Humanitarian Activities against COVID-19 Disruption: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Beatrix Zheng and Version 3 by Beatrix Zheng.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected more than 214 countries across the world, disrupting the supply of essential commodities. As the pandemic has spread, humanitarian activities (HAs) have attempted to manage the various situation but appear ineffective due to lack of collaboration and information sharing, inability to respond towards disruption, etc. Developing a sustainable humanitarian supply chain (HSC) for managing disasters/emergencies can be viewed as an extension of the traditional supply chain. Thus, sustainable HSCs have evolved as a specialized discipline with a focus on social sustainability. 

  • humanitarian activities (HAs)
  • humanitarian organization (HO)
  • pandemic disruption
  • COVID-19

1. Introduction

Natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornados, wildfires, floods, etc., inevitably disrupt supply chains regionally or globally [1]. The disruptions are seen in any form: it could be the shortage of materials, a temporary peak in demand of essential items that stimulates fear of resource scarcity, an uncontrollable environment, or many other such undesirable events. Humanitarian supply chains (HSCs) appear to hastily manage such disruptions and uncertainties [2][3]. However, developing an HSC is often more complex when compared to the general commercial supply chain [4]. The disruption caused by the virus outbreaks such as coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in China, the Zika virus, avian influenza A (H7N9), and Ebola virus (Zaire strain) in West Africa created a threat to human health and safety that questions the readiness/preparedness of any organization in meeting such emergency. The rise of the supply of ‘essential items’ (items of daily needs) and medical equipment (personal protection equipment, surgical masks, and ventilators) faces unprecedented demand for a much higher volume in comparison to the pre-COVID-19 situation [5][6]. The imbalance of demand and supply and the threat to human lives warrants humanitarian activities that offer long-term and short-term aid to the affected population. Humanitarian activities (HAs) are defined as the humanitarian emergency support offered to rescue any vulnerable individual or a group of individuals in a community by a collaborative effort of humanitarian organizations and their stakeholders. In an emergency, organizations need enhanced operational efficiencies and effective logistics services for vulnerable communities. These organizations, henceforth called humanitarian organizations (HOs), are required to be agile and adaptive to manage the emergency [7][8]. The role of digital technologies, including blockchain, in humanitarian activities is highly significant during a time of emergency [9][10]. BT are useful in the designing and development of the digital humanitarian network. Thus, the BT-enabled DHNs can bring more clarity and accessibility to actors and flawless movement of disaster aids and information across the supply chains [11][12][13]. Humanitarian aid usually has a linear flow of supplies to the affected areas, especially to regions where the need is higher [14]. During COVID-19, the commercial supply chains deliver the needed supplies. However, humanitarian aids require a vast network and resource prediction until it is needed [15][16][17][18]. This acts as a limiting factor for HOs as multiple stakeholders are present in the supply chain. The development of humanitarian strategies and continuous assessment of humanitarian abilities of the cross-sector partners is important for sourcing essentials and strategic supplies [19][20]. The supply chain disruptions can be mitigated using a few operational strategies, including maintaining safety stock or exclusive supplies of healthcare products such as masks, hand sanitizers, protective gear, and ventilators from alternative sources through mobilization of resources [21]. Based on experiences from the past, humanitarian activities should include initiating the action plan and its implementation in cost-effective ways to ensure the flow of goods and services to a vulnerable group of people [22][23]. Therefore, creating a responsive portfolio of customized humanitarian services has become a major concern and topic of discussion by global disaster planners, humanitarian partners, researchers, and practitioners, including the World Health Organization (WHO). Since the 1990s, the WHO has highlighted the need for sustainable partnerships among various stakeholders (including governments, researchers, nonprofit organizations, private firms, and R&D entities), contributing to a variety of HAs in response to disaster mitigation [24][25]. The COVID-19 pandemic is considered the worst crisis since the Second World War [26][27]. As defined by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, COVID-19 is categorized as a natural hazard [28]. Disaster risk management has a relationship with the type of disaster, vulnerability, and exposure, as explained in this formula: risk= disaster*vulnerability*exposure [29][30]. For reducing risks, besides disaster prevention, it is required to plan and reduce vulnerability and exposure. Thus, the operational effectiveness in the pandemic situation cannot be seen as a whole; it needs to be broken down into meaningful and efficient sub-systems to measure its effectiveness [31][32][33].

2. Humanitarian Activities (HAs) in Enhancing Operational Effectiveness during the Pandemic

Developing a sustainable humanitarian supply chain (HSC) for managing disasters/emergencies can be viewed as an extension of the traditional supply chain [34][35]. Thus, sustainable HSCs have evolved as a specialized discipline with a focus on social sustainability [36][37]. Various parties (including NGOs, local and regional relief organizations, government agencies, HOs, and beneficiaries) and other stakeholders from the corporate sector comprise a centralized or a decentralized HSC structure [38][39] that aims to relieve the masses at risk. Otherwise, a single actor individually may not have sufficient resources to respond effectively to major disasters, including COVID-19 [40][41][42]. HAs play a critical role in a disaster. Coordination among humanitarian parties/actors can strengthen and enhance the outcomes through resource and information sharing, decision-making, and conducting joint-field surveys or cluster-based services towards social needs [43][44][45]. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework on critical factors of HAs influencing operational effectiveness of HOs. These HAs improved resilience through vertical and horizontal coordination among the actors [46][47][48][49]. In the light of blockchain technology, the effectiveness of HSC results in a smooth flow of suppliers, information, and resources to the beneficiaries and can be measured in terms of response time by using the common elements of supply chain philosophy: “delivery of the right goods, at the right time, to the right place, and to the right set of people” [50]. Thus, a blockchain-driven HSC can be simply defined as a traceable system available to all stakeholders of HSC for effective roles and responsibility of the disaster migration and effective humanitarian activities [51][52][53].
Sustainability 14 01904 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of critical factors of humanitarian activities influencing humanitarian operations (Source: Authors).
The HAs also result in the development of local and regional infrastructure. Hence, a successful HSC management through HAs thrives to achieve a supply of “essential items” and help in mass evacuation of the community affected by disaster [54][55] through a process of cost-effective flow and storage of goods and materials from the point of origin to the point of consumption for the purpose of meeting the end beneficiary’s requirements [56][57][58]. A typical design of an HSC should be able to manage the available resources efficiently and enable the community to make the right decision by involving local authority through decentralized decision making [59][60]. Usage of technology can help HOs to plan capacity, engage resources, and improve demand prediction. The performance of HSC can be measured by its delivery performance (time, coverage, supply chain responsiveness, and cost involved) [61][62][63]. The COVID-19 is a global outbreak that leads to a sharp and radical shortage of essential supplies (i.e., PPEs, ventilators, protection masks, sanitizers, and hydroxychloroquine) [64][65][66]. The HSC partners mean to mitigate the global COVID-19 pandemic situation and to ensure critical supplies to aid recipients. An HSC ensures ‘line of sight’ along with COVID-19 mitigation, prioritized within the wider set of Has [67][68].
With the increasing pressure due to the loss of human lives, it is necessary to conduct a study that aims to determine the critical factors of Has [69][70]. Multiple stakeholders (parties including the government and private sector) strategically coordinate with each other to perform varieties of HAs to aid recipients [71][72]. Thus, a strategic tie-up has a positive influence on the performance of HSC and increases its sharing capabilities [73][74][75]. Past literature stressed the feedback mechanism among the stakeholders in a HSCs system for developing a reference model [76][77][78][79]. The coordination among humanitarian actors can be increased by cost-effective usage of resources and the involvement of top-level managers in distribution roles [80][81]. Regular interactions between humanitarian actors are essential for the effectiveness of HAs. Effective communication measures to reduce pressure among supply chain actors and optimize the supply of essentials. Usage of ICT ensures the transparency and flawless exchange of information across the HSCs. Additionally, it increases the flexibility, agility, and alignment in emergency decisions. The commitment of humanitarian actors supports the aims of HOs in developing mutual consent towards operational decisions [82]. Effective training of the actors about a pandemic situation helps build capacity to respond more effectively during various disaster situations [83][84][85]. Various critical success factors are elaborated in Table 12.
Table 12. Critical success factors to enhance operational effectiveness of humanitarian activities.
Critical Factors Operational Effectiveness during the Pandemic References
Multi-modal transportation

(C-HA1)		 Usage of multi-modal transportation can connect all supply nodes, affected areas, and logistics operational areas. [54]
Leadership during pandemic crisis (C-HA2) Communicating with teams, stakeholders, and communities during COVID-19 enhances transparency, demonstrates vulnerability, and builds resilience among humanitarian organizations. [56]
Empowering the stakeholders (C-HA3) Empowerment of the stakeholders helps the humanitarian organizations to identify clear vision, competency, and coordination across all levels. [29][38]
Risk communication and community engagement

(C-HA4)		 Risk communication across stakeholders brings transparency and pro-activeness towards the pandemic situation. [56]
Information resource orchestration

(C-HA5)		 Adoption of information resource activities and information behavior activities can meet the need of humanitarian operations. [49][64]
Agile and adaptive governance (C-HA6) Participation collaboration and governance become more agile and adaptive during the pandemic. [60][61]
Information system (C-HA7) Information system planning should address challenges, value generation processes, and resource base in an effort to improve organizational performance [63][65][86][87]
Capacity building of stakeholders (C-HA8) A competency-based teaching approach can improve the intercultural pandemic training among the stakeholders who can further improve interdisciplinary integration, enhancing the overall operational effectiveness. [57]
Blockchain-enabled digital humanitarian network (BT-DHN) (C-HA9) Blockchain-enabled digital humanitarian network (BT-DHN) ensures participative management and real-time information flow that uses big data for the humanitarian response for effective relief operations. [2][4]
Maintaining essential health services (C-HA10) Adjust governance and coordination mechanisms to support timely action for essential health services and adapt to changing contexts and needs. [20][26][52]
Inter-organizational coordination and collaboration

(C-HA11)		 Collaborative planning for responding the pandemic (through cooperation, interaction, and collaboration among relief agencies). [29][38]
Preparedness and pandemic response practices (C-HA12) Preparedness planning and COVID-19 response practices emerged as the key humanitarian activity among humanitarian actors. [42][46]
Surveillance for vulnerable groups (C-HA13) It aims to limit the spread of the pandemic in vulnerable groups (children, women, and the old-age population) by rapid detection, isolation, testing, and management. [88][89]
Prevention and control

(C-HA14)		 Infection prevention and control (IPC) is the key humanitarian activity. IPC occupies a unique position in the field of patient safety and quality universal health coverage. [3]
Human security (C-HA15) It is protecting human life, especially the vulnerable groups, by involving local government and partners to increase operational effectiveness. [39]
Societal response (C-HA16) It is the collective efforts of humanitarian organizations, the corporate world, government, and the community to fight collectively against the pandemic. Based on the principle of ‘Respond, Recover and Rebuild’, the societal response to the COVID-19 pandemic is a continuous improvement process. [39][40]

References

  1. Sharma, M.; Luthra, S.; Joshi, S.; Kumar, A. Developiforng a framework for enhancing survivability of sustainable supply chains during and post-COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2020, 1–21.
  2. Dubey, R.; Gunasekaran, A.; Bryde, D.J.; Dwivedi, Y.; Papadopoulos, T. Blockchain technology for enhancing swift-trust, collaboration and resilience within a humanitarian supply chain setting. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 3381–3398.
  3. Wagner, S.M.; Thakur-Weigold, B.; Gatti, F.; Stumpf, J. Measuring and improving the impact of humanitarian logistics consulting. Prod. Plan. Control 2021, 32, 83–103.
  4. Queiroz, M.M.; Fosso Wamba, S.; De Bourmont, M.; Telles, R. Blockchain adoption in operations and supply chain man-agement: Empirical evidence from an emerging economy. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021, 59, 6087–6103.
  5. Dash, M.; Shadangi, P.Y.; Muduli, K.; Luhach, A.K.; Mohamed, A. Predicting the motivators of telemedicine acceptance in COVID-19 pandemic using multiple regression and ANN approach. J. Stat. Manag. Syst. 2021, 24, 319–339.
  6. Sahoo, K.K.; Muduli, K.K.; Luhach, A.K.; Poonia, R.C. Pandemic COVID-19: An empirical analysis of impact on Indian higher education system. J. Stat. Manag. Syst. 2021, 24, 341–355.
  7. Baveja, A.; Kapoor, A.; Melamed, B. Stopping Covid-19: A pandemic-management service value chain approach. Ann. Oper. Res. 2020, 289, 173–184.
  8. Bag, S.; Yadav, G.; Wood, L.C.; Dhamija, P.; Joshi, S. Industry 4.0 and the circular economy: Resource melioration in logistics. Resour. Policy 2020, 68, 101776.
  9. Schiffling, S.; Hannibal, C.; Fan, Y.; Tickle, M. Coopetition in temporary contexts: Examining swift trust and swift distrust in humanitarian operations. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2020, 40, 1449–1473.
  10. Chou, K.P.; Prasad, M.; Lin, Y.Y.; Joshi, S.; Lin, C.-T.; Chang, J.Y. Takagi-Sugeno-Kang type collaborative fuzzy rule based system. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Data Mining (CIDM), Orlando, FL, USA, 9–12 December 2014; pp. 315–320.
  11. Zwitter, A.; Boisse-Despiaux, M. Blockchain for humanitarian action and development aid. J. Int. Humanit. Action 2018, 3, 16.
  12. Banomyong, R.; Varadejsatitwong, P.; Oloruntoba, R. A systematic review of humanitarian operations, humanitarian logistics and humanitarian supply chain performance literature 2005 to 2016. Ann. Oper. Res. 2019, 283, 71–86.
  13. Gupta, P.K.; Kumar, A.; Joshi, S. A review of knowledge, attitude, and practice towards COVID-19 with future directions and open challenges. J. Public Aff. 2020, 21, e2555.
  14. Joshi, S. E-Supply Chain Collaboration and Integration: Implementation Issues and Challenges. In E-Logistics and E-Supply Chain Management: Applications for Evolving Business; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2013.
  15. Joshi, R.; Joshi, S. Assessing the Readiness of Farmers towards Cold Chain Management: Evidences from India. In Designing and Implementing Global Supply Chain Management; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2016; pp. 219–235.
  16. Joshi, S. Designing and Implementing Global Supply Chain Management; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2015.
  17. Joshi, S.; Singh, R.K.; Sharma, M. Sustainable Agri-food Supply Chain Practices: Few Empirical Evidences from a Developing Economy. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2020, 0972150920907014.
  18. Kovács, G.; SigalaI, F. Lessons learned from humanitarian logistics to manage supply chain disruptions. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2021, 57, 41–49.
  19. Kusumastuti, R.D.; Arviansyah, A.; Nurmala, A.; Wibowo, S.S. Knowledge management and natural disaster preparedness: A systematic literature review and a case study of East Lombok, Indonesia. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 58, 102223.
  20. Ab Malik, M.H.; Omar, E.N.; Maon, S.N. Humanitarian Logistics: A Disaster Relief Operations Framework During Pandemic Covid-19 in Achieving Healthy Communities. Adv. Bus. Res. Int. J. 2020, 6, 101–113.
  21. Joshi, S. Social network analysis in smart tourism-driven service distribution channels: Evidence from tourism supply chain of Uttarakhand, India. Int. J. Digit. Cult. Electron. Tour. 2018, 2, 255–272.
  22. Joshi, S.; Sharma, M.; Kler, R. Modeling Circular Economy Dimensions in Agri-Tourism Clusters: Sustainable Performance and Future Research Directions. Int. J. Math. Eng. Manag. Sci. 2020, 5, 1046–1061.
  23. Yu, L.; Zhang, C.; Jiang, J.; Yang, H.; Shang, H. Reinforcement learning approach for resource allocation in humanitarian logistics. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 173, 114663.
  24. Kunz, N.; Gold, S. Sustainable humanitarian supply chain management—Exploring new theory. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2017, 20, 85–104.
  25. Kelman, I. COVID-19: What is the disaster? Soc. Anthropol. 2020, 28, 296–297.
  26. Seddighi, H. COVID-19 as a Natural Disaster: Focusing on Exposure and Vulnerability for Response. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 2020, 14, e42–e43.
  27. Li, J.; An, Y.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Y. Combating the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of disaster experience. Res. Int. Bus. Finance 2021, 60, 101581.
  28. Schiffling, S.; Hannibal, C.; Tickle, M.; Fan, Y. The implications of complexity for humanitarian logistics: A complex adaptive systems perspective. Ann. Oper. Res. 2020, 1–32.
  29. Muggy, L.; Stamm, J.L.H. Decentralized beneficiary behavior in humanitarian supply chains: Models, performance bounds, and coordination mechanisms. Ann. Oper. Res. 2019, 284, 333–365.
  30. Joshi, S.; Sharma, M.; Singh, R.K. Performance Evaluation of Agro-tourism Clusters using AHP–TOPSIS. J. Oper. Strat. Plan. 2020, 3, 7–30.
  31. Charles, A.; Lauras, M.; Van Wassenhove, L.N.; Dupont, L. Designing an efficient humanitarian supply network. J. Oper. Manag. 2016, 47-48, 58–70.
  32. Queiroz, M.M.; Ivanov, D.; Dolgui, A.; Wamba, S.F. Impacts of epidemic outbreaks on supply chains: Mapping a research agenda amid the COVID-19 pandemic through a structured literature review. Ann. Oper. Res. 2020, 238, 329–354.
  33. Thompson, D.D.; Anderson, R. The COVID-19 response: Considerations for future humanitarian supply chain and logistics management research. J. Humanit. Logist. Supply Chain Manag. 2021, 11, 157–175.
  34. Kamble, S.S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Parekh, H.; Joshi, S. Modeling the internet of things adoption barriers in food retail supply chains. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 48, 154–168.
  35. Ivanov, D.; Dolgui, A. Viability of intertwined supply networks: Extending the supply chain resilience angles towards survivability. A position paper motivated by COVID-19 outbreak. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 2904–2915.
  36. Joshi, S.; Sharma, M. Impact of sustainable Supply Chain Management on the Performance of SMEs during COVID-19 Pandemic: An Indian Perspective. Int. J. Logist. Econ. Glob. 2021. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10453/152609 (accessed on 22 December 2021).
  37. Joshi, S.; Sharma, M. Prolonging retailer-supplier relationship: A study of retail firms during pandemic COVID-19. Int. J. Logist. Econ. Glob. 2021. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10453/152610 (accessed on 22 December 2021).
  38. Akhtar, P.; Marr, N.; Garnevska, E. Coordination in humanitarian relief chains: Chain coordinators. J. Humanit. Logist. Supply Chain Manag. 2012, 2, 85–103.
  39. Joshi, S.; Sharma, M. Digital technologies (DT) adoption in agri-food supply chains amidst COVID-19: An approach to-wards food security concerns in developing countries. J. Glob. Oper. Strateg. Source. 2021.
  40. Sharma, M.; Joshi, S.; Luthra, S.; Kumar, A. Managing disruptions and risks amidst COVID-19 outbreaks: Role of blockchain technology in developing resilient food supply chains. Oper. Manag. Res. 2021, 1–14.
  41. Shanker, S.; Barve, A.; Muduli, K.; Kumar, A.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Joshi, S. Enhancing resiliency of perishable product supply chains in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2021, 1–25.
  42. Malmir, B.; Zobel, C.W. An applied approach to multi-criteria humanitarian supply chain planning for pandemic response. J. Humanit. Logistics. Supply Chain. Manag. 2021, 11, 320–346.
  43. Joshi, S.; Sharma, M. Social capital in the Asia Pacific: Examples from the services industry. Asia Pac. Bus. Rev. 2018, 25, 457–458.
  44. Tripathi, G.; Joshi, S. Creating Competitive Advantage through Sustainable Supply Chains: A Theoretical Framework for the Assessment of Practices, Dynamic Capabilities, and Enterprise Performance of Manufacturing Firms. Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. 2019, 8, 7863–7875.
  45. Ivanov, D. Lean resilience: AURA (Active Usage of Resilience Assets) framework for post-COVID-19 supply chain management. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2021.
  46. Swain, S.; Peter, O.; Adimuthu, R.; Muduli, K. BlockChain Technology for Limiting the Impact of Pandemic: Challenges and Prospects. In Computational Modelling and Data Analysis in COVID-19 Research; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021; pp. 165–186.
  47. Joshi, S.; Sharma, M.; Bisht, P.; Singh, S. Explaining the Factors Influencing Consumer Perception, Adoption Readiness, and Perceived Usefulness toward Digital Transactions: Online Retailing Experience of Millennials in India. J. Oper. Strat. Plan. 2021, 4, 202–223.
  48. Blecken, A. Humanitarian Logistics: Modelling Supply Chain Processes of Humanitarian Organizations; Haupt Verlag AG: Bern, Switzerland, 2010; p. 18.
  49. Joshi, S.; Sharma, M.; Kumar, S.; Pant, M.K. Co-Creation Among Small Scale Tourism Firm: Role of Information Com-munication and Technology in Productivity and Sustainability. Int. J. Strateg. Inf. Technol. Appl. 2018, 9, 1–14.
  50. Joshi, S.; Sharma, M.; Rathi, S. Forecasting in Service Supply Chain Systems: A State-of-the-Art Review Using Latent Semantic Analysis. Adv. Bus. Manag. Forecast. 2017, 12, 181–212.
  51. Prasad, M.; Li, D.L.; Lin, C.T.; Prakash, S.; Singh, J.; Joshi, S. Designing Mamdani-Type Fuzzy Reasoning for Visualizing Prediction Problems Based on Collaborative Fuzzy Clustering. IAENG Int. J. Comput. Sci. 2015, 42.
  52. Sharma, M.; Joshi, S. Barriers to blockchain adoption in health-care industry: An Indian perspective. J. Glob. Oper. Strat. Sourc. 2021, 14, 134–169.
  53. Polater, A. Dynamic capabilities in humanitarian supply chain management: A systematic literature review. J. Humanit. Logist. Supply Chain Manag. 2020, 11, 46–80.
  54. Ertem, M.A.; İşbilir, M.; Arslan, A.Ş. Review of intermodal freight transportation in humanitarian logistics. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2017, 9, 10.
  55. Penna, P.H.V.; Santos, A.C.; Prins, C. Vehicle routing problems for last mile distribution after major disaster. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2017, 69, 1254–1268.
  56. De Camargo, J.A.; Mendonça, P.S.M.; Oliveira, J.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Jabbour, A.B.L.D.S. Giving voice to the silent: A framework for understanding stakeholders’ participation in socially-oriented initiatives, community-based actions and humanitarian operations projects. Ann. Oper. Res. 2019, 283, 143–158.
  57. Mannakkara, S.; Wilkinson, S.; Potangaroa, R. Resilient Post Disaster Recovery through Building Back Better; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018.
  58. Lopez, A.; de Perez, E.C.; Bazo, J.; Suarez, P.; van den Hurk, B.; van Aalst, M. Bridging forecast verification and human-itarian decisions: A valuation approach for setting up action-oriented early warnings. Weather. Clim. Extrem 2020, 27, 100167.
  59. Rana, P.; Joshi, S. Management Practices for Sustainable Supply Chain and Its Impact on Economic Performance of SMEs: An Analytical Study of Uttarakhand State, India. Int. J. Manag. 2020, 11, 346–354.
  60. Janssen, M.; Van Der Voort, H. Agile and adaptive governance in crisis response: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 2020, 55, 102180.
  61. Dash, P.; Punia, M. Governance and disaster: Analysis of land use policy with reference to Uttarakhand flood 2013, India. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 36, 101090.
  62. Sharma, M.; Joshi, S. Online Advertisement Using Web Analytics Software. Int. J. Bus. Anal. 2020, 7, 13–33.
  63. Sigala, I.F.; Kettinger, W.J.; Wakolbinger, T. Digitizing the field: Designing ERP systems for Triple-A humanitarian supply chains. J. Humanit. Logist. Supply Chain Manag. 2020, 10, 231–260.
  64. Gavidia, J.V. A model for enterprise resource planning in emergency humanitarian logistics. J. Humanit. Logist. Supply Chain Manag. 2017, 7, 246–265.
  65. Sharma, M.; Joshi, S. Digital supplier selection reinforcing supply chain quality management systems to enhance firm’s performance. TQM J. 2020.
  66. Goniewicz, K.; Khorram-Manesh, A.; Hertelendy, A.J.; Goniewicz, M.; Naylor, K.; Burkle, F.M., Jr. Current Response and Management Decisions of the European Union to the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3838.
  67. Sharma, M.; Joshi, S.; Govindan, K. Issues and solutions of electronic waste urban mining for circular economy transition: An Indian context. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 290, 112373.
  68. Meier, P. Digital Humanitarians: How Big Data is Changing the Face of Humanitarian Response; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015.
  69. Sharma, M.; Joshi, S.; Kumar, A. Assessing enablers of e-waste management in circular economy using DEMATEL method: An Indian perspective. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 13325–13338.
  70. Gupta, S.; Altay, N.; Luo, Z. Big data in humanitarian supply chain management: A review and further research directions. Ann. Oper. Res. 2019, 283, 1153–1173.
  71. Sharma, M.; Joshi, S.; Luthra, S.; Kumar, A. Analysing the Impact of Sustainable Human Resource Management Practices and Industry 4.0 Technologies Adoption on Employability Skills. Int. J. Manpow. 2021. Available online: http://repository.londonmet.ac.uk/6738/ (accessed on 16 December 2021).
  72. Sharma, M.; Luthra, S.; Joshi, S.; Kumar, A. Implementing challenges of artificial intelligence: Evidence from public manufacturing sector of an emerging economy. Gov. Inf. Q. 2021, 101624.
  73. Hart, O.E.; Halden, R.U. Modeling wastewater temperature and attenuation of sewage-borne biomarkers globally. Water Res. 2020, 172, 115473.
  74. Sharma, M.; Luthra, S.; Joshi, S.; Kumar, A. Accelerating retail supply chain performance against pandemic disruption: Adopting resilient strategies to mitigate the long-term effects. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2021, 34, 1844–1873.
  75. Ishiwatari, M.; Koike, T.; Hiroki, K.; Toda, T.; Katsube, T. Managing disasters amid COVID-19 pandemic: Approaches of response to flood disasters. Prog. Disaster Sci. 2020, 6, 100096.
  76. Singh, R.K.; Joshi, S.; Sharma, M. Modelling Supply Chain Flexibility in the Indian Personal Hygiene Industry: An ISM-Fuzzy MICMAC Approach. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2020, 0972150920923075.
  77. Bhattacharya, S.; Hasija, S.; Van Wassenhove, L.N. Designing Efficient Infrastructural Investment and Asset Transfer Mechanisms in Humanitarian Supply Chains. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2014, 23, 1511–1521.
  78. Altay, N.; Narayanan, A. Forecasting in humanitarian operations: Literature review and research needs. Int. J. Forecast. 2020.
  79. Biswal, J.N.; Muduli, K.; Satapathy, S. Critical Analysis of Drivers and Barriers of Sustainable Supply Chain Management in Indian Thermal Sector. Int. J. Procure. Manag. 2017, 10, 411–430.
  80. Altay, N.; Kovács, G.; Spens, K. The evolution of humanitarian logistics as a discipline through a crystal ball. J. Humanit. Logist. Supply Chain Manag. 2021, 11, 577–584.
  81. Peter, O.; Swain, S.; Muduli, K.; Ramasamy, A. IoT in Combating Covid 19 Pandemics: Lessons for Developing Countries, Assessing COVID-19 and Other Pandemics and Epidemics using Computational Modelling and Data Analysis; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 113–132.
  82. Sharma, M.; Joshi, S. Brand sustainability among young consumers: An AHP-TOPSIS approach. Young Consum. 2019, 20, 314–337.
  83. Muduli, K.; Barve, A. Analysis of critical activities for GSCM implementation in mining supply chains in India using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. Int. J. Bus. Excel. 2015, 8, 767.
  84. Sharma, M.; Joshi, S.; Kannan, D.; Govindan, K.; Singh, R.; Purohit, H.C. Internet of Things (IoT) adoption barriers of smart cities’ waste management: An Indian context. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 270, 122047.
  85. Seker, S.; Zavadskas, E.K. Application of Fuzzy DEMATEL Method for Analyzing Occupational Risks on Construction Sites. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2083.
  86. Prakash, S.; Joshi, S.; Bhatia, T.; Sharma, S.; Samadhiya, D.; Shah, R.R.; Kaiwartya, O.; Prasad, M. Characteristic of enterprise collaboration system and its implementation issues in business management. Int. J. Bus. Intell. Data Min. 2020, 16, 49.
  87. Kannan, G.; Muduli, K.; Devika, K.; Barve, A. Investigation of influential strength of factors on GSCM adoption in mining in-dustries operating in India. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 107, 185–194.
  88. Brem, A.; Viardot, E.; Nylund, P.A. Implications of the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak for innovation: Which technologies will improve our lives? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 163, 120451.
  89. Fernandez-Luque, L.; Imran, M. Humanitarian health computing using artificial intelligence and social media: A narrative literature review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2018, 114, 136–142.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback