Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a conceptual framework on resilience types in supply chain networks. Design/methodology/approach – Using a complex adaptive systems perspective as an organizing framework, the paper explores three forms of resilience: engineering, ecological and evolutionary and their antecedents and links these to four phases of supply chain resilience (SCRES): readiness, response, recovery, growth and renewal. Findings – Resilient supply chains need all three forms of resilience. Efficiency and system optimization approaches may promote quick recovery after a disruption. However, system-level response requires adaptive capabilities and transformational behaviors may be needed to move supply chains to new fitness levels after a disruption. The three resilience types discussed are not mutually exclusive, but rather complement each other and there are synergies and tradeoffs among these resilience types. Research limitations/implications – The empirical validation of the theoretical propositions will open up new vistas for supply chain research. Possibilities exist for analyzing and assessing SCRES in multiple and more comprehensive ways. Practical implications – The findings of the research can help managers refine their approaches to managing supply chain networks. A more balanced approach to supply chain management can reduce the risks and vulnerabilities associated with supply chain disruptions. Originality/value – This study is unique as it conceptualizes SCRES in multiple ways, thereby extending our understanding of supply chain stability.

Introduction

Disruptions to commercial supply chains can have significant economic impacts. Managing risk and vulnerability associated with supply chains have therefore assumed some urgency. Resilience, the capacity of a system to adapt to change and deal with surprise while retaining the system’s basic function and structure (Holling, 1973), has emerged as an important tool for managing supply chain risk and vulnerability (Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009; Pettit et al., 2010). Early research on supply chain resilience (SCRES) focused on resilience as a means for reducing risk and vulnerability in supply chains (Martin and Peck, 2004) and as an organizational capability that confers competitive advantage (Sheffi, 2005). That stream of research discusses resilient supply chains as capable of absorbing or avoiding disruptions entirely (Sheffi and Rice, 2005), or recovering much faster after a disruption (Zsidisin and Smith, 2005). Researchers have also focused on strategies that firms can use to build resilient supply chains (Wieland and Wallenburg, 2013), as well as factors that both reduce and enhance resilience in supply chains (Blackhurst et al., 2011). New efforts to assess SCRES are emerging. For example, Barroso et al. (2015) calculated what they call the resiliency index of a supply chain by measuring the disruptive capacity as the recovery time of a supply chain following a disruption and recent reviews have begun to categorize studies into typologies. For example, Tukamuhabwa et al. (2015) categorized resilience strategies into proactive and reactive strategies. Our understanding of supply chain dynamics has been enhanced by the ongoing focus on resilience. Despite this progress, some gaps remain in our understanding of both the concept and its usefulness in explaining supply chain dynamics. First, resilience by definition is a dynamic concept. Specifically, because resilience is a property of dynamic systems, it is important to focus on system attributes and the dynamic structure of supply chain networks. As Walker et al. (2004, p. 1) noted, “resilience of a system needs to be considered in terms of the attributes that govern the system’s dynamics.” Second, while resilience is clearly a multidimensional construct, few studies in the supply chain literature have explicitly addressed this (see Eltantawy, 2016 for an exception). Third, although resilience has been conceptualized in terms of a supply chain’s ability to be ready, respond, recover and transform (Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015), not much is known about the capabilities for managing the growth and transformation phases. Finally, the emerging SCRES literature has been largely atheoretical and other researchers (e.g. Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015; Ali et al., 2017) have noted this. Researchers have used the resource-based view (Blackhurst et al., 2011), social capital ( Johnson et al., 2013) and complex adaptive systems (CAS) theory (Day, 2014; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015) to explain resilience. There is a need to adopt theoretical lenses more in tune with the dynamic nature of supply chains.