Two perspectives on supply chain resilience

TLDR

Resilience has been redefined beyond equilibrium, emphasizing adaptation and transformation, yet supply‑chain literature remains disconnected from these broader debates. The essay aims to clarify supply‑chain resilience by contrasting engineering and social‑ecological perspectives and proposing an updated definition. The authors synthesize engineering and social‑ecological resilience concepts within a supply‑chain system framework. The study concludes that supply‑chain resilience should be viewed as adaptation and transformation rather than mere stability.

Abstract

Abstract More than a decade ago, other fields started to challenge the equilibrium‐focused meaning of resilience. They suggested that resilience does not just relate to the ability of a system to “bounce back” after an impeding event, but also to the capacity to adapt and transform. The operations and supply chain management literature remains surprisingly disconnected from these debates. This essay sets out to further our theoretical knowledge of what resilience means (or means to others) by disentangling two prominent perspectives of resilience—engineering resilience and social‐ecological resilience—and offering an updated definition of supply chain resilience. We integrate and discuss these perspectives in the context of our understanding of the supply chain as a system. The goal is to outline the potential links and inconsistencies of these perspectives with supply chain management (SCM). From there, we seek to develop a more comprehensive understanding of what resilience means in SCM. Supply chain resilience is then no longer understood in terms of stability, but in terms of adaptation and transformation.