PurposeThe objective of this paper is to conceptualise supply chain resilience (SCRES) and to identify and explore empirically its relationship with the related concepts of supply chain vulnerability (SCV) and supply chain risk management (SCRM).Design/methodology/approachFrom a review of the literature the conceptual domain of SCRES is defined and the proposed relationships with SCRM and SCV are derived. Data from a longitudinal case study with three supply chains are presented to explore the relationship between the concepts in the context of the global financial crisis.FindingsThe empirical data provide support for a positive impact of supply chain risk (SCR) effect and knowledge management on SCRES and from SCRES on SCV. SCR effect and knowledge management seem to enhance the SCRES by improving the flexibility, visibility, velocity and collaboration capabilities of the supply chain. Thereby, they decrease the SCV in a disruptive risk event. The positive effects manifest themselves in upstream supplier networks of supply chains as well as in distribution channels to the customers.Research limitations/implicationsThe recession caused by the financial crisis has illustrated the importance of SCRES in today's interdependent global economy vividly. However, the concept is still in its infancy and has not received the same attention as its counterparts SCRM and SCV. The study confirms the benefit of resilient supply chains and outlines future research needs.Practical implicationsThe paper identifies which supply chain capabilities can support the containment of disruptions and how these capabilities can be supported by effective SCRM.Originality/valueTo date, there has been no empirical study which has investigated supply chain resilience in a disruptive global event.

Defining and improving customer experience is a growing priority for market research because experience is replacing quality as the competitive battleground for marketing. Service quality is an outgrowth of the total quality management (TQM) movement of the 1980s and suffers from that movement's focus on the provider rather than the value derived by customers. Researchers today state that customer experience is generated through a longer process of company–customer interaction across multiple channels, generated through both functional and emotional clues. Our research with practitioners indicates that most firms use customer satisfaction, or its derivative the Net Promoter Score, to assess their customers' experiences. We question this practice based on the conceptual gap between these measures and the customer experience. In IJMR 53, 6 (2011), we introduce a new measure appropriate for the modern conceptualisation of customer experience: the customer experience quality (EXQ) scale. In this article we extend that work and compare EXQ's predictive power with that of customer satisfaction. We establish that EXQ better explains and predicts both, loyalty and recommendations, than customer satisfaction.

A significant body of research concludes that stable beliefs of perceived consumer effectiveness lead to sustainable consumption choices. Consumers who believe that their decisions can significantly affect environmental and social issues are more likely to behave sustainably. Little is known, however, about how perceived consumer effectiveness can be increased. We find that feelings of guilt and pride, activated by a single consumption episode, can regulate sustainable consumption by affecting consumers' general perception of effectiveness. This paper demonstrates the impact that guilt and pride have on perceived consumer effectiveness and shows how this effect rests on the ability of these emotions to influence perceptions of agency. After experiencing guilt or pride, consumers see themselves as the cause of relevant sustainability outcomes. The process of causal attribution associated with these emotions influences consumers' use of neutralization techniques. Through the reduction in consumers' ability to neutralize their sense of personal responsibility, guilt and pride positively influence perceived consumer effectiveness. The inability to rationalize-away their personal responsibility, persuades consumers that they affect sustainability outcomes through their decisions. The research advances our understanding of sustainable consumption and identifies a new avenue for the regulation of individual consumer behavior that has significant implications for the development of sustainable marketing initiatives.

Marketing theory and practice evolved dramatically through a series of transformations from products to services and, recently, customer experiences. Each stage has its own perspective on marketing's purpose, the nature of customer value, and measurements that calibrate performance and guide managerial decisions. The latter is of particular interest to market researchers. Measurement (research) typically lags behind changes in marketing theory due to institutional factors and the time it takes for new practices to diffuse. The authors posit that firms still measure customer experience against criteria more suited to evaluating product and service marketing. Research practice seems rooted in 1990s notions of service quality, itself an outgrowth of total quality management (TQM) originating in manufacturing during the 1980s. The authors argue that market researchers will serve their organisations and customers better if they take an active role in updating the customer experience measurement commensurate with advances in the conceptualisation of that which firms offer customers.

A growing body of literature documents the important role played by moral outrage or moral anger in stakeholders' reactions to cases of corporate social irresponsibility. Existing research focuses more on the consequences of moral outrage than a systematic analysis of how appraisals of irresponsible corporate behavior can lead to this emotional experience. In this paper, we develop and test, in two field studies, an extended model of moral outrage that identifies the cognitions that lead to, and are associated with, this emotional experience. This research contributes to the existing literature on reactions to corporate social irresponsibility by explaining how observers' evaluation of irresponsible corporate behavior leads to reactions of moral anger. The paper also helps clarify the difference between moral outrage and other types of anger and offers useful insights for managers who have to confront public outrage following cases of irresponsible corporate behavior. Finally, the analysis of the causes of stakeholders' anger at irresponsible corporations opens important avenues for future research that are presented in the paper.