orchestrate its resources flexibly to achieve SC resilience (Ambulkar et al., 2015). The synergetic combination of complementary
resources and capabilities creates a greater value than the aggregate of all the individual resources and capabilities of a firm. Moreover,
supplier integration helps a firm develop a shared vision and share resources in a highly dynamic environment (Vanpoucke et al.,
2014). For example, when a SC disruption disturbs normal routines in operations, integrative activities with suppliers promote the
development and cooperation of problem-solving decisions jointly, consequently increasing the visibility and decision-making speed in
coping with the disruption.
Besides, robustness aims to resist change and ensure continuity whenever external crises or catastrophes abruptly happen. Supplier
integration enforces effective self-regulation among inter-firm relationships. Significant development of collaboration with suppliers
with high quality and high on-time delivery ratio could preventively reduce the wastage and redundancy of management efforts,
thereby reducing SC risks (Thun and Hoenig, 2011). Measuring and monitoring supplier performance can also reduce supply-side
uncertainties and ensure efficient deliveries. Moreover, investments in relation-specific assets, such as safety stock inventories of
critical components enabled by supplier integration, allow a continuous flow of material in the case of disruptions (Cohen and Lee,
2020). Thus, supplier integration can detect potential external supply-related negative events early, subsequently disseminating
pertinent information to relevant partners and quickly restoring stability.
H1: Supplier integration positively impacts (a) SC resilience, (b) SC robustness.

3.2. Customer integration and SCRM practices

The extensive integrated information system and technology in support of customer integration are important relation-specific
assets that enable a firm to retrieve and understand customer data in real time and adopt the appropriate operating setting as
needed (Wang et al., 2020). The speed, quantity, and quality of the information flow between a firm and its main customers affect the
SC, where the information spans the amount of customer inventory, customer promotional plans, sales data, and consumption fore­
casts. The visibility of customer demand is essential to developing a SC’s re-configurability, which enables quick recoveries from
disruptions (Xu et al., 2022). Thus, customer integration helps exploit opportunities to enhance responsiveness and flexibility, enabling
better SC resilience.
Customer integration represents high-level availability of quality customer-related information, which could help a firm recognize
changes in demand quickly and coordinate relationships with customers to avoid SC disruptions (Wang et al., 2020). Customer
integration can not only help identify a broad range and amplitudes of demand-related risks on a daily basis but also helps assess future
market trends of different customer needs and preferences. As such, customer integration could help a firm manage regular demand
fluctuations efficiently and keep its normal operations. Furthermore, customer integration could motivate customers to maintain
stability by sustaining customer loyalty and making fewer unexpected changes in orders (Prajogo and Olhager, 2012). Hence, customer
integration leads to better SC robustness.
H2: Customer integration positively impacts (a) SC resilience, (b) SC robustness.

3.3. Moderating role of BDA-enabled agility on supplier integration and SCRM practices

BDA-enabled agility acts as a facilitating role in information and knowledge sharing, business process integration, and organiza­
tional capability development through boundary-spanning collaboration and cooperation with major suppliers to recover from SC
disruptions (Bag et al., 2022). Close relationships influence suppliers to prioritize allocation of limited resources to firms with whom
they have developed long-term relationships in SC disruptions (Manhart et al., 2020). After SC disruptions, BDA-enabled agility an­
alyzes and interprets shared information from the close suppliers to make better decision making on ordering, capacity allocation, and
production/material planning to optimize supply chain processes. In the absence of big data analytical intelligence, firms can integrate
and reconfigure resources obtained through supplier integration efficiently, and resolve conflicts between firms and suppliers to adapt
to rapid changes in the business environment (Qi et al., 2023). Under SC disruptions, firms face increasing cognitive pressure on

6
H. Liu et al. Transportation Research Part E 188 (2024) 103609

resource availability, emergency scheduling, and mitigation tactic formulation. When firms urgently need replenishment of key
components from major suppliers to compensate for disrupted material flows in a short time, BDA-enabled agility helps make an
effective emergency response by anticipating event trends and simulating future scenarios (Baham et al., 2017; Munir et al., 2022).
To keep SC robustness with supplier integration, a firm can leverage its information processing capability to process, organize,
visualize, and analyze information from the major suppliers to generate valuable insights. For example, BDA-enabled agility helps
optimize stocking decisions with suppliers through the application of simple economic order quantity formulas or highly complicated
optimization programs (Chen et al., 2021). If a firm is equipped with BDA-enabled agility through instant messages, business process
digitization, SC management systems, and other modern technologies, it can obtain complete information regarding the delivery
processes that track and trace raw materials from the major suppliers to the firm (Raut et al., 2021). BDA-enabled agility helps firm
keep current with the SC state in disruptions through increased communication frequency and enhanced effectiveness of socialization
with major suppliers (Li et al., 2022b). When supplier integration provides inventory and logistics data from numerous warehouses in
real-time, BDA-enabled agility helps carry out root cause analysis based on these data, allow firms control potential supply chain risks
and provide a safe environment for continuous operations. Thus:
H3a: BDA-enabled agility positively moderates the relationship between supplier integration and SC resilience.
H3b: BDA-enabled agility positively moderates the relationship between supplier integration and SC robustness.

3.4. Moderating role of BDA-enabled agility on customer integration and SCRM practices

SC resilience indicates the capability to recover performance even achieve a new desirable state after a disruption occurs (Faruquee
et al., 2023). When customer integration helps the firm obtain necessary market information to recover the core functionality, BDA-
agility can process these information to generate customer-centric value by anticipating the future trends, customizing products or
services, and introducing suitable offerings (Fosso Wamba et al., 2024; Hossain et al., 2023). BDA-enabled agility helps identify po­
tential demand shifts after a supply chain disruption through social media analytics or digital platform analytics to complement the
integration with existing customers. BDA-enabled agility helps improve visibility into current customer data, (e.g., promotional spend,
point-of-sale data) and find market opportunities for a new profit growth to help firms recover from SC disruptions rapidly.
To keep operational continuity in “new normal” state of the supply chain, BDA-enabled agility can monitor and predict immediate
demand fluctuations accurately which complements information sharing and joint planning with major customers to improve SC
robustness (Bag et al., 2022). When customer integration shares product forecasts and inventory levels which provide insights on
demand constraints imposed by customers, BDA-agility helps address these issues quickly given machine learning and artificial in­
telligence (Akter et al., 2022). Prior studies have indicated that BDA uses data probing to derive better insights than traditional
marketing analytics (Cheng and Shiu, 2023). Under this condition, BDA-enabled agility improves information processing capability to
process, organize, visualize, and analyze information to generate valuable market insights to meet information processing needs of
customer integration to reach an equilibrium point for a robust SC. Thus:
H4a: BDA-enabled agility positively moderates the relationship between customer integration and SC resilience.
H4b: BDA-enabled agility positively moderates the relationship between customer integration and SC robustness.

3.5. SCRM practices and SC performance

We argue that as strategic management activities, SC resilience and SC robustness can affect a firm’s SC performance in significant

BDA-enabled
agility

H3a H4a
H3b H4b
Supply chain
Supplier integration
resilience
H1a

H5a
H1b
Supply chain
H5c performance

H2a H5b

Control variables
Customer Supply chain Internal integration
Disruption impact
integration robustness Environmental dynamism
H2b
Firm size
Ownership type
Industry type

Fig. 1. Research model.

7
 H. Liu et al.
Table 3
Correlation, mean, standard deviation, and marker variable analysis.
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
** ** ** ** ** ** **
[Link] 4.91 1.07 0.84 0.73 0.64 0.54 0.48 0.48 0.37 0.38 0.01 − 0.10 − 0.07 0.61**
[Link] 4.90 1.11 0.73** 0.85 0.59** 0.58** 0.51** 0.51** 0.32** 0.32** 0.01 − 0.19 0.00 0.60**
[Link] resilience 4.96 1.10 0.64** 0.59** 0.82 0.70** 0.57** 0.56** 0.39** 0.40** 0.01 − 0.07 − 0.01 0.69**
[Link] robustness 5.22 1.06 0.54** 0.59** 0.70** 0.92 0.51** 0.52** 0.42** 0.35** − 0.04 − 0.09 0.07 0.66**
[Link]-enabled agility 4.85 1.18 0.48** 0.51** 0.58** 0.51** ¡ 0.41** 0.43** 0.40** − 0.03 − 0.14 0.06 0.58**
[Link] integration 4.94 1.29 0.48** 0.52** 0.57** 0.52** 0.42** 0.96 0.46** 0.46** 0.10 − 0.12 0.13 0.61**
[Link] disruption impact 5.11 1.17 0.38** 0.33** 0.39** 0.42** 0.43** 0.46** 0.84 0.50** 0.11 − 0.14* 0.08* 0.39**
8

[Link] dynamism 4.88 1.06 0.38** 0.32** 0.41** 0.35** 0.41** 0.47** 0.50** 0.79 0.04 − 0.15 0.00 0.44**
[Link] − − 0.02 0.01 0.02 − 0.03 − 0.03 0.10 0.12 0.05 − 0.23** 0.00 0.04
[Link] type − − − 0.10 − 0.18 − 0.06 − 0.08 − 0.13 − 0.11 − 0.13 − 0.14 0.24** − − 0.13 − 0.09
[Link] size − − − 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.07 0.14 0.09 0.01 0.01 − 0.13 − 0.06
[Link] performance 5.09 1.04 0.61** 0.61** 0.69** 0.66** 0.58** 0.62** 0.39** 0.44** 0.05 − 0.08 0.07 0.84
[Link] 3.95 1.78 0.04 − 0.06 − 0.14 − 0.22 − 0.11 0.01 0.13 0.13 − 0.02 0.19* − 0.02 − 0.17

Note: The bold values on the diagonal are the square roots of the AVE.
The adjusted correlations for potential CMV are shown above the diagonal.
*
p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.

Transportation Research Part E 188 (2024) 103609

H. Liu et al. Transportation Research Part E 188 (2024) 103609

ways. Specifically, SC resilience is imperative for a firm to adapt to the changing environment and achieve superior firm performance.
Resilient firms can re-configure and re-align resources and processes based on the environmental setting to provide a sustainable
advantage. SC resilience practices allow a firm to make timely reactions to SC disruptions, thereby quickly minimizing the deterio­
rating effects on SC performance. In fact, a firm that manage a disruption better than its competitors can improve its market position
and generate superior SC performance (Thun and Hoenig, 2011).
Unanticipated operational glitches, such as delivery failures or machine breakdowns, may trigger big disruptions, which in turn
cause poor performance (Baghersad and Zobel, 2021). Robustness is necessary to resist the immediate impacts of SC glitches. Several
recent studies confirm the premise that SC robustness positively impacts business performance (Wieland and Marcus Wallenburg,
2012). Robustness practices, which seek to alleviate the negative effects of probable disruptions characterized by high uncertainty,
embrace anticipation, preparedness, and operational redundancy such as the provision of time, labour, and material excesses in the
production processes to remedy possible disruptions quickly (Cohen and Kouvelis, 2020; Wieland et al., 2013). In the long run,
effective utilization of such SCRM practices can significantly improve firm’s sustainable development and competitive performance.
Thus:
H5a: SC resilience positively impacts SC performance.
H5b: SC robustness positively impacts SC performance.
Stronger SC robustness maintains core operations under normal circumstances regardless of the occurrence of major disruptions
(Tang, 2006). For building better flexibility and absorptivity, SC resilience improve SC performance by promoting SC robustness.
Warning systems, traceability, visibility, and sensing strategies increase the speed and capacity in response to the potential supply
chain risks (Knemeyer et al., 2009). Besides, SC resilience such as multiple alternative supply routes and extra inventory capability
need expensive investments (Cohen et al., 2022). After a supply chain disruption, through the disaster preparedness and early warning
infrastructures developed by SC robustness (i.e., business continuity plan), the firm can substantially reduce the time and investment in
the deployment of resilience (Azadegan et al., 2020). For example, SC alertness can enhance monitoring, thereby achieving a more
adherent, responsive, and efficient resource reconfiguration based on alertness signals (Queiroz et al., 2022). The achievement of SC
resilience requires safety buffer, redundancy, recovery strategies to quickly orchestrate resources for recovery (Faruquee et al., 2023).
Owing to these robustness capabilities, we postulate that SC robustness plays an intervening role in the relationship between SC
resilience and SC performance. Thus:
H5c: SC robustness mediates the relationship between SC resilience and SC performance.
Specifically, based on the relational view, a firm can increasingly establish inter-organizational relationships with suppliers and
customers to leverage external resources to improve resilience and maintain robustness. SC robustness mediates the relationship
between SC resilience and SC performance. From the OIPT perspective, information processing capabilities supported by BDA-enabled
agility could moderate the relationship between SCI and SCRM practices. Fig. 1 illustrates the research model and the inter-related
components.

4. Methodology

4.1. Data and sample

We use data on Chinese firms for our research because China plays an important role in the global supply chain. China’s
manufacturing firms have shown great resilience despite the global economic stagnation (The Economist, 2021). Specifically, we
collaborate with a marketing research company that furnish us with a sample list of 550 firms. These firms are located mainly in the
Yangtze River Delta, where China’s most developed industries are located. After emphasizing the study’s goals and possible impacts,
we invite respondents to respond by referring to a specific SC disruption that had happened during the 12 months before the survey.
Following Bode et al. (2011), Ellis et al. (2010), and Stecke and Kumar (2009), when asking the respondents SC disruption-related
issues, the particular situation anchors that reported supply chain disruptions were triggered by issues such as labor strikes, quality
problems, plant fires, cargo losses, changes in product designs, and bankruptcies. We adopt the methodology of multiple informant
approach to minimize common method bias that could arise from the use of a single source (Zhou and Li, 2012). Specifically, we
distribute the questionnaires to managers from match-paired sources in each sampled firm: managers from departments related to 1)
information systems to provide input to information technology-related constructs, i.e., BDA-enabled agility, and 2) supply chain
operations to provide input to operational constructs, i.e., SCI, SC resilience and SC robustness, and SC performance. We assure the
respondents confidentiality of the collected information. We screen and eliminat the invalid responses. Ultimately, we collect 121
usable match-paired responses from 550 distributed match-paired questionnaires, reflecting a 22 % response rate. Appendix A shows
the sample characteristics. To address non-response bias, we conduct a t-test on the demographic constructs of responding and non-
responding firms. We obtain no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) through the t-test. We further conduct a two-stage
Heckman test to examine the possible sample selection bias as dependent variables are observed for a subsample of a large popula­
tion (Certo et al. 2016, Heckman 1979). We divide our sample firms into two high vs. low groups based on the mean of supplier
integration. We use the Probit model and regress different groups on control variables to compute the LAMBDA of supplier integration
(i.e., the inverse Mills ratio). Similarly, we compute the LAMBDA of customer integration. Then, we regress the SCI variables, control
variables, and LAMBDA of supplier integration and customer integration on SC resilience and SC robustness. The path coefficients of
the LAMBDA of supplier integration and customer integration are insignificantly related to SC resilience (β = 0.118, p > 0.05; β =
-0.210, p > 0.05, respectively) or SC robustness (β = -0.058, p > 0.05; β = 0.046, p > 0.05, respectively). So non-response bias is not a
probable threat.

9
H. Liu et al. Transportation Research Part E 188 (2024) 103609

We use some procedural and statistical methods to further test the possible common method bias (CMB). First, following Podsakoff
et al. (2003), Harman’s one-factor test yields the result that one factor explains 12.2 % of the variance, so CMB is unlikely to be a
serious issue. Besides, the results of the one-factor model through confirmatory factor analysis are χ2(8 1 9) = 3198.46, CFI = 0.495,
TLI = 0.469, and RMSEA = 0.155, all of which suggest a poor model fit. Second, we employe the theoretically unrelated construct in
the research model, i.e., international competition, to assess CMB. This marker variable (MV) assesses international competition in the
industry (Liu et al., 2016). We use the lowest positive correlation (r = 0.01) to adjust the correlations. We find the adjusted and
unadjusted correlations are similar. These results indicate that CMB might not pose a potential threat (Lindell and Whitney, 2001;
Malhotra et al., 2006). In addition, previous research also indicates that significant moderating effects cannot be systematically due to
CMB (Siemsen et al., 2010). As will be seen in the sequel that both of our hypothesized moderating effects are highly significant, CMB
might not be a possible concern in our study.

4.2. Measures

We adapt existing measurement instruments to ensure their content validity in our study. SCI consists of customer and supplier
integration. We use multiple questions to assess the degrees of partnership in information sharing, strategic collaboration, planning,
and product co-development (Wong et al., 2011). SC resilience concerns practices to cope with changes, and respond to and recover
from disruptions (Ambulkar et al., 2015; Brandon-Jones et al., 2014). SC robustness concerns continuity of operations, consumer
demand fulfillment, conformation between performance and targets, and execution of regular functions (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014;
Wieland and Marcus Wallenburg, 2012). We model BDA-enabled agility as second-order reflective constructs with BDA-enabled
sensing and BDA-enabled responding (Chen et al., 2021; Overby et al., 2006). Specifically, we use 1) a four-item scale to capture a
firm’s BDA-enabled sensing capability in terms of new BDA-enabled innovations and trends, application of BDA, new opportunities of
innovative BDA-enabled use, and effective BDA-enabled use; and 2) a three-item scale to capture a firm’s BDA-enabled responding
capability in terms of quickly setting up or scaling up and down the BDA-enabled infrastructure, as well as responding to opportunities
in customer needs, markets, and environments by using BDA (Chen et al., 2022; Grover, 2022). We average the two BDA-enabled
agility components to develop the overall BDA-enabled agility construct. SC performance includes responsiveness to customer
needs, efficiency of the SC process, delivery performance, and customer service level (Gu et al., 2021; Queiroz et al., 2023).
Furthermore, we include some control variables. First, internal integration has been suggested to facilitate organizational opera­
tions and business processes (Wong et al., 2011), which may influence intra-organizational risk management efficiency (Braunscheidel
and Suresh, 2009). Internal integration emphasizes internal responsiveness, and information and physical flows among departments
within the firm, which we measure using a scale adapted from Wong et al. (2011). Second, previous literature has indicated that
disruption impact can influence a firm’s responses to keep stability (Bode et al., 2011). SC disruption impact includes the dimensions
that the SC disruption affects the firm in a short term. Third, increased external market and technological dynamism make a firm more
difficult to predict, prepare for, or effectively develop responses (Azadegan et al., 2013). We measure environmental dynamism on two

Table 4
Hierarchical regression analyses.
SC resilience SC robustness SC performance

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8

Independent variable
SI 0.334** 0.271* 0.129 0.055
CI 0.166 0.068 0.324* 0.228+
Resilience (RES) 0.370**
Robustness (ROB) 0.200+
Moderating variable
BDA-enabled agility 0.286** 0.215*
Interaction effect
SI*BDA-enabled agility 0.318* 0.494**
CI*BDA-enabled agility − 0.355* − 0.521**
Control variable
Internal integration 0.487*** 0.291** 0.283** 0.398*** 0.208* 0.213* 0.487*** 0.227**
SC disruption impact 0.167+ 0.086 0.040 0.215* 0.149 0.129 0.098 − 0.007
Environmental dynamism 0.092 0.075 0.064 0.042 0.049 0.040 0.101 0.059
Firm size − 0.085 − 0.040 − 0.063 0.067 0.093 0.071 0.018 0.036
State-owned firm 0.105 0.067 0.074 0.188+ 0.150 0.181* 0.052 − 0.024
Privately owned firm − 0.001 − 0.010 − 0.017 0.138 0.135 0.133 0.014 − 0.013
Automotive 0.015 − 0.028 − 0.054 − 0.066 − 0.122 − 0.151+ − 0.008 − 0.001
Commodity manufacture − 0.113 − 0.061 − 0.038 − 0.034 0.018 0.026 − 0.073 − 0.024
Electronics − 0.125 − 0.182* − 0.198 0.077 − 0.003 − 0.016 0.128 0.159*
Mechanics 0.057 0.007 − 0.021 0.159+ 0.093 0.060 0.052 − 0.001
Iron and steel 0.097 − 0.021 − 0.035 − 0.006 − 0.035 − 0.043 0.118 0.116+
R2 0.398 0.542 0.611 0.359 0.472 0.544 0.555 0.598
Adjusted R2 0.337 0.486 0.551 0.294 0.408 0.474 0.497 0.536
F value 6.543 9.744 10.198 5.548 7.369 7.768 9.454 9.676

+p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

10
H. Liu et al. Transportation Research Part E 188 (2024) 103609

Fig. 2. The interaction between supplier integration and BDA-enabled agility on SC resilience.

5
4.5
4 Low
BDA-
3.5 enabled
SC robustness

3 agility

2.5
High
2 BDA-
enabled
1.5
agility
1
Low customer High customer
integraion integraion

Fig. 3. Interaction effects of customer integration and BDA-enabled agility on SC robustness.

dimensions: the market and technological dynamism according to Lee et al. (2015). Fourth, we control for firm size, which is measured
using the number of employees in the firm. Larger firms possess more resources while smaller ones (which are not as rich in resources)
may be nimbler in the face of adversity. We divide employee number into six groups. Fifth, we include industry type and ownership
type as dummy control variables.
Except for the dummy control variables, all items are on a 7-point Likert scale. The English version is translated into Chinese by two
researchers from IT and OM.. Furthermore, the Chinese is translated back into English by another researcher that is unfamiliar with
this research. We check the translation of the English text against the original English text to ensure that there are no semantic dis­
crepancies. Appendix B presents the construct items, and the corresponding validity and reliability analyses.

4.3. Measure assessment

In Appendix B, all the squared multiple correlations R2 are between 0.48 and 0.85, above the recommended benchmark of 0.30.
The fit indices, i.e., χ2/df = 1.92; RMSEA = 0.07, CFI = 0.96, IFI = 0.96, NFI = 0.92, and TLI = 0.96, are in acceptable ranges, so
unidimensionality is assured. The scales are all reliable, with Cronbach’s alpha values between 0.80 and 0.94, and composite reliability
between 0.87 and 0.95, which are larger than 0.70. All the measures show high convergent validity. All the standardized factor
loadings of the respective items are larger than 0.70. Besides, the AVE values for all the constructs are larger than 0.5 (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). comparing the square roots of the AVE values and the correlation values among the variables, we see that the former

Table 5
Mediation test.
Indirect effect SE 95 % CI (lower/upper)

SC resilience – SC robustness – SC performance 0.194 0.087 0.022/0.364

Note: Bootstrap resample = 5000. CI = confidence interval.

11
H. Liu et al. Transportation Research Part E 188 (2024) 103609

are higher than the latter (Table 3), demonstrating discriminant validity (Koufteros, 1999). In order to verify the possibility of mul­
ticollinearity, we examine the variance inflation factor (VIF) and find that all the values are below the generally accepted limit of 10.

5. Results

5.1. Hypothesis testing

Following Dong et al. (2017), we employ the Durbin-Wu-Hausman method to address the potential endogeneity issue. Specifically,
we apply the standard Durbin-Wu-Hausman approach to examine the possibility that SC resilience and SC robustness are endogenously
determined by SC performance (Davidson and MacKinnon, 1993). We comput the residuals of SC resilience (Residual_RES) and SC
robustness (Residual_ROB). They represent the portions of SC resilience and SC robustness that remain unexplained by SCI, SC
disruption impact, environmental dynamism, and dummy control variables. We use Residual_RES and Residual_ROB as additional
regressors and re-run the regression model on SC performance. The parameter estimates for the two additional residual regressors are
insignificant (β = -0.313, p > 0.05; β = 0.079, p > 0.05), which indicates that SC resilience and SC robustness are exogenous in our
setting. The R2 statistic from Models 1–8 in Table 4 are approximately 0.5. Overall, the data fits the model well. Models 1, 4, and 7
include the control variables. Models 2 and 5 introduce the integration antecedents of SC resilience and robustness practices. Models 3
and 6 examines the moderating roles of BDA-enabled agility.
Consistent with H1a, supplier integration positively impacts SC resilience (β = 0.334, p < 0.01). Nevertheless, supplier integration
does not significantly affect SC robustness (β = 0.129, p > 0.1), which is in contrast to H1b. For customer integration, the results show a
positive but not significant correlation with SC resilience (β = 0.166, p > 0.1), which does not support H2a. Model 4 shows that the
coefficient between customer integration and SC robustness is positive and significant (β = 0.324, p < 0.05), supporting H2b. We also
compare the path coefficients and measure the significance of the difference (Chin et al., 2003). The effect of supplier integration on SC
resilience is significantly greater than that on SC robustness (t = 14.654, p < 0.001). The path comparison shows that the effect of
customer integration on SC resilience is significantly less than that on SC robustness (t = − 11.1841, p < 0.001).
With respect to the moderating role of BDA-enabled agility, the coefficient for the interaction between supplier integration and
BDA-enabled agility are both positive and significant in Model 3 (β = 0.318, p < 0.05) and in Model 6 (β = 0.494, p < 0.01), supporting
H3a and H3b. The coefficient for the interaction between customer integration and BDA-enabled agility are both negative and sig­
nificant in Model 3 (β = -0.355, p < 0.05) and in Model 6 (β = -0,521, p < 0.01), not supporting H4a and H4b. To interpret the
interaction effects, we plot the interaction effects graphically when the main effect is significant (Hayes and Matthes, 2009). Spe­
cifically, we plot the supplier integration – SC resilience at a low and a high level of BDA-enabled agility in Fig. 2. Supplier integration
and BDA-enabled agility are one standard deviation below and above the average. Fig. 2 depict that firms adopting supplier integration
at a high level of BDA-enabled agility increases SC resilience. Thus, a high level of BDA-enabled agility can be viewed as a complement
to supplier integration in improving SC resilience. Fig. 3, however, show that when BDA-enabled agility is high, customer integration −
SC robustness are negative. A positive effect of customer integration on SC robustness exist at a low-level BDA-enabled agility. Thus, a
high level of BDA-enabled agility can be viewed as a substitution to customer integration in improving SC robustness.
Regarding the relationships between SCRM practices and SC performance, SC resilience has a positive significant effect on SC
performance (β = 0.370, p < 0.01) as proposed by H5a. The link between SC robustness and SC performance is slightly significant (β =
0.200, p < 0.1), supporting H5b. We estimated the indirect effects and 95 % confidence intervals using bias-corrected bootstrapping
procedures suggested by Preacher and Hayes (2008). The indirect effect of SC resilience through SC robustness (estimate = 0.194, 95 %
CI [0.022, 0.364], t = 2.22, p < 0.05) is significant for SC performance, thus providing support for H5c. The results are shown in
Table 5.

6. Discussion

6.1. Discussion of results

Our research reinforces the positive aspects of SCI in enabling SC resilience and SC robustness (Wieland et al., 2013). In particular,
our results demonstrate that supplier integration uniquely promotes SC resilience while customer integration uniquely promotes SC
robustness, and no crossover effect is found. By establishing close linkages and intensively cooperating with the supplier, firms can
acquire a strong backup to compensate for the deficiency induced by supply chain disruptions. Under this condition, available re­
sources from the key supplier facilitate resource management and reconfiguration for firm survival (Ambulkar et al., 2015; Braun­
scheidel and Suresh, 2009). SC resilience which is more related to agility and responsiveness is more likely to be influenced by supplier
integration (Qrunfleh and Tarafdar, 2013; Wieland et al., 2013; Williams et al., 2013). In contrast, the conflict of interest between the
buyer and the supplier may make the supply chain less coordinated and robust in face of supply chain disruptions as vender-managed
inventory (VMI) enabled by supplier integration authorizes the supplier an autonomy to manage inventories (Çetinkaya and Lee,
2000). As such, supplier integration might not strongly improve supply chain robustness as employing process flexibility, holding
finished goods inventory and internal information sharing within the organization can effectively solve glitches and significantly
improve supply chain robustness (Simchi-Levi et al., 2018; Tenhiala and Salvador, 2014). Customer integration provides up-to-date
demand variations information through communication and coordination with major customers (Saldanha et al., 2017). A better
understanding of major customers’ requirements and accurate anticipation of customers’ needs allows a firm to reduce the subsequent
marketing and sales uncertainties. Constant cash flows created by stable market sales offer a solid foundation for smooth internal

12
H. Liu et al. Transportation Research Part E 188 (2024) 103609

operations. In contrast, SC resilience that emphasizes organizational agility and recovery velocity needs more resources and capacities
from upstream support such as labor and materials (Cohen and Kouvelis, 2020; Mackay et al., 2020). Therefore, customer integration
enables a firm to sustain its operations, contributing more to maintaining SC robustness than boosting SC resilience. Our post-hoc
interviews with practical managers also verified these results: “Especially, demand fluctuations often result in a bullwhip effect in a
long term, thus we highly share information with customers to keep SC robustness” (respondent in nut retailing). Besides, “The timely
and sufficient supply of key components is more critical to the recovery of auto production” (respondent in the automobile industry).
Our results suggest that BDA-enabled agility has a distinctive effect on each type of SCI, which, in turn, has significant implications
for SC resilience and SC robustness. We find BDA-enabled agility manifests as a complement for leveraging supplier integration for
improvements in SC resilience and SC robustness, consistent with prior studies that have indicated that BDA-enabled agility can
facilitate the resource orchestration and joint response with major suppliers (Shen and Sun, 2023). Contrary to our hypotheses, we find
that BDA-enabled agility plays a substitutive role with customer integration in improving SC resilience and SC robustness. Probably
because BDA provides accurate predictions in real time and has a stronger effect on performance than traditional marketing analytics
(Cheng and Shiu, 2023). BDA-enabled agility may help develop potential customers instead of depending on limited business from the
existing key customers, firms are apt to adjust their production lines for a new goal or new direction when there may be a decline in
demand for some product portfolio and a surge in demand for others (Bag et al., 2022). This situation shows that in modern supply
chain management, the development of information processing capabilities in line with OIPT is more effective than customer inte­
gration in line with relational view.
Existing literature has suggested that firms could continue operations effectively, i.e., SC robustness, or recover from adverse events
quickly, i.e., SC resilience (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014; El Baz and Ruel, 2021; Knemeyer et al., 2009; Kwak et al., 2018). Consistent
with these studies, SC resilience and SC robustness can both improve SC performance in SC disruptions. Moreover, SC robustness
mediates the relationship between SC resilience and SC performance, consistent with prior studies that have indicated robust systems
have the ability to absorb disruptions up to a critical point, beyond which the system suffers from performance degradation (Mackay
et al., 2020). Although SC resilience allows a firm to swiftly respond to unforeseen problems, the deployment of slack resources may
need invest a heavy effort. SC robustness as a daily basis for operations helps firm stay alert to the supply chain state. Once there is an
abnormality in the supply chain, robustness practices immediately warn managers to take action to reduce the possibility of SC dis­
ruptions (de Vries et al., 2021).

6.2. Theoretical implications

First, researchers have traditionally shed light on the value of SCI in terms of a wide array of organizational and business per­
formance indicators, e.g., delivery within a desired lead time, cost effectiveness, customer satisfaction etc, and found that supplier and
customer integration often have different relationships with performance (Cao and Zhang, 2011; Flynn et al., 2010; Li et al., 2022c).
However, there is ongoing debate on whether highly integrated supply chains are more vulnerable to disruptions (Lin et al., 2021; Liu
and Lee, 2018). By classifying SCI into supplier and customer integration, we find that each SCRM practice is affected uniquely by each
SCI type, thereby shedding light on the relationships between supplier integration, customer integration, and SC resilience and SC
robustness. We attempt to explore the processes and mechanisms through which SCI impacts performance through SC resilience and SC
robustness.
Second, the SCRM literature has emphasized and regarded BDA capabilities as an enabler of anticipation and improvisation in a
highly dynamic environment, especially in the recent COVID-19 context (Munir et al., 2022). What is less understood is how OIPT and
relational view together influence SC resilience and SC robustness. This work is an early attempt to consider the different organiza­
tional information processing mechanisms of BDA-enabled agility when leveraging supplier integration and customer integration in
disruption context (Chen et al., 2021; Ivanov, 2021). By examining the moderating role of BDA-enabled agility in the SCI-SCRM
relationship, we deepen the understanding of the outcomes of firms to transform SCI into enhanced SC resilience and SC robust­
ness depend on their utilization of BDA, which can be adequately and successfully leveraged in concert with specific upstream and
downstream integration. We find BDA-enabled agility in line with OIPT complements supplier integration while substitutes customer
integration in line with relational view in improving SC resilience and SC robustness, which further demonstrates how these two
theories can provide a fresh perspective to explain some complex SCRM issues that are often ignored in practices.
Third, our research contributes to OIPT by establishing a critical understanding of the role of SC robustness in mediating the critical
link between SC resilience and SC performance. There is scant research that identifies the relationship between SC resilience and SC
robustness in improving SC performance (El Baz et al., 2023; Faruquee et al., 2023; Ruel and Baz, 2023). Our findings show the
importance of robustness-focused supply chains, which adds new insights into OIPT − sensing and warning capabilities provide a firm
with spare time to analyze information about the threat and to arrange precautionary measures so that the SC disruption can be
appropriately managed to avoid a negative impact on performance (de Vries et al., 2021). The value of SC resilience on SC performance
depends on the intermediate of SC robustness to deploy risk management infrastructures and emergency preparedness.

13
H. Liu et al. Transportation Research Part E 188 (2024) 103609

6.3. Managerial implications

Operations, logistics, and SC managers should understand the different integration mechanisms that may help promote SC resil­
ience and SC robustness and recognize the importance of achieving organizational BDA-enabled agility to cope with SC disruptions.
Specifically, understanding SC resilience and SC robustness and sustainable performance drivers is an important issue that concerns SC
managers, particularly for a firm in a highly turbulent environment. For example, to overcome the logistics and operations disruptions
and cracks in a SC caused by the pandemic, many firms collaborate with SC partners, adopt BDA tools and SC resilience and SC
robustness and processes, such as American Eagle Outftters (AEO) (Kumar et al., 2021), Jingdong (JD) (Shen and Sun, 2023), and
Maersk (Maersk, 2020). First and foremost, although the planning and execution of SCRM solutions may undermine SC cost efficiency,
our findings offer practical insights for a firm in a SC to sustain performance or even achieve possible “corner beyond” when it en­
counters unpredictable tremendous shocks. The organization should simultaneously pursue SC resilience and SC robustness in today’s
complicated and volatile environment. In particular, managers should build a robustness-focused supply chain to improve SC per­
formance. Second, managers should promote the active collaboration between firms and SC partners, such as information sharing,
joint planning and logistics cooperation (Qi et al., 2023). To reduce SC risk and to deal with the various unexpected and undesirable SC
events efficiently and effectively, a firm can endeavour to exploit external resources and equip itself to more fully reap the benefits of
SCI. Through the integration with suppliers and customers, firms make predictions with demand, supply, and market information
visibility, adapt to market demand and reduce inventory to cope with external undesirable events. Due to the different functional
mechanisms of supplier and customer integration, management should formulate SCI development strategies and ensure that the SC
can cater to the response needs under disruptions. Firms are recommended to build a closer relationship with customers, sense and
respond promptly to the changing demands to sustain SC robustness. Firms should pay more attention to supplier integration in
resource acquisition and operational coordination to enhance SC resilience. Third, some practical examples indicate that only high
levels of BDA are insufficient to achieve SCRM performance for logistics firms (CILT, 2020). BDA-enabled agility should be appro­
priately deployed with external collaboration. Multiple types of external changes can be identified and assessed upon BDA-enabled
sensing, including economic shifts, competitors’ actions, and technological advancements. BDA-enabled responding permits multi­
ple responses, such as postponement or delay, inventory adjustment, and variations of production and distribution capacity utilization.
Firms should exploit fully the coordinative benefits of BDA-enabled agility and supplier integration. For example, management can
foster BDA-enabled agility capabilities to allow the firm to manage inventory successfully and maintain steady supply of materials.
However, independent from the integration with major customers, firms can alternatively use BDA tools to effectively when customer
preferences change in a crisis event. Moreover, firms should economize between BDA-enabled agility and SCI to improve SC resilience
and SC robustness according to the distinctive role of BDA in supplier integration and customer integration.

6.4. Limitation and future research

First of all, we try to explain the impacts of SCI on SC resilience and SC robustness in SC disruption, but SC resilience and SC
robustness explanations are incomplete as external SCI is not the only way to mitigate the adverse impact of disruption. Further
research could broaden the scope of our analysis to include internal risk management strategies, risk management culture, and risk
management structure. Second, there is a limitation of solely considering BDA-enabled capability as technical context for SCI and
future studies should explore the effects of different emerging technologies such as blockchain, artificial intelligence, platform apa­
bilities in SCRM. Third, owing to data constraints, we collect data in China’s Yangtze River Delta area, which omits other countries and
might restrict generalization of our findings. Future studies should aim at covering a wide scope by reaching other regions. Fourth, the
sample size may be not large enough. Future endeavours should overcome the constrained generalization of the results.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Hua Liu: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Data curation. Xiaoping Xu: Writing – review &
editing, Validation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. T.C.E. Cheng: Visualization, Supervision, Conceptualization. Yugang Yu:
Supervision, Conceptualization.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grants from Scientific Research Key Project of Education Department of Anhui Province
(2023AH050043), Innovative Development Research Project of Anhui Province Federation of Social Science (2022CX192), National
Natural Science Foundation of China (72374002, 72171001), and Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province (2108085Y25),
Excellent Youth Research Project of Universities in Anhui Province (2022AH030005), Project of Leading Talent of Anhui Province
(S020218015), Key Project of the Education Department of Anhui Province (SK2020A0041).

14
H. Liu et al. Transportation Research Part E 188 (2024) 103609

Appendix A

Appendix A
Sample characteristics (N = 121)
N Percentage (%)

Ownership
State-owned firm 57 47.1 %
Privately owned firm 28 23.1 %
Others 36 29.8 %

Industry
Automotive 28 23.1 %
Commodity manufacture 14 11.6 %
Electronics 10 8.3 %
Mechanics 7 5.8 %
Iron and steel 9 7.4 %
Others 53 43.8 %

Number of employees
<100 32 26.4 %
100–299 23 19.0 %
300–499 13 10.7 %
500–999 12 9.9 %
1000–1999 5 4.1 %
>=2000 36 29.8 %

Appendix B
Survey items and confirmatory factor analysis results
Construct (source)/indicator Factor Standardized SE t R2
loading loading value

Supplier integration (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.859; CR ¼ 0.906; AVE ¼ 0.708)

Share information to our major suppliers through information technologies. 1 0.78 − − 0.55
Have a high degree of strategic partnership with suppliers. 0.98 0.89 0.12 7.94 0.55
Have a high degree of joint planning to obtain rapid response ordering process (inbound) with 0.94 0.88 0.12 8.12 0.58
suppliers.
Our suppliers are involved in our product development processes. 1.08 0.82 0.13 8.36 0.61
Customer integration (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.871; CR ¼ 0.914; AVE ¼ 0.727)
Have a high level of information sharing with major customers about market information. 1 0.85 − − 0.59
Share information to major customers through information technologies. 1.09 0.82 0.12 8.97 0.61
Have a high degree of joint planning and forecasting with major customers to anticipate demand 1.22 0.91 0.12 10.43 0.79
visibility.
Our customers are involved in our product development processes. 1.19 0.84 0.14 8.64 0.57
SC resilience (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.891; CR ¼ 0.927; AVE ¼ 0.762)
Our supply chain are able to cope with changes brought by the disruptions quickly. 1 0.84 − − 0.56
Our supply chain are able to adapt to the disruptions easily. 1.04 0.92 0.09 11.12 0.69
Our supply chain are able to provide a quick response to the disruptions. 0.94 0.91 0.1 9.44 0.73
Our supply chain would easily recover to its original state or to a more desirable level after 1.03 0.82 0.13 8.18 0.76
disruptions.
SC robustness (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.935; CR ¼ 0.954; AVE ¼ 0.838)
Our supply chain operations would be able to continue as it had before changes occur. 1 0.91 − − 0.85
Our supply chain would still be able to meet customer demand when disruptions occur. 0.97 0.92 0.07 14.58 0.76
Our supply chain would remain effective and sustain even when disruptions occur. 0.99 0.9 0.08 12.87 0.81
Our supply chain would still be able to carry out its regular functions despite some damage done to 0.96 0.93 0.08 15.4 0.79
it.
BDA-enabled sensing (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.897; CR ¼ 0.936; AVE ¼ 0.830)
We track changes in internal and external business environment with BDA. 1 0.95 − − 0.74
We continuously process and interprets information with BDA. 0.95 0.94 0.05 19.17 0.69
We exploit the available opportunities to enhance organizational competitiveness with BDA. 0.9 0.84 0.08 10.61 0.62
BDA-enabled responding (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.830; CR ¼ 0.900; AVE ¼ 0.749)
We apply BDA to explore and respond to emerging opportunities in customer needs, markets and
emerging environmental opportunities (e.g. regulatory/legal changes, economic shifts,
technological advancements).
We use BDA that provides information that help carry out root cause analysis and continuous
improvement to minimize risk.
We renew business strategy based on the information derived via BDA to sustain competitive 1 0.85 − − 0.82
advantage in a highly volatile and complex environment.
0.81 0.9 0.08 9.59 0.56
(continued on next page)

15
H. Liu et al. Transportation Research Part E 188 (2024) 103609

Appendix B (continued )
Construct (source)/indicator Factor Standardized SE t R2
loading loading value

1.02 0.85 0.11 9.13 0.72

Internal integration (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.934; CR ¼ 0.958; AVE ¼ 0.885)
Have a high level of responsiveness within our plant to meet other department’s needs.
Within our plant, we emphasize on information flows among purchasing, inventory management, 1 0.93 − − 0.78
sales, and distribution departments.
Within our plant, we emphasize on physical flows among production, packing, warehousing, and 0.92 0.93 0.06 14.19 0.79
transportation departments.
1.05 0.96 0.06 16.86 0.94
Supply chain disruption impact (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.914; CR ¼ 0.934; AVE ¼ 0.703)
How did the disruption negatively affect (directly or indirectly) the following dimensions in a
short-run?
Procurement costs/Prices for the purchased item. 1 0.73 − − 0.45
Overall efficiency of our operations. 1.21 0.89 0.15 8.23 0.73
Product quality of our final product(s). 1.31 0.88 0.16 8.25 0.73
Responsiveness to customer demands. 1.26 0.89 0.15 8.41 0.77
Delivery reliability (on-time delivery, order accuracy). 1.23 0.86 0.15 8.06 0.69
Sales. 1.07 0.78 0.15 7.15 0.52
Environmental dynamism (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.798; CR ¼ 0.872; AVE ¼ 0.631)
In our business, customers’ product preferences change quite a bit over time. 1 0.79 − − 0.48
New customers have product needs that are different from our existing customers. 0.87 0.8 0.13 6.63 0.5
Our industry is characterized by rapidly changing technology. 1.01 0.83 0.14 7.05 0.58
The production technology changes frequently and sufficiently. 1.13 0.75 0.17 6.67 0.5
SC performance (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.932; CR ¼ 0.945; AVE ¼ 0.710)
Our supply chain has the ability to quickly modify products to meet customers’ requirements. 1 0.79 − − 0.52
Our supply chain allows us to quickly introduce new products into our markets. 1.07 0.82 0.09 11.9 0.56
The length of the supply chain process is getting shorter. 1.1 0.82 0.13 8.4 0.61
We are satisfied with the speediness of the supply chain process. 1.31 0.89 0.14 9.61 0.8
Based on our knowledge of the supply chain process, we think that it is efficient. 1.31 0.89 0.13 9.48 0.78
Our supply chain has an outstanding on-time delivery record. 1.15 0.84 0.13 8.69 0.66
Our supply chain provides high-level customer services. 1.13 0.84 0.13 8.63 0.65
Note: α, Cronbach’s alpha; CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.

References

Akhtar, P., Frynas, J.G., Mellahi, K., Ullah, S., 2019. Big data-savvy teams’ skills, big data-driven actions and business performance. Brit. J. Manage. 30 (2), 252–271.
[Link]
Akter, S., Wamba, S.F., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R., Childe, S.J., 2016. How to improve firm performance using big data analytics capability and business strategy
alignment? Int. J. Product. Econ. 182, 113–131. [Link]
Akter, S., Hani, U., Dwivedi, Y.K., Sharma, A., 2022. The future of marketing analytics in the sharing economy. Ind. Mark. Manag. 104, 85–100. [Link]
10.1016/[Link].2022.04.008.
Ambulkar, S., Blackhurst, J., Grawe, S., 2015. Firm’s resilience to supply chain disruptions: scale development and empirical examination. J. Oper. Manag. 33–34,
111–122. [Link]
Andrade-Rojas, M.G., Kathuria, A., Konsynski, B.R., 2021. Competitive brokerage: how information management capability and collaboration networks act as
substitutes. J. Manage. Inform. Syst. 38 (3), 667–703. [Link]
Arunachalam, D., Kumar, N., Kawalek, J.P., 2018. Understanding big data analytics capabilities in supply chain management: unravelling the issues, challenges and
implications for practice. Transp. Res.: Part E: Logist Transp. Rev. 114, 416–436. [Link]
Azadegan, A., Patel, P.C., Panda, V., 2013. Operational slack and venture survival. Prod. Oper. Manag. 22 (1), 1–18. [Link]
5956.2012.01361.x.
Azadegan, A., Mellat, P.M., Lucianetti, L., Nishant, R., Blackhurst, J., 2020. Supply chain disruptions and business continuity: an empirical assessment. Decis. Sci. 51
(1), 38–73. [Link]
Bag, S., Choi, T.M., Rahman, M.S., Srivastava, G., Singh, R.K., 2022. Examining collaborative buyer-supplier relationships and social sustainability in the “new
normal” era: the moderating effects of justice and big data analytical intelligence. Ann. Oper. Res. 1–46 [Link]
Baghersad, M., Zobel, C.W., 2021. Assessing the extended impacts of supply chain disruptions on firms: an empirical study. Int. J. Product. Econ. 231 [Link]
10.1016/[Link].2020.107862.
Baham, C., Hirschheim, R., Calderon, A.A., Kisekka, V., 2017. An agile methodology for the disaster recovery of information systems under catastrophic scenarios.
J. Manage. Inform. Syst. 34 (3), 633–663. [Link]
Barney, J.B., 2018. Why resource-based theory’s model of profit appropriation must incorporate a stakeholder perspective. Strateg. Manage. J. 39 (13), 3305–3325.
[Link]
Behl, A., Gaur, J., Pereira, V., Yadav, R., Laker, B., 2022. Role of big data analytics capabilities to improve sustainable competitive advantage of msme service firms
during covid-19 – a multi-theoretical approach. J. Bus. Res. 148, 378–389. [Link]
Bhatti, S.H., Ahmed, A., Ferraris, A., Hirwani Wan Hussain, W.M., Wamba, S.F., 2022. Big data analytics capabilities and msme innovation and performance: A double
mediation model of digital platform and network capabilities. Ann. Oper. Res. Doi: 10.1007/s10479-022-05002-w.
Bode, C., Wagner, S.M., Petersen, K.J., Ellram, L.M., 2011. Understanding responses to supply chain disruptions: insights from information processing and resource
dependence perspectives. Acad. Manag. J. 54 (4), 833–856. [Link]
Brandon-Jones, E., Squire, B., Autry, C., Petersen, K.J., 2014. A contingent resource-based perspective of supply chain resilience and robustness. J. Supply Chain
Manag. 50 (3), 55–73. [Link]
Braunscheidel, M.J., Suresh, N.C., 2009. The organizational antecedents of a firm’s supply chain agility for risk mitigation and response. J. Oper. Manag. 27 (2),
119–140. [Link]

16
H. Liu et al. Transportation Research Part E 188 (2024) 103609

Cao, M., Zhang, Q., 2011. Supply chain collaboration: impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. J. Oper. Manag. 29 (3), 163–180. [Link]
10.1016/[Link].2010.12.008.
Cappa, F., Oriani, R., Peruffo, E., McCarthy, I., 2021. Big data for creating and capturing value in the digitalized environment: unpacking the effects of volume,
variety, and veracity on firm performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 38 (1), 49–67. [Link]
Çetinkaya, S., Lee, C.-Y., 2000. Stock replenishment and shipment scheduling for vendor-managed inventory systems. Manag. Sci. 46 (2), 217–232. [Link]
10.1287/mnsc.46.2.217.11923.
Chen, L., Liu, H., Zhou, Z., Chen, M., Chen, Y., 2022. It-business alignment, big data analytics capability, and strategic decision-making: moderating roles of event
criticality and disruption of covid-19. Decis. Support Syst. 113745 [Link]
Chen, D.Q., Preston, D.S., Swink, M., 2021. How big data analytics affects supply chain decision-making: an empirical analysis. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 22 (5), 1224–1244.
[Link]
Cheng, C.C.J., Shiu, E.C., 2023. The relative values of big data analytics versus traditional marketing analytics to firm innovation: an empirical study. Inf. Manage. 60,
103839 [Link]
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L., Newsted, P.R., 2003. A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a monte
carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Inf. Syst. Res. 14 (2), 189–217. [Link]
Choi, T.-M., Wallace, S.W., Wang, Y., 2018. Big data analytics in operations management. Prod. Oper. Manag. 27 (10), 1868–1883. [Link]
poms.12838.
Choi, T.-M., Dolgui, A., Ivanov, D., Pesch, E., 2022. Or and analytics for digital, resilient, and sustainable manufacturing 4.0. Ann. Oper. Res. 310 (1), 1–6. [Link]
org/10.1007/s10479-022-04536-3.
Choksy, U.S., Ayaz, M., Al-Tabbaa, O., Parast, M., 2022. Supplier resilience under the covid-19 crisis in apparel global value chain (gvc): the role of gvc governance
and supplier’s upgrading. J. Bus. Res. 150, 249–267. [Link]
CILT, 2020. Impact of covid-19 on hong kong’s logistics industry. The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport.
Cohen, M.A., et al., 2022. Bespoke supply-chain resilience: the gap between theory and practice. J. Oper. Manag. 68 (5), 515–531. [Link]
joom.1184.
Cohen, M.A., Kouvelis, P., 2020. Revisit of aaa excellence of global value chains: robustness, resilience, and realignment. Prod. Oper. Manag. 30 (3), 633–643. https://
[Link]/10.1111/poms.13305.
Cohen, M.A., Lee, H.L., 2020. Designing the right global supply chain network. M&SOM-Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 22 (1), 15–24. [Link]
msom.2019.0839.
Cui, L., Wu, H., Wu, L., Kumar, A., Tan, K.H., 2022. Investigating the relationship between digital technologies, supply chain integration and firm resilience in the
context of covid-19. Ann. Oper. Res. 1–29 [Link]
Daft, R.L., Macintosh, N.B., 1981. A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of information processing in organizational work units. Adm. Sci. Q.
207–224 [Link]
Davidson, R., MacKinnon, J., 1993. Estimation and inference in econometrics. Oxford University Press, New York.
de Vries, T.A., van der Vegt, G.S., Scholten, K., van Donk, D.P., 2021. Heeding supply chain disruption warnings: when and how do cross-functional teams ensure firm
robustness? J. Supply Chain Manag. [Link]
Dong, M.C., Fang, Y., Straub, D.W., 2017. The impact of institutional distance on the joint performance of collaborating firms: the role of adaptive interorganizational
systems. Inf. Syst. Res. 28 (2), 309–331. [Link]
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Blome, C., Papadopoulos, T., 2019. Big data and predictive analytics and manufacturing performance: integrating
institutional theory, resource-based view and big data culture. Brit. J. Manage. 30 (2), 341–361. [Link]
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Fosso Wamba, S., Roubaud, D., Foropon, C., 2021. Empirical investigation of data analytics capability and organizational
flexibility as complements to supply chain resilience. Int. J. Prod. Res. 59 (1), 110–128. [Link]
Dyer, J.H., Singh, H., 1998. The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23 (4), 660–679.
[Link]
Dyer, J.H., Singh, H., Hesterly, W.S., 2018. The relational view revisited: a dynamic perspective on value creation and value capture. Strateg. Manage. J. 39 (12),
3140–3162. [Link]
Economist, T., 2021. China is the world’s factory, more than ever. De Economist.
El Baz, J., Ruel, S., 2021. Can supply chain risk management practices mitigate the disruption impacts on supply chains’ resilience and robustness? evidence from an
empirical survey in a covid-19 outbreak era. Int. J. Product. Econ. 233 [Link]
El Baz, J., Ruel, S., Ardekani, Z.F., 2023. Predicting the effects of supply chain resilience and robustness on covid-19 impacts and performance: empirical investigation
through resources orchestration perspective. J. Bus. Res. 164, 114025 [Link]
Ellis, S.C., Henry, R.M., Shockley, J., 2010. Buyer perceptions of supply disruption risk: a behavioral view and empirical assessment. J. Oper. Manag. 28 (1), 34–46.
[Link]
Faruquee, M., Paulraj, A., Irawan, C.A., 2023. A typology of supply chain resilience: recognising the multi-capability nature of proactive and reactive contexts. Prod.
Plan. Control 1–21. [Link]
Flynn, B.B., Huo, B., Zhao, X., 2010. The impact of supply chain integration on performance: a contingency and configuration approach. J. Oper. Manag. 28 (1),
58–71. [Link]
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Marketing Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
Fosso Wamba, S., Queiroz, M.M., Wu, L., Sivarajah, U., 2024. Big data analytics-enabled sensing capability and organizational outcomes: assessing the mediating
effects of business analytics culture. Ann. Oper. Res. 333 (2), 559–578. [Link]
Ge, C., Huang, H., Wang, Z., Jiang, J., Liu, C., 2022. Working from home and firm resilience to the covid-19 pandemic. J. Oper. Manag. [Link]
joom.1200.
Grover, V., 2022. Digital agility: responding to digital opportunities. Eur. J. Inform. Syst. 31 (6), 709–715. [Link]
Gu, M., Yang, L., Huo, B., 2021. The impact of information technology usage on supply chain resilience and performance: an ambidexterous view. Int. J. Product.
Econ. 232, 107956 [Link]
Hayes, A.F., Matthes, J., 2009. Computational procedures for probing interactions in ols and logistic regression: Spss and sas implementations. Behav. Res. Methods 41
(3), 924–936. [Link]
Hossain, M.A., Akter, S., Yanamandram, V., Wamba, S.F., 2023. Data-driven market effectiveness: the role of a sustained customer analytics capability in business
operations. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 194 [Link]
Iftikhar, A., Purvis, L., Giannoccaro, I., Wang, Y., 2022. The impact of supply chain complexities on supply chain resilience: the mediating effect of big data analytics.
Prod. Plan. Control 1–21. [Link]
Iftikhar, A., Ali, I., Stevenson, M., 2024. The silver lining of supply chain complexity: building supply chain resilience and robustness through exploitation and
exploration. Supply Chain Manag. 29 (2), 244–259. [Link]
Ivanov, D., 2021. Digital supply chain management and technology to enhance resilience by building and using end-to-end visibility during the covid-19 pandemic.
IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 1–11 [Link]
Jiang, Y., Feng, T., Huang, Y., 2023b. Antecedent configurations toward supply chain resilience: the joint impact of supply chain integration and big data analytics
capability. J. Oper. Manag. [Link]
Jiang, S., Yeung, A.C.L., Han, Z., Huo, B., 2023a. The effect of customer and supplier concentrations on firm resilience during the covid -19 pandemic: resource
dependence and power balancing. J. Oper. Manag. 69 (3), 497–518. [Link]
Kim, Y., Chen, Y.-S., Linderman, K., 2015. Supply network disruption and resilience: a network structural perspective. J. Oper. Manag. 33–34, 43–59. [Link]
10.1016/[Link].2014.10.006.

17
H. Liu et al. Transportation Research Part E 188 (2024) 103609

Klibi, W., Martel, A., Guitouni, A., 2010. The design of robust value-creating supply chain networks: a critical review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 203 (2), 283–293. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2009.06.011.
Knemeyer, A.M., Zinna, W., Eroglu, C., 2009. Proactive planning for catastrophic events in supply chains. J. Oper. Manag. 27 (2), 141–153. [Link]
jom.2008.06.002.
Koufteros, X.A., 1999. Testing a model of pull production: a paradigm for manufacturing research using structural equation modeling. J. Oper. Manag. 17 (4),
467–488. [Link]
Kumar, R., Pacchia, M.L., Milutinovic, A.S.J., 2021. Navigating the retail storm through supply chain agility. McKinsey Quarterly.
Kumar, M., Raut, R.D., Gunasekaran, A., Venkateshwarlu, M., Choubey, V.K., 2023. Developing supply chain capabilities through digitalization and viability for
controlling the ripple effect. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 1–17 [Link]
Kwak, D.-W., Seo, Y.-J., Mason, R., 2018. Investigating the relationship between supply chain innovation, risk management capabilities and competitive advantage in
global supply chains. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 38 (1), 2–21. [Link]
Lavie, D., 2006. The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: an extension of the resource-based view. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31 (3), 638–658. [Link]
10.5465/amr.2006.21318922.
Lee, O.-K., Sambamurthy, V., Lim, K.H., Wei, K.K., 2015. How does it ambidexterity impact organizational agility? Inf. Syst. Res. 26 (2), 398–417. [Link]
10.1287/isre.2015.0577.
Li, L., Lin, J., Ouyang, Y., Luo, X., 2022a. Evaluating the impact of big data analytics usage on the decision-making quality of organizations. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Chang. 175 [Link]
Li, L., Wang, Z., Ye, F., Chen, L., Zhan, Y., 2022b. Digital technology deployment and firm resilience: evidence from the covid-19 pandemic. Ind. Mark. Manag. 105,
190–199. [Link]
Li, L., Gong, Y., Wang, Z., Liu, S., 2023a. Big data and big disaster: a mechanism of supply chain risk management in global logistics industry. Int. J. Oper. Prod.
Manage. [Link]
Li, S., Huo, B., Han, Z., 2022c. A literature review towards theories and conceptual models of empirical studies on supply chain integration and performance. Int. J.
Product. Econ. [Link]
Li, S., Liu, Y., Su, J., Luo, X., Yang, X., 2022d. Can e-commerce platforms build the resilience of brick-and-mortar businesses to the covid-19 shock? an empirical
analysis in the chinese retail industry. Electron. Commer. Res. [Link]
Li, S., Xu, T., Park, K.C., Kang, M., 2023b. The effect of supply chain collaboration on firms’ risk management under technology turbulence. Prod. Plan. Control 1–16.
[Link]
Li, X., Zhao, X., Lee, H.L., Voss, C., 2023c. Building responsive and resilient supply chains: lessons from the covid-19 disruption. J. Oper. Manag. 69 (3), 352–358.
[Link]
Lin, Y., Fan, D., Shi, X., Fu, M., 2021. The effects of supply chain diversification during the covid-19 crisis: evidence from chinese manufacturers. Transp. Res.: Part e:
Logist. Transp. Rev. 155 [Link]
Lin, J., Fan, Y., 2024. Seeking sustainable performance through organizational resilience: examining the role of supply chain integration and digital technology usage.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 198, 123026 [Link]
Lin, S., Lin, J., Han, F., Luo, X., 2022. How big data analytics enables the alliance relationship stability of contract farming in the age of digital transformation. Inf.
Manage. 59 (6) [Link]
Lin, J., Lin, S., Benitez, J., Luo, X.R., Ajamieh, A., 2023. How to build supply chain resilience: the role of fit mechanisms between digitally-driven business capability
and supply chain governance. Inf. Manage. [Link]
Lindell, M.K., Whitney, D.J., 2001. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 (1), 114–121. [Link]
10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114.
Liu, C.L., Lee, M.Y., 2018. Integration, supply chain resilience, and service performance in third-party logistics providers. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 29 (1), 5–21. https://
[Link]/10.1108/ijlm-11-2016-0283.
Liu, H., Wei, S., 2022. Leveraging supply chain disruption orientation for resilience: the roles of supply chain risk management practices and analytics capability. Int.
J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 52 (9/10), 771–790. [Link]
Liu, H., Wei, S., Ke, W., Wei, K.K., Hua, Z., 2016. The configuration between supply chain integration and information technology competency: a resource
orchestration perspective. J. Oper. Manag. 44 (1), 13–29. [Link]
Mackay, J., Munoz, A., Pepper, M., 2020. Conceptualising redundancy and flexibility towards supply chain robustness and resilience. J. Risk Res. 23 (12), 1541–1561.
[Link]
Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S., Patil, A., 2006. Common method variance in is research: a comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Manag.
Sci. 52 (12), 1865–1883. [Link]
Manhart, P., Summers, J.K., Blackhurst, J., 2020. A meta-analytic review of supply chain risk management: assessing buffering and bridging strategies and firm
performance. J. Supply Chain Manag. 56 (3), 66–87. [Link]
Maria Jesus Saenz, P., Xenophon Koufteros, D., Hohenstein, N.-O., Feisel, E., Hartmann, E., Giunipero, L., 2015. Research on the phenomenon of supply chain
resilience. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 45(1/2), 90-117. Doi: 10.1108/ijpdlm-05-2013-0128.
Maroufkhani, P., Tseng, M.-L., Iranmanesh, M., Ismail, W.K.W., Khalid, H., 2020. Big data analytics adoption: determinants and performances among small to
medium-sized enterprises. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 54 [Link]
Messina, D., Barros, A.C., Soares, A.L., Matopoulos, A., 2020. An information management approach for supply chain disruption recovery. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 31
(3), 489–519. [Link]
Mikalef, P., Boura, M., Lekakos, G., Krogstie, J., 2019. Big data analytics capabilities and innovation: the mediating role of dynamic capabilities and moderating effect
of the environment. Brit. J. Manage. 30 (2), 272–298. [Link]
Munir, M., Jajja, M.S.S., Chatha, K.A., Farooq, S., 2020. Supply chain risk management and operational performance: the enabling role of supply chain integration.
Int. J. Product. Econ. 227 [Link]
Munir, M., Jajja, M.S.S., Chatha, K.A., 2022. Capabilities for enhancing supply chain resilience and responsiveness in the covid-19 pandemic: exploring the role of
improvisation, anticipation, and data analytics capabilities. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 42 (10), 1576–1604. [Link]
Overby, E., Bharadwaj, A., Sambamurthy, V., 2006. Enterprise agility and the enabling role of information technology. Eur. J. Inform. Syst. 15 (2), 120–131. https://
[Link]/10.1057/[Link].3000600.
Patrucco, A.S., Marzi, G., Trabucchi, D., 2023. The role of absorptive capacity and big data analytics in strategic purchasing and supply chain management decisions.
Technovation. [Link]
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903. [Link]
Prajogo, D., Olhager, J., 2012. Supply chain integration and performance: the effects of long-term relationships, information technology and sharing, and logistics
integration. Int. J. Product. Econ. 135 (1), 514–522. [Link]
Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F., 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods
40 (3), 879–891. [Link]
Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K., Saunders, C.S., 2005. Information processing view of organizations: an exploratory examination of fit in the context of
interorganizational relationships. J. Manage. Inform. Syst. 22 (1), 257–294. [Link]
Qi, Y., Wang, X., Zhang, M., Wang, Q., 2023. Developing supply chain resilience through integration: an empirical study on an e-commerce platform. J. Oper. Manag.
69 (3), 477–496. [Link]
Qrunfleh, S., Tarafdar, M., 2013. Lean and agile supply chain strategies and supply chain responsiveness: the role of strategic supplier partnership and postponement.
Supply Chain Manag. 18 (6), 571–582. [Link]

18
H. Liu et al. Transportation Research Part E 188 (2024) 103609

Queiroz, M.M., Fosso Wamba, S., Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J., Machado, M.C., 2022. Supply chain resilience in the uk during the coronavirus pandemic: a resource
orchestration perspective. Int. J. Product. Econ. 245, 108405 [Link]
Queiroz, M.M., Wamba, S.F., Raut, R.D., Pappas, I.O., 2023. Does resilience matter for supply chain performance in disruptive crises with scarce resources? Brit. J.
Manage. [Link]
Raut, R.D., Mangla, S.K., Narwane, V.S., Dora, M., Liu, M., 2021. Big data analytics as a mediator in lean, agile, resilient, and green (larg) practices effects on
sustainable supply chains. Transp. Res.: Part e: Logist. Transp. Rev. 145 [Link]
Ruel, S., Baz, J.E., 2023. Disaster readiness’ influence on the impact of supply chain resilience and robustness on firms’ financial performance: a covid-19 empirical
investigation. Int. [Link]. Res. 61 (8), 2594–2612. [Link]
Saldanha, T.J., Mithas, S., Krishnan, M.S., 2017. Leveraging customer involvement for fueling innovation: the role of relational and analytical information processing
capabilities. MIS Q. 41 (1), 267–286.
Schoenherr, T., Swink, M., 2012. Revisiting the arcs of integration: cross-validations and extensions. J. Oper. Manag. 30 (1–2), 99–115. [Link]
jom.2011.09.001.
Sharma, P., Tiwari, S., Choi, T.-M., Kaul, A., 2022. Big data analytics for crisis management from an information processing theory perspective: a multimethodological
study. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 1–15 [Link]
Shen, Z.M., Sun, Y., 2023. Strengthening supply chain resilience during covid-19: a case study of jd. Com. J. Oper. Manag. 69 (3), 359–383. [Link]
joom.1161.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., Oliveira, P., 2010. Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organ. Res. Methods 13 (3),
456–476. [Link]
Simchi-Levi, D., Wang, H., Wei, Y., 2018. Increasing supply chain robustness through process flexibility and inventory. Prod. Oper. Manag. 27 (8), 1476–1491.
[Link]
Singh, N., 2022. Developing business risk resilience through risk management infrastructure: the moderating role of big data analytics. Inf. Syst. Manage. 39 (1),
34–52. [Link]
Squire, B., Cousins, P.D., Brown, S., 2009. Cooperation and knowledge transfer within buyer-upplier relationships: the moderating properties of trust, relationship
duration and supplier performance. Brit. J. Manage. 20 (4), 461–477. [Link]
Srinivasan, R., Swink, M., 2015. Leveraging supply chain integration through planning comprehensiveness: an organizational information processing theory
perspective. Decis. Sci. 46 (5), 823–861. [Link]
Srinivasan, R., Swink, M., 2017. An investigation of visibility and flexibility as complements to supply chain analytics: an organizational information processing
theory perspective. Prod. Oper. Manag. 27 (10), 1849–1867. [Link]
Stecke, K.E., Kumar, S., 2009. Sources of supply chain disruptions, factors that breed vulnerability, and mitigating strategies. J. Mark. Channels 16 (3), 193–226.
[Link]
Tenhiala, A., Salvador, F., 2014. Looking inside glitch mitigation capability: The effect of intraorganizational communication channels. Decis. Sci. 45(3), 437-466.
[Link] 10.1111/Deci.12076.
Thun, J.-H., Hoenig, D., 2011. An empirical analysis of supply chain risk management in the german automotive industry. Int. J. Product. Econ. 131 (1), 242–249.
[Link]
Vanpoucke, E., Vereecke, A., Wetzels, M., 2014. Developing supplier integration capabilities for sustainable competitive advantage: a dynamic capabilities approach.
J. Oper. Manag. 32 (7–8), 446–461. [Link]
Vanpoucke, E., Vereecke, A., Muylle, S., 2017. Leveraging the impact of supply chain integration through information technology. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 37 (4),
510–530. [Link]
Verghese, A.J., Koufteros, X., Polyviou, M., Jia, X., 2022. In pursuit of supplier resilience: the explanatory role of customer leadership style. Transp. Res.: Part E:
Logist. Transp. Rev. 159 [Link]
Wamba, S.F., Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., 2020. The performance effects of big data analytics and supply chain ambidexterity: the moderating effect of
environmental dynamism. Int. J. Product. Econ. 222 [Link]
Wang, Y., Hong, A., Li, X., Gao, J., 2020. Marketing innovations during a global crisis: a study of china firms’ response to covid-19. J. Bus. Res. 116, 214–220. https://
[Link]/10.1016/[Link].2020.05.029.
White, A., Daniel, E.M., Mohdzain, M., 2005. The role of emergent information technologies and systems in enabling supply chain agility. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 25 (5),
396–410. [Link]
Wieland, A., Marcus Wallenburg, C., 2012. Dealing with supply chain risks. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 42 (10), 887–905. [Link]
09600031211281411.
Wieland, A., Töyli, H.L., Lauri Oja, J., Marcus Wallenburg, C., 2013. The influence of relational competencies on supply chain resilience: a relational view. Int. J. Phys.
Distrib. Logist. Manag. 43 (4), 300–320. [Link]
Williams, B.D., Roh, J., Tokar, T., Swink, M., 2013. Leveraging supply chain visibility for responsiveness: the moderating role of internal integration. J. Oper. Manag.
31 (7–8), 543–554. [Link]
Wong, C.Y., Boon-itt, S., Wong, C.W.Y., 2011. The contingency effects of environmental uncertainty on the relationship between supply chain integration and
operational performance. J. Oper. Manag. 29 (6), 604–615. [Link]
Wu, L., Hitt, L., Lou, B., 2020. Data analytics, innovation, and firm productivity. Manag. Sci. 66 (5), 2017–2039. [Link]
Xu, D., Huo, B., Sun, L., 2014. Relationships between intra-organizational resources, supply chain integration and business performance. Ind. Manage. Data Syst. 114
(8), 1186–1206. [Link]
Xu, X., Sethi, S.P., Chung, S.H., Choi, T.M., 2022. Reforming global supply chain management under pandemics: the great-3rs framework. Prod. Oper. Manag. https://
[Link]/10.1111/poms.13885.
Zhao, G., Feng, T., Wang, D., 2015. Is more supply chain integration always beneficial to financial performance? Ind. Mark. Manag. 45, 162–172. [Link]
10.1016/[Link].2015.02.015.
Zhao, K., Zuo, Z., Blackhurst, J.V., 2019. Modelling supply chain adaptation for disruptions: an empirically grounded complex adaptive systems approach. J. Oper.
Manag. 65 (2), 190–212. [Link]
Zhou, K.Z., Li, C.B., 2012. How knowledge affects radical innovation: knowledge base, market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strateg.
Manage. J. 33 (9), 1090–1102. [Link]

19