Triple bottom line aspects and sustainable supply chain resilience: A structural equation modelling approach

The purpose of this paper is to investigate which of sustainability elements, in the context of triple bottom line (TBL), are used to build sustainable supply chain resilience. This paper presents a new body of knowledge and contribution to the literature by relating the triple bottom line (TBL) context to the building of sustainable supply chain resilience using structural equation modelling. The research were used to understand that individual sustainability factors matter and play a role in the context of supply chain resilience. A survey questionnaire was designed to collect this data from the research respondents. To statistical analysis was first Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) conducted and used, then for the analysis and interpretation structural equation model. The findings indicate that individual sustainability factors matter and play a role in the context of supply chain resilience. A number of previous studies have developed broad catalogues of sustainability factors influencing supply chains, however, to date no convincing evidence has been presented as to which of the range of elements identified, and how they influence supply chain resilience building. Despite the large number of publications on sustainable supply chain and resilience building, there is still a gap and lack of proper consideration of TBL-related criteria as elements that can determine mechanisms for building supply chain resilience in the context of sustainable development. This paper operationalizes a using the structural research model to using a structural research model to investigate how and in which relationships the different elements of the triple bottom line influence the resilience of supply chains.

1 Introduction

Supply chain managers attempt to find ways to mitigate potential risks, and to rise to supply chain challenges via the implementation of innovative ideas, policies, and strategies. For this purpose, they use dynamic responses and adaptations to changing market realities. Disruptions can range from economic and/or natural causes (such as financial crises, terrorist attacks, disease, fuel crises, political uncertainty, earthquakes, and other phenomena affecting the external environment). Each of these has a negative impact on supply chain operations (Mandal, 2012; Massari et al., 2021), and they may apply to different levels, from the operational to the strategic (including equipment failures or breakdowns, production delays and obstacles, and natural hazards and pandemics) (Lopes et al., 2022). Crisis situations have a direct impact on the organization’s ability to continue its operations. Disruptions in the chain can be two-fold. They may be the result of external or internal factors (Soni et al., 2014), and of ongoing globalisation processes, and the consequences of these factors increases the vulnerability of chains (Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009). Therefore, in recent years, new risk management concepts have been increasingly introduced to mitigate the problems that are caused by disruptions that occur (Schmitt and Singh, 2012).

The key to managing sustainable supply chains and the risk of disruptions is to understand the vulnerabilities that exist and to implement solutions for building increased resilience into the chains. It is also important that solutions are created in accordance with the principles of sustainable development, which become the determinants of the actions that are taken. This is also reflected, in practice, in the implementation of the individual factors of the triple bottom line (TBL) into supply chains (Dubey et al., 2017; Dubey et al., 2019).

On the other hand, the context and pressure to move towards sustainable economies and environmentally neutral processes, and the creation of sustainable and closed-loop chains makes it necessary to implement these activities and solutions within supply chain organizations. The traditional approach toward supply chain management, based on the cost, quality, and time paradigm, is no longer relevant. The strategy of sustainable development should be added to the basic tasks and challenges of the chain. For many years, this issue has been referred to in the literature, and is increasingly being recognised as one of the basic elements of supply chain management (Hassini et al., 2012; Dai et al., 2021; Soltanmohammadi et al., 2021; Tsai et al., 2021; Seuring, et al., 2022). Market demands and the economic situation have led to the environmental and social performance of a company becoming as important as its economic performance, from the customer’s point of view (Tsai et al., 2021).

It is becoming necessary to build supply chains that are increasingly resilient to risk factors, while implementing sustainability principles. This means that there is now a different dimension for supplying chain management, one that focuses on sustainability, and which is vulnerable to unexpected and unforeseen disruptions (Mari et al., 2014). In this situation, the fight against disruptions comes to the fore and often means the abandonment of plans and actions to, for example, implement sustainability aspects. A trade-off must therefore be found between supply chain disruption and sustainability. The latter should look for opportunities to build resilient systems and to support a change in business strategy that allows for sustainable yet resilient supply chains. Sustainability is the goal, and in addition, opportunities should be sought to build their resilience precisely through these aspects.

The main objective of this study is to examine if and how these aspects of sustainable development influence the resilience of supply chains, using empirical research conducted in medium and large enterprises in Poland representing various industries. The study also aims at presenting recommendations and conclusions, as well as postulates for the future, indicating which elements and aspects of sustainable development have an influence on building the resilience, not only of a company, but also of the entire chain, and above all, on implementing and developing a sustainable supply chain strategy via the application of the indicated sustainability criteria. Strategies that have been applied in chains, more than ever, are focused both on the aspect of sustainability and on the aspect of resilience. The observed scientific activity in this area, but also the practical solutions, perfectly reflect the importance and essence of the considerations that have been undertaken, while at the same time filling the identified research gap.

The motivation for undertaking the indicated research was the identified research gap, which can be defined as follows: A lack of research on sustainability aspects in supply chains operating in Poland has been noted, and even fewer studies focus on building the resilience of sustainable chains using sustainability criteria.

The paper is structured as follows: an introduction that provides a background on the relevance of building resilience in supply chains, especially considering the sustainability aspects and the implementation of sustainable chain strategies into business solutions. This is followed by a critical review of the literature, including: sustainable supply chains, the essence of the resilience and the vulnerability of the chains, linking the phenomena of resilience, vulnerability, and sustainability aspects in the supply chain area in light of the existing literature, developing and justifying the purpose of the research through the presentation of the research gap, the research methodology, the research results, and the findings, where aspects of the novelty of the considerations and contributions to the development of the science and discussion are pointed out. The discussion concludes with a summary and recommendations for the scope of further research in this area. The aim of the article is to identify, using a structural equation model, the sustainability factors affecting the resilience of supply chains. Based on the literature analysis, categories of factors corresponding to each sustainability category were identified, the most suitable factors were selected for empirical study. They were then considered in terms of their impact on supply chain resilience. The identified research gap allowed the following research questions to be posed: Have environmental, social and economic dimensions of sustainability had an influence on the supply chain resilience? Does each sustainable dimension have the same influence on supply chain resilience?

2 Literature review

2.1 Resilience and sustainability in the supply chain

Resilient supply chains are part of a strategy that supports their fluidity and reliability (Ryczyński and Tubis, 2021). The link between resilience and social–ecological systems is not new in the literature. There is ample scientific evidence indicating that researchers are interested in this area (Derissen et al., 2011). Responding effectively to supply chain disruptions in the currently fast-changing and competitive market environment can be a tool to protect against bankruptcy, closure or non-competitive chains. One element supporting such responses may be the need to adopt sustainability concepts at an operational level (Ramezankhani et al., 2018).

The literature is rich with considerations of sustainable supply chains, although, as rightly pointed out by Pagell and Shevchenko (2014), the true face and principles of sustainable development are not yet implemented in the chain, and they are an aspiration for many (Seuring, et al., 2022). It is possible to see progress in this area, and many elements have already implemented. The topic is well-known and described. However, its high global relevance should be pointed out (Men et al., 2023). Referring to the work of Seuring and Müller, (2008), and of Seuring et al. (2022), it should be pointed out that the interest in sustainable supply chains in a theoretical context concerns the management of stakeholders (who exert pressure on the use of sustainable factors in supply chain operations) and of pressures and incentives, which also capture internal drivers and barriers, as well as the relationship of a focal company and its (multiple-) tier suppliers and the related management practices, and of supply management and its related processes. One of the objectives of a sustainable supply chain is to increase economic and environmental value for the various stakeholders in the chain (Yontar and Ersöz, 2020). With a focus on supplier selection and evaluation, the results are categorised into the risk management and performance management of the supply chain, thereby focusing on the outcomes. Sustainable supply chain management is the management of resources, activities, information, and capital to maximise supply chain profitability while minimising the environmental impacts of supply chain operations and enhancing social welfare (Hassini et al., 2012). Therefore, organisations operating in supply chains, in order to meet market challenges, increasingly pay attention to new concepts that can be implemented in the chain area, which at the same time become critical elements for their survival and their further development (Min and Kim, 2012). It is recognised that in the long term, following the path to social improvement and producing environmentally friendly products will certainly strengthen businesses economically (Tsai et al., 2021). Some of the tools identified may additionally become guarantors for the resilience of chains.

In the context of these deliberations, the most relevant element, apart from the implementation of sustainability principles and individual elements, is the aspect of risk management, through which the resilience of supply chains can be built. In terms of research on sustainable supply chain risks, a multi-faceted analysis needs to be undertaken (Lima et al., 2021). Supply chain sustainability plays a mediating role in the process of supply chain resilience affecting supply chain performance (Zhu and Wu, 2022; Zhang et al., 2023). The 3BL aspects, understood as being the incorporation of social, environmental, and economic factors, should be implemented into supply chain strategies to build the resilience of the latter, as well as moving towards more pro-environmental and social, but also more economical supply chain strategies. However, it is worth noting that there is increasing talk of integrating ESG indicators into the performance evaluation of green or sustainable supply chains. (Sardanelli et al., 2022; Zeng et al., 2022). This aspect should also be taken into account when considering chain resilience issues.

2.2 Key assumptions of supply chains resilience

Building resilient supply chains is an extremely challenging task, as it involves, among other things, mitigating risk, and an extremely large number of different frameworks and tools are present for the evaluation and management of risks (Cha et al., 2008). Supply chain resilience is defined as the ability to proactively design and plan a supply chain network, and to anticipate unexpected (negative) disruptive events in order to adaptively respond to disruptions (Ferreira et al., 2021). Resilience is defined as the ability for individual supply chain participants and the network as a whole to recover from disruptions and to restore operations and performance to an even better state than in the pre-crisis era (Tsolakis et al., 2021). Supply chain operations are subject to constant change and uncertainty. Resilience is therefore a key factor (Pettit et al., 2019) for ensuring that chains operate smoothly and efficiently. The structure and strategy of the chain must be organised in such a way as to be prepared to react quickly to unexpected events (Pavlou and Manthou, 2008; Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009). The resilience of chains has an influence on the size of both the companies and the overall structure of the chain (El Baz and Ruel, 2021). Supply chains need to be resilient in order to thrive in the rapidly changing environment that surrounds them (Zhang et al., 2022), Supply chain risks are typically classified as being operational and disruption risks (Sawik, 2011). The literature indicates that one of the most effective methods for dealing with interference threats is to design resilient networks. At the same time, risk management and resilience are strategically viewed (Hervani et al., 2022). Supply chain resilience can be defined as the specific ability of this structure to absorb and to recover from disruption, in order to deliver upon promises that have been made to customers within a reasonable timeframe (Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009).

Disruption in the supply chain is a natural occurrence, and it is more or less likely to occur and to have a greater or lesser impact on supply chain operations (Sodhi and Tang, 2012). We can talk about natural hazards (earthquakes, floods, or the recent COVID-19 pandemic), but also about those that are associated with demand volatility, cost uncertainty, equipment failure, or labor shortages. Usually, after an appropriate response and the elimination of risks or disruptions, chains become stronger, more resilient, and more competitive in the marketplace (Zavala-Alcívar et al., 2020a). The complexity of the supply chain network requires greater resilience (Lopes, et al., 2022).

The main drivers of resilience in chains includes: collaboration, the redesign of the supply chain to respond quickly to disruptions, agility, innovation, flexibility, visibility, and sharing and trust (Juttner and Maklan, 2011; Ferreira et al., 2021).

2.3 Linking sustainable supply chain strategy aspects to resilience issues

Based on the literature, has been presented a set of factors that can be linked to both resilience and sustainability (shown in Table 1).

TABLE 1

TABLE 1. Factors affecting the sustainability and resilience of the supply chain.

There is still a lack of comprehensive research relating to the impact of sustainability on supply chain resilience (Fahimnia and Jabbarzadeh, 2016). As Suryawanshi et al. (2021) indicated in their analysis, there is little research on the implementation between these critical concepts, particularly in the context of supply chain design. They point to research that has been conducted in this area (analysis in Table 2).

TABLE 2

TABLE 2. Analysis of issues raised in the literature on resilience and sustainability of supply chains.

2.4 Literature review of sustainability aspects of chain resilience

In the existing research, the lack of a broader view on the design and management of resilient supply chains with sustainability factors has been indicated. The impact of risk mitigation techniques on the environmental and social sustainability of the business environment is often not explored. It therefore becomes important to explore and to link the objectives of sustainability (economic, environmental, and social) and resilience with the objective of maximising the implementation of a strategy for, for example, a sustainable supply chain with its economic objectives. There is no doubt that demand uncertainty, flexibility and deliverability, production, or transport disruptions all need to be modelled in such a way as to minimise the negative environmental effects and costs of the whole chain. On the basis of the literature, it is clear that organisations alone cannot survive a wide range of disruptions (Bhamra, et al., 2011), to which they are exposed; therefore, resilience strategies need to be developed to counteract this, referring to a set of complex actions involving cooperation, transparency and communication (Gunasekaran et al., 2015). Therefore, it is necessary to know exactly what factors influence resilience, and how they exert their influence. There are many approaches to this in the literature, ranging from how to respond to unpredictable weather events (de Sá, et al., 2019), to political changes (Hendry, et al., 2018). Undoubtedly, of recent and great importance is the context of COVID-19 and its impact on the operation of chains, as this is a challenge to which companies have had to respond accordingly (Silva et al., 2021). Increased resilience can be seen in local chains that base their commercial transactions on local markets (Thilmany et al., 2021), thereby making themselves independent of dangerous situations and building up their resilience, as well as in the size of companies (El Baz and Ruel, 2021), because, considering various factors, it is accessibility that matters in terms of resilience development. In addition to the creation of a new sustainable supply chain strategy, resilience-building concepts should be adopted and implemented to mitigate the disruptions that can occur in the supply chain (Hosseini-Motlagh, et al., 2020). Combining the concepts of sustainability and resilience and implementing them into the structure of the chain can contribute to its optimisation (Kaur et al., 2020). The strategic orientation of the supply chain processes towards social sustainability creates a holistic approach leading to the achievement of both socio-economic and socio-environmental sustainability goals (Townsend, 2020). In the recent scientific literature, the topics most frequently raised concern companies that conduct their business activities more heavily on the environmental sustainability front than on the social sustainability side (Porteet al., 2019). It is becoming important for companies in the supply chain to consider and to highlight the social side of sustainability in their operations, as its omission can have disastrous consequences. It is increasingly apparent that investors are supporting and selecting organisations whose long-term performance can be assessed through an investigation into their environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations, or through their socially responsible investment (SRI) positions, or by assessing both perspectives (Hervani et al., 2022). In the supply chain context, linking the operational level of decision-making and the tactical and strategic levels can improve social sustainability. In relatively stable economic times, organisations can use non-traditional methods of valuing environmental aspects to monitor socio-economic and socio-environmental performance (Johansson, 2016). In unstable, unpredictable and disruptive times, sustainable companies tend to adopt an ambivalent attitude, reducing their efficiencies and expected economies of scale, and allowing sufficient redundancy—in the form of coordination, cooperation and flexibility—in their supply chain operations to maintain socio-economic and socio-environmental sustainability (Bui et al., 2021).

Referring to the literature, and by linking the two concepts of resilience and sustainability, Rajesh (2021) conducted a systematic literature review considering together the aspects of sustainability and resilience, and pointed out that Papadopoulos et al. (2017) have proposed a theoretical framework for explaining resilience in supply chains to achieve sustainability. Additionally, Fahimnia and Jabbarzadeh (2016) formulated in their considerations a multi-actor decision-making model for achieving sustainability and resilience in supply chains. Ivanov (2018), on the other hand, analysed the ripple effects in supply chains, with sustainability factors for the design of resilient supply chains. From another point of view, Scholten and Fynes (2017) discussed the need for risk management and resilience to achieve sustainability in complex supply chains. Based on research (Rajesh, 2021), it can be said that research in this field has been ongoing for many years, but it is still insufficient. Already, in 2009, an integrated framework for the resilience and sustainability of offshore activities was proposed (Rosič et al., 2009; Pettit et al., 2019), and much attention has been given to food supply chains as their resilience is dependent upon many factors, including weather, while at the same time they are relatively advanced in the implementation of sustainability principles, due to the expectations of their customers (Leat and Revoredo-Giha, 2013; Manning and Soon, 2016; Stone and Rahimifard, 2018). The issue can also be approached in a different way. By referring to studies on the sustainability–resilience relationship at the supply chain design level (Fahimnia and Jabbarzadeh, 2016; Ivanov, 2018), resilience in the context of trust was addressed in the social aspect, proposing a framework for resilience, with the consideration of trust and behavioural uncertainty (Dubey et al., 2017). In another view, it was suggested that the theoretical framework and the explained resilience in supply chain networks could be investigated for the development of sustainability. Papadopoulos et al. (2017) also examined a supply chain design model for robustness in order to explore the relationship between greening and resilience. Fahimnia et al. (2018) also assessed the performance of supply chains, considering sustainability and resilience viewpoints. Ramezankhani et al. (2018), Ivanov (2020), and Rajesh (2021) observed different management frameworks for improving sustainability and resilience. Negri et al. (2021) and Marchese et al. (2018) studied disruption propagation, considering the factors of sustainability for designing resilient supply chains. Ivanov (2018), Zahiri et al. (2017), Sabouhi et al. (2021), and Mari et al. (2014) explored the phenomenon of collaborative resilience for sustainability, considering in-depth case-based studies. Aggarwal and Srivastava (2019) and Duong and Chong (2020) envisioned future opportunities for advancing the theory of resilience towards long-term sustainability. Redman (2014) and Pettit et al. (2019) pointed out the need for integrating resilience and sustainability in supply chains to improve competitiveness (Carvalho et al., 2011; Azevedo et al., 2013; Govindan et al., 2015; Zavala-Alcívar et al., 2020a; Zavala-Alcívar et al., 2020b). Based on various considerations (Labuschagne et al., 2005), it should additionally be stated that in the context of the social aspect, internal human resources are activities of social responsibility that focus on employees and their employment conditions, including job stability, work practices, health and safety, and capacity building. The external population focuses on activities that are related to the availability of new human knowledge and services, productive assets and services, and social and economic wellbeing that are external to the organisation. Stakeholder participation focuses on the organisation’s relationship with its internal and external stakeholders by enabling information sharing and including stakeholders in decision-making. Macro-social issues and concerns focus on the wider environmental and financial impacts that arise from business activities, including GDP growth or the creation of new environmental legislation. It therefore seems appropriate to examine various aspects of sustainable development (economic, environmental, and social) and resilience (network and supply chain resilience) objectives with purpose of the maximization of this element.

3 Material and methods

The process of data collection is one of the most important components of the research methodology. A quantitative approach to data collection was adopted with deductive reasoning.

Furthermore, we explore the interdependencies and relationships between individual elements, and the mutual influences of individual factors in the context of building resilience, and the result of these considerations is the proposal of a structured model for building resilience using the principles of sustainable development. The structural equation method is useful in the context of finding relationships between factors affecting the supply chain, among others Sulehri et al. (2023) analyzed the data using structural equation modeling and a partial least squares technique to find that disruption risk, research and development investment, and firm performance all improve supply chain performance. Whereas Maqsood et al. (2022) determine the factors that influence green supply chain management adoption in SMEs and the moderating effect of clean innovation technology for sustainable production and consumption. Activities are conducted so that in the future, there is appropriate management of the individual elements that will be the driving forces and success factors, and at the same time, the elements that characterise the resilience of sustainable supply chains.

The research tool, i.e., the questionnaire, was developed on the basis of previously validated information, and sustainability factors were found in the literature that influence or that are used in supply chains, according to our assumptions (referring to the criteria of building resilience and of focusing on a sustainable supply chain).

A survey questionnaire was designed to collect these data from the research respondents. A professional research company specializing in computer-assisted telephone interviewing conducted the survey. It was conducted using computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) and a supplementary research technique—a web-based survey (CAWI)—to be completed by the respondent. The company contacted farmers, processors, stationery, and online stores selling organic products (including natural cosmetics and household chemicals). The study sample consisted of 700 enterprises from Poland. For the research presented, the constructed questionnaire was divided into two main sections. The first section involved company information, including the type, size, and location of the company. The respondents were asked to score their answers, considering a Likert scale of 1 to 5 and the quantitative questions. The five-point Likert scales are a highly acceptable and reliable scale for questionnaire surveys (Dillman et al., 2014). Table 3 summarizes the demography of the respondents and the received responses.

TABLE 3

TABLE 3. Profiles of responding companies.

Based on the literature survey (Ramezankhani et al., 2018; Negri et al., 2021; Warmbier et al., 2022) and the experiences of the authors, it was assumed that a model would be investigated to examine the impact of the classical elements of a sustainable supply chain on its resilience (Table 4).

TABLE 4

TABLE 4. Item pool included in the research.

4 Results

4.1 Structural equation modelling

The research used a measurement model to identify the number of factors in the latent variables, as well as a structural model showing the effect–cause relationships between the variables. The existence of correlations between the theoretical exogenous constructs was also investigated. First, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted, based upon which a set of variables (specific questions in the survey) was extracted that was most able to explain the latent variables. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was deemed a primary step towards the application of the SEM model, and it was used to decide how the proposed model fits the data (Jenatabadi and Ismali, 2014). SEM methodology has been successfully used to show the impact of various aspects of the supply chain on its efficiency, e.g., in Dey et al. (2021) or Zhang et al. (2022). With CFA, any item that does not fit the measurement model due to low factor loading should be removed. CFA needs to be performed for every latent construct that is involved in a model. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) technique was convincingly applied in many cases, because it allows for the specification of any number of factors required in the data, and it identifies which measured variables are related to their corresponding latent variables. On the basis of the outcomes, CFA is used to verify or to refuse the measurement theory.

Table 5 presents the confirmatory factor analysis of a measurement model (with four latent constructs representing the three classic elements of a sustainability supply chain—social, environmental and economic sustainability, and the resilience of the supply chain) that was conducted using Statistica (Statsoft v. 13). This analysis indicated that the model fit the data reasonably well.

TABLE 5

TABLE 5. Outer loadings with reliability indicators.

The basis for factor inclusion was that the eigenvalue should be greater than one, the total variance explained should be greater than 50%, and that the factor loading of each item should be greater than 0.50. For the learning and growth performance indicators, the eigenvalue of each factor was above one (3.20, 2.19, 1.82, and 1.22), which accounted for 61.23% of the total variance. The four analysed factors were measured using 26 items, of which 5 items (one from social sustainability, two from economic sustainability, one from environmental sustainability and one from supply chain resilience) were discarded from the list due to factor loadings of <0.50.

4.2 Reliability

The quality of a survey can be measured by inspecting its reliability (Paul and Maiti, 2008). The reliability of the data can be checked using Cronbach’s alpha. As a rule of thumb, if α ≥ 0.7, then the solutions are considered risk free, but 0.6 is considered to be acceptable in the case of an exploratory study (Nunnally, 1978; Thun, 2010). Most often, reliability is determined by analyzing the test’s internal consistency using Cronbach’s Alpha (α). Cronbach’s alpha will be high if the variance of the entire scale is much greater than the sum of the variances of the individual items. A high variance of scale items is inadvisable, as it may indicate large measurement errors. The formula for Cronbach’s alpha, a measure of reliability, of the test’s internal consistency is of the form:

$\alpha =\frac{k}{k-1}\bullet \left(1-\frac{{\sum }_{i=1}^k{s}_i^2}{s_c^2}\right)$

Where.

α— Cronbach’s alpha

k— number of test items

s²_c— total variance of the overall test results

s²_i— variance of test items

In our study, Cronbach’s alpha for all the constructs was greater than 0.6 (in one case) and greater than 0.7 (in three cases), which is acceptable (George and Mallery, 2016).

The use of confirmatory factor analysis allowed us to determine which of the observable variables (individual questions) most strongly defined the related constructs—exogenous and endogenous latent variables, which resulted in their further reduction. Only those variables that correlated most strongly with a given latent factor were accepted for structural model estimation.

4.3 Estimation of model parameters

The created theoretical constructs are now considered to be a linear combination of the observable variables from Table 4. Structural modelling was further applied to estimate the interrelationships between the latent variables presented. The model parameter estimation conducted showed that almost all of the calculated path coefficients of the structural model were statistically significant, with a p-value below 0.01, and some below 0.1 (Table 6).

TABLE 6

TABLE 6. Structural parameters of the analyzed structural model.

Table 6 shows the parameters of the examined structural model for the selected pathways. All of the cause–effect associations (indicated by arrows) and tested correlation relationships (indicated by lines) were found to be significant. A stronger influence occurs where the path coefficient value is greater. For the analysed constructs, economic sustainability has the strongest impact on supply chain resilience, and with a smaller effect by environmental sustainability. Social sustainability has the least impact on supply chain resilience, only indicating a 10% significance. The analysis of the research results shows unequivocally that there is no correlation between environmental and economic aspects. In addition, the model showed the significance of the correlation relationship between social sustainability and economic sustainability, and also between social sustainability and environmental sustainability—the relationships are shown in the structural model in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 1. The impact of sustainability supply chain on supply chain resilience–SEM model.

4.4 Model evaluation

To evaluate the SEM model, it is suggested that a minimum of four tests of model fit should be satisfied with the acceptability and the compatibility of the model (Kline, 1998; Hair et al., 2021). Table 7 shows the main tests that are used to evaluate the structural equation model: chi-squared, GFI, AGFI, CFI, Gamma index of the population and RMSEA.

TABLE 7

TABLE 7. Fit statistics of the measurement model.

The analysed model was correct; the model testing results were sufficiently satisfactory. The ratio of index χ² to the number of degrees of freedom was 4.79 (less than 5). The goodness of fit index GFI showed that the model explained 92.7% of the real covariances. On the other hand, the population gamma index was 0.955 and its 90% confidence interval was (0.944, 0.965). These are acceptable measures according to the accepted literature (Segars and Grover, 1993), but the higher the index, the better the measure of fit. Similarly, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.058—assumed to be below 0.08. Furthermore, the normalized Bentler–Bonett index—a CFI of 0.936, was at an appropriate level (CFI>0.8, Bentler and Bonett, 1980).

5 Discussion

The nature of the disruptions that occur will also have an impact on the continued implementation of sustainability. Challenges such as COVID-19 have not only affected the functionality and the reliability of chains, but also their resilience. Local chains were able to be more resilient in this situation (Thilmany et al., 2021). There is no doubt that further extensive research is needed in the area studied, in order to validate the results already achieved, which in the future, may influence further theoretical development, and above all, will have practical implications and will allow chain managers to build resilient and sustainable supply chains.

Supply chains can increase their resilience using sustainability principles (Negri et al., 2021). This is not the only option; however, in this article, we show that TBL factors have an impact on building resilient and sustainable supply chains. This varies, of course, depending on the relationship, but there is no doubt that research findings have indicated that sustainability elements have an impact on supply chain resilience. Our research has shown that the economic aspect is the most important, followed by the environmental, and then the social aspect. This relationship and impact is also dependent on the sector and the structure of the companies studied. In our case, farmers constituted the largest research sample, and both the specificity of their activity and the nature of their business indicate that the economic and environmental aspects will play a role in building supply chain resilience using sustainable development principles. This is in accordance with theoretical assumptions, in which, when analysing particular aspects, actions aimed at achieving economic effects are most often indicated as a motivator of the actions performed for sustainable development. This has been confirmed by research, while at the same time constituting a basic element of TBL in building the resilience of supply chains. It also follows logically, from the context of the organizations studied, and in the study of activities by farmers in building resilience, that they both need economic indicators that justify the effectiveness of the actions taken, and as they are one of the most fundamental entities concerning sustainable development, they play the most important roles in these companies.

The economic objectives of sustainable development (Chauhan et al., 2022) are also the easiest to realise and achieve, and so it seems logical that they would continue to be given priority. Environmental aspects, on the other hand, play an increasingly important role. They are placed second in priority, as a result of economic changes and of global trends, and also as a result of the sectors examined. The farmers surveyed ranked this element as second in importance, and this was linked to production itself, with some of the actors offering organic products. Thus, when building their chains and their resilience, they must, in principle, pay attention to the environment.

The issue of social aspect plays a role (Lee Park et al., 2023), but it was ranked the least significant. This was probably due, once again, to the nature of the organisations themselves, as well as their size. The lack of obligation in small- and medium-sized companies, for example, to report on sustainability aspects in full, contributes to this element being treated as the least important. Also, considering the indicator aspects, it has to be pointed out that the parameterization of this area is the least developed, and some elements are not always fully understood by entities such as small- and medium-sized organizations. Nevertheless, the research results clearly indicate that the research questions posed as a result of the identified research gap should be answered in the affirmative. The aspects of sustainability considered in the economic, social and environmental contexts are relevant to the study of supply chain resilience (Zhu and Wu, 2022; Manurung et al., 2023). Each of these elements has an influence, but not to the same extent.

The study presented has several limitations. Firstly, only a few TBL factors were selected for analysis; in future studies, a full catalogue of TBL factors should be created on the basis of a structured literature survey, and they should be divided into universal and industry-specific factors, so that the interrelationships can be easily studied and referred to in terms of the specificity of the industry, or even of the economy. Secondly, the research and analysis of the results were based on studies that had been conducted only in sustainable supply chains in Poland, and in selected industries. Therefore, the results cannot be generalised to other economies. The study and its interpretation may serve as a background for further research; the use of studies from different countries may yield different results, and comparative possibilities will only appear if the coverage is extended. Certainly, research on resilience, especially in an empirical context, must continue to be vigorously pursued (Centobelli, et al., 2020). However, the limitations identified can be turned into assets and elements that contribute to the development of science. There are proposals and demands in scientific publications for research to be conducted in smaller, developing economies (Pagell and Shevchenko, 2014), and in other organisations, as they can be a source of inspiration (and confirmation of theses) (Silva et al., 2021), or they can negate the generalisation of the research and its results from well-developed economies or in strong and global supply chains.

Many studies also indicate that 3BL alone is not sufficient to introduce sustainability into the supply chain (Norman and MacDonald, 2004; Wu et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2018), but it can, however, be helpful in the context of building a resilience system for the supply chain network. Resilience can also be influenced by the structure and the ecosystem of the chain itself, as well as the links and the relationships between these links (e.g., of a regional nature) (Silva et al., 2021). In the context of examining the sustainability as well as the resilience of the chain, the grouping of different levels of the chain may also be considered (Mehrjerdi and Shafiee, 2021), including different links (manufacturers, distributors, suppliers or retailers), as each link may have a different approach to the indicated strategy, and different implementation conditions.

6 Conclusion

Many studies indicate that the dominant factors in sustainable supply chain development are social and economic factors. Social development can become a determinant of economic and environmental benefits while reducing the operational risks (Tseng et al., 2019). The authors filled the research gap by answering the research questions. The authors’ approach is the authors’ contribution to the research on the resilience of chains using the principles of sustainable development; the theses and questions posed on the basis of the literature on the subject have been empirically verified, and the structural research methodology used has justified the validity of the theses posed and the novelty of the research. The results of the research justify that the elements of sustainable development have an impact on the resilience of supply chains.

Despite the research into risk management being motivated by natural and man-made disasters, the pandemic further highlighted the need to consider resilience from the perspective of an intertwined supply network (Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020; Queiroz et al., 2020). In the context of supply chain management, a supply network systems perspective is necessary when designing inclusive governance processes and mechanisms that are key to establishing resilient operations in post-crisis periods (Khurana et al., 2021). This article extends our current knowledge on the use of 3BL aspects in building the resilience of sustainable supply chains; furthermore, from the research results, it shows that supply chain sustainability resilience research must consider the influence of sustainability factors. In the context of sustainable development, its elements create mechanisms to support the construction of such a chain preserving and applying the principles of sustainable development, thus building its resilience. It also has managerial implications, indicating which sustainability factors have so far been paid attention to in the practices of the companies studied. From a theoretical point of view, it shows that there are yet other factors that can or should be considered. By following the proposed catalogue, and by knowing their impact, managers can promote an effective strategic orientation for building resilience in a sustainable supply chain. Using the concept of sustainability, and at the same time, seeking to strengthen resilience effects on chain operations, it therefore seems necessary to apply new paradigms to assess the actions that are taken.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusion of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent from the participants was not required to participate in this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author contributions

Data curation, BT and TW; Formal analysis, BT and TW; Investigation, BT and TW; Methodology, BT and TW; Software, BT and TW; Visualization, BT and TW; Writing—original draft, BT and TW.

Funding

The publication and language correction are financed within the framework of the program of the Minister of Science and Higher Education under the name “Regional Excellence Initiative” in the years 2019–2023; project number 001/RID/2018/19; the amount of financing PLN 10,684,000.00.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Aggarwal, S., and Srivastava, M. K. (2019). A grey-based DEMATEL model for building collaborative resilience in supply chain. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 36, 1409–1437. doi:10.1108/ijqrm-03-2018-0059

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ardakani, E. S., Seifbarghy, M., Tikani, H., and Daneshgar, S. (2020). Designing a multi-period production-distribution system considering social responsibility aspects and failure modes. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 22, 239–250. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2020.03.009

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Azevedo, S. G., Govindan, K., Carvalho, H., and Cruz-Machado, V. (2013). Ecosilient Index to assess the greenness and resilience of the upstream automotive supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 56, 131–146. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.011

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bentler, P. M., and Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 88 (3), 588–606. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bhamra, R., Dani, S., and Burnard, K. (2011). Resilience: The concept, a literature review and future directions. Int. J. Prod. Res. 49 (18), 5375–5393. doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.563826

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bui, T. D., Tsai, F. M., Tseng, M. L., Tan, R. R., Yu, K. D. S., and Lim, M. K. (2021). Sustainable supply chain management towards disruption and organizational ambidexterity: A data driven analysis. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 26, 373–410. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2020.09.017

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carvalho, H., Duarte, S., and Machado, V. C. (2011). Lean, agile, resilient and green: Divergencies and synergies. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 2, 151–179. doi:10.1108/20401461111135037

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., and Ertz, M. (2020). Managing supply chain resilience to pursue business and environmental strategies. Bus. Strategy Environ. 29 (3), 1215–1246. doi:10.1002/bse.2428

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cha, S.-C., Juo, P.-W., Liu, L.-T., and Chen, W.-N. (2008). “Riskpatrol: A risk management system considering the integration risk management with business continuity processes,” in Intelligence and Security Informatics, 2008. ISI 2008. IEEE International Conference on (IEEE), 110–115.

Google Scholar

Chauhan, C., Kaur, P., Arrawatia, R., Ractham, P., and Dhir, A. (2022). Supply chain collaboration and sustainable development goals (SDGs). Teamwork makes achieving SDGs dream work. J. Bus. Res. 147, 290–307. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.044

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dai, J., Xie, L., and Chu, Z. (2021). Developing sustainable supply chain management: The interplay of institutional pressures and sustainability capabilities. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 28, 254–268. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.04.017

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

de Sá, M. M., de Souza Miguel, P. L., de Brito, R. P., and Pereira, S. C. F. (2019). Supply chain resilience: The whole is not the sum of the parts. Int. J. Operations Prod. Manag. 40, 92–115. doi:10.1108/ijopm-09-2017-0510

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Derissen, S., Quaas, M. F., and Baumgärtner, S. (2011). The relationship between resilience and sustainability of ecological-economic systems. Ecol. Econ. 70, 1121–1128. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.01.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dey, P. K., Yang, G. L., Malesios, C., De, D., and Evangelinos, K. (2021). Performance management of supply chain sustainability in small and medium-sized enterprises using a combined structural equation modelling and data envelopment analysis. Comput. Econ. 58, 573–613. doi:10.1007/s10614-019-09948-1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., and Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley and Sons.

Google Scholar

Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Papadopoulos, T., Blome, C., and Luo, Z. (2017). Antecedents of resilient supply chains: An empirical study. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 66 (1), 8–19. doi:10.1109/tem.2017.2723042

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Papadopoulos, T., Luo, Z., Wamba, S. F., et al. (2019). Can big data and predictive analytics improve social and environmental sustainability? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 144, 534–545. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.020

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Duong, L. N. K., and Chong, J. (2020). Supply chain collaboration in the presence of disruptions: A literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 58 (11), 3488–3507. Envisioned future opportunities to advancing the theory of resilience towards long-term sustainability. doi:10.1080/00207543.2020.1712491

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

El Baz, J., and 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. Prod. Econ. 233, 107972. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107972

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

El Korchi, A. (2022). Survivability, resilience and sustainability of supply chains: The COVID-19 pandemic. J. Clean. Prod. 377, 134363. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134363

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fahimnia, B., and Jabbarzadeh, A. (2016). Marrying supply chain sustainability and resilience: A match made in heaven. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 91, 306–324. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2016.02.007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fahimnia, B., Jabbarzadeh, A., and Sarkis, J. (2018). Greening versus resilience: A supply chain design perspective. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 119, 129–148. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2018.09.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ferreira, C., Cardoso, C., Travassos, M., Paiva, M., Pestana, M., Lopes, J. M., et al. (2021). Disorders, vulnerabilities and resilience in the supply chain in pandemic times. Logistics 5 (3), 48. doi:10.3390/logistics5030048

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fiksel, J. (2003). Designing resilient, sustainable systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37 (23), 5330–5339. doi:10.1021/es0344819

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

George, D., and Mallery, P. (2016). IBM SPSS statistics 23 step by step: A simple guide and reference. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315545899

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Govindan, K., Azevedo, S. G., Carvalho, H., and Cruz-Machado, V. (2015). Lean, green and resilient practices influence on supply chain performance: Interpretive structural modeling approach. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 12 (1), 15–34. doi:10.1007/s13762-013-0409-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N., and Rahman, S. (2015). Supply chain resilience: Role of complexities and strategies. Int. J. Prod. Res. 53 (22), 6809–6819. doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1093667

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., and Ray, S. (2021). “Evaluation of the structural model,” in Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R. Classroom companion: Business (Cham: Springer). doi:10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7_6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hassini, E., Surti, C., and Searcy, C. (2012). A literature review and a case study of sustainable supply chains with a focus on metrics. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (1), 69–82. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.042

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hendry, L. C., Stevenson, M., MacBryde, J., Ball, P., Sayed, M., and Liu, L. (2018). Local food supply chain resilience to constitutional change: The brexit effect. Int. J. Operations Prod. Manag. 39, 429–453. doi:10.1108/ijopm-03-2018-0184

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hervani, A. A., Nandi, S., Helms, M. M., and Sarkis, J. (2022). A performance measurement framework for socially sustainable and resilient supply chains using environmental goods valuation methods. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 30, 31–52. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.11.026

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hosseini-Motlagh, S. M., Samani, M. R. G., and Shahbazbegian, V. (2020). Innovative strategy to design a mixed resilient-sustainable electricity supply chain network under uncertainty. Appl. Energy 280, 115921. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115921

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ivanov, D., and Dolgui, A. (2020). Viability of intertwined supply networks: Extending the supply chain resilience angles towards survivability. A position paper motivated by COVID-19 outbreak. Int. J. Prod. Res. 58 (10), 2904–2915. doi:10.1080/00207543.2020.1750727

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ivanov, D. (2018). Revealing interfaces of supply chain resilience and sustainability: A simulation study. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (10), 3507–3523. doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1343507

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ivanov, D. (2020). Viable supply chain model: Integrating agility, resilience and sustainability perspectives—lessons from and thinking beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann. operations Res. 319, 1411–1431. doi:10.1007/s10479-020-03640-6

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jabbarzadeh, A., Fahimnia, B., and Sabouhi, F. (2018). Resilient and sustainable supply chain design: Sustainability analysis under disruption risks. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (17), 5945–5968. doi:10.1080/00207543.2018.1461950

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

JenatabadiIsmail, H. S. N. A. (2014). Application of structural equation modelling for es-timating airline performance. J. Air Transp. Manag. 40, 25–33. doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2014.05.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Johansson, P. O. (2016). On lessons from energy and environmental cost–benefit analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 112, 20–25. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.01.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Juttner, U., and Maklan, S. (2011). Supply chain resilience in the global financial crisis: An empirical study. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 16, 246–259. doi:10.1108/13598541111139062

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kaur, H., Singh, S. P., Garza-Reyes, J. A., and Mishra, N. (2020). Sustainable stochastic production and procurement problem for resilient supply chain. Comput. Industrial Eng. 139, 105560. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2018.12.007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Khurana, S., Haleem, A., Luthra, S., Huisingh, D., and Mannan, B. (2021). Now is the time to press the reset button: Helping India’s companies to become more resilient and effective in overcoming the impacts of COVID-19, climate changes and other crises. J. Clean. Prod. 280, 124466. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124466

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.

Google Scholar

Labuschagne, C., Brent, A. C., and Van Erck, R. P. (2005). Assessing the sustainability performances of industries. J. Clean. Prod. 13 (4), 373–385. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.10.007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Leat, P., and Revoredo-Giha, C. (2013). Risk and resilience in agri-food supply chains: The case of the ASDA PorkLink supply chain in Scotland. Supply chain Manag. An Int. J. 18, 219–231. doi:10.1108/13598541311318845

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee Park, C., Fracarolli Nunes, M., and Machuca, J. A. (2023). Social sustainability in supply chains: The role of local practices and informal networks. Int. J. Phys. Distribution Logist. Manag. 53 (1), 35–61. doi:10.1108/ijpdlm-09-2021-0405

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lima, F. A., Seuring, S., and Sauer, P. C. (2021). A systematic literature review exploring uncertainty management and sustainability outcomes in circular supply chains. Int.J. Prod. Res., 1–34.

Google Scholar

Lohmer, J., Bugert, N., and Lasch, R. (2020). Analysis of resilience strategies and ripple effect in blockchain-coordinated supply chains: An agent-based simulation study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 228, 107882. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107882

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lopes, J. M., Gomes, S., and Mané, L. (2022). Developing knowledge of supply chain resilience in less-developed countries in the pandemic age. Logistics 6 (1), 3. doi:10.3390/logistics6010003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mandal, S. (2012). An empirical investigation into supply chain resilience. IUP J. supply chain Manag. 9 (4).

Google Scholar

Manning, L., and Soon, J. M. (2016). Building strategic resilience in the food supply chain. Br. Food J. 118, 1477–1493. doi:10.1108/bfj-10-2015-0350

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Manurung, H., Yudoko, G., and Okdinawati, L. (2023). A conceptual framework of supply chain resilience towards sustainability through a service-dominant logic perspective. Heliyon 9, e13901. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13901

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Maqsood, S., Zhou, Y., Lin, X., Huang, S., Jamil, I., and Shahzad, K. (2022). Critical success factors for adopting green supply chain management and clean innovation technology in the small and medium-sized enterprises: A structural equation modeling approach. Front. Psychol. 13, 1008982. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1008982

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Marchese, D., Reynolds, E., Bates, M. E., Morgan, H., Clark, S. S., and Linkov, I. (2018). Resilience and sustainability: Similarities and differences in environmental management applications. Sci. total Environ. 613, 1275–1283. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.086

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mari, S. I., Lee, Y. H., and Memon, M. S. (2014). Sustainable and resilient supply chain network design under disruption risks. Sustainability 6 (10), 6666–6686. doi:10.3390/su6106666

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Massari, G. F., and Giannoccaro, I. (2021). Investigating the effect of horizontal coopetition on supply chain resilience in complex and turbulent environments. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 237, 108150. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108150

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mathiyazhagan, K., Sengupta, S., and Poovazhagan, L. (2018). A decision making trial and evaluation laboratory approach to analyse the challenges to environmentally sustainable manufacturing in Indian automobile industry. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 16, 58–67. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2018.05.007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mehrjerdi, Y. Z., and Shafiee, M. (2021). A resilient and sustainable closed-loop supply chain using multiple sourcing and information sharing strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 289, 125141. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125141

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Men, F., Yaqub, R. M. S., Yan, R., Irfan, M., and Haider, A. (2023). The impact of top management support, perceived justice, supplier management, and sustainable supply chain management on moderating the role of supply chain agility. Front. Environ. Sci. 10, 1–19. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2022.1006029

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Min, H., and Kim, I. (2012). Green supply chain research: Past, present, and future. Logist. Res. 4 (1), 39–47. doi:10.1007/s12159-012-0071-3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Murtagh, N., Scott, L., and Fan, J. (2020). Sustainable and resilient construction: Current status and future challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 268, 122264. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122264

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nandi, S., Sarkis, J., Hervani, A. A., and Helms, M. M. (2021). Redesigning supply chains using blockchain-enabled circular economy and COVID-19 experiences. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 27, 10–22. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.019

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Negri, M., Cagno, E., Colicchia, C., and Sarkis, J. (2021). Integrating sustainability and resilience in the supply chain: A systematic literature review and a research agenda. Bus. Strategy Environ. 30 (7), 2858–2886. doi:10.1002/bse.2776

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Norman, W., and MacDonald, C. (2004). Getting to the bottom of “triple bottom line”. Bus. ethics Q. 14 (2), 243–262. doi:10.5840/beq200414211

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

Google Scholar

Pagell, M., and Shevchenko, A. (2014). Why research in sustainable supply chain management should have no future. J. Supply Chain Manage. 50 (1), 44–55. doi:10.1111/jscm.12037

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Papadopoulos, T., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R., Altay, N., Childe, S. J., and Fosso-Wamba, S. (2017). The role of Big Data in explaining disaster resilience in supply chains for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 1108–1118. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.059

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

PaulMaiti, P. S. J. (2008). The synergic role of sociotechnical and personal characteristics on work injuries in mines. Ergonomics 51, 737–767. doi:10.1080/00140130701747483

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pavlou, S., and Manthou, V. (2008). Identifying and evaluating unexpected events as sources of supply chain risk. Int. J. Serv. Oper. Manag. 4, 604–617. doi:10.1504/ijsom.2008.018004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pavlov, A., Ivanov, D., Pavlov, D., and Slinko, A. (2019). Optimization of network redundancy and contingency planning in sustainable and resilient supply chain resource management under conditions of structural dynamics. Ann. Operations Res., 1. doi:10.1007/s10479-019-03182-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Perrings, C. (2006). Resilience and sustainable development. Environ. Dev. Econ. 11 (4), 417–427. doi:10.1017/s1355770x06003020

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pettit, T. J., Croxton, K. L., and Fiksel, J. (2019). The evolution of resilience in supply chain management: A retrospective on ensuring supply chain resilience. J. Bus. Logist. 40 (1), 56–65. doi:10.1111/jbl.12202

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ponomarov, S. Y., and Holcomb, M. C. (2009). Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 20 (1), 124–143. doi:10.1108/09574090910954873

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Queiroz, M. M., Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., and 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. Ann. Operations Res. 319, 1159–1196. doi:10.1007/s10479-020-03685-7

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rajesh, R. (2020b). A novel advanced grey incidence analysis for investigating the level of resilience in supply chains. Ann. Operations Res. 308, 441–490. doi:10.1007/s10479-020-03641-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rajesh, R. (2020a). Flexible business strategies to enhance resilience in manufacturing supply chains: An empirical study. J. Manuf. Syst. 60, 903–919. doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2020.10.010

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rajesh, R. (2018). On sustainability, resilience, and the sustainable–resilient supply networks. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 15, 74–88. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2018.05.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rajesh, R. (2021). Optimal trade-offs in decision-making for sustainability and resilience in manufacturing supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 313, 127596. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127596

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ramezankhani, M. J., Torabi, S. A., and Vahidi, F. (2018). Supply chain performance measurement and evaluation: A mixed sustainability and resilience approach. Comput. Industrial Eng. 126, 531–548. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2018.09.054

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Redman, C. L. (2014). Should sustainability and resilience be combined or remain distinct pursuits? Ecol. Soc. 19 (2).

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rosič, H., Bauer, G., and Jammernegg, W. (2009). “A framework for economic and environmental sustainability and resilience of supply chains,” in Rapid modelling for increasing competitiveness (London: Springer), 91–104.

Google Scholar

Ryczyński, J., and Tubis, A. A. (2021). Tactical risk assessment method for resilient fuel supply chains for a military peacekeeping operation. Energies 14 (15), 4679. doi:10.3390/en14154679

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sabouhi, F., Jabalameli, M. S., and Jabbarzadeh, A. (2021). An optimization approach for sustainable and resilient supply chain design with regional considerations. Comput. Industrial Eng. 159, 107510. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2021.107510

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sardanelli, D., Bittucci, L., Mirone, F., and Marzioni, S. (2022). An integrative framework for supply chain rating: From financial-based to ESG-based rating models. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 1–20. doi:10.1080/14783363.2022.2069557

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sawik, T. (2011). Selection of supply portfolio under disruption risks. Omega 39 (2), 194–208. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2010.06.007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schmitt, A. J., and Singh, M. (2012). A quantitative analysis of disruption risk in a multi-echelon supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 139 (1), 22–32. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Scholten, K., and Fynes, B. (2017). Risk and uncertainty management for sustainable supply chains. Sustainable supply chains: a research-based textbook on operations and strategy, 413–436.

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Segars, A. H., and Grover, V. (1993). Re-Examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Q. 17 (4), 517–525. doi:10.2307/249590

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Seuring, S., Aman, S., Hettiarachchi, B. D., de Lima, F. A., Schilling, L., and Sudusinghe, J. I. (2022). Reflecting on theory development in sustainable supply chain management. Clean. Logist. Supply Chain 3, 100016. doi:10.1016/j.clscn.2021.100016

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Seuring, S., and Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15), 1699–1710. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Silva, M. E., Silvestre, B. S., Ponte, R. C. D. V., and Cabral, J. E. O. (2021). Managing micro and small enterprise supply chains: A multi-level approach to sustainability, resilience and regional development. J. Clean. Prod. 311, 127567. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127567

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sodhi, M. S., and Tang, C. S. (2012). “Strategic approaches for mitigating supply chain risks,” in Managing supply chain risk (Boston, MA: Springer), 95–108. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3238-87

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Soltanmohammadi, A., Ardakani, D. A., Dion, P. A., and Hettiarachchi, B. D. (2021). Employing total quality practices in sustainable supply chain management. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 28, 953–968. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.07.013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Soni, U., Jain, V., and Kumar, S. (2014). Measuring supply chain resilience using a deterministic modeling approach. Comput. Industrial Eng. 74, 11–25. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2014.04.019

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Stone, J., and Rahimifard, S. (2018). Resilience in agri-food supply chains: A critical analysis of the literature and synthesis of a novel framework. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 23, 207–238. doi:10.1108/scm-06-2017-0201

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sulehri, N. A., Ullah, N., Maroof, Z., Uzair, A., Murtaza, A., and Irfan, M. (2023). Employee associations with R&D investment, firm performance, disruption risk, and supply chain performance during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multiple mediational model. Front. Environ. Sci. 10, 1050488. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2022.1050488

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Suryawanshi, P., Dutta, P., Varun, L., and Deepak, G. (2021). Sustainable and resilience planning for the supply chain of online hyperlocal grocery services. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 28, 496–518. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.05.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Thilmany, D., Canales, E., Low, S. A., and Boys, K. (2021). Local food supply chain dynamics and resilience during COVID-19. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 43 (1), 86–104. doi:10.1002/aepp.13121

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Thun, J. (2010). Angles of integration: An empirical analysis of the alignment of Internet-Based information technology and global supply chain integration. J. Supply Chain Manag. 46, 30–44. doi:10.1111/j.1745-493x.2010.03188.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Townsend, B. (2020). From sri to esg: The origins of socially responsible and sustainable investing. J. Impact ESG Invest. 1 (1), 10–25. doi:10.3905/jesg.2020.1.1.010

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tsai, F. M., Bui, T. D., Tseng, M. L., Ali, M. H., Lim, M. K., and Chiu, A. S. (2021). Sustainable supply chain management trends in world regions: A data-driven analysis. Resour. Conservation Recycl. 167, 105421. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105421

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tsolakis, N., Zissis, D., and Tjahjono, B. (2021). Scrutinising the interplay between governance and resilience in supply chain management: A systems thinking framework. Eur. Manag. J. 41, 164–180. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2021.11.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tseng, M. L., Islam, M. S., Karia, N., Fauzi, F. A., and Afrin, S. (2019). A literature review on green supply chain management: Trends and future challenges. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 141, 145–162.

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Warmbier, P., Kinra, A., and Ivanov, D. (2022). Supply chain sustainability and resilience-relationship and congruent capability analysis based on paradox theory. IFAC-PapersOnLine 55 (10), 311–316. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.09.625

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wu, K. J., Liao, C. J., Tseng, M., and Chiu, K. K. S. (2016). Multi-attribute approach to sustainable supply chain management under uncertainty. Industrial Management and Data Systems 116 (4), 777–800. doi:10.1108/IMDS-08-2015-0327

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wu, K. J., Zhu, Y., Tseng, M. L., Lim, M. K., and Xue, B. (2018). Developing a hierarchical structure of the co-benefits of the triple bottom line under uncertainty. J. Clean. Prod. 195, 908–918. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.264

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yontar, E., and Ersöz, S. (2020). Investigation of food supply chain sustainability performance for Turkey’s food sector. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.00068

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zahiri, B., Zhuang, J., and Mohammadi, M. (2017). Toward an integrated sustainable-resilient supply chain: A pharmaceutical case study. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 103, 109–142. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2017.04.009

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zavala-Alcívar, A., Verdecho, M. J., and Alfaro-Saíz, J. J. (2020b). A conceptual framework to manage resilience and increase sustainability in the supply chain. Sustainability 12 (16), 6300. doi:10.3390/su12166300

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zavala-Alcívar, A., Verdecho, M. J., and Alfaro-Saiz, J. J. (2020a). “Resilient strategies and sustainability in agri-food supply chains in the face of high-risk events,” in Working conference on virtual enterprises (Cham: Springer), 560–570.

Google Scholar

Zeng, H., Li, R. Y. M., Zeng, L., and Chen, H. (2022). Evaluating green supply chain performance based on ESG and financial indicators. Front. Environ. Sci. 10. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2022.982828

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, L., Dou, Y., and Wang, H. (2023). Green supply chain management, risk-taking, and corporate value — dual regulation effect based on technological innovation capability and supply chain concentration. February 11, 1–14. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2023.1096349

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, X., Li, R. Y. M., Sun, Z., Li, X., Samad, S., Comite, U., et al. (2022). Supply chain integration and its impact on operating performance: Evidence from Chinese online companies. Sustainability 14 (21), 14330. doi:10.3390/su142114330

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhu, X., and Wu, Y. J. (2022). How does supply chain resilience affect supply chain performance? The mediating effect of sustainability. Sustainability 14 (21), 14626. doi:10.3390/su142114626

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar