Strategies for Preventing and Mitigating the Effects of Agro-food

Section 1: Foundation of the Study

Agro-food supply chains are prone to disruptions due to their size, complexity,

and dynamic nature (Chang, Ellinger, & Blackhurst, 2015). Supply chain disruptions

adversely affect company performance measures such as service levels, cost, and

responsiveness (Srivastava, Chaudhuri, & Srivastava, 2015). Organizational leaders need

to protect firms from serious and costly disruptions (Chopra & Sodhi, 2014). Business

managers can improve the performance and competitiveness of their businesses by

managing disruptive risk effectively (Parihar & Rahul, 2014). Organizational leaders

cannot avoid supply chain disruptions and therefore must put in place strategies to reduce

their impact (Kumar, Himes, & Kritzer, 2014). The findings from this study could

provide useful insights and information on the strategies for preventing and mitigating the

effects of disruptions in agro-food supply chains.

Background of the Problem

Agro-food supply chain management is complex due to the perishable nature of products,

dependence on weather conditions, fluctuations in demand and prices, and increasing

consumer concerns for food safety (Shukla & Jharkharia, 2013). Although, supply chain

management initiatives can result in more efficient and leaner operations, prevalent

supply chain disruptions are detrimental to the performance of companies (Nyamah, Yi,

Oppong-Sekyere, & Nyamaah, 2014). Supply chain disruptions in organizations can

result in revenue loss and have a negative impact on shareholder wealth (Macdonald &

Corsi, 2013). Business leaders at Menu Foods Corporation in the United States lost about

$70 million as a result of recalls of 60 million cans of pet food contaminated with

undesirable chemicals from a supplier (Chen, 2014). Given the huge costs to companies,

it is important for business managers to have strategies in place to prevent and mitigate

the effects of supply chain disruptions.

Researchers conducted studies on the impact of disruptions in different locations

of the supply chain network, and on company performance (Kaki, Salo, & Talluri, 2015).

Some researchers focused on risk analysis and the impact of each risk on the supply chain

(Dellana & West, 2016). Macdonald and Corsi (2013), Son and Orchard (2013), Parihar

and Rahul (2014), Schlegel (2015), and Konig and Spinler (2016) addressed various

issues related to supply chain vulnerability and risk mitigation. The results from these

studies show that supply chains are prone to costly disruptions and it is necessary for

business managers to assess supply chain risks and develop effective risk mitigation

practices. Gaps exist regarding strategies for preventing and mitigating the effects of

disruptions in agro-food supply chains. Through this research, agribusiness managers

may implement strategies for preventing and mitigating the effects of disruptions in agro-

food supply chains and improve supply chain performance.

Problem Statement

Disruptions in supply chains are common problems that inhibit competitiveness in

agro-food value chains (Dries, Gorton, Urutyan, & White, 2014). Moderate to severe

supply chain disruptions can lead up to a 107% drop in operating income (Alcantara,

2015) and a 12% decrease in shareholder returns (Chen, 2014). The general business

problem is that agro-food supply chain disruptions have a negative effect on business

sustainability and profitability. The specific business problem is that some agribusiness

managers lack strategies to prevent and mitigate the effects of disruptions in the agro-

food supply chains.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study was to explore the strategies

agribusiness managers use to prevent and mitigate the effects of disruptions in the agro-

food supply chains. The population of this study consisted of five agribusiness managers

from two agro-food companies in the urban district of Harare, Zimbabwe. The

agribusiness managers had implemented successful strategies for preventing and

mitigating the effects of disruptions in agro-food supply chains. According to Wright and

Datskovska (2013), implementing successful strategies results in organizations having

lower costs and improved profitability. The contribution to positive social change may

include a reduction in supply chain costs, provision of better services and products to

consumers, and lower prices of agro-food products to consumers which consequently

could lead to an improvement in the lives of consumers.

Nature of the Study

The research method for this study was qualitative. Qualitative research involves

gaining a detailed understanding and in-depth knowledge of meanings, reasons, and

patterns assigned by individuals to lived experiences and realities (Garcia & Gluesing,

2013; Guercini, 2014). My use of qualitative research was appropriate to explore how

agribusiness managers prevent and mitigate the effects of disruptions in the agro-food

supply chains. Researchers use quantitative research to test hypotheses, examine

variables, and analyze statistical data (Frels & Onwuegbuzie, 2013; McCusker &

Gunaydin, 2015). A quantitative method was not appropriate because I was not seeking

to test hypotheses, to examine variables, or compare variables’ effects. The mixed

methods approach involves combining statistical analyses of numerical data and thematic

data (Golicic & Davis, 2012; Sparkes, 2014). A mixed methods approach was not

suitable for this study, as this research would not require the integration of qualitative and

quantitative techniques for data collection and analysis.

Qualitative research designs include ethnographic studies, narrative designs, case

studies, and phenomenological research (Garcia & Gluesing, 2013; Singh, 2014).

Researchers use the case study design for in-depth inquiry, and it is an appropriate design

where a researcher seeks to answer how, why, and what questions (Singh, 2014; Yin,

2014). A case study research design is appropriate for understanding emerging ideas,

real-life events, and situations that do not have a single set of outcomes (Yin, 2014). The

qualitative case study design was the most appropriate research design for this study

because my goal was to identify and explore the strategies that agribusiness supply chain

managers utilize in preventing and mitigating the effects of agro-food supply chain

disruptions. Narrative researchers focus on collecting data on participants' life

experiences in a chronological manner (Green, 2013) which was not the intent of this

study. Researchers use the phenomenological approach to understand the character and

meaning of participants' lived experiences to a particular event from individual

perspectives (Budd & Velasquez, 2014; Ziakas & Boukas, 2014). The phenomenological

design was not suitable because the basis of this study was not on subjective individual

viewpoints and interpretations from experiencing one or more phenomena. The

ethnographic research design involves studying shared beliefs of a group over time

(Bamkin, Maynard, & Goulding, 2016; Zilber, 2014) and was therefore also not

appropriate for this study.

Research Question

The overarching research question for this study was: What strategies do

agribusiness managers use to prevent and mitigate the effects of disruptions in agro-food

supply chains?

Interview Questions

Participants answered the following questions:

1. What strategies do you use to prevent disruptions in agro-food supply chains?

2. What strategies are most effective in mitigating the effects of disruptions in agro-

food supply chains?

3. What barriers did you encounter in implementing the strategies for preventing

disruptions to your supply chain network?

4. How did you address the barriers to the implementation of strategies for

preventing disruptions to your supply chain network?

5. What processes do you use to minimize agro-food supply disruptions?

6. How do you assess the effectiveness of the strategies you use to prevent and

mitigate the effects of supply chain disruptions?

7. What additional information can you provide on strategies to prevent and mitigate

the effects of disruptions in agro-food supply chains?

Conceptual Framework

The contingency theory of fit (CTF) was the conceptual framework for this study.

Van de Ven and Drazin proposed the contingency theory of fit in 1985 (Van de Ven &

Drazin, 1985).The key tenets of the theory are that an outcome is a fit and is a result of

multiple issues. Optimal decisions within a firm are contingent upon the internal and

external issues and the firm's performance depends on how well organizational resources

match the business environment. Therefore, there is no one-size-fits-all strategy, but the

appropriateness of a mitigation strategy is dependent upon the internal and external

environment (Van de Ven & Drazin, 1985).

According to Van de Ven and Drazin (1985), a supply chain disruption is a lack of

fit. The effect of a supply chain disruption is minimal when a firm can organize efficient

responses (Grotsch, Blome, & Schepler, 2013). In terms of the CTF, theorists posited that

for efficient management of supply chain disruptions, managers need to understand the

sources of uncertainty and then design a prevention and response effort focusing on

management of information and material flows (Talluri, Kull, Yildiz, & Yoon, 2013).

The CTF applied to this study because it served as the basis on which to prepare for,

prevent and minimize the effect of a supply chain disruption. By using the CTF,

researchers can focus on developing a framework to understand the different methods of

preventing and mitigating the effects of supply chain disruptions (Brenner, 2014). Insight

was also necessary to connect sustainable prevention and mitigation strategies for agro-

food supply chains to both the external and internal environmental demands.

Operational Definitions

Agro-food supply chain: A system of organizations or individuals involved in

moving agro-food products, services, and information from the farmer to the customer

(Shukla & Jharkharia, 2013).

Information sharing: An interorganizational exchange of data, information and

knowledge (Kembro & Naslund, 2014).

Risk management: A proactive approach business managers use to identify,

analyze, and manage risks and uncertainties (Cagnin, Oliveira, Simon, Helleno, &

Vendramini, 2016).

Supply chain collaboration: An interorganizational relationship where two or

more partners are working together to align supply chain operations, share information,

and build a value added process (Hofer, Hofer, & Waller, 2014).

Supply chain disruption: An unexpected event that results in an interrupted flow

of goods and services in the supply chain and has negative consequences for normal

supply chain operations (Tse, Matthews, Tan, Sato, & Pongpanich, 2016).

Supply chain management: A set of decisions for planning and executing

operations of the supply chain with the purpose of delivering value to the customer and

improving supply chain performance (Aggarwal & Srivastava, 2016).

Supply chain relationships: Interorganizational partnerships between buyers and

sellers and their management leads to supply chain agility and responsiveness (Teller,

Kotzab, Grant, & Holweg, 2016).

Supply chain resilience: An adaptive capability by organizational leaders in the

supply chain to prepare, respond, and survive unexpected disturbances or events

(Hohenstein, Feisel, Hartman, & Giunipero, 2015).

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations

Assumptions

Assumptions are ideas that researchers believe to be true, but no adequate proof

exists to support the beliefs (Schoenung & Dikova, 2016). The researchers' assumptions

shape the research they conduct and influence the scope of inquiry and research findings

(Kirkwood & Price, 2013). An assumption of this study was that the respondents would

give honest and complete answers during interviews. It was possible that participants

could provide biased and inaccurate information. The second assumption was that the

agribusiness managers participating in this study would be able to provide information on

strategies for preventing and mitigating the effects of supply chain disruptions. The third

assumption was that the company documents would reflect an accurate and current

position regarding the management of agro-food supply chain disruptions. I mitigated the

risk associated with the assumption of document veracity by triangulating themes from

document reviews and interviews. Additionally, I assumed that the data the study

participants would provide would assist the reader to understand the strategies for

preventing and mitigating the effects of agro-food supply chain disruptions.

Limitations

Limitations are potential weaknesses of the study that may decrease the reliability,

credibility, and generalizability of research findings (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). The

primary limitation of this study was that the research was specific to agribusiness

managers located in the urban district of Harare in Zimbabwe. Like other qualitative

studies, restricting the research to a specific geographic location and to a specific industry

limits the generalizability of the research findings to a larger population (Yin, 2014). The

second limitation was that the sample size had only five agribusiness managers. A larger

sample may have a different result (Boddy, 2016).

Delimitations

Delimitations are the set boundaries of a study (Merriam, 2014). Researchers

define the parameters of the investigation to clarify what the study is not about (Barratt,

Choi, & Li, 2011; Marshall & Rossman, 2016). According to Rusly, Corner, and Sun

(2012), researchers impose restrictions or boundaries to focus the scope of the study. The

set boundaries of this study were in learning, gaining a detailed understanding, and

exploring the perceptions of agribusiness managers regarding their experiences in

implementing strategies for preventing and mitigating the effects of agro-food supply

chains. Another delimitation was the use of a multiple case study and restricting

interview responses to five participants that were working in agro-food companies in

Harare only. Agribusiness managers who worked outside the urban district of Harare

were not eligible to participate in the study.

Significance of the Study

Contribution to Business Practice

Successful management of supply chain disruptions may lead to improvements in

the performance of businesses (Parihar & Rahul, 2014). Business managers who can

manage disruption risk make their firms more resilient and competitive (Pettit, Croxton,

& Fiksel, 2013). Organizational leaders can use competitive strategies to prevent and

reduce supply chain disruption costs, and focus on value-adding activities to improve

service, flexibility, and deliver best the value (Kumar & Nambirajan, 2013). The findings

from this study could contribute to improving business practice by providing information

that can reduce effects of disruptions in agro-food supply chains, as well as raise

agribusiness managers' awareness and understanding of strategies for preventing and

mitigating the effects of disruptions in agro-food supply chains. Supply chain

practitioners in the agro-food industry could use the findings to explore the potential

causes of disruptions in agro-food supply chains and implement prevention and

mitigation strategies. Through this research, agribusiness managers can implement

strategies and develop principles to improve supply chain sustainability and performance.

Implications for Social Change

Social change encompasses social issues that are of public concern that affect the

welfare of individuals, communities, institutions, or society (O'Cass & Griffin, 2015).

Successful businesses contribute effectively to the improvement of human and social

conditions by creating jobs, participating in environmental sustainability programs, and

contributing to economic growth (Polonsky, Grau, & Mcdonald, 2016). The implications

for positive social change for my study include the potential for business managers to

reduce supply chain costs, provide better services and products to consumers, and lower

prices of agro-food products to consumers which consequently can improve the lives of

consumers. Managers could also improve the standard of living for customers with lower

incomes because of the reduction in costs (Sekip-Altug & Van Ryzin, 2014). Prevention

and mitigation of the effects of agro-food supply chain disruptions could lead to a

reduction in economic loss and an improvement in the economic and social well-being of

Zimbabweans (Macdonald & Corsi, 2013).

A Review of the Professional and Academic Literature

The focus of this qualitative multiple case study was to explore the strategies

agribusiness managers use to prevent and mitigate the effects of disruptions in the agro-

food supply chains. The overarching research question was: What strategies do

agribusiness managers use to prevent and mitigate the effects of disruptions in agro-food

supply chains? The purpose of the literature review was to provide the basis of inquiry to

the overall research question. Researchers review the literature to build a logical

framework for the research and add support to the research topic (Marshall & Rossman,

2016).

The strategy for literature review entailed a broad focus on causes and effects of

supply chain disruptions to targeted strategies for preventing and mitigating the effects of

disruptions in supply chains. The key topics of the literature review included the

contingency theory of fit, the phenomenon of disruptions in supply chains, and focused

prevention and mitigation strategies. The strategies included (a) supply chain design and

management, (b) sustainable supply chain management, (c) resilient supply chains, (d)

supply chain collaboration, (e) technology and supply chains, and (f) supply chain risk

management. I searched various academic databases from the Walden University Library

and from Google Scholar. Walden library research databases included Emerald

Management Journals, Business Source Complete, ABI/INFORM Global, SAGE

Premier, ProQuest Central, and Science Direct. Key search words include agro-food

supply chains, supply chain management, preventing disruptions, mitigating disruptions,

supply chain risk, technology and supply chains, and supply chain risk management. The

literature review section contains 159 journals, four books, two technical reports, and one

dissertation. Of the 159 sources, 156(98%) are peer reviewed, and 148(93%) are

published within 5 years of the expected completion date of study (2013-2017).

Contingency Theory of Fit

The theory underlying this study was CTF. The CTF serves as the basis to prepare

for, and prevent and minimize the effects of supply chain disruptions (Talluri et al.,

2013). Van de Ven and Drazin proposed the contingency theory of fit in 1985 (Van de

Ven & Drazin, 1985). The CTF stems from the structural contingency theory. Lawrence

and Lorsch (1967) developed the contingency approach to understand organizational

subsystems and their environments. Lawrence and Lorsch studied the impact of the

environment on organizational structure, and found that optimum organizational

integration and differentiation was contingent upon the level of environmental

uncertainty.

According to Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), the basis of optimal decisions within

an organization are the internal and external factors. Critical theorists considered the

structural contingency theory as too narrow with weak empirical support (Tarter & Hoy,

1998). Tosi and Slocum (1984) advocated for further research and development of the

key parameters and notions surrounding the structural contingency theory. Business

leaders have recognized the CTF by Van de Ven and Drazin (1985) as a useful

framework for managing supply chain disruptions. Van de Ven and Drazin posited that

an outcome is a fit and is a result of multiple issues. Optimal decisions within a firm are

contingent upon the internal and external issues and the firm's performance depends on

how well organizational resources match the business environment (Talluri et al., 2013).

The three approaches to fit are (a) the interaction approach, (b) the selection

approach, and (c) the systems approach (Van de Ven & Drazin, 1985). The systems

approach to fit is an internal consistency of patterns of multiple contingencies and

performance characteristics (Brenner, 2014). A selection approach to fit is an ecological

process that has an impact on organizational survival (Talluri et al., 2013). The

interaction approach to fit is the relationship between organizational context and structure

and it is a useful framework that researchers use in examining correlations between the

context and the specific organizational design characteristics (Hallavo, 2015). The

concepts of selection and interaction are useful because supply chain managers can use

different sets of strategies to prevent and mitigate the effects of various supply chain risks

and enhance business performance (Chang et al., 2015). Managers can select different

sets of strategies at different times to minimize disruptive risk in the supply chain.

However, in selecting a particular strategy, managers need to match the organizational

context and the available response strategy.

Supply chain disruptions affect chain operations and performance measures such

as responsiveness, cost, and service levels (Srivastava et al., 2015). There is no one-size-

fits-all strategy to manage uncertainties and risks, but the appropriateness of a mitigation

strategy is dependent upon the internal and external environment (Van de Ven & Drazin,

1985). The effect of a supply chain disruption is minimal when leaders in organizations

can organize efficient responses (Grotsch et al., 2013). The CTF is a useful framework

supply chain managers can use to develop long term responses to supply chain

disruptions and to achieve supply chain stability.

In terms of the CTF, Talluri et al. (2013) posited that for efficient management of

supply chain disruptions, managers need to understand the sources of uncertainty and

then design a prevention and response effort focusing on management of information and

material flows. Implementing an excellent information and material flow system reduces

uncertainty and improves the performance of the supply chain (Riley, Klein, Miller, &

Sridharan, 2016). Using survey data collected from 231 supply chain managers, Riley et

al. (2016) found that managing information flows can bolster risk management

capabilities of firms. The implication of the research findings are that managers can build

collaborative communication networks to manage and mitigate risk in the supply chain.

Firms that operate under uncertain and risky conditions use mitigation strategies

whose suitability and effectiveness are dependent on the internal and external

environment (Talluri et al., 2013). Grotsch et al. (2013) used a similar theoretical view on

mitigating risks and uncertainty. Grotsch et al. investigated the antecedents to proactive

risk management implementation from a CTF perspective. Using past supplier

insolvencies as a major contingency, Grotsch et al. stated that there is no appropriate

accounting system that can apply to all organizations in all situations. Instead, particular

aspects of an accounting system would depend on the firm's specific situation. Grotsch et

al.'s findings show that managers need to take a holistic risk management approach to

mitigate supplier insolvency risk. Because firms operate in risky environments, managers

need to analyze and understand the risks before selecting an appropriate mitigation

strategy.

Hallavo (2015) empirically tested the CTF in the context of the supply chain

uncertainty by aligning firm operations with both the internal and external environment.

Using a hierarchical regression model to analyze a cross-sectional survey sample of 875

Russian manufacturing firms, Hallavo found out that matching the level of operational

effectiveness with the external and internal environment leads to superior company

performance. Chang et al. (2015) utilized the CTF to examine alternative supply chain

risk mitigation strategies with specific risk contexts. Chen et al.'s framework is useful to

supply chain managers in that they can choose the relevant risk mitigation strategies

based on the context and structure of the risk. Given the applicability of the CTF to

supply chain risk mitigation, I anchored my work in the domain and evaluated the

different strategies for preventing and mitigating the effects of agro-food supply chain

disruptions.

Contrasting Theories

Contrasting theories researchers explored in studies relating to mitigation of

supply chain disruptions include (a) the normal accident theory (NAT) and (b) the

resource dependency theory (RDT; Bowman, 2015). NAT theorists view disasters or

accidents as inevitable due to interactive complexity in organizations (Marley, Ward, &

Hill, 2014). The focus of the resource dependency theory (RDT) is on the ability of

leaders in an organization to acquire external resources (Wolf, 2014).

Normal Accident Theory. Perrow (1999) developed the NAT to describe the

conditions that contribute to risk situations. The key tenets of the theory are that accidents

are inevitable and are a result of a system's interactive complexity and tight coupling

(Marley, et al., 2014). Failures happen in unexpected ways and to prevent their

occurrence, managers must increase slack or reduce complexity (Perrow, 1999). The

conditions of interactive complexity and tight coupling are antecedents to supply chain

disruptions (Yang & Yang, 2010). Identifying the precursors and how interactive

complexity and tight coupling influence disruption occurrence is beneficial to supply

chain managers in determining alternative mitigation strategies.

In terms of the NAT, theorists posited that by reducing the level of interactive

complexity, organizations could become less vulnerable to supply chain disruptions

(Marley et al., 2014). Yang and Yang (2010) suggested that by reducing interactive

complexity, problems become more visible and consequently there are fewer supply

chain disruptions. The major limitation of the NAT is that researchers have not yet tested

the dimensions of interactive complexity and tight coupling empirically (Marley et al.,

2014). From an organizational perspective, the challenge for managers is to acquire the

capacity to cope with interactive complexity and tight coupling simultaneously. I did not

select the NAT as my conceptual framework because of its limited applicability in an

organizational context.

Resource Dependency Theory. Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) posited that

organizational performance depends on the level of its reliance on critical resources.

Pfeffer and Salancik explained that organizational leaders could reduce uncertainty by

acquiring external resources. In terms of the RDT, Wolf (2014) contended that

organizational leaders can acquire external resources by developing supply chain

relationships. Supply chain managers depend and collaborate with external organizations

to pursue higher organizational performance (Soosay & Hyland, 2015). Chen and Fung

(2013) examined the relationship managers form with customers and suppliers in the

supply chain from an RDT perspective. Chen and Fung's findings show that information

sharing among supply chain partners can reduce uncertainty when conducting business in

the external environment. I did not select the RDT as my conceptual framework because

it did not have a solid foundation to understand the different strategies of preventing and

mitigating the effects of supply chain disruptions.

Supply Chain Disruptions

Supply chains are increasingly becoming complex and vulnerable to disruptions.

Supply chains exist in multiple geographic regions, and as a result, local firms are prone

to operational risk and unpredictable disruptions (Tse et al., 2016). Disruptions in supply

chains occur more frequently and are becoming a problem in the global marketplace

(Hurn, 2013). According to the Business Continuity Institute (2013), 75% of the

respondents from 71 countries experienced at least one major supply chain disruption in 1

year. In the United States, about 600 companies suffered a supply chain disruption

leading to at least a 9% reduction in stock price between1998 and 2007 (Wildgoose,

Brennan, & Thompson, 2012). Because of the frequent occurrence of supply chain

disruptions, managers need to consider various strategies to prevent and minimize their

effects.

Supply chain disruptions may occur as a result of droughts, earthquakes,

hurricanes, and civil wars (Iakovou, Vlachos, Keramydas, & Partsch, 2014). Supply

chain disruptions may also be as a result of various factors including (a) poor

communication between suppliers and manufacturers, (b) labor strikes, (c) government

regulations, (d) acts of terrorism, (f) information technology (IT) malfunctions, (e)

quality problems, (f) operational problems, and (g) industrial accidents (Macdonald &

Corsi, 2013). Pradhan and Routroy (2014) identified delivery performance, business

practices, rework, and demand supplier fluctuations at the supplier as major risk

categories for manufacturing companies. Because potential disruptions are a result of

risks that are unplanned, managers need to assess the triggers of these risks and mitigate

the impact of the supply chain risk.

Supply chain disruptions that are demand driven are due to customer demand

volatility, insolvency, and distribution flow problems (Schlegel, 2015). Process

disruptions that could occur within the organization include (a) system glitches, (b) time

delays, (c) inventory shortages, (d) quality problems, and (e) supply chain visibility

(Schlegel, 2015). After an extensive review of current research, Konig and Spinler (2016)

explained that supply chain disruptions might also be a result of supply chain

management activities including outsourcing, technological innovations, fluctuations in

demand, and reduction in inventory. Outsourcing of global business and inventory

management methods, for example, just in time (JIT) may also lead firms to become

vulnerable to unpredictable disruptions (Kumar et al., 2014; Tse et al., 2016). Inadequate

visibility of the supply chain is another huge risk to businesses (Yao, 2013). Business

managers can review strategically on what they want to outsource and assess whether

their vendors have the right people, processes, and technology to support the firm's

business functions.

Agro-food supply chains have inherent disruption risks due to unstable

environmental issues (Shukla & Jharkharia, 2013). The major risk categories include (a)

biological and environmental risks such as pests and diseases, (b) market-related risks

that include volatile customer demand and fluctuations in input price, (c) poor

infrastructure, (d) weak institutional capacity to implement institutional mandates, and (e)

financial risks relating to exchange rate and interest rate policies (Nyamah et al., 2014).

In support of Nyamah et al. (2014), Tse et al. (2016) opined that demand uncertainty, an

uncertainty of product quality, and logistics uncertainty could lead to the disruption of

normal flow of goods in agro-food supply chains and an increase in costs.

In a study of cold food chains in Germany, Brenner (2014) identified some of the

principal causes of food supply chain disruptions including (a) long transport distances,

temperature deviations during loading and unloading, (b) inadequate food control, (c)

lack of standardization of traceability systems, (d) sanitary and pesticide violations, and

(e) fluctuations in supply performance. Srivastava et al. (2015) conducted a quantitative

study to examine the potential supply chain risks and performance measures in fresh food

retail. Srivastava et al. noted the perishability nature of products as an important source of

risk in agro-food supply chains. The perishability of many food products is a result of

conditions of storage, processing, and transport at all the stages of the supply chain

(Chaudhuri, Srivastava, Srivastava, & Parveen, 2016). Other risk drivers unique to the

food industry are cross-contamination in stores and logistics, failure to communicate with

customers, lack of traceability, internal process errors at customer interface, and unsold

inventory (Srivastava et al., 2015). Consequently, there is a need for business leaders to

increase the operational efficiency in the agro-food supply chain and minimize food

supply chain disruptions.

Effects of Supply Chain Disruptions. The impact of supply chain disruptions

can be costly and can have a negative effect on both the organization's operations and the

supply chain. Hazard risks such as natural disasters, plant fires, and explosions tend to

occur less frequently, but they have a significant impact on the organization (Schlegel,

2015). Supply chain disruptions can result in the suspension of both the upstream and

downstream operations of the supply chain (Son & Orchard, 2013). The March 2011

earthquake and tsunami in Japan resulted in high casualties, property losses and adversely

affected the flow of goods in the global automobile industry (Chang et al., 2015). The

estimated financial impact of the tsunami was over US$300 billion (Chakravarty, 2013).

Japanese assembly plants closed for a month because of the unavailability of critical

components (Chopra & Sodhi, 2014). Furthermore, the management of Hitachi's

automotive systems factory suspended operations resulting in a temporary curtailment of

vehicle production in Germany, France, Spain, and USA (Chang et al., 2015). Because

disasters have far reaching influence on domestic manufacturers and companies in

multiple countries, business managers should have detailed plans for dealing with supply

chain disruptions.

Disruption of the global supply chain could have severe economic and financial

consequences. The estimated global economic impact of both natural and man-made

disasters is about US$ 960 billion (Iakovou et al., 2014). The April 2010 volcano in

Iceland resulted in a revenue loss of US$5 billion to the global air travel industry (Konig

& Spinler, 2016). A high-tech, deep-water oil well explosion in the Gulf of Mexico in

2010 had an estimated financial impact of $40 billion (Chakravarty, 2013). Similarly, in

2011, widespread floods in Thailand submerged sensitive semiconductor plants and

resulted in revenue losses for Japanese auto companies that had manufacturing plants in

Thailand (Chopra & Sodhi, 2014). These examples show that not only is effective risk

scanning necessary but managers should put in place a proactive plan for risk mitigation.

Poor management of a single supplier or lack of financial support could have a

disruptive effect on an organization (Dellana & West, 2016). General Motors had a

revenue loss of about US$800 million as a result of a labor strike from a key supplier

(Chakravarty, 2013). A sustained disruption can lead to a company shut down (Kumar et

al., 2014). Ericsson lost US$400 million in revenue, and Ericsson's management closed

the handset business as an independent manufacturer after a supply chain disruption in

2000 (Chakravarty, 2013). In 2001, UPF Thomson, the sole supplier of the chassis frame

for Land Rover went bankrupt, and leaders in Land Rover had to pay $35 million to

manage the disruption (Dellana & West, 2016). Using a quantitative event study

methodology, Kumar, Liu, and Scutella (2015) analyzed 301 supply chain disruptions in

India from 2003-2012 and found that disruptions led to a drop of 2.88% in stockholder

wealth. In a different study, Schlegel (2015) noted that a moderate to severe disruption

could lead up to a 107% drop in operating income, 6.9% reduction in sales growth, and

10.66% increase in cost.

Supply chain risks in the agro-food industry may result in recalls and have a

significant effect on company performance. In October 2014, leaders at Parle Products in

India recalled their entire stock of candy product, mango bite from the market because of

the use of buffered lactic acid in the manufacturing process (Chaudhuri et al., 2016).

Similarly, Nestle India's managers recalled $50 million worth of Maggi noodles in April

2015 due to the high presence of lead and monosodium glutamate (Chaudhuri et al.,

2016). Given the huge costs to companies, it has become important for organizational

leaders to have strategies in place to prevent and mitigate the effects of supply chain

disruptions.

The actual cost of a supply chain disruption is not just the lost revenue and the

production and product quality problems, but there are strategic and marketing

consequences (Zhao, Huo, Sun, & Zhao, 2013). Supply chain disruptions can result in a

reduced brand value, erosion of customer loyalty, and loss of customers that diversify

their supply (Chakravarty, 2013). Disruptions in a supply chain may also result in loss of

exclusive customer relationships when customers switch to competitor products

(Chakravarty, 2013). The evolving risks in the supply chain and the associated costs are

of concern to most organizational leaders and managing the risks are the primary goals

for survival in the market.

Supply Chain Design and Management

A supply chain is a set of organizations or individuals involved in the flow of

products, services, and information from the main manufacturer to the customer (Kembro

& Naslund, 2014). The activities in a supply chain involve the procurement of raw

materials, the transformation of raw materials into final products, and the distribution of

the commodities to customers (Prasad, Subbaiah, & Rao, 2014). Supply chains are multi-

dimensional consisting of informational, financial, and relational aspects and as such;

include both physical activities and behavioral dimensions (Pitt, Chotipanich, Amin, &

Issarasak, 2014). In addition, supply chains are not static, but they vary in size, shape,

and configuration due to factors such as technological changes, an emergence of new

products, new market niches, and geographical markets (MacCarthy, Blome, Olhager,

Srai, & Zhao, 2016). Therefore, supply chain leaders need to recognize how

globalization, technology, and changing markets affect the performance of their

organizations and supply chains.

Supply chain design refers to decisions regarding operating facilities, inventory,

transportation, and information flow in the supply chain (Prasad et al., 2014). Given the

competitive business environment, it is critical for supply chain managers to align supply

chain activities with the competitive strategy and strategic objectives of the organization

(Stevens & Johnson, 2016). Utilizing the contingency theory of fit as the conceptual

framework, Arora, Arora, and Sivakumar (2016) examined the relationship between

supply chain strategies and operational and relational outcomes of organizational

performance. Arora et al. found that supply chain transformation occurs when firms are

truly integrative and collaborative. Supply chain collaboration and integration practices

based on relational ties, tend to result in trust and better coordination among supply chain

partners (Arora et al., 2016). Arora et al. concluded that the supply chain mix effects both

the internal environment of the focal firm and the external environment of customers,

competitors, suppliers, and supply chain partners. This would result in supply chain

management effectiveness, organizational performance, and sustainable competitive

advantage (Arora et al., 2016). Supply chain competitiveness is a result of cooperation,

collaboration, and coordination among supply chain partners (Braziiotis, Bourlakis,

Rogers, & Tannock, 2013; MacCarthy et al., 2016). Integration of resources, information

sharing, and transactions across traditional boundaries are essential in gaining

competitive advantage in the supply chain (Chaudhuri, Mohanty, & Singh, 2013). Thus,

organizational leaders with good communication and relational ties can integrate

information sharing activities and processes to enhance supply chain management.

Supply chain management is a set of decisions for planning and executing

operations of the supply chain (Kumar & Nambirajan, 2013). The supply management

process is a set of synchronized decisions, and activities managers utilize to efficiently

integrate suppliers, manufacturers, transporters, retailers, and customers to minimize

system-wide costs while meeting customer demand (Prasad et al., 2014). Supply chain

managers coordinate material and information flows within and among supply chain

partners (Pashaei & Olhager, 2015). Supply chain management is a major source of

competitive advantage (Barros, Barbosa-Povera, & Blanco, 2013; Shamah, 2013). Supply

chain managers need to minimize costs, improve service interaction with supply chain

partners, and improve flexibility in supply chain activities to compete in the global

market, (Tarofder, Marthandan, Mohan, & Tarofder, 2013). Thus, organizational leaders

who focus on structuring business functions to integrate supply chain activities can secure

competitive advantage and deliver value to their customers.

Effective supply chain management is necessary because of globalization,

changing markets, and intense competition in the market place. Supply chain managers

need to integrate the activities of suppliers, manufacturers, transporters, retailers, and

customers to reduce supply chain costs while satisfying customer service-level

requirements (Cruz, 2013). Braziiotis et al. (2013) recommended that supply chain

managers should focus on coordinating material flows and activities of other

organizations to increase performance and competitiveness in the supply chain. Using the

Australian beef processing industry as an example, Jie, Parton and Cox (2013) examined

the relationship between management actions and process improvements in the supply

chain. Jie et al. found that trust, supplier relationships, and information quality are

important drivers of the agro-food supply chain process and can lead to a sustainable

competitive advantage.

One of the important elements of supply chain management is supply chain

performance (Huo, Qi, Wang, & Zhao, 2014). Supply chain performance is a systematic

process that managers use to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of supply chain

operations (Sundram, Chandran, & Bhatti, 2016). Supply chain managers assess supply

chain performance to encourage service excellence and global optimization along supply

chain channels (Ibrahim & Hamid, 2014; Sundram et al., 2016). By using supply chain

performance measurement, supply chain managers can promote collaborative integration

among supply chain partners and ensure continuous improvement of the supply chain.

Supply chain managers seeking to improve resource efficiency in their supply

chains should develop a set of resource indicators, implement flexible production

systems, and supply chain management practices (Matopoulos, Barros, & Van Der Vorst,

2015). Supply chain management practices refer to activities that organizational leaders

undertake to promote efficient management of the supply chain (Barros et al., 2013). Min

and Mentzer (2004) identified seven components of supply chain management practices:

(a) supply chain leadership, (b) agreed on vision and goals, (c) exchange of information,

(d) risk and award sharing, (e) long-term relationship, and (f) process integration and

cooperation. Ibrahim and Hamid (2014) identified the use of information technology as

an additional aspect of supply chain management practice. Odongo, Dora, Molnar,

Ongeng, and Gellynck (2016) further supported that information sharing and strong and

mutual relationships with supply chain members are important supply chain management

practices that supply chain managers employ to achieve a well-integrated supply chain.

In contrast Lii and Kuo (2016) and Seo, Dinwoodie, and Kwak (2014) argued that

business leader's innovativeness is an important driver in leveraging supply chain

performance because it results in a more sophisticated management of information and

material flows along the supply chain. Organizational leaders stimulate innovativeness

internally by encouraging employees and executives to exploit new behaviors and

practices (Seo et al., 2014). Utilizing quantitative survey data of 102 South Korean

manufacturers, Seo et al. observed that innovativeness in the supply chain has a positive

impact on both supply chain integration and supply chain performance. Thus,

organizational leaders can pursue a high level of integration to improve supply chain

performance.

Supply chain management practices can have significant direct positive effects

on supply chain performance (Odongo et al., 2016). Sundram et al. (2016) studied the

relationship between the different components of supply chain practices and supply chain

performance in the Malaysian electronics sector. Sundram et al. observed that

information quality, agreed on vision and goals, supply relationships, and information

sharing are crucial management practices managers employ to enhance supply chain

performance. In a quantitative study of 110 manufacturing companies in Sudan, Ibrahim

and Hamid (2014) observed that supplier management practices that include (a)

information sharing, (b) customers and delivery management, (c) supplier management,

and integration had significant positive effect on supply chain performance.

To investigate the key supply chain processes and their implications on

competitive performance outcomes, Prajogo, Oke, and Olhager (2016) collected and

analyzed data from 232 Australian manufacturing firms. Prajogo et al. found that supply

logistics integration and lean production processes result in competitive supply chain

performance. Using quantitative survey data of 150 agribusiness companies in the maize

supply chain in Uganda, Odongo et al. (2016) also observed that supply chain practices

have a positive effect on supply chain performance. The implication of these findings is

that organizational leaders should pursue tailored supply chain practices to improve

supply chain performance.

One of the difficulties supply chain managers face is selecting the right supply

management practices to improve business performance (Barros et al., 2013). Barros et

al. (2013) identified six phenomena that have a negative impact on supply chain

performance: (a) uncertainty, (b) waste, (c) congestion, (d) bullwhip effect, (e)

diseconomies of scale, and (f) self-interest. Anastasiadis and Poole (2015) examined

emergent supply chain management practices through an analysis of the predisposition

and interactions of market players at each stage of the agro-food supply chain.

Anastasiadis and Poole found that different entrepreneurial mentalities and minimal trust

among stakeholders had a negative impact on supply chain performance. Barros et al.

developed a method for selecting the supply management practices using a functional

strategy map and the five steps include (a) documentation of supply chain practices, (b)

measuring phenomena, (c) improvement opportunity, (d) selection of tailored practices,

and (e) implementation. Although Barros et al. did not verify the completeness of the

phenomena, the proposed method is a useful diagnosis and continuous improvement tool

that supply chain managers can use.

Sustainable Supply Chain Management

Organizational leaders are integrating sustainability issues into many aspects of

supply chain management. Sustainability and environmental issues are among the most

pressing concerns for environmentally conscious organizational leaders (Hsu, Tan,

Zailani, & Jayaraman, 2013). Many leaders pursue sustainable practices because of the

risks they may face if they do not act (Silvestre, 2016). The risks include penalties for

non-compliance to government regulations (Laosirihongthong, Adebanjo, & Tan, 2013),

supply chain disruptions, and pressures from NGOs and other stakeholders (Silvestre,

2016). The other stakeholders include government, community groups, investors,

suppliers, customers, and employees (Hsu et al., 2013). Consumers have become more

critical to quality and safety of food production systems and managers in the agro-food

industry are responding to these changing consumer demands by increasing sustainability

of processes and products (Shukla & Jharkharia, 2013). These factors raise economical,

environmental, and social concerns that can have an impact on the performance of firms

and their supply chains.

Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) refers to how supply chain

managers coordinate material, information, and capital flows and make decisions on the

basis of economic, environmental, and social concerns (Beske & Seuring, 2014; Tseng,

Lim, & Wong, 2015). Schaltegger and Burritt (2014) described SSCM as a process where

managers address the challenges of sustainability risks from a business and value-chain

perspective to improve sustainable supply chain performance. In SSCM, managers should

focus on integrating and achieving social, environmental, and economic goals to improve

the long-term performance of the individual firm.

Many business managers are adopting green supply chain initiatives beyond their

organizations. Supply chain managers consider SSCM issues not only for their

organizations but also for their supply chain members (Ahmad, de Brito, & Tavasszy,

2016). To identify key categories of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) and

related practices Beske and Seuring (2014) conducted a systematic literature review and

analyzed the different SSCM approaches. Beske and Seuring identified five key

categories for SSCM: (a) orientation towards supply chain management and

sustainability, (b) continuity, (c) collaboration, (d) risk management, and (d) pro-activity.

Beske and Seuring found that the specific practices include partner selection, long term

relationships, technological integration, enhanced communication, standards and

certification, innovation, stakeholder management, and life-cycle assessment. These

findings are similar to Wu, Liao, Tseng, and Chiu (2016) who observed that the recurring

SSCM practices include (a) long-term relationships, (b) collaboration among supply

chain partners, (c) supplier development, (d) an increase of communication among supply

chain partners, and (e) top management support.

SSCM has a significant effect on an organization and the bottom line. Some

organizational leaders have been able to improve financial performance, reduce costs and

resource consumption through recycling and waste management (Ortas, Moneva, &

Alvarez, 2014). Ortas et al. (2014) conducted causality tests on a large, diverse sample of

3 900 companies from 2004 to 2011. Moneva et al. observed a bidirectional causality

between sustainable supply chain performance and company margins and revenue.

Through SSCM, supply chain managers can reduce the risk of litigations, improve

corporate image, and environmental performance.

Business managers can integrate environmental and social issues into their

corporate strategies, increase firm competitiveness and performance, and achieve better

customer service (Tseng et al., 2015). Another benefit is the long-term viability of the

organization in the supply chain (Akhtar, Tse, Kan, & Rao Nicholson, 2015). Moreover,

companies with environmental supply chain policies tend to have increased supply chain

flexibility and enhanced profits (Lee, Rha, Choi, & Noh, 2013). Since sustainable supply

chain performance is a key aspect of SSCM, additional benefits arising from sustainable

supply chain performance include improved efficiency, higher product quality, access to

new markets, increased employee motivation and satisfaction, lead on competitors, and

better organizational reputation (Ortas et al., 2014). SSCM is now a critical tool that

leaders in organizations can use to improve corporate image and social and

environmental performance.

Supply Chain Collaboration

Supply chain collaboration is becoming an important tool organizational leaders

use to reduce uncertainty, and achieve competitive advantage and business success

(Aggarwal & Srivastava, 2016). Supply chain collaboration refers to an inter-

organizational relationship where two or more supply chain partners are working together

to align supply chain operations, share information, and build a value added process

(Hofer et al., 2014). The main components of supply chain collaboration include

synchronized decision making, information sharing, collaborative communication and

knowledge creation, and goal sharing (Scholten & Schilder, 2015). The basis of

collaboration is mutual trust, shared rewards and risks that result in greater profitability

and better performance (Soosay & Hyland, 2015). Collaboration has three dimensions:

(a) coordination, (b) adaptation, and (c) relationship building and the goal is to share

benefits and improved outcomes (Arora et al., 2016). The main types of collaboration

include strategic alliances, networks, joint ventures, and cooperative arrangements

(Soosay & Hyland, 2015).

Organizational leaders are striving for greater supply chain collaboration to secure

maximum benefits from collaborative partnerships. Firms are under intense competition,

and supply managers need to consider various capabilities and value creation strategies

for their customers (Soosay & Hyland, 2015). Leaders in organizations are collaborating

across boundaries because of the need to improve higher service levels, increase greater

end-customer satisfaction, explore opportunities, and access resources, knowledge, and

information (Kumar & Banerjee, 2014). Managers are seeking for more integrative and

collaborative efforts due to evolving technologies, the need to cope with high demand

uncertainties, and the need to share costs and risks (Kache & Seuring, 2014). In a study

of the drivers and patterns of supply chain collaboration in China's pharmaceutical

industry, Huang, Lin, Ieromonachou, Zhou, and Lou (2015) found that business managers

engaged in collaborative activities to save costs, pool and spread risk, and to have the

flexibility to respond to market requirements.

Using structural analysis of dyadic survey data from 160 suppliers and retailers of

consumer packaged goods in Brazil, Hofer, Hofer, and Waller (2014) examined the

drivers of retailer-supplier collaboration and its impact on both the supplier and the

retailer. Hofer et al. (2014) explained that customer orientation and more supplier specific

relationships lead to greater retailer-supplier collaboration. Hofer et al. also observed a

direct positive relationship between supplier's customer orientation and company

performance. Hofer et al. concluded that retailers benefit the most from a supplier's

collaboration efforts. Therefore, business leaders should use supply chain collaboration

more strategically and create more new revenue opportunities.

Supply chain collaboration can lead to superior performance in companies due to

capitalization of resources, capabilities, and processes that are in supply chain partners

(Soosay & Hyland, 2015). Supply chain partners collaborate to maximize learning

opportunities and develop new competencies, to better position themselves in the market

and improve the agility and performance of the supply chain (Cai, Goh, de Souza, & Li,

2013). Collaboration for recovery is an important strategy business leaders use for

responding quickly to supply chain disruptions and mitigating harmful impacts (Zhu,

Krikke, & Caniels, 2016). By creating positive partnerships, business leaders leverage

collaboration and resources that competitors cannot imitate (Qrunfleh & Tarafdar, 2013).

Thus, supply chain collaboration can be a major tool supply chain managers may use to

maintain a supply chain's competitive position.

Aggarwal and Srivastava (2016) conducted in-depth interviews with upstream

supply chain members in the Indian agro-food industry to understand the process of

supply chain collaboration and to capture the collaborative practices and perceptions of

buyers and suppliers. Aggarwal and Srivastava found that supplier selection, joint

planning, and information sharing are the main antecedents of supply chain collaboration

while supply chain efficiency and waste reduction are the major outcomes of

collaboration. In a different study, Kache and Seuring (2014) examined the link between

collaboration and supply chain performance and observed a direct positive relationship

between the degree of collaboration within the supply chain and the overall supply chain

performance. The implication of the research results is that developing collaborative

practices not only results in benefits for buyers and sellers, but can lead to better and

sustainable practices for the industry.

As customers demand quality products at lower costs, the need for organizational

leaders to collaborate in creating innovative products is now imperative. Leaders in

organizations collaborate in innovation and new product development to realize various

benefits such as lower cost, high quality, reduced cycle time, and efficient operations

(Soosay & Hyland, 2015). The ability to accept innovations and take advantage of

synergy effects is a key competency for collaborative firms (Knoppen, Johnston, &

Saenz, 2015). Manufacturers increasingly depend on innovation from their suppliers and

therefore managers can consider knowledge transfer as a key supplier selection criterion.

Supply chain collaboration is a critical business strategy in today's business

environment. Information sharing can be between the focal company and its customers,

suppliers, or between more than three parties along the supply chain (Cai et al., 2013).

The benefits of information sharing include (a) reduction in inventory levels, elimination

of stock outs, and (c) product flow improvement (Zhou & Piramuthu, 2013). Increased

information sharing between supply chain members can lead to higher levels of trust

between supply chain partners and an improvement in working relationships (McDowell,

Harris, & Gibson, 2013). Therefore, sharing knowledge and information among supply

chain partners can be an effective strategy for improving supply chain performance.

Supply chain members share information such as short-term forecasts, inventory

levels, delivery schedules, production planning, market trends, and long-term logistics

strategies (Kembro & Naslund, 2014.) Utilizing a systematic literature review of journal

articles from 2000 to 2012, Montoya-Torres and Ortiz-Vargas (2014) examined the

impacts of information sharing and collaboration strategies on the supply chain.

Montoya-Torres and Ortiz-Vargas found out that the type of information shared in dyadic

supply chains is on product structure and design, inventory levels, and the planning

process. About 83% of the articles were on solving operational problems such as order

replenishment or product delivery (Montoya-Torres & Ortiz-Vargas, 2014). Thus,

collaboration is more at the tactical level rather than strategic decision-making level.

Interorganizational relationships have a major role in minimizing the effects of

supply chain uncertainty (Teller et al., 2016). Business leaders form and maintain tighter

vertical coordination of the supply chain to reduce business uncertainty and improve

access to essential resources (Dries et al., 2014). Strategic supplier partnerships are

becoming more important because managers can plan effectively and improve supply

chain responsiveness (Storer, Hyland, Ferrer, Santa, & Griffiths, 2014). Teller et al.

(2016) examined the impact of key supplier relationship management (KSRM) in the

upstream supply chain on successful supply chain management. Teller et al. interviewed

174 managers from different supply chain stages and found KSRM as a key variable

affecting the level of supply chain management implementation within a company.

In a study of 205 managers from manufacturing firms in the United States,

Qrunfleh and Tarafdar (2013) observed a direct link between supplier partnerships and

supply chain responsiveness. In a different study of 2,400 supply chain participants in the

Australian beef industry, Storer et al. (2014) discovered a positive relationship between

strategic supply chain relationships and the responsiveness of the agro-food supply chain.

Additionally, strategic supply chain capability and industry-led innovation utilization can

lead to beneficial agro-food supply chain outcomes (Storer et al., 2014).

In collaborative inter-firm relationships, trust and communication are significant

factors for supply chain agility (Durach, Wieland, Jose, & Machuca, 2015). The existence

of trust in a relationship can result in relationship sustainability and competitive

advantage (Gambetti & Giovanardi, 2013). Trust is a fundamental asset in long-term

relationships and is crucial in the supply chain process (Paiva, Teixeira, Marques, &

Finger, 2014). The level of trust that buyers develop towards their suppliers is a result of

effective communication, positive past collaboration, and the existence of personal bonds

(Fischer, 2013; Revilla & Knoppen, 2015). Zeng, Anh, and Matsui (2013) analyzed data

from 238 manufacturing firms and observed a direct link between communication and

management practices. Utilizing survey data of 335 respondents from three industries

Paiva et al. (2014) identified a direct positive relationship between trust based

relationship, communication, and supply chain planning. Gambetti and Giovanardi

(2013) argued that the exchange of information and mutual relationship sharing can lead

to commitment and trust among supply chain partners. Consequently, knowledge and

information flow can result in more transparent buyer-supplier relationships and can have

a significant impact on supply chain performance.

Supply chain collaboration can fail due to behavioral and organizational factors.

Business managers may not share information because of the low level of trust among

supply chain partners (Soosay & Hyland, 2015). Sharing risk and rewards among supply

chain partners is a key aspect of collaborative relationships. Therefore, an unwillingness

to share benefits with upstream and downstream partners can lead to a breakdown in

collaboration efforts (Zhu et al., 2016). Fawcett, McCarter, Fawcett, Webb, and Magnan

(2015) conducted a qualitative multiple case study of 15 companies to explore why

collaboration strategies fail. Fawcett et al. observed that cross-functional conflicts,

strategic misalignment, poor systems connectivity, information hoarding, low trust, and

resistant to change can lead to a lack of collaboration among supply chain partners. In a

different study, Ramesh, Banwet, and Shankar, (2010) identified high costs of sharing

information, a disparity in technological capability among supply chain partners, and lack

of top management support as major obstacles to effective supply chain collaboration.

Such constraints may lead to a lack of supply chain visibility, competitive advantage, and

well-aligned goals.

Organizational leaders are increasingly tackling issues of sustainability.

Environmental sustainability practices not only reflect environmental responsibility

towards society but are critical to organizational leaders who aim to improve

competitiveness and minimize the risk of business interruption (Chen, Wu, & Wu, 2015).

Business leaders adopt collaborative environmental innovations with supply chain

partners to eliminate adverse environmental impacts, deliver safe consumer products and

in the process improve their performance and influence their market position (Chen et al.,

2015). Thus, green practices are critical in improving competitiveness in the market

place.

Business managers focus on environmental collaboration to design

environmentally sound products and processes (Hsu et al., 2013). To investigate the

performance benefits of the alignment of sustainability-related downstream and upstream

collaboration, Blome, Paulraj, and Schuetz (2014) conducted a survey of 259 European

manufacturing firms and analyzed the mediation and moderation effects. Blome et al.

found that supply chain initiatives do pay off and the firm's internal sustainable

production positively relate to the alignment of performance measures. However, firms

tend to benefit from co-aligned sustainability collaboration with other supply chain

members if organizational leaders dedicate resources systematically both towards

sustainability collaboration and internal sustainability practices (Chen et al., 2015).

Supply chain collaboration toward environmental pro-activity is necessary for supply

chain partners to minimize the risk of business interruption and to sustain innovation for

future markets.

Supply Chain Resilience

Supply chain resilience is a priority issue for many companies due to increasing

uncertainty and disruptions in supply chain operations (Birkie, 2016; Mandal, 2014).

Supply chain resilience refers to an adaptive capability of organizational leaders in the

supply chain to prepare, respond, and survive unexpected disturbances or events

(Hohenstein et al., 2015). Resiliency is not a state, but it is a dynamic set of conditions

within a system (Roberta Pereira, Christopher, & Lago Da Silva, 2014).)Business

managers can mitigate risks and disruptions in the supply chain by building resilient

supply chains (Golgeci & Ponomarov, 2013). Because disruptions are unanticipated

events, managers that have good operational resilience capabilities can prepare, respond,

and recover from supply chain disruptions (Scholten, Scott, & Fynes, 2014). Business

managers may use resiliency as a tool to adapt and sustain business in a turbulent

environment.

Researchers viewed supply chain resilience from many different angles. The

major components of supply chain resilience are (a) supply chain agility, (b) supply chain

flexibility, and (c) supply chain collaboration (Mandal, 2014). Durach et al. (2015)

identified the dimensions of supply chain resilience as agility and robustness. Hohenstein

et al. (2015) carried out an extensive literature review of peer-reviewed articles from

2003 to 2013 and synthesized the various supply chain resilience strategies for mitigating

supply chain disruptions. Hohenstein et al. found flexibility, collaboration, redundancy,

visibility, agility and multiple sourcing as the most crucial elements of supply chain

resilience.

Utilizing the dynamics capabilities theory as the theoretical framework, Golgeci

and Ponomarov (2013) examined the antecedents of supply chain resilience. Golgeci and

Ponomarov observed that firm innovativeness and innovation magnitude positively

influence supply chain resilience. Innovative organizational leaders are more likely to

establish a desired level of supply chain resilience which is a key capability for surviving

disruptions (Golgeci & Ponomarov, 2013). Organizational leaders should invest in

innovative capabilities to secure a competitive advantage, increase market share, and

respond to disruptions and other risks.

Supply chain agility refers to a quick response to rapid changes in market supply

and demand (Gilgor, 2014). Supply chain agility is a reactive strategy where supply chain

managers adjust operations to cope with disruptions in the supply chain (Durach et al.,

2015). Managers may use demand management to achieve supply chain agility

(Hohenstein et al., 2015). Demand management is a management process where

managers match customers' requirements with supply (Lee & Rha, 2016). To investigate

the relationship between demand management and supply chain agility, Gilgor (2014)

reviewed the literature on manufacturing, marketing, distribution, procurement, and

supply chain agility from 1991to 2013. Gilgor noted that leaders in firms need flexible

manufacturing, distribution and procurement systems, and flexibility in managing

demand to achieve supply chain agility. Business managers should focus on demand and

supply integration inside the firm to achieve supply chain resilience.

Supply chain disruptions are more critical when they occur upstream in the supply

chain, and as such procurement is a becoming a major business activity. Procurement

refers to a boundary spanning function where managers seek to align and synchronize

internal requirements to external resources to achieve firm targets and competitive

advantage (Chang, Tsai, & Hsu, 2013). Roberta Pereira et al. (2014) investigated the role

of procurement in managing organizational issues that impact on supply chain resilience.

Roberta Pereira et al. found that procurement activities have a positive influence on

supply chain resilience. The intra- and inter-organizational issues from a procurement

perspective affecting supply chain resilience are internal communication, inventory,

product flexibility, technology, supplier base, supplier relationships, supply chain design,

transportation, and risk management (Roberta Pereira et al., 2014). Procurement

managers need to control and manage both intra- and inter-organizational issues to

achieve effective supply chain resilience.

Supply chain flexibility refers to the capability of supply partners to align

strategies, restructure operations, and respond to customer demands while maintaining

high- performance levels (Tiwari, Tiwari, & Samuel, 2015). Supply chain managers can

alter operations to achieve supply chain flexibility (Lee & Rha, 2016). Tiwari et al.

(2015) examined the various aspects of supply chain flexibility using a citation analysis

method. Tiwari et al. identified four core processes: (a) procurement, (b) sourcing, (c)

distribution, and (d) logistics. The most common methods organizational leaders adopt

are (a) to enhance flexibility to mitigate risk and uncertainty (b) to increase supplier

responsiveness, (c) to maintain a pool of suppliers, (d) postponement, (e) information

sharing, and (f) good relationships with supply chain partners (Tiwari et al., 2015).

Managers who inculcate in flexibility have to consider many trade-offs such as supply

chain efficiency, cost, uncertainty, and controllability.

Supply chain robustness refers to the extent to which a supply chain has an

acceptable performance during and after a supply chain disruption (Durach et al., 2015).

Robustness is a proactive strategy where supply chain managers implement ex-ante

measures to cope with disruptions (Wieland & Wallenburg , 2013). Azadegan, Patel,

Zangoueinezhad, and Linderman (2013) stated that a common measure that supply chain

managers use to increase supply chain robustness is to incorporate redundancy, for

example, the use of reserves. Utilizing a systematic literature review method, Durach et

al. (2015) examined the antecedents of supply chain robustness. Durach et al. identified

four antecedents of supply chain robustness: (a) leadership commitment, (b) human

capital, (c) relationship magnitude, and (d) risk management orientation. Therefore

supply chain managers can assess the extent to which they can increase supply chain

robustness, particularly where there are scarce resources.

Collaboration can lead to the development of synergies among supply chain

partners through joint planning and exchange of information (Aggarwal & Srivastava,

2016). To investigate how collaborative activities and underlying mechanisms influence

supply chain resilience, Scholten and Schilder (2015) conducted a study of eight buyer-

relationships in the food processing industry. Scholten and Schilder observed a positive

correlation between specific collaborative activities (e.g. joint relationship efforts, mutual

knowledge creation, decision making) and supply chain resilience. In a similar study,

Scholten et al. (2014) presented an integrated supply chain resilience framework with two

components: (a) disruption management processes and (b) supply chain resilience

capacity and capabilities. Scholten et al. (2014) observed that the first capabilities that

supply chain managers use in developing supply chain resilience are supply chain re-

engineering, collaboration, agility, risk awareness, and knowledge management.

Using the Scottish pork supply chain as an example, Leat and Revoredo-Giha

(2013) investigated how risk management and collaboration among stakeholders affect

supply chain resilience. Leat and Revoredo-Giha observed reduced supply chain

vulnerability to risks through a horizontal collaboration of producers and vertical

collaboration with processors and retailers. Utilizing regional-level data on disruptions of

the dairy supply chain in Poland, Falkowski (2015) examined supply chain resilience in

the agro-food sector focusing on farmer-processor relationships. Falkowski identified

three elements that influence the agro-food supply chain's capability to prepare and

respond to disruptions: (a) structure of the supplier base, (b) interdependencies between

supply chain partners and (c) changes in supply chain governance mechanisms.

Falkowski also observed larger disruptions to supply relations for more fragmented

supplier base. Therefore, supply chain managers can focus on their supply chain design

structure and procedures to build resilience in their supply chain network.

Many organizational leaders are emphasizing on assessing supply chain resilience

to be able to adapt to future and uncertain environments. The overall supply resilience is

not necessarily indicative of resilience of individual supply chain tiers, and therefore

decision-makers should adopt a system-wide and tier-specific approach in assessing risk

resilience (Pournader, Rotaru, Kach, Hossein, & Hajiagha, 2016). Pettit et al. (2013)

developed a supply chain resilience model (SCRAM) utilizing a qualitative and

quantitative methodology with 1369 respondents from seven global manufacturing

supply chains. Pettit et al. identified seven categories of vulnerabilities and 14 managerial

controls and organizational capabilities.

Manning and Soon (2016) developed another model with five strategic resilience

factors: (a) values-based dynamics, (b) supply chain dynamics, (c) strategic decision-

making, (d) strategic leadership, and (e) use of performance indicators as well as a range

of indicators for the supply chain monitoring process. The models are useful to food

supply chain managers to drive supply chain agility and organizational stability. Supply

chain managers can use the resilience assessment tools to develop strategic resilience

management programs and manage risk in a more integrated manner.

Technology and Supply Chains

Information technology (IT) is becoming an indispensable tool in supply chain

management. Business managers use IT to improve communication within the

organization, lower labor, and production costs, improve the quality of products and

services, reduce service time, and increase the firm's competitiveness (Iveroth, 2016).

Information technology resources consist of IT infrastructure and IT technical skills and

knowledge (Sears & Hoetker, 2014). Leaders in organizations may use web technologies

to (a) deliver efficiency in operations, (b) communicate with business partners more

easily and frequently, (c) provide efficient electronic payment systems, and (d) improve

inventory management and supply chain performance (Tarofder et al., 2013). Also,

managers can adopt and use IT to gain sustainability and competitive advantage by

exploiting the competitive scope (Luse & Mennecke, 2014).

Supply chain managers can use IT applications to achieve competitive advantage

by improving customer service and reducing inventory costs (Sook-Ling, Ismail, & Yee-

Yen, 2015). Tripathy, Aich, Chakraborty, and Lee (2016) analyzed the structural relations

among information technology (IT), logistic effectiveness, operational efficiency,

customer relationship, supplier relationship and competitive advantage. Tripathy et al.

found that IT is critical to achieving competitive advantage in supply chain management

practices of SMEs in India. Tripathy et al. recommended companies to include up-to-date

technology throughout the supply chain and IT- based ordering system to suppliers as

part of their IT strategy. Thus, IT can be a major tool supply chain managers may use to

maintain a supply chain's competitive position.

The use of technology in organizations and supply chains has a significant effect

on a firm's operational efficiency and effectiveness. Organizational leaders utilize IT to

change the way they conduct their business operations and exploit opportunities to

improve customer services, market new products, and improve supply chain performance

(Tang & Zimmerman, 2013). Magutua, Adudab, and Nyaogac (2015) conducted a

quantitative study to establish the relationship between supply chain technology, supply

chain strategies, and performance of large-scale manufacturing firms in Kenya. Magutua

et al. observed a robust and significant association between supply chain technologies,

supply chain strategies, and firm performance. Magutua et al. found that over 88% of the

changes in an organization’s performance is due to both supply chain technology and

supply chain strategies. Utilizing data collected from 197 organizations belonging to

various sectors, Sindhuja (2014) examined the effect of information technology security

initiatives (ITSI) on supply chain performance. Sindhuja found that ITSI positively

relates to supply chain operations and performance. Leaders in organizations should

consider using IT for improving supply chain visibility and managing information

security.

Technology is constantly changing, and as a result, there are new realities and

opportunities. The new technology trends include radio frequency identification (RFID)

electronic data interchange (EDI), the cloud, biometrics, vendor managed inventory

(VMI), and other internet-based technologies (Caputo, Marzi, & Pellegrini, 2016).

Leaders can use RFID technology to create value within a supply chain by improving

supply chain processes (Bowman, 2015). Inventory and demand become more visible

within the supply chain, and as a result, supply chain managers may be able to achieve

high levels of information sharing and low transaction costs (Asare, Brashear-Alejandro,

& Kang, 2016). To investigate the impact of auto-ID technologies on supply chain

visibility, Papert, Rimpler, and Pflaum (2016) conducted a qualitative case study of ten

actors in the pharmaceutical supply chain. Papert et al. found that use of auto ID-based

solutions and in particular RFID leads to supply chain visibility. These technologies are

becoming more important than ever before as business leaders are trying to respond to

customer needs.

Cloud computing refers to a large-scale distributed, virtualized computing

paradigm where managers access resources on demand through web-based technologies

(Schniederjans, Ozpolat, & Chen, 2016). Cloud computing has significant advantages for

the decentralized and loosely coupled supply chains because supply chain processes

become more flexible and visible, through scalability and virtualization (Bruque Camara,

Moyano Fuentes, & Maqueira Marin, 2015; Jede & Teuteberg, 2015). Business managers

use a virtually infinite number of servers without actually owning them and as such

managers can use cloud architecture to address tactical problems relating to IT which

include costs, resource availability, process standardization, and reliability (Grubisic,

2014). In comparison to traditional IT, cloud computing has some special features such as

elasticity, data concentration, resource sharing, pay-per-use, and low cost (Liu, Yang, Qu,

& Liu, 2016). Leaders in organizations may gain agility to respond to changes in the

environment and promote collaboration among supply chain partners by implementing

cloud computing.

Lal and Bharadwaj (2016) studied 21 companies to understand the impact of

adopting cloud-based services on organizational flexibility. Lal and Bharadwaj observed

that cloud-based services which include (a) software-as-a-service (SaaS), (b) platform-as-

a-service (PaaS), or (b) infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) impacts organizational

flexibility and have a relative advantage regarding deployment of services. Given the

rapidly changing environment, business leaders would need to adapt to the new techno-

social innovations to achieve process, market, and performance flexibility in their

businesses.

Organizational leaders often want to develop new technologies and invest in IT to

minimize risk (Tang & Zimmerman, 2013). Business managers who leverage innovative

technology in the supply chain can strengthen the supply chain against disruptions

(Huang, Wu, Lu, & Lin, 2016). Managers can utilize IT tools to analyze data on risk and

minimize supply disruptions by reducing information asymmetries (Murphy, 2014).

Supply chain managers can reduce data error within the supply chain by using

technologies such as ERP (Bhakoo, Singh, & Chia, 2015). Given the vulnerability of

firms to supply chain risks, business managers would need to make better use of IT to

minimize risk and improve supply chain performance.

Leaders in organizations are using the internet and related technologies to conduct

business across firm boundaries. Business managers are increasingly using e-business

applications that involve e-procurement, e-commerce, and e-collaboration to streamline

business processes along the supply chain and overcome business challenges

(Wiengarten, Humphreys, McKittrick, & Fynes, 2013). E-business refers to information

systems that managers use to acquire, process, and transmit information for effective

decision-making (Wiengarten et al., 2013). Business managers use online order

processing systems and e-procurement systems to build closer links with customers,

suppliers, and third party vendors (Power & Gruner, 2015). Wider and deeper use of e-

business applications may be beneficial to supply chain managers in terms of information

sharing, incentive alignment, and joint decision making.

Business managers are increasingly adopting e-procurement tools to reduce costs,

streamline transactions with suppliers, and minimize expensive face-to-face negotiations

(Barahona & Elizondo, 2014). Supply chain managers may be able to respond to

changing customer demands quickly and use e-procurement to create value for

enterprises (Wiengarten et al., 2013). Managers use e-procurement systems to improve

inventory management and control, monitor movement of goods in real time, and

increase transparency and efficiency of the supply chain (Barahona & Elizondo, 2014).

E-procurement consists of four aspects: (a) e-design, (b) e-sourcing, (c) e-negotiating and

(d) e-evaluation (Chang et al., 2013).

To examine the relationship between e-procurement and supply chain

performance Chang et al. (2013) analyzed survey data of 108 Taiwanese enterprises.

Chang et al. observed that supply chain integration, information sharing, and supply

chain partner relationships are critical linkages between e-procurement and supply chain

performance. However, compared to partner relationships and information sharing,

supply chain integration had more influence in supply chain performance (Chang et al.,

2013). Thus, managers should consider information infrastructure system integration and

standardization to achieve supply chain performance.

Effective decision making is critical across all types of businesses in the supply

chain. Business managers use decision support systems (DSS) to make management more

effective and to be able to respond quickly to changes in the marketplace (Drnevich &

Croson, 2013). The major types of DSS are personal decision support systems, group

support systems, negotiation support systems, intelligent support systems, knowledge

management based systems, data warehousing and enterprise reporting and analysis

systems (Hilletofth, Himola, & Wang, 2016). Supply chain managers can use DSS to

improve predictability, find improvement alternatives, understand cost structure and

delays in supply chains, and use what-if analysis to test the implications of their decisions

(Murphy, 2014). Hilletofth et al. developed a decision support model for a multi-level

supply chain system that supply managers can use to reduce the cost of inventory and

goods sold, and develop a cooperative environment among supply chain members. The

DSS is a useful tool that managers can utilize to meet customer demand in a timely

fashion.

Supply chain e-collaboration is an important strategic and operational issue

because of growing international competition. Collaborative computer-based information

systems are now a major trend as business managers seek to reduce uncertainty, achieve

competitive advantage and business success (Aggarwal & Srivastava, 2016). Managers

use e-collaboration information systems to improve communication abilities in the supply

chain and to respond quickly to changing consumer preferences. Examples of e-

collaboration technologies include group decision support systems, Web-based chat tools,

collaborative writing instruments, asynchronous conferencing tools, and information

sharing tools (e.g. vendor managed inventory(VMI), collaborative forecasting and

replenishment (Bhakoo et al., 2015). These tools have scalability and flexibility features

that are useful for collaboration among members of the supply chain.

Business managers should consider and assess IT products and services that are

most appropriate for their firms and supply chains. Organizational factors that influence

the IT adoption process include (a) the company's strategic context, (b) business size in

terms of turnover and number of employees, (c) industry type, (d) business maturity, (e)

organizational culture and structure, and (d) integration of internal processes (Lonial &

Carter, 2015). IT adoption in organizations depends on characteristics of the IT

application (e .g., performance, compatibility with existing technological infrastructure)

and availability of managerial, technical, and financial resources (Prajogo & McDermott,

2014). The cost of IT products, technological characteristics including security and

compatibility are significant determinants of successful IT adoption in businesses (Voss

& Brettel, 2014). Information technology security issues, the cost, and compatibility of IT

solutions can impact business profitability.

Supply Chain Technology Risks. Information security is an important concern

to organizations because it is a key critical resource for any business. Although the use of

IT can lead to substantial benefits that include cost savings, business systems inter-

linkages and an improvement in supply chain performance, there are also risks associated

with privacy, technical failures, and security (Huong Tran, Childerhouse, & Deakins,

2016). Information security concerns increase when business managers share information

across the borders of their firms (Safa et al., 2015). The risks associated with inter-

organizational information sharing may be greater when the volume of exchanged data

increases (Huong Tran et al., 2016). IT risks include, software attacks, technical failures,

threats of data integrity, leakage of information both within the company and across the

supply chain, and technological obsolescence( Huong Tran et al., 2016). Other IT risks

include unethical IT use and related activities such as hacking, software piracy, phishing,

and spoofing( Chatterjee, Sarker, & Valacich, 2015).

IT risks have an impact on business performance. The cost and consequences of

IT risks could be severe regarding the damages due to production downturns, disruption

of internal processes and communication, loss of potential sales, and wastage of time

(Sindhuja, 2014; Sindhuja & Kunnathur, 2015).Use of supply technologies such as

vendor managed inventory and EDI can lead to increased visibility of the information

within the supply chain (Caldwell, Harland, Powell, & Zheng, 2013). Therefore, if

interorganizational systems are not adequately security protected, a security breach may

lead to reduced trust among supply chain partners and consequently impact negatively on

the competitiveness of the supply chain.

IT risks have a direct bearing on business risks. IT risks can lead to loss of profit,

market share, and credibility (Huong Tran et al., 2016). Cyber attacks can result in loss of

information and data loss by a service provider can lead to service discontinuity and loss

of business (Sung & Su, 2013). Technological obsolescence or technological

underperformance can lead result in loss of market to a competitor who can supply high-

quality products (Huang et al., 2016). Intangible risks such as loss of valuable data, loss

of consumer trust or business reputation can affect the survival of a company (Huong

Tran et al., 2016). Organizations also become more vulnerable to increased use of social

media as they become more porous to outsiders (Arlitscha & Edelmanb, 2014).

Companies can face huge financial losses due to technological risks. Software

piracy may cost businesses an estimated $12 billion in a year (Kuhn, Ahuja, & Mueller,

2013). A data breach at TJX resulted in an estimated financial loss of $0.5 to $1.5 billion

and affected 45 to 100 million customers (Goldberg, 2013). In the United Kingdom,

SMEs incurred about £311, 00 in 2015 as a result of security breaches (Department for

Business, Innovation & Skills, 2015). Given the high costs of IT security threats,

organizational leaders need to implement strategies to prevent and mitigate the IT risks.

Managers can mitigate IT security risks more effectively by developing IT risk

management strategies. Huong Tran et al. (2016) identified six management strategies for

reducing IT risks in supply chains: (a) frequent communication with supply chain

partners, (b) open and honest transactions, (c) right partner selection, (d) good personal

relationships with trading partners, (e) formal contracts for sharing sensitive data, and (f)

collaboration among supply chain partners. Leaders in organizations need to create

awareness among their employees about IT security issues and protecting IT assets

(Mishra, Caputo, Leone, Kohun, & Draus, 2014). Other strategies include an

organizational culture of security awareness and effective communication about IT

security vulnerabilities by educating and training employees (Safa et al., 2015). IT

security audits and monitoring may lead to compliance and a reduction of IT security

internal threats (D'Arcy & Greene, 2014). Business leaders may need new skills to

minimize IT security vulnerabilities and the associated effects.

Supply Chain Risk Management

Risk management is one of the most important issues in supply chain

management and a priority activity for supply chain managers. Supply chain risk

management is essential to supply chain operations due to natural catastrophes and risks

associated with process uncertainties (Mohammaddust, Rezapour, Farahani, Mofidfar, &

Hill, 2015). Managers cannot operate in a risk-free environment. Supply chains are

inherently risky and organizational leaders cannot avoid all supply chain disruptions

(Pournader et al., 2016). Kaki et al. (2015) examined disruptions in supply networks and

found out that most risks in the supply chain can affect business continuity. To sustain a

business, business managers must assess the risks related to the organization, develop

contingency plans to mitigate the effects of disruptions and ensure business continuity

(Cagnin et al., 2016). In many companies, supply chain risk managers focus on

developing new proactive approaches to manage supply chain disruptions and to build

supply chain resilience (Ghadge, Dani, Chester, & Kalawsky, 2013). Supply chain

managers can design an efficient supply chain network if they understand the causes of

supply chain disruptions and the severity of their impact.

Supply chain risk management involves assessing risk sources and the impact of

risk, tracking risk drivers, and mitigating risks in the supply chain (Pradhan & Routroy,

2014). Supply chain risk management is a proactive approach supply chain managers use

to identify and manage all possible risks facing a company (Cagnin et al., 2016). Other

important aspects of supply chain risk management include risk monitoring and

contingency planning (Kumar & Bhat, 2014). Business managers are adopting and

intensifying the use of enterprise risk management practices to detect and mitigate

strategic and operational risks (Boyson, 2014). With globalization and vertical integration

of business processes, leaders in organizations should deal proactively with potential

supply chain risks.

The two most important risk sources in supply chains are operational risks and

disruption risks (Konig & Spinler, 2016). Operational risks within the supply chain

include process, control, supply, and demand risks (Parihar & Rahul, 2014). Disruption

risks arise from human-made disasters (e.g. terrorist attacks, labor strikes) and natural

disasters (e.g., earthquakes, fire), and as such, they are more difficult to predict than

operational risks (Konig & Spinler, 2016). Such risks affect supply chain operations and

performance measures, for example, cost and responsiveness.

Business managers need to identify, understand, and manage risks to achieve

competitive advantage. Utilizing a mixed methods approach, Gualandris and

Kalchschmidt (2015) observed a direct positive relationship between supply chain risk

management practices and competitive advantage. Gualandris and Kalchschmidt found

out that a firm's competitive advantage decreases when its preparedness in supply chain

risk management does not match environmental conditions. Elahi (2013) noted a direct

relationship between risk management and competitive advantage. Elahi(2013) argued

that risk management capabilities affect the company's cost and the creation of value to

customers. The efficient management of supply chain risk can lead to an improvement in

business and overall supply chain performance (Simangunsong, Hendry, & Stevenson,

2016). Managers who adopt supply chain practices may be able to improve efficiency and

customer satisfaction by reducing the probability and severity of supply chain risk.

Supply chain uncertainty and risk are impediments to operational excellence

(Wang, Jie, & Abareshi, 2015). Managers can mitigate risks more effectively by

analyzing the likelihood, magnitude, and impact of disruptions along the supply chain

(Kaki et al., 2015). To investigate the relationship between uncertainty and disruption

risk, Tse et al. (2016) conducted a quantitative survey of 253 senior managers and

directors in the Thai beverage industry. Tse et al. found that demand and product quality

uncertainty negatively relate to the severity of disruption risk. Supply chain managers

may target their risk management strategies according to both magnitude and probability

of supply chain risk.

Evaluating risk is a critical step in the risk management process, and

organizational leaders should follow the five generic steps to mitigate risks: (a) risk

identification, (b) risk assessment, (c) development of risk mitigation plans, (d)

implementation of supply chain risk strategies, and (d) continuous monitoring (Kumar &

Bhat, 2014). For effective risk management, Elahi (2013) noted five risk management

capabilities that are critical in organizations: (a) cultivating a risk awareness culture, (b)

identifying potential risks, (c) assessing the impact of risks, (d) preventing and mitigating

the impact of risks, and (e) the ability to quickly recover from realized risk. Leaders in

organizations should not mainly focus on eliminating risk, but they should be more risk

informed and should use supply chain risk management as a tool to generate value

(Trkman, Valadares de Oliveira, & McCormack, 2016). Therefore, supply chain

managers should consider risk management as an investment and not as a cost and use it

to create new value for the organization.

Although managing supply chain risks directly affect financial performance,

investment by companies in supply chain risk management is still small (Rotaru, Wilkin,

& Ceglowski, 2014; Trkman et al., 2016). Fischl, Scherrer-Rathje, and Friedli (2014)

examined the use of risk management tools in organizations and found that many

organizational leaders use informal methods as opposed to formal methods in managing

risk in supply chains. Kumar et al. (2014) cited supply chain complexity and the

uncertainty associated with supply chain risks as key factors contributing to the

difficulties supply chain managers face in correctly identifying the sources of risk. For

high likelihood disruptions, Kumar et al. recommended supplier audits, postponement,

strategic safety stock, and supplier hedging. Mitigation strategies for moderate to high

supply chain disruptions may include multi-sourcing, make-and-buy approach, price and

promotion planning, and assortment planning (Kumar et al., 2014). Organizational

leaders should consider the severity of the risk they face and how much they would be

willing to invest in supply chain risk management to mitigate the risk.

Managers consider the potential supply chain risk in selecting the appropriate

mitigation strategies (Punniyamoorthy, Thamaraiselvan, & Manikandan, 2013). Drawing

upon the contingency theory, Chang et al. (2015) examined redundancy and flexibility

risk mitigation strategies with particular risk contexts and found that in high severity

disasters, holding safety stocks and maintaining options with multiple suppliers are

expensive options. In such situations, Chang et al. recommended managers to buy

insurance because such disruptions can affect business continuity. In contrast, supply

chain managers should use a flexible risk mitigation strategy to alleviate the impact of

supply chain disruptions that are less severe, and for severe disruptions and high

probability contexts, they should consider using a combination of redundancy and

flexible mitigation strategies (Chang et al., 2015). Thus, supply chain risk managers can

select prevention and mitigation strategies based on the level of uncertainty and risk.

Rajesh, Ravi, and Rao (2015) conducted a quantitative study, utilizing a

combination of grey theory and digraph-matrix methodology to identify and quantify

supply chain risk mitigation strategies. Rajesh et al. found that the most five effective

mitigation strategies in reducing total risk impacts of the supply chain are (a) using

insurance, (b) reducing bullwhips, (c) increasing agility and resilience, (d) increasing

collaboration, and (d) revenue management. To investigate the different supply chain risk

management strategies managers of automobile firms use for mitigating supply chain

risks, Kumar and Bhat (2014) analyzed survey data of 79 Indian automobile firms.

Kumar and Bhat identified seven strategies: (a) avoidance, (b) supplier development, (c)

flexibility, (d) risk-pooling, (e) redundancy, and (f) integration and control.

Talluri et al. (2013) utilized an empirically grounded simulation methodology and

non-parametric statistical methods to analyze and rank mitigation strategies. Talluri et al.

identified seven risk strategies: (a) increasing capability, (b) aggregating demand, (c)

increasing capacity, (d) acquiring redundant suppliers, (e) increasing inventory, and (f)

increasing responsiveness. Talluri et al. found that the more efficient strategies across all

risk types lead to an increase in supply chain responsiveness and aggregate demand.

Therefore, managers should develop prevention and mitigation strategies that match

specific risk contexts and prevent and mitigate supply chain risks from both an

effectiveness and resource allocation standpoint. Supply chain managers would need

information on the relationships between risks and mitigation strategies to build strategic

transitions into their planning and supply chain designs.

Transition

This study was on strategies agribusiness managers use to prevent and mitigate

the effects of disruptions in agro-food supply chains. In Section1, I described the

foundation and background of the study. The key elements in this section included the

background of the problem, problem and purpose statements, nature of the study,

research and interview questions. Other aspects included (a) conceptual framework, (b)

operational definitions, (c) assumptions, limitations, and delimitations, (d) significance of

the study, and (e) review of the academic and professional literature. In Section 2, I

discussed the research method and design, my role as the researcher, participants,

population and sampling techniques, ethical research issues, data collection and analysis,

and reliability and validity. In Section 3, I presented the study findings, discuss the results

and implications for social change, and provide recommendations for action and future

research studies.

Section 2: The Project

Section 2 of this study contains (a) the purpose statement, (b) the role of the

researcher, (c) research participants, (d) research method and design, (e) population and

sampling, and (f) ethical research. In this section, I also described the data collection

process, data analysis techniques, and the validity and reliability of the study findings. In

Section 3, I discussed the study findings, the applicability of the study results with respect

to professional practice, implications for social change, recommendations for action, and

reflections.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study was to explore the strategies

agribusiness managers use to prevent and mitigate the effects of disruptions in the agro-

food supply chains. The population of the study consisted of five agribusiness managers

from two agro-food companies in the urban district of Harare, Zimbabwe. The

agribusiness managers had implemented successful strategies for preventing and

mitigating the effects of disruptions in agro-food supply chains. The implications for

positive social change may include a reduction in supply chain costs, provision of better

services and products to consumers, and lower prices of agro-food products to consumers

which consequently can lead to an improvement in the lives of consumers.

Role of the Researcher

Qualitative researchers focus on collecting data on participants' perceived and

lived experiences to gain a detailed understanding of the phenomenon under study

(Morse, Lowery, & Steury, 2014). In qualitative research, researchers are the primary

instruments for data collection and must avoid bias during the research (Ercikan & Roth,

2014). As the researcher in this study, I served as the principal data collector. The role of

the researcher is to collect and assemble data accurately, analyze the data, and present the

results in an objective format (Delyser & Sui, 2014). I selected the appropriate research

design, recruited study participants, conducted interviews, analyzed data, and managed

the interview process to gain participants' trust.

In qualitative studies, researchers have the responsibility to disclose their

experiences, values, assumptions, and any biases they may have on the research topic,

participants, or location (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). I have knowledge of the operations

of agro-food companies and their supply chains after working with both private and

public enterprises in the agro-food sector for 20 years. However, I had no relationship

with the participants. Researchers adhere to the ethical standards and guidelines for the

protection of research participants in accordance with the Belmont Report (U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, 1979). Before conducting the study, I

completed the web-based National Institutes of Health (NIH) training course

(Certification Number 1850113; Appendix A). I adhered to the principles and technical

guidelines for the protection of human subjects and ensured confidentiality protections of

research participants.

Researchers' preconceptions or personal bias can influence the direction or results

of a research study (Yin, 2014). Bernard (2013) noted that researchers need to remain

unbiased and nonjudgmental throughout the research process. Qualitative researchers

employ the bracketing method to separate their perceptions, personal experiences, and

beliefs from the research data (Sorsa, Kiikkala, & Astedt-Kurki, 2015). I avoided bias by

being neutral and objective during data collection, maintained a reflective journal to

bracket my experiences regarding the phenomenon understudy, and verified data through

member checking.

Qualitative researchers use interview protocols to minimize inconsistencies in the

research interview process (Morton, Rivers, Charters, & Spinks, 2013). An interview

protocol is a step-by-step instruction guide researchers utilize to collect data to address

the research question (Yin, 2014). I followed the interview protocol and treated each

participant the same way during interviews. I obtained IRB approval and gained local

permission before data collection. To ensure privacy and confidentiality, the names of

companies and participants should remain anonymous (Newington & Metcalfe, 2014). To

protect participants' identity, I used alphanumeric codes (P1, P2, P3, P4, and P5) for the

five participants. I stored all the collected data in a security-monitored location. After 5

years, I will shred the printed information and delete the electronic material.

Participants

In a qualitative case study inquiry, researchers select participants before collecting

the data (Yin, 2014). The fundamental principle in choosing participants is not about the

number of individuals or views, but the range of opinions on a topic (O'Reilly & Parker,

2013). I used purposeful sampling to select five agribusiness managers for the study.

Researchers use a purposive sampling approach to recruit participants with relevant

experience, knowledge, and insight to the research question (McCabe, Stern, & Dacko,

2013; Palinkas et al., 2015). Additionally, researchers purposefully select participants

based on the study criteria (Hayes, Bonner, & Douglas, 2013). It is essential for

researchers to choose participants based on the set criteria and on what would give them

the best results (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). The eligibility requirements for study

participants included (a) serving as a senior agribusiness manager, (b) ability to provide

rich information on agro-food supply chain disruptions, and (c) experience in

implementing successful strategies for preventing and mitigating the effects of

disruptions in agro-food supply chains.

Researchers can gain access to participants through personal contacts or business

networking (Barker, 2013; Beskow, Check, & Ammarell, 2014). Thurnell-Read (2016)

described two types of access: (a) formal access to the organization and participants, and

(b) personal access where the researcher gets to know executives, managers, and

individuals. To gain access to individuals, researchers must develop a reputation for

consistency and integrity (Newington & Metcalfe, 2014). Over the past 20 years, I have

carried out assignments as an independent consultant for both private and public agro-

food companies and established rapport with the company executives. I sought

permission to conduct the study from the managing directors of the two agro-food

companies. After gaining permission from the leadership of the two organizations

(Appendix B), I contacted the participants by e-mail inviting them to participate in the

study.

A qualitative researcher must establish a working relationship with participants

for a successful research project (Anyan, 2013; Yin, 2014). Communication, trust, and

mutual respect are critical elements of a good working relationship (Johnson, 2014).

Researchers should establish open communication with participants to build confidence

and trust (Gibson, Benson, & Brand, 2013). I selected five participants from two agro-

food companies in Harare and sent them an invitation letter (Appendix C) that included a

description of the study objectives and intent, selection criteria, and a copy of the consent

form. The consent form contained details on the voluntary nature of the study, research-

related risks and benefits, and the extent of confidential protections for participants. I

disclosed the risks and benefits of being in the study to the participants and ensured each

participant completed the consent form before conducting the interviews. I built trust by

reassuring each participant the confidentiality pertaining to the study.

Research Method and Design

Research Method

The appropriate research method for this study was qualitative. Qualitative

research involves gaining a detailed understanding and in-depth knowledge of meanings,

reasons, and patterns of individuals' lived experiences (Garcia & Gluesing, 2013; Nelson

& Evans, 2014). Qualitative researchers focus on events in natural settings, observe

behavior and attitudes, and collect the data close to the phenomenon (Guercini, 2014;

Marshall & Rossman, 2016). In a qualitative inquiry, researchers explore the problem

from the perspective of the study population and focus on identifying, exploring, and

describing variables that are difficult to measure or quantify mathematically (Bevan,

2014; Singh, 2014). My use of qualitative research was appropriate to explore and gain

an understanding of how agribusiness managers prevent and mitigate the effects of

disruptions in agro-food supply chains.

Quantitative research refers to an empirical investigation of an observable

phenomenon through numerical data collection and statistical analysis (Goertz &

Mahoney, 2013). Researchers use quantitative research to test hypotheses, examine

variables, and analyze statistical data (McCusker & Gunaydin, 2015). However,

researchers cannot use quantitative methods to articulate personal experiences (Frels &

Onwuegbuzie, 2013). A quantitative method was not appropriate because I was not

seeking to test hypotheses, to examine variables, or compare variables’ effects but to

explore strategies for preventing and mitigating the effects of agro-food supply chain

disruptions.

The mixed methods approach involves combining statistical analyses of

numerical data and thematic data (Caruth, 2013; Golicic & Davis, 2012). In a mixed

methods approach, researchers combine empirical data and participant experiences in the

same research inquiry (Sparkes, 2014). A mixed method approach can be time consuming

because researchers must deal with collecting and analyzing a variety of data (Hayes et

al., 2013). A mixed methods approach was not suitable for this study, as this research did

not require the integration of qualitative and quantitative techniques for data collection

and analysis. The purpose of this study was to explore strategies agribusiness managers

use to prevent and mitigate the effects of disruptions in the agro-food supply chains,

which made the qualitative method the most appropriate research method for the study.

Research Design

I considered four qualitative designs for the proposed study: (a) ethnography,

narrative, (b) case study, and (c) phenomenological study. I selected a qualitative

multiple case study design for this study. Researchers use the case study design for in-

depth inquiry, and it is an appropriate design where a researcher seeks to answer how,

why, and what questions (Parker, 2014; Yin, 2014). A case study research design is

appropriate for understanding emerging ideas, real-life events, and situations that do not

have a single set of outcomes (Dasgupta, 2015; Starr, 2014). A multiple case study

involves comparison of different cases, and the evidence is more compelling and robust

compared with a single case study (Yin, 2014). The qualitative multiple case study design

was the most appropriate research design for this study because my goal was to identify

and explore the strategies that agribusiness supply chain managers used in preventing and

mitigating the effects of agro-food supply chain disruptions.

Researchers use a narrative inquiry to get insights into people's thoughts,

emotions, and interpretations (Scutt & Hobson, 2013). Narrative researchers focus on

collecting data on participants' life experiences in a sequential manner (Singh, Corner, &

Pavlovich, 2015), which was not the intent of this study. Narrative researchers' interests

are more in the meaning of the stories rather than the facts or truth of the accounts

(Green, 2013). The purpose of the study was to understand and describe strategies for

preventing and mitigating the effects of agro-food supply chain disruptions and not to

document stories about the lives of agribusiness managers.

Researchers use the phenomenological approach to understand the character and

meaning of participants' lived experiences to a particular event from individual

perspectives (Budd & Velasquez, 2014; Khan, 2014). In a phenomenological inquiry,

researchers examine in-depth the event experience (Ziakas & Boukas, 2014).

Phenomenological researchers explore the essence of participants' lived experiences

through individual stories, interviews, or observations (Budd & Velasquez, 2014). The

phenomenological design was not suitable because the basis of this study was not on

subjective individual viewpoints and interpretations of the lived experiences with the

phenomenon.

Researchers use an ethnographic inquiry to explore cultural characteristics and

patterns of selected groups (Zilber, 2014). The ethnographic research design involves

studying shared beliefs of a group over time (Bamkin et al., 2016; Baskerville & Myers,

2014) and was therefore also not appropriate for this study. The objective of this study

was not to describe unique shared cultural patterns of agribusiness managers but to

explore successful strategies for preventing and mitigating the effects of agro-food supply

chain disruptions. By using a multiple qualitative case study, my intention was to provide

useful insights on strategies to reduce disruptions in agro-food supply chains, as well as

raise agribusiness managers' awareness and understanding of strategies for preventing

and mitigating the effects of disruptions in agro-food supply chains.

In qualitative research, researchers gather enough data to support the validity of

the study (Emerson, 2015). Researchers use data saturation as a tool to ensure collection

of quality and adequate data (Morse, 2015). Data saturation is the point in the data

collection process where there is no additional new information from interviews (Fusch

& Ness, 2015). Because data saturation is an important component of rigor (Morse,

2015), I continued to interview until no new information and no new themes emerged. I

reached data saturation after five interviews.

Population and Sampling

The population of this study comprised of five agribusiness managers from two

agro-food companies in the urban district of Harare, Zimbabwe. I used purposive

sampling to identify and select participants with the requisite knowledge and experience

in preventing and mitigating the effects of disruptions in agro-food supply chains.

Researchers utilize a purposive sampling approach to recruiting participants with relevant

experience and expertise regarding the subject matter under study (McCabe et al., 2013;

Sangestani & Khatiban, 2013). Purposive sampling is a nonprobabilistic sampling

technique which is suitable for case study research (Ishak & Bakar, 2014). Purposive

sampling is a popular choice for most qualitative researchers because it is time saving,

less costly, and researchers can create rich descriptions of the phenomenon (Palinkas et

al., 2015; Smith, Colombi, & Wirthlin, 2013).

Qualitative researchers determine sample sizes before conducting the study, and

the sample size is a constant target throughout the study (Guetterman, 2015). A small

sample is desirable in a qualitative study, but it should be sufficient to meet data

saturation standards (Hyat, 2013; Stake, 2013). A qualitative case study can have as few

as five participants (Dworkin, 2012). Boddy (2016) revealed that in a constructivist

approach to research, a case study could even have a single participant. In this study, I

interviewed five agribusiness managers with knowledge and experience in implementing

successful strategies for preventing and mitigating the effects of disruptions in agro-food

supply chains.

Data saturation is a significant issue in qualitative research because it is a tool

researchers utilize to demonstrate rigor (Emerson, 2015; Morse, 2015). Researchers use

data saturation to ensure collection of quality and adequate data (Marshall, Cardon,

Fontenot, & Poddar, 2013). A researcher reaches data saturation when no additional new

information or themes emerge with more interviews (Fusch & Ness, 2015; Houghton,

Casey, Shaw, & Murphy, 2013). To ensure data saturation, I interviewed participants

until no additional themes or new coding emerged with more interviews. I reached data

saturation after five interviews.

Researchers purposefully select participants based on the study criteria (Gile,

Johnston, & Salganik, 2015; Suri, 2013). It is essential for researchers to choose

participants based on the set criteria and on what would give them the best results (Leedy

& Ormrod, 2013). Participants must have the requisite knowledge and competency to

answer questions (McCabe et al., 2013). I interviewed agribusiness managers who met a

pre-established criterion based on their experience and competence to answer the

interview questions. The eligibility requirements for study participants included (a)

serving as a senior agribusiness manager, (b) ability to provide rich information on agro-

food supply chain disruptions, and (c) experience in implementing successful strategies

for preventing and mitigating the effects of disruptions in agro-food supply chains.

In qualitative research, researchers must select interviewing sites that are

comfortable, quiet, and free from distractions to allow participants to share their

information freely (Fusch & Ness, 2015; Qu & Dumay, 2012). Marshall and Rossman

(2016) noted that the comfort level of interviewees can influence how they respond

during the interview. Interviewing sites must also be accessible and convenient to

interviewees(Qu & Dumay, 2012). I selected a site that was convenient to participants

and conducted face-to-face interviews in a comfortable and quiet place. Choosing a quiet

place was also essential for quality recordings. To avoid distractions during the interview,

I requested participants to put their cell phones in silent mode.

Ethical Research

Protection of human subjects is an essential element of ethical research, and the

researcher has the responsibility of protecting the rights and confidentiality of research

participants (Nah, Bennett, Ingleton, & Savage, 2013). The protection of human subjects

includes protection from physical or psychological harm as well as the commitment to

support and value the dignity of research participants (Largent, 2016). In qualitative

research, ethical integrity is essential for study credibility (Haahr, Norlyk, & Hall, 2013).

I maintained high ethical standards throughout the study and complied with the Walden

University research and integrity policies.

After getting the Walden University IRB approval (approval number 07-10-17-

0473618), I e-mailed participants consent forms well before the interview date to afford

them the opportunity to make an informed decision. The consent form contained (a)

background information on the research topic and purpose of the study (b) research

procedures, (c) the voluntary nature of the study, (d) risks and benefits of being in the

study, and (e) confidentiality and safety procedures. The four principles of informed

consent include freedom, voluntariness, justice, and nonmalfeasance (Rodrigues, Antony,

Krishnamurthy, Shet, & De Costa, 2013). I adhered to the principles and explained to the

participants the purpose of the study, the research risks and benefits, and the extent of

confidentiality protections for research participants.

I ensured that each participant signed the consent form before the beginning of the

interview. Each of the five agribusiness managers consented to be in the study.

Participants had the right to withdraw prior the interview by either written or verbal

notice. Additionally, participants did not have to respond to specific questions if they felt

uncomfortable in doing so. I conducted face-to-face interviews and audio-recorded the

interviews after obtaining approval from each participant.

To avoid undue influence on research results, some researchers may not offer

incentives to research participants (Sikweyiya & Jewkes, 2013). I did not provide any

incentive to study participants, but the participants will receive a copy of the findings and

conclusions of the study. The protection of participants and their associated organizations

was paramount. To ensure privacy and confidentiality, the names of companies and

participants should remain anonymous (Newington & Metcalfe, 2014; Zhou & Nunes,

2013). I did not include the names of participants and the associated organizations

anywhere in the study but assigned identification numbers and letters. I assigned for

example, P1C1_120717_1000AM, to identify the participant, the company, date of the

interview, and time of the interview. I stored data collected during the research on a

computer that is password protected. I locked all non-digital material which included

consent forms, my reflective journal, and a research log in a fire proof safe that I only can

access. After 5 years, I will shred the hard copies and delete the electronic material.

Data Collection Instruments

Data collection involves direct interaction with individuals and building trust with

participants through open-ended discussions (Myers, 2015). In qualitative research,

researchers are the primary instruments for data collection and must avoid bias during the

research (Cleary, Horsfall, & Hayter, 2014; Robinson, 2014). Researchers must collect

accurate data from appropriate sources (Ercikan & Roth, 2014). I served as the principal

data collection instrument, and I used an audio recorder to capture participants' responses.

Another source of data in this study was company documents. Yin (2014) noted that

documentary information is relevant to every case study topic. Researchers should spend

more time reviewing documents that are central to the research inquiry (Marshall &

Rossman, 2016). Qualitative researchers use information from documents to corroborate

and augment evidence from other sources (Heale & Forbes, 2013; Yin, 2014).

Qualitative researchers use semistructured interviews to explore and understand

participants' lived experiences and realities (Doody & Noonan, 2013). Nyamah et al.

(2014) used semistructured interviews to determine the supply chain risks in Ghana's

agricultural supply chain and the ability of supply chain partners to control the risks.

Similarly, Macdonald and Corsi (2013) used semistructured interviews to determine the

internal and external factors that influence the overall disruption management process in

supply chains. Semi-structured interviews are valid data collection instruments and are a

useful way researchers collect insights on the research topic (Yin, 2014). I used

semistructured interviews to explore the strategies agribusiness managers used to prevent

and mitigate the effects of disruptions in the agro-food supply chains. I also asked each

participant for company documents and records pertaining to strategies for managing

disruptions. Secondary data for this study included documents on company policy and

operational procedures for managing disruptions, risk management plans, minutes, and

business continuity plans.

Semistructured interviews are in-depth interviews based on an interview guide or

protocol, where respondents answer preset questions (Robinson, 2014). Researchers use

semistructured questions to draw rich and thick descriptions from participants (De Massis

& Kotlar, 2014; Jamshed, 2014). An interview protocol is a procedural guide with a list

of questions that researchers explore in the course of an interview (Platt & Skowron,

2013). Qualitative researchers use a study protocol to maintain the focus of the inquiry

(Marshall & Rossman, 2016). According to Yin (2014), an interview protocol for a

qualitative research case study consists of (a) an overview of the research study, (b)

procedures for data collection, and (c) interview questions.

I followed the interview protocol (Appendix D) and used semi-structured

questions to collect direct evidence from participants. I read out the questions and probed

further with follow-up questions to get more detailed explanations and personal views of

participants. I listened carefully to participants' responses. As recommended by Yin

(2014), I also observed body language and gestures to get insights of attitudes and

meanings.

Qualitative researchers use member checking to verify the accuracy and confirm

the correct interpretation of the data (Koelsch, 2013; Reilly, 2013; Yin, 2014). Member

checking is an essential quality control process where study participants can review data

or results for accuracy and validity (Reilly, 2013). Researchers verify interview

information with respondents to enhance quality and credibility of data and also establish

construct validity (Yin, 2014). I conducted transcript review and member checking to

improve quality and optimize credibility and validity in data collection. I prepared

transcripts from the recorded interview data and asked each to review their transcript

document to verify the correctness of the data. After coding and analyzing the data and

the company documents, I asked the participants to review a summary of my

interpretation of their responses to the interview questions and my analysis of the

company documents. I incorporated the feedback from each participant before I evaluated

the results and developed conclusions relevant to the research question.

Data Collection Technique

The research question for this study was: What strategies do agribusiness

managers use to prevent and mitigate the effects of disruptions in agro-food supply

chains? The data collection techniques I used for this study were semistructured

interviews and document analysis. I conducted face-to-face interviews using the

interview protocol (Appendix D). Researchers utilize semistructured interview formats to

explore and gain an understanding of lived experiences because participants can express

their opinions and experiences fully (Brooks & Normore, 2015; Houghton et al., 2013).

The semistructured interview is a technique researchers use to capture participants'

experiences, opinions, and attitudes about a specific phenomenon (De Massis & Kotlar,

2014). In semistructured interviews, researchers give direction and structure to the

dialogue while allowing a free and open discussion to develop (Yin, 2014).

Semistructured interviews are direct, insightful, and highly efficient means by

which researchers collect rich, empirical data when the phenomenon of interest has no

single set of outcome (De Massis & Kotlar, 2014). By using semistructured interviews,

researchers can have a fuller discussion of topics and can uncover participants' hidden

attitudes and emotions (Mojtahed, Nunes, Martins, & Peng, 2014). Additionally,

researchers can compare responses by asking the same questions to each participant

(Bredart, Marrel, Abetz-Webb, Lasch, & Acquadro, 2014). Weaknesses of semistructured

interviews include (a) bias due to poorly articulated questions, (b) researcher

interpretation bias, and (c) interviewees may suffer from memory failure or inaccurate

recall of past events (De Massis & Kotlar, 2014). Also, Yin (2014) noted the risk of

asking leading questions in semi-structured interviews. However, to limit bias in data

collection, researchers use different and well-informed sources who view the

phenomenon under study from various perspectives (De Massis & Kotlar, 2014).

After obtaining Walden University IRB approval, I sent an introductory letter to

eligible participants that included a description of the study objectives and intent,

selection criteria, benefits of the study, and a copy of the consent form. I then scheduled

the date and time for a face-to-face interview for each participant. I recorded the

interview using iphone7 plus recorder and took notes using a smart pen and a notebook.

The interview session lasted between 30-45 minutes. In qualitative studies, it is critical to

maintaining accurate findings and consistent documentation of the steps of the

procedures taken (Yin, 2014). Qualitative researchers document accurate details of the

face-to-face interviews (Anderson, Bolton, Fleming, & Lord, 2016; Snook & Oliver,

2015). By taking notes during the interview, researchers can be able to keep track of the

non-auditory data such as body and facial reactions (Houghton et al., 2013). I took notes

and observed participants' nonverbal language and gestures. By conducting face to face

structured interviews, I was able to gather quotes and rich descriptions of the

phenomenon under study.

Member checking is an important quality control process where researchers verify

interview information with respondents to enhance quality and credibility of data

(Harvey, 2015; Yin, 2014). Researchers use member checking to verify the correctness of

the data (Reilly, 2013). By incorporating member checking, researchers increase the

credibility and trustworthiness of the data (Chronister, Marsiglio, Linville, & Lantrip,

2014). I conducted member checking to verify the accuracy and correct interpretation of

the participants' responses. I incorporated the feedback received from each participant to

increase the trustworthiness of the data.

Data Organization Techniques

The researcher is responsible for implementing an appropriate data organization

system to support data retrieval and analysis, and enhance credibility (Derobertmasure &

Robertson, 2014; Schermann et al., 2014). Data organization involves

classifying and assigning file names for stored research data with identifiable content

related references (Almutairi, Gardner, & McCarthy, 2014; Wickham, 2014). In

qualitative research, researchers use research logs to keep track of all research activities

and to capture key ideas presented by participants during interviews (Clancy, 2013;

Glaser & Laudel, 2013). Researchers also use research logs to record and update key

information during the research process (Layder, 2013). I used a research log to keep

track of all research activities and to record and update key information collected from

each participant on preventing and mitigating disruptions in agro-food supply chains. To

maintain confidentiality and privacy, I used alphanumeric codes for each participant. I

used a naming convention P1CI_120717_1000AM, to identify the participant, the

company, date of the interview, and time of the interview.

Labeling and organizing data according to content are essential components of

qualitative research (Bernard, 2013). Researchers organize data into categories to identify

emerging themes, trends, and patterns from interviews (Anyan, 2013; Fielding, Fielding,

& Hughes, 2013). I uploaded the interview transcripts into NVivo 10 software, sorted,

categorized, and labeled all the research data for the study. I organized the raw data into

themes based on the collected interview data as well as the literature review and

conceptual framework. To ensure security and confidentiality of the research data, I am

the only person who has access to the study data. The data will remain in storage in a

security-monitored location for 5 years. After 5 years, I will shred copies of the printed

information and delete the electronic material.

Data Analysis

Qualitative data analysis involves a systematic review of data elements and

interpreting the underlying meanings from the participants' experience (Carter, Bryant-

Lukosius, DiCenso, Blythe, & Neville, 2014). Qualitative researchers analyze textual

data to discover essential meanings, patterns, and themes of the phenomenon under study

(Bryman, 2015). In a qualitative case study, researchers use data from different sources to

corroborate the research findings and ensure validity (Beckert & Ghisi, 2015; Carter et

al., 2014). A researcher may use any of the four types of triangulation; (a) data

triangulation, (b) investigator triangulation, (c) theory triangulation, and (d)

methodological triangulation (Heale & Forbes, 2013; Yin, 2014). With methodological

triangulation, researchers use multiple sources of data such as observations, interviews,

documents, and questionnaires in analyzing various aspects of the phenomenon under

study ( Manganelli et al., 2014; Yilmaz, 2013). I used methodological triangulation for

this study. With the CTF as the guiding conceptual framework, I reviewed company

documents and analyzed data from the texts of semistructured interview transcripts to

explore the strategies for preventing and mitigating disruptions in agro-food supply

chains. By employing methodological triangulation, I was able to get a complete

understanding of the phenomenon under study and also validate the research findings.

Sousa and Figueiredo (2014) identified five main steps of data analysis; (a)

cleaning and organizing the data, (b) coding the data, (c) identifying emerging patterns

and themes, (d) interpreting the data, (e) evaluating results and developing conclusions.

After cleaning and organizing the data, coding is one of the most important steps in data

analysis (Bernard, 2013). Coding is the process of categorizing collected data related to

each other into nodes (Campbell, Quincy, Osserman, & Pedersen, 2013; Zamawe, 2015).

Qualitative researchers use coding to facilitate the identification of core concepts or

themes prominent across all collected data (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). I cleaned the

data and employed coding as the primary data analysis technique to identify patterns and

key themes and draw meaning from all data gathered in this study.

Researchers may use computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software

(CAQDAS) for data organization and analysis (Bryman, 2015; Talanquer, 2014).

Castelberry (2014) described NVivo 10 software program as a qualitative data analysis

tool researchers can use to analyze varied types of data such as interview transcripts,

documents, field notes, press clippings, images, and photographs. By using NVivo 10

software, qualitative researchers can (a) reduce most manual tasks, (b) handle large data

sets, (c) analyze themes, and (d) evaluate results and draw conclusions (Basak, 2015;

AlYahmady & Alabri, 2013). I used NVivo 10 software to sort, code and analyze data. I

transcribed the audio recording of the interviews into Microsoft Word transcripts, loaded

the transcripts into NVivo 10 software, and then analyzed the data to identify emerging

themes. I compared the emerging themes with information derived from the literature

review phase of my study, the conceptual framework, and new studies published after

writing the doctoral study proposal. I used the CTF to help me interpret the data and draw

conclusions.

Reliability and Validity

Qualitative researchers must seek to establish high quality and well-designed

research (Bernard, 2013). Quality refers to completeness, accuracy, and timeliness (Chen,

Hailey, Wang, & Yu, 2014). The two main tests that form the basis from which to

establish the quality of research are reliability and validity (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013).

Reliability and validity refer to the accuracy and precision of the research (Foley &

O'Connor, 2013). Reliability is the extent to which the researcher can show objectivity

and replicability of collected data and obtain consistent results (Ma, Lund, Nielsen,

Aamand, & Su, 2015). Validity refers to the qualities of credibility, trustworthiness,

authenticity, and transferability (Cope, 2014; Leedy & Ormrod, 2013).

Reliability

Qualitative researchers address study reliability by proving the trustworthiness

and consistency of the research data and results (Elo et al., 2014). Reliability also refers

to the replicability of the research process and results (Woolcock, 2013). Researchers can

enhance the reliability of the research process and results through constant data

comparison, refutational analysis, and comprehensive data use (Leung, 2015). Noble and

Smith (2015) stated that the data should be complete, inclusive, accurate and verifiable in

form and context. Researchers ensure reliability by minimizing errors and biases in the

study (Singh, 2014).

Qualitative researchers align the concept of dependability with reliability (Yilmaz,

2013). Researchers address dependability to ensure study findings are consistent and

repeatable (Anney, 2014; Houghton et al., 2013; Yin, 2014). In a qualitative inquiry,

improving dependability includes conducting an audit trail, member checking of data

interpretation, transcript review, and using an interview protocol (Yin, 2014).

Researchers use member checking to (a) verify the correctness of the data, (b) clarify and

gather more information, and (c) allow participants to input into the study findings and

conclusions (Harvey, 2015; Reilly, 2013). Fusch and Ness (2015) noted that reaching

data saturation will also help to assure dependability of study findings. I developed and

followed the interview protocol that included (a) an overview of the research study, (b)

procedures for data collection, and (c) interview questions. I continued to interview

agribusiness managers until no new information, and no new themes emerged. I achieved

data saturation after interviewing five agribusiness managers. I also ensured

dependability by conducting member checking and transcript review. Participants had the

opportunity to review transcripts to ensure there were no errors. By employing member

checking, I was able to get feedback from participants on the correctness of the data and

my interpretation of their responses.

Validity

Qualitative researchers must establish validity to ensure credibility and

trustworthiness of the research methods (Baskarada, 2014). Validity refers to the

credibility and truthfulness of the research tools, processes, data, and results (Leung,

2015). Validity is the degree to which the research is a true representation of the actual

phenomenon and encompasses the four aspects of trustworthiness, credibility,

authenticity, and transferability (Anney, 2014; Leedy & Ormrod, 2013).

Credibility refers to the extent to which research data and results are believable or

trustworthy (Anney, 2014). To ensure credibility in a qualitative study, a researcher must

establish the plausibility or believability of the research results from the perspective of

the participants (Elo et al., 2014). Since the purpose of qualitative research involves

gaining a detailed understanding of the phenomena from the participant's perspective, it is

only the study participants who can legitimately judge the credibility of the research

results (Singh, 2014). Strategies researchers use to establish credibility include (a) having

a prolonged and varied field experience, (b) member checking of data interpretation, (c)

triangulation, and (d) transcript review (Anney, 2014). I conducted transcript review to

verify the accuracy of the interview data and member checking to ascertain the correct

interpretation of the participants' views. I collected data from examination of documents

and semistructured interviews to corroborate the research findings and ensure credibility.

Confirmability in qualitative research refers to the extent to which the research

data is a true representation of the participant's views (Elo et al., 2014). Confirmability is

the researchers' potential congruence about the data's accuracy, meaning, or relevance

(Noble & Smith, 2015). To ensure confirmability, researchers must reflect the

participants' voice and not their perspectives or biases (Anney, 2014; Houghton et al.,

2013). To assure confirmability, researchers use triangulation and engage in self-

reflection to identify any biases that may influence data collection and analysis (Sherry,

2013). I used methodological triangulation to corroborate the research findings and

document procedures for checking the data to ensure confirmability. For effective bias

management, I conducted a personal assessment of biases that I had and maintained a

reflective journal throughout the study.

Transferability refers to an adequate account of the research process and the

extent to which research findings apply to other contexts or settings (Houghton et al.,

2013; Reilly, 2013). Researchers can enable others to apply results of research to other

settings by giving clear descriptions of the research context, characteristics of the

participants, assumptions, and data collection and analysis processes (Byrne, 2013; Yin,

2014). Elo et al. (2014) noted that it is up to the reader to determine the transferability of

the results to another context. Researchers can enhance transferability by documenting in

detail data collection and analysis procedures and ensuring data saturation (Noble &

Smith, 2015; Singh, 2014; Yin, 2014). To assure transferability, I provided a robust

description of the research context, characteristics of participants, assumptions, and data

collection and analysis procedures. I reached data saturation after five interviews.

It is critical for researchers to demonstrate rigor and comprehensiveness in data

collection (Guetterman, 2015). Researchers use data saturation to ensure collection of

quality and adequate data (Marshall et al., 2013). A researcher reaches data saturation

when no new perspectives or themes relating to the research question emerge with more

interviews (Fusch & Ness, 2015; Marshall & Rossman, 2016). To ensure data saturation,

I interviewed agribusiness managers until no perspectives or themes were no longer

emerging with additional interviews.

Transition and Summary

Section 2 of the study included the purpose statement, the role of the researcher,

research participants, research method and design, population and sampling, ethical

research, and data collection instruments. Other elements of Section 2 included data

collection and organization techniques, data analysis, and reliability and validity of the

study. In Section 3, I presented the study findings, discussed the results and the

application to professional practice, implications for social change, and provided

recommendations for action and future research studies.

Section 3: Application to Professional Practice and Implications for Change

Section 3 of this study contains an introduction of the study and the presentation

of the findings. Also, included in this section are the applications of my research to

professional practice, implications for social change, and recommendations for action and

further study. I concluded with my reflections of the experiences of the doctoral study

journey and my conclusions.

Introduction

The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study was to explore the strategies

agribusiness managers in the urban district of Harare, Zimbabwe use to prevent and

mitigate the effects of disruptions in agro-food supply chains. I conducted in-depth

interviews with five agribusiness managers from two agro-food companies who had (a)

senior management positions and (b) experience in implementing successful strategies for

preventing and mitigating the effects of disruptions in agro-food supply chains. Other

sources of data included documents on company policy and operational procedures for

managing disruptions, risk management plans, minutes, and business continuity plans.

Based on the analysis of participants' responses to the interview questions and company

documents, three themes emerged: (a) collaboration among supply chain partners, (b)

business continuity management, and (c) the use of a multiple supplier base.

Presentation of the Findings

The overarching research question for this study was: What strategies do

agribusiness managers use to prevent and mitigate the effects of disruptions in agro-food

supply chains? I used semistructured interviews with open-ended questions to enable

participants to provide detailed information on effective strategies they used to prevent

and mitigate the effects of disruptions in agro-food supply chains. I used NVivo 10

software to sort, code and analyze data. The three themes that emerged from the data

were:

• Collaboration among supply chain partners

• Business continuity management

• Multiple supplier base

Theme 1: Collaboration among Supply Chain Partners

The first theme that emerged from the analyzed data was collaboration among

supply chain partners. All the five participants stated that collaboration is an important

strategy they use to prevent and mitigate the effects of disruptions in agro-food supply

chains. P3C1stated, "Collaboration among supply chain partners minimizes the effects of

disruptions to the organization and to the supply chain as a whole." P1C1 said,

"Collaboration with other supply chain partners is a key strategy we use because the

effects of disruptions go beyond our company's context, to the whole supply chain."

P5C2 mentioned, "When we collaborate with other supply chain partners, we are better

able to deal with disruptions." The other two participants (P2C1, P4C2) noted that

agribusiness managers engaged in collaborative efforts to cope with uncertainties and to

minimize disruptive risk. P4C2 mentioned that by collaborating with other supply chain

partners, managers can react to unexpected disruptive events. In their study, Zhu et al.

(2016) reported that collaboration is an effective strategy business leaders use for

mitigating the effects of supply chain disruptions. Similarly, Zhu, Krikke, Caniels, and

Wang (2017) indicated that the more collaborative links managers develop with their

suppliers, distributors, and customers the better they can manage and minimize the

impacts of supply chain disruptions. Swanson, Jin, Fawcett, and Fawcett (2017) also

noted that managers seek for more integrative and collaborative efforts to cope with

uncertainties, share costs, and minimize risks.

Participants from C1 and C2 elaborated on the type of collaboration they engaged

in to prevent and mitigate the effects of supply chain disruptions in agro-food supply

chains. Participants stated that agribusiness managers collaborated with other supply

chain partners to facilitate information sharing, synchronized decision making, and

recovery assistance. According to P1C1, P2C1, P4C2, and P5C2, information sharing

was essential to supply chain collaboration and helped to reduce risks in the supply chain.

P1C1 described information sharing as the "heart" of supply chain collaboration. P5C2

said, "It is important to share relevant information across the supply chain because certain

decisions, for example, order decisions can be made on real time information." P4C2

stated, "When we share information, it gives us the opportunity to resolve problems

jointly and implement best practices for identifying and managing risks." P2C1

mentioned, "Information sharing allows us to monitor the movement of products across

the whole supply chain and fulfill demand more quickly." Kembro and Naslund (2014)

deduced that comprehensive information sharing leads to exposure of new ideas, risk

reduction, and enhanced coordination of the supply chain. In another research, Teller et

al. (2016) observed that through information sharing, managers are able to maintain

tighter vertical integration of the supply chain and minimize the effects of disruptions.

Sharing information is valuable to managers and it can have a great impact on planning

efficiency and performance of the supply chain.

Participants (P2C1, P3C1, and P4C2) described the types of information they

shared with other supply chain partners. P2C1 stated, "We share information on short-

term forecasts, market trends, and delivery schedules. This helps us to reduce our

inventory levels and eliminate stock-outs." P4C2 mentioned "We collaborate with other

internal teams in the supply chain to get a full sight of the inventory levels and reorder

points. We are then able to proactively adjust to evolving supply demands." P3C1

provided more information on the processes they use to prevent and minimize effects of

disruptions in their supply chain.

We share information on production schedules, order status, and delays in lead

time. Through collaboration, we can respond and manage risks as a group rather

than having to manage the issues in isolation. We save time and reach mutually

beneficial decisions. Quick dissemination of information helps us to respond to

disruptions quickly.

Based on the data analysis, agribusiness managers can minimize the effects of disruptions

by sharing information across the agro-food supply chain. Through information sharing,

managers can understand the bigger picture, track key performance variables, and

mitigate risk in the supply chain. Business managers should establish information

sharing-based partnerships to maximize learning opportunities, develop new

competencies, and minimize the risk of business interruption.

I reviewed C1's and C2's operations and procedures manual and the minutes of

meetings with other supply chain partners. Participants' statements on collaboration

through information sharing corroborated with information contained in C1's and C2's

operations and procedures manual. An excerpt from C1's operations and procedures

manual states,

In order to develop and choose appropriate capabilities to cope with risk and

uncertainty, the organization will require information about its environment,

possible disasters and the operations of its upstream and downstream supply chain

partners. It is the responsibility of the Operations Department to coordinate and

share relevant information with the organization's supply chain partners to help

improve the supply chain transparency and visibility. The information will

include forecasts on market demand, inventory levels, logistics information, and

delivery schedules. However, from time to time, the Operations Director will

determine other additional information sharing requirements.

I also reviewed minutes of C1 and C2's planning meetings with supply chain partners and

observed that the information shared among the supply chain partners include short-term

forecasts on product demand, production and delivery schedules, market trends, and

inventory and order status. Specific information shared on inventory included inventory

levels, holding costs, backlog costs, and service levels. On order status, both C1 and C2

shared information on demand, demand variance, order batch size, and order due date. By

sharing order status, managers can improve the quality of customer service and reduce

payment cycles.

In assessing barriers to supply chain collaboration, participants from C1 indicated

that sharing the benefits of collaboration could be a contentious issue where more

powerful and bigger firms tend to benefit more than smaller companies. P4C2 stated

"Compensation and incentive structures may not always encourage collaboration. Also,

information hoarding and low trust by some supply chain partners are some of the

barriers we encounter in our collaboration efforts." P5C2 attributed the difficulty of

implementing supply chain collaboration to the inflexibility of organizational processes,

lack of a shared vision, differences in technological capabilities among supply chain

partners, and lack of management support.

Participants' statements highlighting why collaboration can fail are consistent with

other authors' observations in literature. In a qualitative multiple case study of 15

companies, Fawcett et al. (2015) observed that cross-functional conflicts, strategic

misalignment, poor systems connectivity, information hoarding, low trust, and resistant to

change can lead to a lack of collaboration among supply chain partners. In another study,

Soosay and Hyland (2015) identified the high cost of sharing information, low level of

trust among supply chain partners, a disparity in technological capability among supply

chain partners, and lack of top management support as major obstacles to effective supply

chain collaboration. Such constraints may lead to a lack of well-aligned goals within the

supply chain. Therefore, managers should nurture interorganizational relationships and

manage conflicting interests for effective collaboration.

When asked, what strategies were effective in addressing the barriers to supply

chain collaboration, participants from C1 and C2 stated that building relationships

between collaborating firms, a collaborative culture, and use of information technology

resources were crucial to successful collaboration. P2C1 stated, "Having a collaborative

culture and an orientation towards relation building with supply chain partners creates an

environment of mutual benefit." P3C1 and P4C2 mentioned that managers can enhance

collaboration by using internet-based tools for information sharing. The finding that

building interorganizational relationships between collaborating firms have a major role

in enhancing supply chain collaboration is similar to Teller et al. (2016) findings. The

researchers found that by having well-maintained relationships with supply chain

partners, managers could (a) access reliable information about pending disruptions, (b)

improve access to essential resources, and (c) plan effectively with other supply chain

partners to improve supply chain responsiveness.

The finding that collaboration among supply chain partners minimized the effects

of disruptions in agro-food supply chains aligned with the findings presented by Van de

Ven and Drazin (1985) in explaining the CTF. According to Van de Ven and Drazin

(1985), a supply chain disruption is a lack of fit. Van de Ven and Drazin also noted that

there is a no one-size-fits-all strategy to manage uncertainties and risks, but the

appropriateness of a mitigation strategy is dependent upon the internal and external

environment The effect of a supply chain disruption is minimal when a firm can organize

efficient responses (Grotsch et al., 2013). In applying the CTF principles, business

managers can design and deploy collaborative responses to prevent and minimize the

effects of supply chain disruptions (Sheffi, 2015). The participants attested to

collaborating with other supply chain partners to facilitate information sharing, decision

making, and recovery assistance. Because of the interconnectedness of the supply chain,

managers can share information and collaborate on mitigating risks and uncertainty.

Theme 2: Business Continuity Management

The second theme that emerged from analyzing the participants' responses was

business continuity management. Participants articulated that by having contingency

measures or business continuity plans in place, managers can mitigate the effects of

disruptions and ensure business continuity. P2C1 stated, "With a contingency plan, you

are not caught off guard." P3C1 remarked, "Having a contingency plan is an additional

way of mitigating risk of damage to your company and the supply chain as a whole.

Contiero, Ponsignon, Smart, and Vinelli (2016) also noted that managers put in place

contingency measures to minimize potential loss from disruptions. The participants

shared two contingency measures they employ to prevent and mitigate the effects of

disruptions in agro-food supply chains. The two contingency measures are insurance and

holding a strategic safety stock.

Insurance. All the five participants confirmed having taken insurance for their

companies against risks that include fire, flooding, vandalism, and severe weather.

Participants (P1C1, P2C1, P3C1, and P5C2) mentioned that the nature of the potential of

the supply chain risk was critical in selecting an appropriate mitigation strategy. P5C2

said, "Catastrophic events such as fire or flooding have the potential to damage physical

facilities and interrupt production. They can, therefore, affect business continuity. Buying

insurance can minimize the damage caused by these unforeseen events." P2C1 stated,

"We have taken insurance in our business because an insurance cover helps to minimize

the financial effects of both daily supply chain risks and catastrophic disruptions." P3C1

noted that by pairing a financial-based mitigation strategy like insurance with other

operation-based mitigation tactics, for example, collaboration and multi-sourcing,

managers can protect their supply chains as well as their firms' bottom lines. Participants'

statements highlighting insurance as an important contingency measure for preventing

and mitigating the effects of disruptions are consistent with other authors' observations in

literature. Eastburn and Sharland (2017) asserted that insurance provision helps managers

to minimize the effects of supply chain disruptions and to survive shocks. Kobayashi

(2017) explained that insurance is the primary mechanism organizational leaders use to

secure funds to recover from losses following catastrophic hazards and managers can

elect to guard against such catastrophic hazards by paying an insurance premium.

The participants (P1C1, P3C1, and P4C2) stated that an insurance solution can

mitigate a wide range of risks that include (a) property damage as a result of a

catastrophic disaster, (b) insolvency of suppliers, (c) lost or damaged cargo, and (d) lost

sales due to labor strikes. P1C1 stated,

When we buy insurance, it covers our losses and reduces the amount of money we

need to recover from enormous damages, and it reinforces our investment. We

had a fire incident a few years ago, and the fire damaged the whole left wing of

our production facility. From the insurance payments, we were able to replace lost

income and the damaged property, and we, therefore, recovered quickly.

The participants' statements aligned with information contained in the two companies'

continuity business plans. A review of C1's and C2's business continuity plans showed

that insurance was part of the firms' incidence response and recovery plans. I also

reviewed C1's insurance policy document and noted that the company has insurance for

business interruption as part of property insurance. The insurance covers (a) C1's net

profits in the event that the property is destroyed, (b) operating costs that include wages

and mortgage costs during business shut down, (c) lost revenue due to labor strikes, (d)

utility service interruptions, and (e) insolvency of suppliers. By purchasing insurance,

managers can reduce the financial impact of disruptions to the business and the supply

chain. Kumar et al. (2014) described insurance as an optimal primary risk mitigation

strategy to guard against company closure in the event of a catastrophic disaster. In

support of Kumar et al.'s findings, Chang et al. (2015) contended that in high severity risk

contexts, buying insurance is a better strategy for minimizing the effects of disruptions.

Strategic safety stock. All the participants (P1C1, P2C1, P3C1, P4C2, and P5C2)

believed that maintaining a strategic safety stock is an important contingency measure to

guard against external resource shortages. The participants indicated that they held

strategic reserve stocks for critical components in their companies to manage supply and

avoid stock outs. P1C1 stated, "In our organization, we hold a strategic safety stock to

mitigate the effects of supply chain disruptions." P2C1 said, "We focus on holding

inventory for critical ingredients for some of the products we manufacture. The

ingredients are not available locally, and we have to import them." When asked what

processes they used to minimize the effects of agro-food supply disruptions, P4C2 stated,

To avoid stock outs, we maintain an inventory buffer of critical elements,

especially the ones which are not available locally. We have to source them from

outside the country. We need to get an import license and apply for foreign

currency. We also experience long delays at the border. It takes us about 4-6

weeks before we get the products.

The participants' statements aligned with the information contained in the inventory

policy documents. C1 and C2's inventory policy documents showed that each company

required an inventory stock cover of no less than 6-8 weeks. Business managers maintain

strategic safety stocks to mitigate the risk of stock outs. However, there is need for

managers to find the right balance between high holding costs of inventory and too little

stock that can lead to lost sales.

Participants' assessments of the effectiveness of holding a strategic safety stock

included (a) the ability to adapt to market variations more efficiently, (b) adapting to

consumer demand more quickly, and (c) containing costs. P3C1 and P5C2 described the

need to respond to market demand variations more efficiently while controlling supply

chain operational costs. Four of the participants (P1C1, P2C1, P3C1, and P5C2) indicated

that stock outs were expensive because their industry was highly competitive and

consumers of the products exhibited limited brand loyalty. P3C1 declared, "Stock outs

can lead to lost sales and loss of customer goodwill." Given the potentially unpleasant

consequences of stock outs, managers should adopt a systematic approach to managing

inventory to meet variations in the supply of raw materials and consumer demand.

Participants' statements highlighting the need to hold a strategic safety stock for

critical components are consistent with other authors' observations in literature. Hoberg,

Protopappa-Sieke, and Steinker (2017) asserted that strategic safety stock should have

highly critical components because of the costs associated with holding inventory. Rajesh

et al. (2015) and Salam, Panahifar, and Byrne (2016) explained that having an inventory

buffer makes economic sense if the parts are critical, unique, and come from a single

source. A strategic safety stock can serve as an insurance against stock outs. However,

managers should strike a balance between inventory costs and a desired customer service

level.

Theme 3: Multiple Supplier Base

The third theme that emerged from the analyzed data was the use of a multiple

supplier base. All the five participants stated that having a multiple supplier base is an

important strategy they use for preventing and minimizing the effects of supply-side

disruptions. P1C1 said, "In our company, we source from different suppliers to hedge

against supply failure by some of our vendors." P2C1 stated,

Sourcing from different suppliers gives us more flexibility to respond to

unexpected events and risks of supply chain disruptions. With multiple sourcing,

we can switch from a defaulting supplier to other vendors who already supply the

company. Multiple sourcing gives us a variety of options and helps us to maintain

a level of competition among suppliers. As a result, we get a better quality of

service and competitive price.

P5C2 endorsed the sentiments of P2C1 by stating, "Sourcing from a single supplier can

expose a firm to a greater risk of supply interruption. By using multiple sourcing, we get

the chance to pick the best suppliers, have timely deliveries and source at a lower price."

The participants also noted that by sourcing from multiple suppliers, managers have

greater assurance of timely delivery and increased flexibility in getting firm requirements

from diversified sources.

P3C1 and P4C2 indicated they used a multiple supplier base to increase flexibility

even though they may not attain the lowest price. In assessing the barriers to

implementing a multiple supplier base, the participants indicated the high cost involved

in managing many suppliers. P4C2 stated, "Managing more than one supplier is

cumbersome." Responding to Interview Question 4 on addressing the barriers,

participants (P2C1, P3C1, and P5C2) indicated they were now integrating technology

based applications into their management systems to manage the diverse suppliers closely

and streamline supply chain processes to reduce procurement costs.

Most participants shared that managers need to focus on supplier relationships in

managing a multiple supplier base. Four of the participants (P2C1, P3C1, P4C2, and

P5C2), indicated that management of supplier relationships was critical because

managers can plan effectively and improve supply chain responsiveness. P3C1 and P5C2

were of the view that healthy relationships depend partly on selecting the right supply

chain partners. P3C1 stated,

Supplier relationship management is crucial for improving a company's

responsiveness to supply disruption. We have established a good relationship with

our suppliers to ensure mutual understanding and commitment so that we can

resolve issues quickly. As a first step, we place emphases on the risk that pertain

to suppliers, by selecting the right type of providers. If a vendor is unable to meet

delivery time and quality standards, it affects the company's production and

consequently customer fulfillment.

P3C1's assertion aligned with Cagnin et al.'s (2016) statement that managers should

identify the potential risks that the suppliers may offer to the organization to avoid any

interruptions to supply. Therefore, having an established criteria for selecting suppliers

that takes risk into account is important in mitigating the firm's risk.

The participants (P2C1, P3C1, P4C2, and P5C2) confirmed they had established

criteria for selecting suppliers. P5C2 said, "We select our suppliers on the basis of price,

quality, production capacity, reputation, and the risk of on-time delivery." P5C2's

statement was consistent with the information contained in C2's procurement policy and

procedures manual. The procurement policy and procedures manual had information on

the process of identifying suitable suppliers, evaluation of bid submissions, and

monitoring of supplier performance. An excerpt from C2's procurement policy and

procedures manual states,

Selection of suppliers shall be coordinated through the Tender Committee and

tender submissions shall be solicited by advertising. The tender evaluation criteria

shall address, but not limited to (a) product and service quality, (b) cost, (c)

production capacity, (d) ability to meet specification and standards (e) reputation,

(f) risk of on-time delivery, (g) agility, and (h) financial stability and credit

strength. The committee shall score the tender proposals using a separate sheet for

each submitted bid. The Chairman of the committee shall identify and shortlist

qualifying suppliers based on the overall score during the tender review process.

The final selection will be made after the committee has organized site visits with

the potential suppliers and assessed how each business operates.

In awarding tenders, the committee also considers the supplier's past performance,

financial and technical resources, and accessibility to other resources.

Participants shared that in managing a multiple supplier base, they strive to (a)

establish a good working relationship with their suppliers and (b) improve their suppliers'

performance. Participants P3C1 and P4C2 confirmed having open communication with

suppliers to build trust and confidence. P3C1 said, "We share information and have

established open communication with our suppliers and as a result, we have secured their

commitment and trust." Durach et al. (2015) asserted that in buyer-supplier relationships,

trust and communication are critical elements of a good working relationship. In their

study, Revilla and Knoppen (2015) found that effective communication, trust, and

knowledge and information sharing could result in more transparent buyer-supplier

relationships. The participants also stated that C1 and C2 had supplier development

programs. P4C2 stated, "We share information and assist suppliers to improve their

performance. We also have a supplier development program to help our suppliers

improve their processes, skills, and capabilities. P2C1 mentioned, "It is in our best

interest to have a capable supplier network. We build the capacity of our suppliers to

serve our organization more effectively thereby improving the bottom line in the long

term." Agribusiness managers can focus on supplier development and establishing

transparent buyer relationships to increase the organization's sustainability in the market

place. Business leaders may use supplier relationship management to minimize the risk of

business interruption and improve supply chain performance.

Research findings from literature support the study results that the use of a

multiple supplier base strategy prevented and minimized the effects of agro-food supply

chain disruptions. Jensen (2017) found that the use of multiple suppliers serves as a

buffer against supply disruption risk. Similarly, Tsai (2016) found that managers source

from multiple suppliers to get the assurance of timely delivery and to prevent the

disruption of supplies due to unforeseen risks. In their study, Rajesh et al. (2015) found

that business managers diversify order quantities and hedge against the sudden demise of

a single supplier by having multiple competing suppliers. By using multisourcing

options, managers can prevent disruptions and maintain profitability and effective

operations.

The CTF served as the conceptual framework for this study. Van de Ven and

Drazin (1985) opined that optimal decisions within a firm are contingent upon the

internal and external issues and the company's performance depends on how well

organizational resources match the business environment. Purchasing items from

different suppliers is an insurance against disruption risk (Jensen, 2017). In applying the

CTF principles, managers can mitigate the negative impact of supply failure by

optimizing order allocations among multiple suppliers. Because of increasing customer

demands, competition, and risk in the global environment, organizational leaders are

putting more effort in nurturing their supply chain and the supplier selection process

(Cagnin et al., 2016). In terms of the CTF, managers can maximize company

performance by selecting suppliers that meet their organizational needs within the

prevailing internal and external business environment context.

Applications to Professional Practice

An efficient and competitive agro-food supply chain can lead to competitive

advantage and success in food security issues (Anastasiadis & Poole, 2015). However,

agro-food supply chains are prone to disruptions due to their size, complexity, and

dynamic nature (Chang et al., 2015). Supply chain disruptions can result in production

and product quality problems, loss of revenue, reduced brand value, and erosion of

customer loyalty (Chakravarty, 2013). Implementing successful mitigation strategies

results in organizations having lower costs and improved profitability (Wright &

Datskovska, 2013). Identifying strategies agribusiness managers use to prevent and

mitigate the effects of disruptions may lead to improvements in business performance and

sustainability.

I conducted a qualitative multiple case study to explore the strategies agribusiness

managers use to prevent and mitigate the effects of disruptions in the agro-food supply

chains. Based on the data collected, all participants had implemented successful strategies

for preventing and mitigating the effects of disruptions in agro-food supply chains. Three

themes emerged from the data: (a) collaboration among supply chain partners, (b)

business continuity management, and (c) use of a multiple supplier base. The findings

from this study could contribute to improving business practice by providing information

that can reduce effects of disruptions in agro-food supply chains, as well as raise

100

agribusiness managers' awareness and understanding of strategies for preventing and

mitigating the effects of disruptions in agro-food supply chains.

Based on participants' feedback, collaboration with other supply chain partners

was among the important business practices agribusiness managers are currently

implementing to prevent and mitigate the effects of agro-food supply disruptions.

MacCarthy et al. (2016) asserted that supply chain competitiveness is a result of

cooperation, collaboration, and coordination among supply chain partners. Managers seek

for more integrative and collaborative efforts to cope with high demand uncertainties and

to share costs and risks (Kache & Seuring, 2014). The participants attested collaborating

with other supply chain partners to facilitate information sharing, decision making, and

recovery assistance. The findings of this study may help agribusiness managers to bridge

the knowledge gap on collaborative mechanisms that help minimize the effects of supply

chain disruptions.

Agribusiness managers could use the findings from this study to implement risk

mitigation strategies that include business continuity management and using a multiple

supplier base. Supply chain practitioners in the agro-food industry could also use the

findings to explore the potential causes of disruptions in agro-food supply chains and

develop principles to improve supply chain sustainability and performance. The study

findings and recommendations might contribute to existing and future research, and close

gaps in business practice regarding strategies agribusiness managers use to prevent and

mitigate the effects of supply chain disruptions in agro-food supply chains. Additionally,

the findings of this study may also add to the body of knowledge on topics such as

101

sources of risk in agro-food supply chains, effects of supply chain disruptions, prevention

and mitigation strategies, and agro-food supply chain competitiveness.

Implications for Social Change

Agro-food supply chains are increasingly becoming complex and vulnerable to

disruptions (Chang et al., 2015). Business managers who manage disruption risk can

improve the performance and competitiveness of their businesses and deliver the best

value to their customers (Tse et al., 2016). Leaders of successful businesses contribute

effectively to the improvement of human and social conditions by creating jobs,

participating in environmental sustainability programs, and contributing to economic

growth (Polonsky et al., 2016). The findings of this study could contribute to positive

social change by providing information on strategies for reducing supply chain costs. A

reduction in supply chain cost may lead to lower prices of agro-food products to

consumers which could lead to an improvement in the lives of consumers. Managers

could also improve the standard of living for customers with lower incomes because of

the reduction in costs.

Supply chain risks in the agro-food industry may result in recalls and have a

negative effect on company performance (Chaudhuri et al., 2016). With improved

knowledge, agribusiness managers can implement mitigation strategies that may lead to

better products and reduced recalls. Consumers may benefit through the provision of

better services and good quality products. The study findings may also influence policy

and decision makers in Zimbabwe and other southern African countries.

102

Recommendations for Action

Agro-food supply chains are prone to costly disruptions, and it is critical for

business managers to assess the supply chain risks and develop effective mitigation

strategies (Chaudhuri et al., 2016). The business problem addressed in this study was that

some agribusiness managers have limited strategies to prevent and mitigate the effects of

disruptions in the agro-food supply chains. The results of this study revealed that

agribusiness managers could use a variety of strategies successfully to prevent and

mitigate the effects of disruptions in agro-food supply chains. Based on the findings from

this study, I recommend that agribusiness managers adopt a systematic approach to

mitigating disruption risk in agro-food supply chains. The process should involve

assessing the risk sources and the impact of the risk, tracking the risk drivers, and

selecting an appropriate strategy based on the level of uncertainty and risk.

Communication and information sharing are critical factors for successful

collaborative relationships. Participants in this study noted that some supply chain

partners might not share information because of the low level of trust. I recommend that

agribusiness managers establish strong lines of communication with supply chain

partners to facilitate information flow and more transparent buyer-supplier relationships.

Furthermore, I recommend that agribusiness managers make use of e-collaboration tools,

for example, asynchronous conferencing and web-based chat tools to improve

communication abilities in the agro-food supply chain. Additionally, I recommend

agribusiness managers and supply chain practitioners invest in supplier development

programs and focus on measuring and rewarding supplier performance and continuous

103

improvement of the whole supply chain. Through supplier reward or recognition

programs managers can motivate their suppliers to perform better in terms of quality,

pricing, and delivery commitments, and also improve supplier loyalty and commitment.

Based on participants' feedback, business managers experience long delays in

clearing their imported goods due to bureaucratic procedures at the border. I recommend

that policy makers implement a policy framework that supports importers of critical

materials. The government should simplify border procedures and consider coming up

with an import priority list where it can give priority in the allocation of foreign currency

to the importation of essential goods and services. The findings and recommendations of

this study are relevant to organizational leaders, agribusiness managers, supply chain

practitioners, researchers, and scholars. I will disseminate the research results to various

stakeholder groups at conferences, training seminars, and professional development

workshops. I will also share the findings through publication in scholarly and business

journals.

Recommendations for Further Research

The aim of this study was to explore the strategies agribusiness managers use to

prevent and mitigate the effects of disruptions in agro-food supply chains. I used an

exploratory qualitative multiple case study design involving semi-structured interviews.

The research was specific to agribusiness managers located in the urban district of Harare

in Zimbabwe. Future researchers may explore other research methods, quantitative or

mixed methods. The mixed methods approach involves combining statistical analyses of

numerical data and thematic data (Sparkes, 2014). Future researchers can also use a

104

quantitative correlation design to examine the performance rate of each strategy in

preventing and minimizing effects of agro-food supply disruptions. An additional area of

research is determining the relationship between the various mitigation strategies and

supply chain performance. Supply chain disruptions affect many industries. However, the

focus of this study was on the agro-food sector. Future studies can focus on other

geographic areas and other industries.

Another limitation of this study was the use of a small sample of five agribusiness

managers. Boddy (2016) noted that the utilization of a larger sample might have a

different result. Future research can include a larger sample from other developing

countries in the South African region. Conducting further research on a wider scale on

prevention and mitigation strategies would add to the knowledge base of strategies for

preventing and mitigating the effects of disruptions in agro-food supply chains.

Reflections

My goal in conducting the qualitative multiple case study was to build my

competence in qualitative research while researching on a subject that I had an active

interest in. As a consultant in the agro-food sector, I was mindful of my biases throughout

the study. I focused on capturing the views and perspectives of participants in an

unbiased manner. Getting through the literature review was most overwhelming for me.

However, it was a valuable exercise because I was able to build a logical framework for

my research and add support to the research topic.

During fieldwork, I received cooperation from the five agribusiness managers I

interviewed. The study participants gave candid responses to the interview questions, and

105

I gained detailed understanding and in-depth knowledge of the research problem. Coding

and developing of themes during data analysis was not as easy as I thought but I gained

valuable skills I will use in my consultancy work. Reflecting on the results of the study, I

was able to dispel my preconceptions and beliefs. I found that while collaboration among

supply chain partners is an effective strategy for preventing and mitigating disruptions in

agro-food supply chains, it is not easy to achieve. Collaboration can fail due to low trust,

information hoarding, strategic misalignment, and poor system connectivity. I can now

view the research problem through the lenses of five agribusiness managers. Overall, the

DBA journey was an extremely rewarding process for me.

Conclusion

The findings from the qualitative, multicase study revealed that agribusiness

managers could prevent and mitigate the effects of disruptions in agro-food supply chains

by collaborating with other supply chain partners, putting in place business continuity

measures, and using a multiple supplier base. Agribusiness managers must first

understand the sources of disruption risk, assess the impact of the risk, and then select an

appropriate strategy based on the level of uncertainty and risk. The findings of this study

also revealed that by applying the strategies that emerged from the participants'

responses, agribusiness managers can improve supply chain sustainability and

performance.

The inherent disruption risks in agro-food supply chains and associated costs are

of concern to most organizational leaders. By managing the risks effectively, managers

can improve the performance and competitiveness of their businesses. I recommend that

106

agribusiness managers, supply chain practitioners, researchers, and scholars use the

findings and recommendations of this study to gain new insights on strategies for

preventing and mitigating the effects of disruptions in agro-food supply chains.

107

References

Aggarwal, S., & Srivastava, M. K. (2016). Towards a grounded view of collaboration in

Indian agro-food supply chains. British Food Journal, 118, 1085-1106.

doi:10.1108/BFJ-08-2015-0274

Ahmad, W. N. K., de Brito, M. P., & Tavasszy, L. A. (2016). Sustainable supply chain

management in the oil and gas industry: A review of corporate sustainability

reporting practices. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 23, 1423-1444.

doi:10.1108/BIJ-08-2013-0088

Akhtar, P., Tse, Y. K., Kan, Z., & Rao Nicholson, R. (2015). Data-driven and adaptive

leadership contributing to sustainability: Global agro-food supply chains

connected with emerging markets. International Journal of Production

Economics, 118, 392-401. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.11.013

Alcantara, P. (2015). Measuring the influence of industry sector membership on supply

chain disruption reporting. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency

Planning, 8, 299-306. Retrieved from: http://www.henrystewart.com/Arya

Almutairi, A. F., Gardner, G. E., & McCarthy, A. (2014). Practical guidance for the use

of pattern-matching technique in case-study research: A case presentation.

Nursing & Health Sciences, 16, 239-244. doi:10.1111/nhs.12096

AlYahmady, H. H., & Alabri, S. S. (2013). Using NVIVO for data analysis in qualitative

research. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Education, 2(2), 181-186.

doi:10.12816/0002914

108

Anastasiadis, F., & Poole, N. (2015). Emergent supply chains in the Agro-food sector:

Insights from a whole chain approach. Supply Chain Management: An

International Journal, 20, 353-368. doi:10.1108/SCM-08-2014-0259

Anderson, M., Bolton, N., Fleming, S., & Lord, R. (2016). Researching a segmented

market: Reflections on telephone interviewing. Management Research Review,

39, 786-802. doi:10.1108/MRR-01-2015-0020

Anney, V. N. (2014). Ensuring the quality of the findings of qualitative research:

Looking at trustworthiness criteria. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational

Research and Policy Studies, 5, 72-281. Retrieved from

jeteraps.scholarlinkresearch.org

Anyan, F. (2013). The influence of power shifts in data collection and analysis stages: A

focus on qualitative research interview. Qualitative Report, 18(18), 1-9. Retrieved

from http://www.nova.edu/sss/QR/index.html

Arlitscha, K., & Edelmanb, A. (2014). Staying safe: Cyber security for people and

organizations. Journal of Library Administration, 54, 46-56.

doi:10.1080101/01930826.2014.893116

Arora, A., Arora, A. S., & Sivakumar, K. (2016). Relationships among supply chain

strategies, organizational performance, and technological and market turbulences.

International Journal of Logistics Management, 27, 206-232.

doi:10.1108/IJLM-09-2013-0103

109

Asare, A. K., Brashear-Alejandro, T. G., & Kang, J. (2016). B2B technology adoption in

customer driven supply chains. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,

31(1), 1-12. doi:10.1108/JBIM-02-2015-0022

Azadegan, A., Patel, P. C., Zangoueinezhad, A., & Linderman, K. (2013). The effect of

environmental complexity and environmental dynamism on lean practices.

Journal of Operations Management, 31(4), 193-212.

doi:10.1016/j.jom.2013.03.002

Bamkin, M., Maynard, S., & Goulding, A. (2016). Grounded theory and ethnography

combined. Journal of Documentation, 72, 214-231.

doi:10.1108/JD-01-2015-0007

Barahona, J. C., & Elizondo, A. M. (2014). Introducing a disruptive service innovation:

A national dilemma in e-procurement. Management Decision, 52, 1782-1800.

doi:10.1108/MD-09-2013-0497

Barker, M. (2013). Finding audiences for our research: Rethinking the issue of ethical

challenges. Journal of the Communication Review, 16(1/2), 70-80.

doi:10.1080/10714421.2013.757504

Barratt, M., Choi, T. Y., & Li, M. (2011). Qualitative case studies in operations

management: Trends, research outcomes, and future research

implications. Journal of Operations Management, 29, 329-342.

doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.06.002

110

Barros, A. C., Barbosa-Povera, A. P., & Blanco, E. E. (2013). Selection of tailored

practices for supply chain management. International Journal of Operations &

Production Management, 33, 1040-1074. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-08-2011-0264

Basak, S. K. (2015). Analysis of the impact of NVivo and EndNote on academic research

productivity. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic,

Business, and Industrial Engineering, 9, 3217-3222. Retrieved from

http://www.waset.org/publications/10002822

Baskarada, S. (2014). Qualitative case study guidelines. Qualitative Reporter, 19(24), 1-

25. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/baslarada24.pdf

Baskerville, R. L., & Myers, M. D. (2014). Design ethnography in information systems.

Information Systems Journal, 25, 23-46. doi:10.1111/isj.12055

Beckert, Z. M., & Ghisi, F. S. (2015). The use of triangulation in Brazilian scientific

research in administration. Business & Economic Management, 16, 241-273.

doi:10.13058/raep.2015.v16n2.238

Bernard, H. R. (2013). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Beske, P., & Seuring, S. (2014). Putting sustainability into supply chain

management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19, 322-331.

doi:10.1108/SCM-12-2013-0432

Beskow, L. M., Check, D. K., & Ammarell, N. (2014). Research participants’

understanding of and reactions to certificates of confidentiality. AJOB Primary

Research, 5(1), 12-22. doi:10.1080/21507716.2013.813596

111

Bevan, M. (2014). A method of phenomenological interviewing. Qualitative Health

Research, 24, 136-144. doi:10.1177/1049732313519710

Bhakoo, V., Singh, P. J., & Chia, A. (2015). Supply chain structures shaping portfolio of

technologies. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics

Management, 45, 376- 399. doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2014-0298

Birkie, S. E. (2016). Operational resilience and lean: In search of synergies and tradeoffs.

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 27, 185-207.

doi:10.1108/JMTM-07-2015-0054

Blome, C., Paulraj, A., & Schuetz, K. (2014). Supply chain collaboration and

sustainability: A profile deviation analysis. International Journal of Operations &

Production Management, 34, 639-663. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-11-2012-0515

Boddy, C. R. (2016). Sample size for qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research:

An International Journal, 19, 4-12. doi:10.1108/QMR-06-2016-0053

Bowman, J. (2015). Strategies for mitigating supply chain disruptions. (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI

No. 3742226)

Boyson, S. (2014). Cyber supply chain risk management: Revolutionizing the strategic

control of critical IT systems. Technovation, 34, 342-353.

doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2014.02.001

Braziiotis, C., Bourlakis, M., Rogers, H., & Tannock, J. (2013). Supply chains and supply

networks: Distinctions and overlaps. Supply Chain Management: An International

Journal, 18, 644-652. doi:10.1108/SCM-07-2012-0260

112

Bredart, A., Marrel, A., Abetz-Webb, L., Lasch, K., & Acquadro, C. (2014). Interviewing

to develop patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures for clinical research:

Eliciting patients' experience. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12(1), 1-10

doi:10.1186/1477-7525-12-15

Brenner, V. (2014). Causes of supply chain disruptions: An empirical analysis in cold

chains for food and pharmaceuticals [Adobe Digital Editions version].

doi:10.101007/978-3-658-08662-6

Brooks, J. S., & Normore, A. H. (2015). Qualitative research and educational leadership:

Essential dynamics to consider when designing and conducting studies.

International Journal of Educational Management, 29, 798-806.

doi:10.1108/IJEM-06-2015-0083

Bruque Camara, S., Moyano Fuentes, J., & Maqueira Marin, J. M. (2015). Cloud

computing, web 2.0, and operational performance. International Journal of

Logistics Management, 26, 426-458. doi:10.1108/IJLM-07-2013-0085

Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Budd, J. M., & Velasquez, D. L. (2014). Phenomenology and organizational

communication. New Library World, 115, 394-404.

doi:10.1108/NLW-03-2014-0028

Business Continuity Institute. (2013). Annual supply chain resilience report. Retrieved

from http://www.thebci.org

113

Byrne, D. (2013). Evaluating complex social interventions in a complex world.

Evaluation, 19, 217-228. doi:10.1177/1356389013495617

Cagnin, F., Oliveira, M. C., Simon, A. T., Helleno, A. L., & Vendramini, M. P. (2016).

Proposal of a method for selecting suppliers considering risk management.

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 33, 488-498.

doi:10.1108/IJQRM-11-2014-0172

Cai, S., Goh, M., de Souza, R., & Li, G. (2013). Knowledge sharing in collaborative

supply chains: Twin effects of trust and power. International Journal of

Production Research, 51, 2060-2076. doi:10.1080/00207543.2012.701780

Caldwell, N., Harland, C., Powell, P., & Zheng, J. (2013). Impact of e-business on

perceived supply chain risks. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise

Development, 20, 688-715. doi:10.1108/JSBED-12-2011-0036

Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth

semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and inter-coder reliability and

agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42, 294-320.

doi:10.1177/0049124113500475.

Caputo, A., Marzi, G., & Pellegrini, M. M. (2016). The internet of things in

manufacturing innovation processes. Business Process Management Journal, 22,

383-402. doi:10.1108/BPMJ-05-2015-0072

Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use

of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41, 545-547.

doi:10.1188/14.ONF.545.547

114

Caruth, G. D. (2013). Demystifying mixed methods research design: A review of the

literature. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 3, 112-122.

doi:10.13054/mije.13.35.3.2

Castelberry, A. (2014). NVivo 10 [software program]: Version 10. QSR international.

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(1), 1-12.

doi:10.5688/ajpe78125

Chakravarty, V. (2013). Managing a supply chain’s web of risk. Strategy & Leadership,

41, 39-45. doi:10.1108/10878571311318231

Chang, H., Tsai, Y., & Hsu, C. (2013). E-procurement and supply chain performance.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 18, 4-51.

doi:10.1108/13598541311293168

Chang, W., Ellinger, A. E., & Blackhurst, J. (2015). A contextual approach to supply

chain risk mitigation. International Journal of Logistics Management, 26, 642-

656. doi:10.1108/IJLM-02-2014-0026

Chatterjee, S., Sarker, S., & Valacich, J. S. (2015). The behavioral roots of information

systems security: Exploring key factors related to unethical IT use. Journal of

Management Information Systems, 31(4), 49-87. doi:10.1080/07421222.

2014.1001257

Chaudhuri, A., Mohanty, B. K., & Singh, K. N. (2013). Supply chain risk assessment

during new product development: A group decision making approach using

numeric and linguistic data. International Journal of Production Research, 51,

2790-2804. doi:10.1080/00207543.2012.654922

115

Chaudhuri, A., Srivastava, S. K., Srivastava, R. K., & Parveen, Z. (2016). Risk

propagation and its impact on performance in food processing supply chain.

Journal of Modeling in Management, 11, 660-693.

doi:10.1108/JM2-08-2014-0065

Chen, H., Hailey, D., Wang, N., & Yu, P. (2014). Review of data quality assessment

methods for public health information systems. International Journal of

Environmental Research and Public Health, 11, 5170-5207.

doi:10.3390/ijerph1105170

Chen, I. S. N., & Fung, P. K. O. (2013). Relationship configurations in the apparel supply

chain. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 28, 303-316.

doi:10.1108/08858621311313901

Chen, Y. (2014). Supply disruptions, heterogeneous beliefs, and production efficiencies.

Production & Operations Management, 23, 127-137. doi:10.1111/poms.12027

Chen, Y. J., Wu, Y. J., & Wu, T. (2015). Moderating effect of environmental supply

chain collaboration. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics

Management, 45, 959-978. doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-08-2014-0183

Chopra, S., & Sodhi, M. S. (2014). Reducing the risk of supply chain disruptions. MIT

Sloan Management Review, 55(3), 73-80. Retrieved from

http://sloanreview.mit.edu

Chronister, K. M., Marsiglio, M. C., Linville, D., & Lantrip, K. R. (2014). The influence

of dating violence on adolescent girls’ educational experiences. Counseling

Psychologist, 42, 374-405. doi:10.1177/0011000012470569

116

Clancy, M. L. (2013). A guidebook and a research model: A review of doing excellent

small-scale research. Qualitative Report, 18(27), 1-7. Retrieved from

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR18/clancy15.pdf

Cleary, M., Horsfall, J., & Hayter, M. (2014). Data collection and sampling in qualitative

research: Does size matter? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70, 473-475.

doi:10.1111/jan.12163

Contiero, E., Ponsignon, F., Smart, P. A., & Vinelli, A. (2016). Contingencies and

characteristics of service recovery system design: Insights from retail banking.

International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 36, 1644-1667.

doi:10.1108/IJOPM-06-2015-0325

Cope, D. G. (2014). Methods and meanings: Credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative

research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41, 89-91. doi:10.1188/14.ONF.89-91

Cruz, J. M. (2013). Mitigating global supply chain risks through corporate social

responsibility. International Journal of Production Research, 51, 3995-4010.

doi:10.1080/00207543.2012.762134

D'Arcy, J., & Greene, G. (2014). Security culture and the employment relationship as

drivers of employees’ security compliance. Information Management &

Computer Security, 22, 474-489. doi:10.1108/IMCS-08-2013-0057

Dasgupta, M. (2015). Exploring the relevance of case study research. Vision: The Journal

of Business Perspective, 19, 147-160. doi:10.1177/0972262915575661

Dellana, S., & West, D. (2016). Survival analysis of supply chain financial risk. Journal

of Risk Finance, 17, 130-151. doi:10.1108/JRF-11-2015-0112

117

DeLyser, D., & Sui, D. (2014). Crossing the qualitative-quantitative chasm III: Enduring

methods, open geography, participatory research, and the fourth paradigm.

Progress in Human Geography, 38, 294-307. doi:10.1177/0309132513479291

De Massis, A., & Kotlar, J. (2014). The case study method in family business research:

Guidelines for qualitative scholarship. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(1),

15-29. doi:10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.01.007

Department for Business, Innovation & Skills. (2015). Information security breaches

survey 2015: Technical report. London, United Kingdom. Retrieved from

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/information-security-breaches-

survey-2015

Derobertmasure, A., & Robertson, J. E. (2014). Data analysis in the context of teacher

training: Code sequence analysis using QDA miner(R). Quality and Quantity, 48,

2255-2276. doi:10.1007/s11135-013-9890-9

Doody, O., & Noonan, M. (2013). Preparing and conducting interviews to collect data.

Nurse Researcher, 20(5), 28-32. doi:10.7748/nr2013.05.20.5.28.e327

Dries, L., Gorton, M., Urutyan, V., & White, J. (2014). Supply chain relationships,

supplier support programs, and stimulating investment: Evidence from the

Armenian dairy sector. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19,

98-107. doi:10.1108/SCM-12-2012-0380

Drnevich, P. L., & Croson, D. C. (2013). Information technology and business-level

strategy: Toward an integrated theoretical perspective. MIS Quarterly, 37, 483-

509. Retrieved from http://www.misq.org

118

Durach, C. F., Wieland, A., Jose, A. D., & Machuca, J. A. (2015). Antecedents and

dimensions of supply chain robustness: A systematic literature review.

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 45, 118-

137. doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2013-0133

Dworkin, S. L. (2012). Sample size policy for qualitative studies using in-depth

interviews. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1319-1320.

doi:10.1007/s10508-012-0016-6

Eastburn, R. W., & Sharland, A. (2017). Risk management and managerial mindset. The

Journal of Risk Finance, 18(1), 21-47. doi:10.1108/JRF-09-2016-0114

Elahi, E. (2013). Risk management: The next source of competitive advantage. Foresight,

15, 117-131. doi:10.1108/14636681311321121

Elo, S., Kaariainen, M., Kanste, O., Polkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngas, H. (2014).

Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 4(1), 1-10.

doi:10.1177/2158244014522633

Emerson, R. W. (2015). Convenience sampling, random sampling, and snowball

sampling: How does sampling affect the validity of research? Journal of Visual

Impairment & Blindness, 109(2), 164-168. Retrieved from

http://http://www.afb.org/jvib/jvib_main.asp

Ercikan, K., & Roth, W. (2014). Limits of generalizing in education research: Why

criteria for research generalization should include population heterogeneity and

uses of knowledge claims. Teachers College Record, 116(5), 1-28. Retrieved

from http://www.tcrecord.org

119

Falkowski, J. (2015). Resilience of farmer - processor relationships to adverse shocks:

The case of the dairy sector in Poland. British Food Journal, 117, 2465-2483.

doi:10.1108/BFJ-12-2014-0433

Fawcett, S. E., McCarter, M. W., Fawcett, A. A., Webb, G. S., & Magnan, G. M. (2015).

Why supply chain collaboration fails: The socio-structural view of resistance to

relational strategies. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20,

648-663. doi:10.1108/SCM-08-2015-0331

Fielding, J., Fielding, N., & Hughes, G. (2013). Opening up open-ended survey data

using qualitative software. Quality & Quantity, 47, 3261-3276.

doi:10.1007/s11135-012-9716-1

Fischer, C. (2013). Trust and communication in European agro-food chains. Supply

Chain Management: An International Journal, 18, 208-218.

doi:10.1108/13598541311318836

Fischl, M., Scherrer-Rathje, M., Friedli, T. (2014). Digging deeper into supply risk: A

systematic literature review on price risks. Supply Chain Management: An

International Journal, 19, 480-503. doi:10.1108/SCM-12-2013-0474

Foley, D., & O’Connor, A. J. (2013). Social capital and networking practices of

indigenous entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 51, 276-296.

doi:10.1111/jsbm.12017

Frels, R. K., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2013). Administering quantitative instruments with

qualitative interviews: A mixed research approach. Journal of Counseling &

Development, 91, 184-194. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00085.x

120

Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative

research. Qualitative Report, 20, 1408-1416. Retrieved from

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR

Gambetti, R. C., & Giovanardi, M. (2013). Re-visiting the supply chain: A

communication perspective. Corporate Communications: An International

Journal, 18, 390-416. doi:10.1108/ccij0320120021

Garcia, D., & Gluesing, J. C. (2013). Qualitative research methods in international

organizational change research. Journal of Organizational Change Management,

26, 423-444. doi:10.1108/09534811311328416

Ghadge, A., Dani, S., Chester, M., & Kalawsky, R. (2013). A systems approach for

modeling supply chain risks. Supply Chain Management, 18, 523-538.

doi:10.1108/SCM-11-2012-0366

Gibson, S., Benson, O., & Brand, S. (2013). Talking about suicide: Confidentiality and

anonymity in qualitative research. Nursing Ethics, 20(1), 18-29.

doi:10.1177/0969733012452684

Gile, K. J., Johnston, L. G., & Salganik, M. J. (2015). Diagnostics for respondent‐driven

sampling. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society),

178, 241-269. doi:10.1111/rssa.12059

Gilgor, D. M. (2014). The role of demand management in achieving supply chain agility.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19, 577-591.

doi:10.1108/SCM-10-2013-0363

Glaser, J., & Laudel, G. (2013). Life with and without coding: Two methods for early-

121

stage data analysis in qualitative research aiming at causal explanations. Forum:

Qualitative Social Research, 14(2), 1-33. Retrieved from

http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1886/3528

Goertz, G., & Mahoney, J. (2013). Methodological Rorschach tests: Contrasting

interpretations in qualitative and quantitative research. Comparative Political

Studies, 46, 236-251. doi:10.1177/0010414012466376

Goldberg, E. (2013). Preventing a data breach from becoming a disaster. Journal of

Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 6, 295-303. Retrieved from

http://www.henrystewartpublications.com/jbcep

Golgeci, I., & Ponomarov, S. Y. (2013). Does firm innovativeness enable effective

responses to supply chain disruptions? An empirical study. Supply Chain

Management: An International Journal, 18, 604-617.

doi:10.1108/SCM-10-2012-0331

Golicic, S. L., & Davis, D. F. (2012). Implementing mixed methods research in supply

chain management. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics

Management, 42, 726-741. doi:10.1108/09600031211269721

Green, B. (2013). Narrative inquiry and nursing research. Qualitative Research Journal,

13, 62-71. doi:10.1108/14439881311314586

Grotsch, V. M., Blome, C., & Schepler, M. C. (2013). Antecedents of proactive supply

risk management: A contingency theory perspective. International Journal of

Production Research, 15, 2842-2867. doi:10.1080/00207543.2012.746796

122

Grubisic, I. (2014). ERP in clouds or still below. Journal of Systems and Information

Technology, 16, 62-76. doi:10.1108/JSIT-05-2013-0016

Gualandris, J., & Kalchschmidt, M. (2015). Supply risk management and competitive

advantage: A misfit model. International Journal of Logistics Management, 26,

459-478. doi:10.1108/IJLM-05-2013-0062

Guercini, S. (2014). New qualitative research methodologies in management.

Management Decision, 52, 662-674. doi:10.1108/MD-11-2013-0592

Guetterman, T. C. (2015). Descriptions of sampling practices within five approaches to

qualitative research in education and the health sciences. Forum: Qualitative

Social Research, 16(2), 1-23. Retrieved from

http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114:fqs1502256

Haahr, A., Norlyk, A., & Hall, E. (2013). Ethical challenges embedded in qualitative

research interviews with close relatives. Nursing Ethics, 21, 6-15.

doi:10.1177/0969733013486370

Hallavo, V. (2015). Superior performance through supply chain fit: A synthesis. Supply

Chain Management: An International Journal, 20, 71-82.

doi:10.1108/SCM-05-2014-0167

Harvey, L. (2015). Beyond member checking: A dialogic approach to the research

interview. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 38, 23-38.

doi:10.1080/1743727X.2014.914487

123

Hayes, B., Bonner, A., & Douglas, C. (2013). An introduction to mixed methods research

for nephrology nurses. Renal Society of Australasia Journal, 9(1), 8-14. Retrieved

from http://www.renalsociety.org/RSAJ/index_nl.html

Heale, R., & Forbes, D. (2013). Understanding triangulation in research. Evidence Based

Nursing, 16(4), 98-98. doi:10.1136/eb-2013-101494

Hilletofth, P., Himola, O., & Wang, Y. (2016). Simulation based decision support

systems in the supply chain context. Industrial Management & Data Systems,

116(2), 45-60. doi:10.1108/IMDS-11-2015-0477

Hoberg, K., Protopappa-Sieke, M., & Steinker, S. (2017). How do financial constraints

and financing costs affect inventories? An empirical supply chain perspective.

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 47, 516-

535. doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2016-0142

Hofer, A. R., Hofer, C., & Waller, M. A. (2014). What gets suppliers to play and who

gets the pay? On the antecedents and outcomes of collaboration in retailer-

supplier dyads. International Journal of Logistics Management, 25, 226-244.

doi:10.1108/IJLM-01-2014-0012

Hohenstein, N., Feisel, E., Hartman, E., & Giunipero, L. (2015). Research on the

phenomenon of supply chain resilience. International Journal of Physical

Distribution & Logistics Management, 45, 90-117.

doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2013-0128

Houghton, C., Casey, D., Shaw, D., & Murphy, K. (2013). Rigor in qualitative case study

research. Nurse Researcher, 20(4), 12-17. doi:10.7748/nr.2013.03.20.4.12.e326

124

Hsu, C., Tan, K. C., Zailani, S., & Jayaraman, V. (2013). Supply chain drivers that foster

the development of green initiatives in an emerging economy. International

Journal of Operations & Production Management, 33, 656-688.

doi:10.1108/IJOPM-10-2011-0401

Huang, K., Wu, J., Lu, S., & Lin, Y. (2016). Innovation and technology creation effects

on organizational performance. Journal of Business Research, 69, 2187-2192.

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.028

Huang, L., Lin, Y., Ieromonachou, P., Zhou, L., & Lou, J. (2015). Drivers and patterns of

supply chain collaboration in the pharmaceutical industry: A case study on SMEs

in China. Open Journal of Social Science, 3, 23-29. doi:10.4236/jss.2015.37004

Huo, B., Qi, Y., Wang, Z., & Zhao, X. (2014). The impact of supply chain integration on

firm performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19, 369-

384. doi:10.1108/SCM-03-2013-0096

Huong Tran, T. T., Childerhouse, P., & Deakins, E. (2016). Supply chain information

sharing: challenges and risk mitigation strategies. Journal of Manufacturing

Technology Management, 27, 1102-1126. doi:10.1108/JMTM-03-2016-0033

Hurn, J. B. (2013). Response of managers to the challenges of globalization. Industrial

and Commercial Training, 45, 336-342. doi:10.1108/ict0420130020

Hyat, M. J. (2013). Understanding sample size determination in nursing research.

Western Journal of Nursing Research, 35, 943-956.

doi:10.1177/0193945913482052

125

Iakovou, E., Vlachos, D., Keramydas, C., & Partsch, D. (2014). Dual sourcing for

mitigating humanitarian supply chain disruptions. Journal of Humanitarian

Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 4, 245-264.

doi:10.1108/JHLSCM-03-2013-0008

Ibrahim, S. B., & Hamid, A. A. (2014). Supply chain management practices and supply

chain performance effectiveness. International Journal of Science and Research,

3(8), 187-195. Retrieved from http://www.ijsr.net

Ishak, N. M., & Bakar, A. Y. A. (2014). Developing sampling frame for case study:

Challenges and conditions. World Journal of Education, 4(3), 29-35.

doi:10.5430/wje.v4n3p29

Iveroth, E. (2016). Strategies for leading IT-enabled change: Lessons from a global

transformation case. Strategy & Leadership, 44, 39-45.

doi:10.1108/SL-06-2015-0050

Jamshed, S. (2014). Qualitative research method-interviewing and observation. Journal

of Basic and Clinical Pharmacy, 5(4), 87-87. doi:10.4103/0976-0105.141942

Jede, A., & Teuteberg, F. (2015). Integrating cloud computing in supply chain processes.

Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28, 872-904.

doi:10.1108/JEIM-08-2014-0085

Jensen, P. A. (2017). Strategic sourcing and procurement of facilities management

services. Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing, 10, 138-158.

doi:10.1108/JGOSS-10-2016-0029

126

Jie, F., Parton, K. A., & Cox, R. (2013). Linking supply chain practices to competitive

advantage: An example from Australian agribusiness. British Food Journal, 115,

1003-1024. doi:10.1108/BFJ-10-2010-0181

Johnson, B. (2014). Ethical issues in shadowing research. Qualitative Research in

Organizations and Management, 9, 21-40. doi:10.1108/QROM-09-2012-1099

Kache, F., & Seuring, S. (2014). Linking collaboration and integration to risk and

performance in supply chains via a review of literature reviews. Supply Chain

Management: An International Journal, 19, 664-682.

doi:10.1108/SCM-12-2013-0478

Kaki, A., Salo, A., & Talluri, S. (2015). Disruptions in supply networks: A probabilistic

risk assessment approach. Journal of Business Logistics, 36, 273-287.

doi:10.1111/jbl.12086

Kembro, J., & Naslund, D. (2014). Information sharing in supply chains, myth or reality?

A critical analysis of empirical literature. International Journal of Physical

Distribution & Logistics Management, 44, 179-200.

doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-09-2012-0287

Khan, S. N. (2014). Qualitative research method: Phenomenology. Asian Social Science,

10, 298-310. 10.5539/ass.v10n21p298

Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2013). Examining some assumptions and limitations of

research on the effects of emerging technologies for teaching and learning in

higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 536-543.

doi:10.1111/bjet.12049

127

Knoppen, D., Johnston, D., & Saenz, M. J. (2015). Supply chain relationships as a

context for learning leading to innovation. International Journal of Logistics

Management, 26, 543-567. doi:10.1108/IJLM-09-2012-0089

Kobayashi, S. (2017). Insurance and financial stability: Implications of the Tsunami view

for regulation and supervision of insurers. Journal of Financial Regulation and

Compliance. 25, 105-112. doi:10.1108/JFRC-06-2016-0049

Koelsch, L. E. (2013). Reconceptualizing the member check interview. International

Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12(1), 168-179. Retrieved from http:

//www.ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/article/view/12327

Konig, A., & Spinler, S. (2016). The effect of logistics outsourcing on the supply chain

vulnerability of shippers. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 27,

122-141. doi:10.1108/IJLM-03-2014-0043

Kuhn, J. R., Ahuja, M., & Mueller, M. J. (2013). An examination of the relationship of IT

control weakness to company financial performance and health. International

Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 21, 227-240.

doi:10.1108/IJAIM-12-2011-0042

Kumar, C. G., & Nambirajan, T. (2013). Supply chain management components, supply

chain performance and organizational performance: A critical review and

development of conceptual model. International Journal on Global Business

Management & Research, 2(1), 86-96. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/en

128

Kumar, G., & Banerjee, R. N. (2014). Supply chain collaboration index: An instrument to

measure the depth of collaboration. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 21,

184-204. doi:10.1108/BIJ-02-2012-0008

Kumar, S., & Bhat, S. A. (2014). Supply chain risk management dimensions in Indian

automobile industry. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 21, 1023-1040.

doi:10.1108/BIJ-02-2013-0023

Kumar, S., Himes, K. J., & Kritzer, C. P. (2014). Risk assessment and operational

approaches to managing risk in global supply chains. Journal of Manufacturing

Technology Management, 25, 873-890. doi:10.1108/JMTM-04-2012-0044

Kumar, S., Liu, J., & Scutella, J. (2015). The impact of supply chain disruptions on

stockholder wealth in India. International Journal of Physical Distribution &

Logistics Management,45, 938-958. doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-09-2013-0247

Lal, P., & Bharadwaj, S. S. (2016). Understanding the impact of cloud-based services

adoption on organizational flexibility: An exploratory study. Journal of

Enterprise Information Management, 29, 566-588.

doi:10.1108/JEIM-04-2015-0028

Laosirihongthong, T., Adebanjo, D., & Tan, K. C. (2013). Green supply chain

management practices and performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems,

113, 1088-1109. doi:10.1108/IMDS-04-2013-0164

Largent, E. A. (2016). Recently proposed changes to legal and ethical guidelines

governing human subjects research. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 3(1), 1-

11. doi:10.1093/jlb/lsw001

129

Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1967). Organization and environment. Boston, MA: Harvard

School Business Press.

Layder, D. (2013). Doing excellent small-scale research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Leat, P., & Revoredo-Giha, C. (2013). Risk and resilience in agro-food supply chains:

The case of the ASDA PorkLink supply chain in Scotland. Supply Chain

Management: An International Journal, 18, 219-231.

doi:101108/13598541311318845

Lee, S. M., & Rha, J. S. (2016). Ambidextrous supply chain capability as a dynamic

capability: Building a resilient supply chain. Management Decision, 54, 2-23.

doi:10.1108/MD-12-2014-0674

Lee, S. M., Rha, J. S., Choi, D., & Noh, Y. (2013). Pressures affecting green supply chain

performance. Management Decision, 51, 1753-1768.

doi:10.1108/MD-12-2012-0841

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical research: Planning and design (10th

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Leung, L. (2015). Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research.

Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 4, 324-327.

doi:10.4103/2249-4863-161306

Lii, P., & Kuo, F. I. (2016). Innovation-oriented supply chain integration for combined

competitiveness and firm performance. International Journal of Production

Economics, 174, 142-155. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.01.018

130

Liu, S., Yang, Y., Qu, W. G., & Liu, W. (2016). The business value of cloud computing:

The partnering agility perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116,

1160-1177. doi:10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0376

Lonial, S. C., & Carter, R. E. (2015). The impact of organizational orientations on

medium and small firm performance: A resource-based perspective. Journal of

Small Business Management, 53, 94-113. doi:10.1111/jsbm.12054

Luse, A., & Mennecke, B. (2014). IT can matter: Co-evolution fostering IT competitive

advantage. Management Research Review, 37, 574-588.

doi:10.1108/MRR-02-2013-0028

Ma, P., Lund, M. S., Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., & Su, G. (2015). Single-step

genomic model improved reliability and reduced the bias of genomic predictions

in Danish Jersey. Journal of Dairy Science, 98, 9026-9034.

doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9703.

MacCarthy, B. L., Blome, C., Olhager, J., Srai, J. S., & Zhao, X. (2016). Supply chain

evolution theory, concepts and science. International Journal of Operations &

Production Management, 36, 1696-1718. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-02-2016-0080

Macdonald, J. R., & Corsi, T. M. (2013). Supply chain disruption management: Severe

events, recovery, and performance. Journal of Business Logistics, 34, 270-288.

doi:10.1111/jbl.12026

Magutua, P. O., Adudab, J., Nyaogac, R. B. (2015). Does supply chain technology

moderate the relationship between supply chain strategies and firm performance?

Strategies for Preventing and Mitigating the Effects of Agro-food

Students also viewed