top of page

COVID-19 Effects on Supply Chain, Information, Inventory and Risk Managements: Literature Review

1. Introduction

Because of the existence of the Coronavirus, the whole corporate world has been and is now entirely halted, with specific problems confronting governments to re-invent the business wheel once more. The Coronavirus, also known as COVID-19, is a novel and highly contagious illness that has been labeled a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) (WHO, 2020). COVID-19 is a novel viral strain discovered in 2019 that has never been before detected by humans (WHO, 2020). This pandemic has resulted in a continuing outbreak of viral pneumonia over the world, necessitating the declaration of a worldwide public health emergency (Zhu et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020). The genesis of COVID-19 was explicitly recognized and reported in December 2019 in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, and was followed by a rapid spread throughout the area and to other areas of China (Zhu et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2020).

While COVID-19 had a significant detrimental impact on the world economy, it also gave birth to and underlined the necessity of digitalisation. According to (Oldekop et al., 2020), the pandemic has dramatically advanced digitisation across several industries and has greatly aided in the reduction of COVID-19 dissemination. They also stated that online work and digitally organized logistics had lessened the harmful effects of COVID-19. The quantity of information exchanged by organizations and governments across numerous digital platforms, on the other hand, presents the risk of privacy infractions or even political monitoring.

The focus of the discussion about COVID-19-related SC disruptions has shifted several times: from panic buying (Prentice et al., 2020) to safety procedures for securing staff who work in SC functions and customers (Aday & Aday, 2020), to localizing the SC (Zhu et al., 2020), to digitalization (Cai & Luo, 2020)and now to vaccine distribution (Kumar et al., 2020; Rastegar et al., 2021; Sinha et al., 2021).Significant research on SC interruptions has been released under COVID-19. COVID-19's reach and amplitude are immense – considerably higher than any other SC disruption in recent decades – so it's no surprise that scholars have paid close attention to it. Even though there is a vast volume of literature on SC risk management, it is expected to develop again as a result of COVID-19, causing substantial changes in the SC risk management environment.

The purpose of this study is to review the literature on SCs that have been disrupted, particularly during the COVID-19 epidemic. This research looks at two key tactics that have had a substantial impact on SC operations throughout the world in the battle against the virus; continuous social separation measures and lockdowns. Almost every country – whether badly affected by the virus or not – has taken these steps to prevent the virus from spreading further. Finally, the goal of this research is to provide information to academic researchers, companies, and policymakers on what has been explored in the literature thus far.

1.1. Broken Supply Chains

Disruption is defined as an occurrence that occurs unexpectedly and has a significant influence on society, disrupting routine operations and resulting in losses to life, property, and the environment (Albertzeth et al., 2020; Kaur & Singh, 2019). Natural calamities like as storms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, and landslides have had an impact on global SCs. According to the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, around 400 natural disasters occurred in 2019, resulting in over 11,000 deaths and affecting 95 million people. Asia, as the global production hub, bore the brunt of the damage, with nearly 40% of the catastrophes happening there. The rising frequency of catastrophes that interrupt supply chains has piqued people's interest in risk management (Heckmann & Nickel, 2017).

Global SCs have exposed companies and economies to hazards that extend beyond national boundaries. The world was unprepared to deal with a pandemic like COVID-19, unlike earlier natural and man-made tragedies (Yu & Aviso, 2020). SC disruptions are defined as significant failures in the production process that affect end-user activity. This viewpoint is backed up by who defined disruption as any major breakdown in a SC node between production and consumption activities that can occur at any point throughout the production flow. In a similar vein, (Araz et al., 2020) claimed that coronavirus-related disturbances had resulted in a significant worldwide catastrophe, with several global SCs being broken.

In the literature, supply chain disruptions have been extensively discussed, and various frameworks and mitigation strategies have been proposed. To deal with supply chain disruptions, (Kleindorfer & Saad, 2005) developed a framework of joint activities and mitigation strategies. Postponement, strategic stock, and a flexible supply base are among the techniques advocated by (Tang, 2006) to deal with supply chain interruptions. Better supply network flexibility, according to (Skipper & Hanna, 2009), lowers the negative effects of supply chain interruptions. In coping with supply chain risks, advise for the use of flexibility. Flexibility may be achieved on the supply side by using various suppliers, on the demand side by using delay and price strategies, and on the process side by using flexible production techniques, for example. Redundancy and adaptability were recognized as two major categories, based on how each lessens the detrimental impact of such disturbance on the SC.

With the global spread of COVID-19, there has been a lot of talk about supply chain disruptions. (Handfield et al., 2020) discovered that COVID-19 responses caused a bullwhip effect on a never-before-seen scale in the industrial sector, and they utilized the constructal law of physics to lead future global SCs. (Rapaccini et al., 2020) created a four-stage crisis management approach (calamity, fast & dirty, restart, and adapt) that manufacturing organizations may use to traverse the pandemic and strengthen their positions thereafter in significant research. (Ivanov & Dolgui, 2019) looked at two important views in SCD: the ripple impact and resilience and came up with a methodology for minimizing and recovering from disruption risks. Their studies revealed that SCs must be stable, robust, and resilient in order to preserve fundamental features and assure execution and react to future shocks.

SCs are important drivers of sustainable production all around the world. As a result, a disruption in one nation might have an impact on production industries in other countries along global SCs. These studies show that SCs throughout the world must work together during disruptions (whether pandemics, man-made catastrophes, or natural disasters) to guarantee resilience during and after these eve

2. Methodology

A systematic literature review (SLR) gathers data on a specific topic that meets pre-determined eligibility criteria and answers pre-formulated research objectives (Mengist et al., 2020). The SLR is a strategy for summarizing and analyzing existing research in a certain topic of study that is both efficient and trustworthy. Recently, SLRs have been effectively applied in the SC setting (Golan et al., 2020). The use of the SLR approach in these and other notable studies demonstrates that it is a systematic procedure that is regarded a thorough means of conducting literature reviews.

The research methodology is divided into four stages: identification and planning, execution, selection, and synthesis and analysis. The scope of the study, review process, relevant databases, and selection criteria are all determined during the identification and planning stage. The scope of this research comprises publications published in the last several years that are relevant to the research issue. The next step is to put the protocols into action, which entails obtaining articles from the selected databases using key search phrases. Articles are picked in the selection step based on the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Finally, for additional debate and analysis, the penultimate stage collects structural information from the selected articles.

The publications were featured to show the current level of SCD research, particularly during the COVID-19 epidemic. The review revealed that this topic of research has drawn a large number of writers, with more articles on various aspects of SCDs being published based on the author's interests and research area. Following the review, 50 articles were chosen for analysis, with 40 of them being given in Table 1 and the remainder being utilized to supplement the discussion throughout the study. The databases ScienceDirect, Emerald Insight, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis, and Google Scholar were utilized to find papers based on the study topic's key phrases.

2.1. Literature search and selection strategy

The sample is generated through the following steps:

Step 1: Define the research scope

This study examines studies on integration decisions and COVID-19 effects on SC.

Step 2: Determine the required characteristics for primary studies.

1. Research related to COVID-19 effects on SC can be included.

2. Other then SCM, inventory management, information management and risk management excluded

3. Research topics that are not relevant to the logistics excluded

4. Research in English with a publication date from 2020 to 2022 can be retained.

5. Article must published in high ranked journals

Step 3: Retrieve samples of potentially relevant literature.

The ScienceDirect, Emerald Insight, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis, and Google Scholar are used as the database in this review. To implement these criteria defined in Step 2, I restrict the period within the years range from 2020 to 2022. I used the initial keywords set gathered from the topics of previous literature reviews as the starter of the search. The papers in the initial searching results are analyzed and some keywords are extracted from the initial search result to refine the keywords list. The refined keywords set are listed in Table 2.

Step 4: Select pertinent literature.

In this step, the inclusion and exclusion criteria listed in Step 2 are applied. Relevant literature is selected and classified according to the review framework. A total of 657 publications were selected. Step 5: Synthesize literature.

Literature is synthesized and examined in the following sections.(Zhen & Li, 2022)

3. Debate

The content analysis was used to categorize the included research, and the results were exciting. First, all publications focused on COVID-19's impact, pandemic-related SCDs, or the effects of lockdowns and social isolation during COVID-19 (especially on SCs for food and other essential needs). Selected papers (Arora et al., 2020; Hohenstein, 2022; Kumar et al., 2020; Mollenkopf et al., 2020; Queiroz et al., 2020; Shahin et al., 2022) used literature reviews or conceptual models to present their research on COVID-19 and SCs, technologies, food, lockdowns.

Moreover, simulation approaches were employed in certain articles (Aday & Aday, 2020; Ivanov, 2020a; Ivanov D., 2020; Singh et al., 2021) to examine COVID-19 and its influence on SCs or other sectors. In their research on the COVID-19 pandemic, other studies also used simulation models. A number of economic models and methodologies were utilized in some of the publications. (Yu & Aviso, 2020), for example, employed economic and epidemiological models to assess the susceptibility of SCs to COVID-19 at the corporate, national, and global levels. (Kanitkar, 2020) utilized the input–output (IO) model to assess the extent of losses that the Indian economy is expected to incur as a result of the COVID-19 shutdown, while used a multi-sector disequilibrium model to investigate the cost of lockdowns in several crucial sectors. In the context of labor limitations imposed by social distance needs, (Nagurney, 2021) constructed a game theoretic model. (Belhadi et al., 2021) is one of the few articles that do empirical research on COVID-19's effects. They looked into both short- and long-term options for achieving supply chain resilience in the automotive and airline industries. From a supply chain viewpoint, (Cai & Luo, 2020) analyzed the first implications of COVID-19 on the manufacturing industry and offered solutions. (El Baz & Ruel, 2021) looked at the effects of supply chain risk management on supply chain resilience and robustness under COVID-19, while (Butt, 2021) conducted a multiple-case study to look into how purchasing and distributing enterprises dealt with supply chain disruptions caused by COVID-19. In a nutshell, the majority of the authors presented conceptual works. Because the problem is still in its early stages, there hasn't been much modeling or empirical study reported, but we hope to see more of this sort of research in the coming months. In the subsections that follow,

3.1. Health Issues

It is critical to prioritize human safety and well-being above all else. This has occurred at nearly every step of the SC. Upstream SC channels (such as farms and industries) have been forced to follow safety rules, resulting in poorer production and delayed products transportation. Parties who carry and distribute commodities have implemented safety regulations in the intermediate and downstream SC channels, which has impacted the pace and productivity of SCs. By imposing social separation, giving sanitizers, rescheduling restocking, and allowing contactless payments, retail outlets have moved their attention from shop image and customer happiness to safety objectives (Mollenkopf et al., 2020). This is extremely noteworthy in food SCs, where customers value both food quality and food safety. Personal protective equipment, social isolation, and maintaining the health of individuals working throughout the food chain are all possible safety measures (Aday & Aday, 2020).

The studies that were evaluated highlighted a number of intriguing points about SCs under COVID-19, especially in light of lockdowns and social distancing techniques. The COVID-19 pandemic, for example, may cause significant disruptions in some nations, such as rice value chains in West Africa, resulting in increased need on imports owing to global lockdowns (Arouna et al., 2020). (Inegbedion, 2021) made a similar point, stating that COVID-19 lockdowns have drastically limited the availability of farm laborers and transportation capacity to supply agricultural commodities. Quarantine limits or infection of both white- and blue-collar employees, according to (Xu et al., 2020) ,have led in a labor shortage and disturbed the global supply chain. Other researchers who looked into COVID-19 in the context of SCs discovered that lockdowns and social distancing measures harmed the functions of national and international SCs during the pandemic, with preventative measures causing significant social inequality, particularly in developing countries (Arndt et al., 2020; Arora et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2021). For example, COVID-19 lockdowns and associated disruptions in SC movements have had a negative impact on the shrimp farming sector's SC, resulting in about 1.50 billion USD in economic losses.

3.2. Information ( IoT,Cloud Technologies, Blockchain, etc.)

COVID-19 has drastically disrupted previously smooth SC operations, restricting SC capacity to fulfill demand. COVID-19 and other SCDs, according to (Handfield et al., 2020),have introduced new impediments that will reroute the design of future SC flows. Researchers have sought to assess COVID-19's influence on SC operational actions during the epidemic (Kumaravel et al., 2020), for example, reviewed the production and operations management of SC problems resulting from the pandemic and provided appropriate alternative techniques for strengthening SC resilience and sustainability. Manufacturing capabilities should be moved to digital manufacturing, according to one of their proposals. While this is not always straightforward, the transition to digital manufacturing is thought to give industrial sectors more resilience to shocks. COVID- The pandemic of 19 has compelled SC players to consider the finest structures and operations for their organizations. Given the significant disruption to global commodities flow, several have advised that SC players obtain supplies locally to reduce SC pathways. Obviously, the optimum solution for each SC would be different. In the long run, however, any design would emphasize resilience and adaptability, such that any SC could survive in both normal and disruptive settings. SC structures, processes, information, and financial systems, according to (Ivanov, 2020b), should be lucrative in good times, able to endure in bad times, and therefore long-term sustainable.

(Sarkis et al., 2020) took a wider approach, claiming that upcoming technologies like smart manufacturing might help solve a variety of SC issues. Information technologies that can link players in the SC and offer real-time information on what's going on will aid players in making the best judgments possible in both regular and disruptive situations. Radiofrequency identification (RFID) sensors, blockchain, and the Internet of Things (IoT) have enabled SC players to get real-time updates on any event and dynamically change their decisions to match the environment. According to (Sharma et al., 2020) one of the most basic difficulties is demand unpredictability. As a result, technology has emerged as a critical aspect in determining whether SC players succeed or fail during COVID-19. SC digitalization and analytics, according to (Cai & Luo, 2020), enable firms manage better in crisis circumstances. In reality, as more people shop online, most SCs have been compelled to migrate physical transactions to the internet, resulting in a significant rise in data gathered. As a result, analytics is becoming a more strategic tool for managing SCs.

3.3. Location

As firms have relocated a significant proportion of industrial activities from developed to developing nations, offshore or global sourcing has been a hot topic in recent decades. Offshoring is primarily motivated by cost savings (Andrea et al., 2020); however, it has also created issues with the speed and flexibility with which companies can respond to consumer. Cost reductions should not be the main reason for offshore decisions.

Many firms have re-evaluated their SC structures as a result of the protracted interruption caused by COVID-19. COVID19 has caused issues with global commodities movement, prompting suggestions to reduce global flows and rely on local supplies. (Cai & Luo, 2020) argue that following COVID-19, regionalisation of manufacturing SCs may become the new normal. However, relying on local supplies is not always simple, and it may be hard to do so in a timely manner. For cost, material resources, and technical reasons, most manufacturing enterprises import materials and components from foreign nations. Replacing imported goods with locally sourced goods necessitates considerable investment in the creation and nurturing of local businesses with the potential to become long-term suppliers. Because transit distances are shorter and the SC is less exposed to global shocks, Localization provides more resilience (Nandi et al., 2021).Similarly, (Kano & Oh, 2020) stated that the present global SC's instability has caused businesses to reshore their activities and revert to a more vertically integrated model. A few additional writers (Sarkis et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020) have also advocated for localizing production to establish more robust local supply networks. According to (Hoek, 2020), supply chains should strike a balance between global and local sourcing, with flexibility as a key requirement for supply chain architecture.

3.4. Priorities

The spirit of efficiency is embodied by the principles of lean and just-in-time (JIT) production. These two ideas are more like ideologies than approaches or instruments. JIT, quality systems, continual improvements, and cooperation are all part of lean manufacturing, which attempts to create goods or services with less resources .JIT's first goal is to substantially lower inventory levels (Matsui, 2007). The JIT mindset is predicated on the belief that inventory is the consequence of a variety of factors, including poor quality, bad maintenance, unpredictable and long lead times, extensive setup times, and uncertain demand. JIT is effective if a firm can significantly improve all of these factors. One of the major techniques based on JIT principles to reduce and increase supply lead time dependability has been to localize the supply chain.

The extended COVID-19 epidemic has put the lean and JIT concepts to the test. Scholars should carefully assess the concept of efficiency in a value chain, according to researchers (Kano & Oh, 2020). Overreliance on JIT and lean, according to (Sarkis et al., 2020), makes SCs vulnerable to disruption. While JIT and lean function effectively under normal, stable situations, they are now widely regarded as key sources of global shortage (Zhu et al., 2020). This is also true in healthcare operations, as JIT techniques hinder healthcare organizations' capacity to respond swiftly to the need for services in the event of a pandemic.

Supply chains must acquire flexible capacities to cope with short-term disruptions and adaptation to long-term changes in a highly unpredictable environment (Kovács & Falagara Sigala, 2021). Agile supply chains will need to plan for extra resources to deal with swings, adapt for increased speed when it's needed, and stay financially viable in the face of declining demand. However, because pandemic-related instability is predicted to endure for a long time, a supply chain should not be built to be either efficient or nimble, but rather to combine these two qualities. Depending on the volatility or stability of the business environment, a supply chain should be constructed in such a manner that it can easily and quickly convert from agile to efficient techniques or vice versa.

There has been a lot of talk about integrating lean and agile skills. The two tactics don't have to be mutually incompatible because they share a few essential ideas. Reduced lead times, for example, increase responsiveness while also supporting the concept of lean thinking, which aims to reduce waste and non-value-added tasks. Both lean and agile, value quality and lead time equally. The Leagile idea is an attempt to bring the agile and lean paradigms together in a supply chain. Whereas this pairing may be applicable, efforts to develop supply chain techniques that can function well in the face of fluctuating demand are currently ongoing. For this aim, just a few works have been published. For example, (Ivanov, 2021) suggested the AURA (active utilisation of resilient assets) paradigm to enable supply chains to function responsively while preserving efficiency. The underlying concept is to actively employ resilience assets to produce value rather than simply as a buffer against infrequent catastrophic interruptions.

3.5 After COVID-19

COVID-19's global expansion has had a huge impact on supply chains at both the local and global levels, placing strain on most nations' key infrastructures . Not only is the worldwide flow of products harmed, but so is local production and demand. This has caused huge disruptions across the supply chain. In response to this major disruption, there has been a lot of interest in exploring and publishing various elements of supply chains using COVID-19, which adds to the large number of works already published in the field of supply chain disruptions over the last two decades. But, in light of the present huge disruptions, are the theories, concepts, and techniques for mitigating supply chain disruptions still valid? Is there anything unique that supply chain actors should build to deal with the present disruptions?

· ·

I compared the potential mitigation techniques before and after COVID19 in this section. Table 3 compares the literature's recommendations for dealing with supply chain interruptions. The categorization area is listed first, followed by mitigating techniques before and after COVID-19. The chart is not meant to be comprehensive, but I feel it does show the enormous number of works in this field. Table 3 shows that there are several supply-side mitigation techniques offered, such as having redundancies and flexibility in supply sources. It has been written in terms like supply diversification (Yu & Aviso, 2020), protected suppliers , changing supply plan (Tang, 2006), and risk sharing contract . Supply backups and flexibility are suggested in literature addressing COVID-19 disruptions (Van Hoek 2020), which is consistent with numerous works released prior to COVID-19. Localizing the supply base, on the other hand, has a lot more support (Aday & Aday, 2020; Cai & Luo, 2020; Hoek, 2020; Sarkis et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020).

Researchers have come to the conclusion that having additional stocks is also crucial for preventing supply chain disruptions. This has been referred to as stockpile inventory, prepositioned inventory redundant stock (Albertzeth et al., 2020), and strategic stock by the authors (Tang, 2006). After COVID-19, published publications have been consistent in recommending inventory redundancy (Hoek, 2020) to deal with supply chain interruptions. What appears to be novel is (Ivanov, 2021)’s idea of 'lean resilience,' in which assets deployed to buffer disruptions are actively utilised to produce profit. With the exception of COVID-19, the research suggests that supply chain flexibility is important to many types of disruptions. Postponement tactics (Tang 2006), alternate modes of transportation , and transportation route flexibility are all examples of supply chain flexibility (Albertzeth et al., 2020).

As seen in Table 3, a few items are getting a lot more attention following COVID-19, such as digitisation and information acquisition, processing, and visibility. While these two have long been recognized, COVID-19 has increased the demand on supply chains to digitalize and employ more accurate data processing. Digitalisation of manufacturing and logistics has become increasingly crucial as the desire to ensure employee safety along the supply chain has grown. For example, in the fashion business, digital technology might help to manage demand disruptions by improving consumer experiences (Belhadi et al., 2021).

4. Conclusion

The disruptions to SCs induced by the COVID-19 epidemic have demonstrated that pandemics can and will continue to devastate global SCs. This report provides a thorough analysis of SC publishing during COVID-19 interruptions and suggests various research topics. The increased relevance of safety, digitalisation of the supply chain, localisation of the supply chain, rethinking the definition of efficiency, and distribution were all highlighted. The COVID-19 epidemic has rekindled interest in supply chain disruptions. Most mitigation efforts described previous to COVID-19, such as redundancy and flexibility, are still indicated as feasible ways to reduce supply chain disruptions owing to COVID-19, but there are more demands for digitization and supply-based localization. However, much more research is needed, and this review article will act as a bridge between preliminary ideas and more established theoretical developments regarding supply chain disruptions in the event of a COVID-19 pandemic. For researchers or practitioners interested in investigating the disruptions to SCs induced by COVID-19 and related preventative efforts,

5. References

Aday, S., & Aday, M. S. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on the food supply chain. Food Quality and Safety, 4(4), 167-180.

Albertzeth, G., Pujawan, I. N., Hilletofth, P., & Tjahjono, B. (2020). Mitigating transportation disruptions in a supply chain: a cost-effective strategy. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 23(2), 139-158.

Andrea, G., Peszynski, K., & Young, L. (2020). Theoretical Framework for a Local, Agile Supply Chain to Create Innovative Product Closer to End-user: Onshore-Offshore Debate. Operations and Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 108-122.

Araz, O. M., Choi, T.-M., Olson, D. L., & Salman, F. S. (2020). Data Analytics for Operational Risk Management. Decision Sciences, 51(6), 1316-1319.

Arndt, C., Davies, R., Gabriel, S., Harris, L., Makrelov, K., Robinson, S., Levy, S., Simbanegavi, W., van Seventer, D., & Anderson, L. (2020). Covid-19 lockdowns, income distribution, and food security: An analysis for South Africa. Global food security, 26, 100410.

Arora, S., Bhaukhandi, K. D., & Mishra, P. K. (2020). Coronavirus lockdown helped the environment to bounce back. Science of the Total Environment, 742, 140573.

Arouna, A., Soullier, G., Del Villar, P. M., & Demont, M. (2020). Policy options for mitigating impacts of COVID-19 on domestic rice value chains and food security in West Africa. Global food security, 26, 100405.

Attaran, M. (2022). Blockchain-enabled healthcare data management: a potential for COVID-19 outbreak to reinforce deployment.

Azim, A., & Islam, M. N. (2022). Blockchain Implementations and Use Cases for Inhibiting COVID-19 Pandemic. Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Advances in Computational Intelligence,

Belhadi, A., Kamble, S., Jabbour, C. J. C., Gunasekaran, A., Ndubisi, N. O., & Venkatesh, M. (2021). Manufacturing and service supply chain resilience to the COVID-19 outbreak: Lessons learned from the automobile and airline industries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163, 120447.

Buheji, M., Vovk Korže, A., Eidan, S., Abdulkareem, T., Perepelkin, N., Mavric, B., Preis, J., Bartula, M., Ahmed, D., & Buheji, A. (2020). Optimising pandemic response through self-sufficiency-a review paper. American Journal of Economics, 10(5), 277-283.

Butt, A. S. (2021). Strategies to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on supply chain disruptions: a multiple case analysis of buyers and distributors. The International Journal of Logistics Management.

Cai, M., & Luo, J. (2020). Influence of COVID-19 on manufacturing industry and corresponding countermeasures from supply chain perspective. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University (Science), 25(4), 409-416.

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. International Journal of Production Economics, 233, 107972.

Frederico, G. F. (2021). Towards a supply chain 4.0 on the post-COVID-19 pandemic: a conceptual and strategic discussion for more resilient supply chains. Rajagiri Management Journal.

Ganesh, A. D., & Kalpana, P. (2022). Future of artificial intelligence and its influence on supply chain risk management–A systematic review. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 108206.

Golan, M. S., Jernegan, L. H., & Linkov, I. (2020). Trends and applications of resilience analytics in supply chain modeling: systematic literature review in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Environment Systems and Decisions, 40(2), 222-243.

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

Heckmann, I., & Nickel, S. (2017). Rethinking supply chain risk analysis – common flaws & main elements. Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, 18(2), 84-95.

Hoek, R. v. (2020). Responding to COVID-19 supply chain risks—Insights from supply chain change management, total cost of ownership and supplier segmentation theory. Logistics, 4(4), 23.

Hohenstein, N.-O. (2022). Supply chain risk management in the COVID-19 pandemic: strategies and empirical lessons for improving global logistics service providers’ performance. The International Journal of Logistics Management, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print).

Inegbedion, H. E. (2021). COVID-19 lockdown: implication for food security. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, 11(5), 437-451.

Ivanov, D. (2020a). Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: A simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) case. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 136, 101922.

Ivanov, D. (2020b). Viable supply chain model: integrating agility, resilience and sustainability perspectives—lessons from and thinking beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Annals of operations research, 1-21.

Ivanov, D. (2021). Lean resilience: AURA (Active Usage of Resilience Assets) framework for post-COVID-19 supply chain management. The International Journal of Logistics Management.

Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2019). New disruption risk management perspectives in supply chains: digital twins, the ripple effect, and resileanness. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 52(13), 337-342.

Ivanov D., A. D. (2020). Coronavirus (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) and supply chain resilience: a research note. International Journal of Integrated Supply Management, 13(1), 90-102.

Jana, S. H. (2022). Application of expected value and chance constraint on uncertain supply chain model with cost, risk and visibility for COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 17(1), 10-24.

Kanitkar, T. (2020). The COVID-19 lockdown in India: Impacts on the economy and the power sector. Global transitions, 2, 150-156.

Kano, L., & Oh, C. H. (2020). Global Value Chains in the Post-COVID World: Governance for Reliability. Journal of Management Studies, 57(8), 1773-1777.

Karmaker, C. L., Ahmed, T., Ahmed, S., Ali, S. M., Moktadir, M. A., & Kabir, G. (2021). Improving supply chain sustainability in the context of COVID-19 pandemic in an emerging economy: Exploring drivers using an integrated model. Sustainable production and consumption, 26, 411-427.

Kaur, H., & Singh, S. P. (2019). Sustainable procurement and logistics for disaster resilient supply chain. Annals of operations research, 283(1), 309-354.

Kleindorfer, P. R., & Saad, G. H. (2005). Managing Disruption Risks in Supply Chains. Production and Operations Management, 14(1), 53-68.

Končar, J., Grubor, A., Marić, R., Vučenović, S., & Vukmirović, G. (2020). Setbacks to IoT implementation in the function of FMCG supply chain sustainability during COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability, 12(18), 7391.

Kovács, G., & Falagara Sigala, I. (2021). Lessons learned from humanitarian logistics to manage supply chain disruptions. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 57(1), 41-49.

Kumar, A., Luthra, S., Mangla, S. K., & Kazançoğlu, Y. (2020). COVID-19 impact on sustainable production and operations management. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 1, 1-7.

Kumaravel, S. K., Subramani, R. K., Jayaraj Sivakumar, T. K., Madurai Elavarasan, R., Manavalanagar Vetrichelvan, A., Annam, A., & Subramaniam, U. (2020). Investigation on the impacts of COVID-19 quarantine on society and environment: Preventive measures and supportive technologies. 3 Biotech, 10(9), 1-24.

Mastropietro, P., Rodilla, P., & Batlle, C. (2020). Emergency measures to protect energy consumers during the Covid-19 pandemic: A global review and critical analysis. Energy Research & Social Science, 68, 101678.

Matsui, Y. (2007). An empirical analysis of just-in-time production in Japanese manufacturing companies. International Journal of Production Economics, 108(1), 153-164.

Mengist, W., Soromessa, T., & Legese, G. (2020). Method for conducting systematic literature review and meta-analysis for environmental science research. MethodsX, 7, 100777.

Messina, D., Barros, A. C., Soares, A. L., & Matopoulos, A. (2020). An information management approach for supply chain disruption recovery. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 31(3), 489-519.

Modgil, S., Singh, R. K., & Hannibal, C. (2021). Artificial intelligence for supply chain resilience: Learning from COVID-19. The International Journal of Logistics Management.

Mollenkopf, D. A., Ozanne, L. K., & Stolze, H. J. (2020). A transformative supply chain response to COVID-19. Journal of Service Management.

Nagurney, A. (2021). Supply chain game theory network modeling under labor constraints: Applications to the Covid-19 pandemic. European Journal of Operational Research, 293(3), 880-891.

Nandi, S., Sarkis, J., Hervani, A. A., & Helms, M. M. (2021). Redesigning Supply Chains using Blockchain-Enabled Circular Economy and COVID-19 Experiences. Sustainable production and consumption, 27, 10-22.

Nikolopoulos, K., Punia, S., Schäfers, A., Tsinopoulos, C., & Vasilakis, C. (2021). Forecasting and planning during a pandemic: COVID-19 growth rates, supply chain disruptions, and governmental decisions. European Journal of Operational Research, 290(1), 99-115.

Oldekop, J. A., Horner, R., Hulme, D., Adhikari, R., Agarwal, B., Alford, M., Bakewell, O., Banks, N., Barrientos, S., Bastia, T., Bebbington, A. J., Das, U., Dimova, R., Duncombe, R., Enns, C., Fielding, D., Foster, C., Foster, T., Frederiksen, T., Gao, P., Gillespie, T., Heeks, R., Hickey, S., Hess, M., Jepson, N., Karamchedu, A., Kothari, U., Krishnan, A., Lavers, T., Mamman, A., Mitlin, D., Monazam Tabrizi, N., Müller, T. R., Nadvi, K., Pasquali, G., Pritchard, R., Pruce, K., Rees, C., Renken, J., Savoia, A., Schindler, S., Surmeier, A., Tampubolon, G., Tyce, M., Unnikrishnan, V., & Zhang, Y.-F. (2020). COVID-19 and the case for global development. World Development, 134, 105044.

Orlando, B., Tortora, D., Pezzi, A., & Bitbol-Saba, N. (2022). The disruption of the international supply chain: Firm resilience and knowledge preparedness to tackle the COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of International Management, 28(1), 100876.

Pérez Vergara, I. G., López Gómez, M. C., Lopes Martínez, I., & Vargas Hernández, J. (2021). Strategies for the preservation of service levels in the inventory management during COVID-19: A case study in a company of biosafety products. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 22(1), 65-80.

Prentice, C., Chen, J., & Stantic, B. (2020). Timed intervention in COVID-19 and panic buying. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57, 102203.

Qin, X., Godil, D. I., Khan, M. K., Sarwat, S., Alam, S., & Janjua, L. (2021). Investigating the effects of COVID-19 and public health expenditure on global supply chain operations: an empirical study. Operations Management Research, 1-13.

Queiroz, M. M., Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., & Fosso Wamba, S. (2020). Impacts of epidemic outbreaks on supply chains: mapping a research agenda amid the COVID-19 pandemic through a structured literature review. Annals of operations research, 1-38.

Raj, A., Mukherjee, A. A., de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., & Srivastava, S. K. (2022). Supply chain management during and post-COVID-19 pandemic: Mitigation strategies and practical lessons learned. Journal of Business Research, 142, 1125-1139.

Rapaccini, M., Saccani, N., Kowalkowski, C., Paiola, M., & Adrodegari, F. (2020). Navigating disruptive crises through service-led growth: The impact of COVID-19 on Italian manufacturing firms. Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 225-237.

Rastegar, M., Tavana, M., Meraj, A., & Mina, H. (2021). An inventory-location optimization model for equitable influenza vaccine distribution in developing countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine, 39(3), 495-504.

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

Rozhkov, M., Ivanov, D., Blackhurst, J., & Nair, A. (2022). Adapting supply chain operations in anticipation of and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Omega, 110, 102635.

Sarkis, J., Cohen, M. J., Dewick, P., & Schröder, P. (2020). A brave new world: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic for transitioning to sustainable supply and production. Resources, conservation, and recycling, 159, 104894-104894.

Sawik, T. (2022). Stochastic optimization of supply chain resilience under ripple effect: A COVID-19 pandemic related study. Omega, 109, 102596.

Shahin, A., Balouei Jamkhaneh, H., & Shahin, R. (2022). Supply Chain Risk Management Under Covid-19: A Review and Research Agenda. In N. Kryvinska & M. Greguš (Eds.), Developments in Information & Knowledge Management for Business Applications: Volume 4 (pp. 561-580). Springer International Publishing.

Sharma, A., Adhikary, A., & Borah, S. B. (2020). Covid-19′s impact on supply chain decisions: Strategic insights from NASDAQ 100 firms using Twitter data. Journal of Business Research, 117, 443-449.

Sharma, M., Alkatheeri, H., Jabeen, F., & Sehrawat, R. (2022). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on perishable food supply chain management: a contingent Resource-Based View (RBV) perspective. The International Journal of Logistics Management, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print).

Singh, S., Kumar, R., Panchal, R., & Tiwari, M. K. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 on logistics systems and disruptions in food supply chain. International Journal of Production Research, 59(7), 1993-2008.

Sinha, P., Kumar, S., & Chandra, C. (2021). Strategies for ensuring required service level for COVID-19 herd immunity in Indian vaccine supply chain. European Journal of Operational Research.

Skipper, J. B., & Hanna, J. B. (2009). Minimizing supply chain disruption risk through enhanced flexibility. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39(5), 404-427.

Spieske, A., Gebhardt, M., Kopyto, M., & Birkel, H. (2022). Improving resilience of the healthcare supply chain in a pandemic: Evidence from Europe during the COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 100748.

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

Tareq, M. S., Rahman, T., Hossain, M., & Dorrington, P. (2021). Additive manufacturing and the COVID-19 challenges: An in-depth study. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 60, 787-798.

Xu, Z., Elomri, A., Kerbache, L., & Omri, A. E. (2020). Impacts of COVID-19 on Global Supply Chains: Facts and Perspectives. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 48(3), 153-166.

Yang, J., Xie, H., Yu, G., & Liu, M. (2021). Antecedents and consequences of supply chain risk management capabilities: an investigation in the post-coronavirus crisis. International Journal of Production Research, 59(5), 1573-1585.

Ye, F., Liu, K., Li, L., Lai, K.-H., Zhan, Y., & Kumar, A. (2022). Digital supply chain management in the COVID-19 crisis: An asset orchestration perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 245, 108396.

Yu, K. D. S., & Aviso, K. B. (2020). Modelling the Economic Impact and Ripple Effects of Disease Outbreaks. Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability, 4(2), 183-186.

Zhen, L., & Li, H. (2022). A literature review of smart warehouse operations management. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 9(1), 31-55.

Zhu, G., Chou, M. C., & Tsai, C. W. (2020). Lessons Learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic Exposing the Shortcomings of Current Supply Chain Operations: A Long-Term Prescriptive Offering. Sustainability, 12(14), 5858.

Zhu, N., Zhang, D., Wang, W., Li, X., Yang, B., Song, J., Zhao, X., Huang, B., Shi, W., Lu, R., & Niu, P. (2020). A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. New England Journal of Medicine, 382, 727-733. https://DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001017

bottom of page