Natural disasters, PC supply chain and corporate performance

Abstract

Purpose -This paper provides quantitative evidence of natural disasters' effect on corporate performance and studies the mechanisms through which the supply chain moderates and mediates the link. Design/methodology/approach -Using two major natural disasters as quasiexperiment, namely the 2011 Japanese earthquake-tsunami (JET) and Thai flood (TF), and data over the period 2010Q1-2013Q4, effect of these events on end assemblers' performance is studied, with a focus on the personal computer (PC) supply chain. The moderating influence of delivery and sourcing -as supply chain flexibility and agility -are examined through end assemblers' and suppliers' inventory. The suppliers' mediating role is captured as disruption in obtaining PC components through their sales. Findings -Only JET had any negative effect, further quantified as short-term and long-term. The TF instead portrays an insignificant but positive aftermath, which is construed as showing learning from experience and adaptability following JET. Inventory matters, but differently for the two events, and suppliers only exhibit a moderating influence on the assemblers' disaster-performance link. Originality/value -Natural disasters, as catastrophic vulnerabilities, are distinct from other vulnerabilities in that they are hard to predict and have significant impact. Since little is known about the impact of natural disasters on firm performance and how supply chain mechanisms moderate or mediate their impact, they should be distinctly modelled and empirically studied from other vulnerabilities. This paper sheds light on supply chain resilience to such events with the role of dynamic capabilities.

Ambiguity and its coping mechanisms in supply chains lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic and natural disasters

“…The former is normally manageable through routine business functions and processes, while the latter can lead to unexpected disruptions to normal business operations (Fiksel, 2015, p. 12). In the extreme there is the highly unpredictable but impactful events that are disruptive to the supply chain and business functions of an enterprise (Gunessee et al, 2018;Knemeyer et al, 2009;Simchi-Levi et al, 2014). through its 'lack of clarity' due to possible multiple sometimes conflicting meanings that can be given to the data; or through the newness of the situation such as lack of signals (Budner, 1962).…”

Where is supply chain resilience research heading? A systematic and co-occurrence analysis

“…In total, 141 studies from our sample (155) implied four drivers of resistance, comprising: agility, visibility, robustness, and velocity (Table I). Three of the four drivers are widely discussed in the extant literature with considerable empirical and theoretical work, including: visibility (49 studies e.g., Peck, 2005;Ivanov and Sokolov, 2013;Dubey et al 2018b), robustness (43 studies e.g., Brandon-Jones et al, 2014;Gunessee et al, 2018), and agility (40 studies e.g., Blackhurst et al, 2005;Wieland and Wallenburg, 2013;Yang and Hsu, 2018). However, the last driver-velocity (9 studies e.g., Peck, 2005;Fiksel et al, 2015;Kwak et al, 2018)-has received scant attention in terms of the total number of studies and empirical validation, alike.…”

Achieving supply chain resilience: the role of supply chain ambidexterity and supply chain agility

“…This study contributes to research streams in the areas as diverse as DCV, SC-Ambidexterity and SC-Resilience. Prior research has shown that dynamic capabilities are necessary to achieve SC-Resilience (Gunessee et al , 2018). Thus, by suggesting a supply chain-related capability (i.e.…”