1. Introduction

International trade leads to global supply chains, and risks are inherent in supply chain management (SCM). Globalization and trade openness have amplified the vulnerability in SCM and increased the risks. The monetary value of supply chain expenses is the highest in manufacturing organizations (Dey et al. 2011). Nonetheless, SCM risks are assumed to be non-financial risks in the traditional sense of risk in the finance and insurance industries.

Risk management refers to the implementation of strategies and plans to manage supply chain networks through constant risk assessment and reduce vulnerabilities to ensure resilience in supply chains. All supply chains do not have the same risks, but some risks are common. The risks are also specific to an area of business or the field of study (Jemison 1987). A supply chain is as strong as the most vulnerable member of the supply chain. Therefore, the longer a supply chain, the greater the risk of failure of the supply chain. Supply chains have many players. A high number of players present risks (Braithwaite and Hall 1999). However, building a robust supply chain is expensive (Vahid Nooraie and Parast 2016). Numerous research articles have suggested the need for such supply chains due to the magnitude of the adverse effects of risk on its performance (Chandra and Grabis 2007; Chopra and Sodhi 2014; Christopher and Lee 2004; Ritchie and Brindley 2007).

Supply chain risk management (SCRM) is a systematic and phased approach for recognizing, evaluating, ranking, mitigating, and monitoring potential disruptions in supply chains (Aqlan and Lam 2016). SCRM is an important area due to an incident’s cascading effects on logistics networks (Cigolini and Rossi 2010). Some examples of such events include September 11, the Gulf War, the outbreak of a pandemic (e.g., bovine spongiform encephalopathy, and coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19), the millennium bug. These disruptive events have compelled practitioners to explore the vulnerabilities in supply chains and evaluate risks. Vulnerabilities in a supply chain depend on the supply chain (Caniato and Rice 2003; Chapman et al. 2002). Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in disruption to the mechanics of most economies, irrespective of their size and phase of development.

2. Globalization and Risk management

Globalization, shorter product lifecycles, multifaceted networks of trade partners located in many countries, uncertainty in market demands, cost pressures, outsourcing, and offshoring are a few risks in SCM (Hachicha and Elmsalmi 2014; Lavastre et al. 2012). The complexities of SCM are rising, and the networks are becoming more complex, resulting in more uncertainty in the business environment (MeInyk et al. 2005; Sofyalıoğlu and Kartal 2012; Thun et al. 2011; Verbano and Venturini 2011). These represent risk events in supply chains that impact the entire supply chain network (Cagliano et al. 2012; Fernandes et al. 2011; Xanthopoulos et al. 2012). A risk event is an indicator of a threat that disrupts a supply chain (Fernandes et al. 2011; Huang et al. 2009). Global supply chains have many challenges and greater risks (Blackhurst et al. 2005; Chopra and Sodhi 2004; Tang 2007). The dependence on an organization for parts has changed to a supply chain (Christopher 1992). This requires greater transparency and sharing of information among supply chain players.

Global production practices have changed due to globalization and nations’ economic engagements with partner countries. These have increased complexities and various forms of risks in supply chains. Organizations have created warehouse facilities, production plants, and fulfillment centers across countries to achieve cost benefits, access to cheaper raw material sources, or specialist skills and capabilities (Choi et al. 2012). The distribution centers in the modern era of global supply chains are also known as fulfillment centers. A fulfillment center is where customer demands are fulfilled. Therefore, these centers must be efficient because these centers’ efficiency affects the entire SCM value.

3. Research Implications in SCRM

Global supply chains require a retrieval plan to ease the effects of disasters (Bryson et al. 2002). There needs to be a strategic plan, because uncertainties and risks surround the supply chain environment. Therefore, quick recovery is the prime objective after a risk incident has occurred. The formation of suitable risk recovery models also needs planning and a combination of information and human intervention. There are a few authors who have suggested empirically grounded research tools in SCM (Jüttner et al. 2010), such as mathematical programming models and simulation models (Rao and Goldsby 2009), analytical hierarchy processes (Vanany et al. 2009), complexity and graph theories (Colicchia et al. 2012), and the development of models considering interdisciplinary research (Khan and Burnes 2007) for further research in SCRM.

There are different payment processes in the imports and exports of goods. The two methods are prominent, namely, direct payment between the parties, and through a third party such as a bank. In the case of advance payment, the financial risk in a supply chain is high, particularly for making payments to new vendors in different countries. Direct payment requires trust and relationships and is avoided where trust between the two parties is not strong. In such cases, parties choose a financial mediatory, such as a bank, to make the payment through a letter of credit. Banks play a significant role, but this increases the cost of supply chains. The process involves considerable documentation, which delays the process and increases the risk due to currency fluctuations or trade embargoes.

Mingers and White (2010) suggest that a system can be projected for innovative ideas to the ambiguous business environment. A cohesive approach to SCRM needs to incorporate risk issues from industry practice (Tang and Nurmaya Musa 2011). Industry 4.0 is expected to significantly impact the visibility of the SC. Modern technologies such as Radio-frequency identification (RFID), ERP, and General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) will become important tools for SCRM (Rao and Goldsby 2009; Tang 2007; Vanany et al. 2009; Wilson 2007). However, almost all shipping transactions involve many documents such as seller contracts, charter party agreements, bills of lading, certificates of origin, port documents, letter of credit (LC), and many other documents related to a vessel’s consignment (Gurtu and Johny 2019).

Identifying and harmonizing strategies for different types of risk is an essential factor for success in risk management (Chopra and Sodhi 2004). There needs to be a corrective approach for recurrent risks for evaluating the costs of increasing or decreasing inventories, capacity, flexibility, responsiveness, and capability. Managing disruptive risks will require designing supply chains where the resource in question (parts inventory or the number of suppliers) is never completely centralized (Chopra and Sodhi 2014). For instance, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. has two vendors to supply necessary electronic parts, even though the second vendor contributes only about 20% of the volume (Sodhi and Lee 2007). The implications of these principles are simple to understand. The benefit of having multiple fulfillment centers at various locations reduces the supply chain risk network without increasing the cost and minimizing the risk.

Reference (we'll rearrange the references after you submitted it)

1. Achrol, Ravi Singh, Torger Reve, and Louis W. Stern. 1983. The Environment of Marketing Channel Dyads: A Framework for Comparative Analysis. Journal of Marketing 47: 55–67.
2. Alhawari, Samer, Louay Karadsheh, Amine Nehari Talet, and Ebrahim Mansour. 2012. Knowledge-Based Risk Management framework for Information Technology project. International Journal of Information Management 32: 50–65.
3. Altay, Nezih, and Andres Ramirez. 2010. Impact of Disasters on Firms in Different Sectors: Implications for Supply Chains. Journal of Supply Chain Management 46: 59–80.
4. Aqlan, Faisal, and Sarah S. Lam. 2016. Supply chain optimization under risk and uncertainty: A case study for high-end server manufacturing. Computers & Industrial Engineering 93: 78–87.
5. Azad, Nader, Georgios K. D. Saharidis, Hamid Davoudpour, Hooman Malekly, and Seyed Alireza Yektamaram. 2012. Strategies for protecting supply chain networks against facility and transportation disruptions: An improved Benders decomposition approach. Annals of Operations Research 210: 125–63.
6. Bates, Hilary, Matthias Holweg, Michael Lewis, and Nick Oliver. 2007. Motor vehicle recalls: Trends, patterns and emerging issues. Omega 35: 202–10.
7. Blackhurst, Jennifer, Christopher W. Craighead, Debra Elkins, and Robert Beaudion Handfield. 2005. An empirically derived agenda of critical research issues for managing supply-chain disruptions. International Journal of Production Research 43: 4067–81.
8. Bogataj, David, and Marija Bogataj. 2007. Measuring the supply chain risk and vulnerability in frequency space. International Journal of Production Economics 108: 291–301.
9. Braithwaite, Alan, and Darren Hall. 1999. Risky business? Critical decisions in supply chain management. Supply Chain Practice 1: 40–55.
10. Brewerton, Paul, and Lynne Millward. 2001. Organizational Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
11. Bryson, Kweku-Muata, Harvey Millar, Anito Joseph, and Ayodele Mobolurin. 2002. Using formal MS/OR modeling to support disaster recovery planning. European Journal of Operational Research 141: 679–88.
12. Bucklin, Louis P. 1965. Postponement, Speculation and the Structure of Distribution Channels. Journal of Marketing Research 2: 26–31.
13. Cagliano, Anna Corinna, Alberto De Marco, Sabrina Grimaldi, and Carlo Rafele. 2012. An integrated approach to supply chain risk analysis. Journal of Risk Research 15: 817–40.
14. Caniato, Federico, and James B. Rice Jr. 2003. Building a secure and resilient supply network. Supply Chain Management Review 7: 22–30.
15. Chandra, Charu, and Janis Grabis. 2007. Supply Chain Configuration-Concepts, Solutions, and Applications, 1st ed. New York: Springer.
16. Chapman, Paul, Martin Christopher, Uta Jüttner, Helen Peck, and Richard Wilding. 2002. Identifying and Managing Supply Chain Vulnerability. Logistics & Transport Focus 4: 59–64.
17. Chichilnisky, Graciela, and Geoffrey Heal. 1998. Managing Unknown Risks. The Journal of Portfolio Management 24: 85–91.
18. Chiou, Jyh-Shen, Lei-Yu Wu, and Jason C. Hsu. 2002. The Adoption of Form Postponement Strategy in a Global Logistics System: The Case of Taiwanese Information Technology Industry. Journal of Business Logistics 23: 107–24.
19. Choi, Kanghwa, Ram Narasimhan, and Soo Wook Kim. 2012. Postponement strategy for international transfer of products in a global supply chain: A system dynamics examination. Journal of Operations Management 30: 167–79.
20. Chopra, Sunil, and ManMohan S. Sodhi. 2004. Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown: By understanding the variety and interconnectedness of supply-chain risks, managers can tailor balanced, effective risk-reduction strategies for their companies. MIT Sloan Management Review 46: 53.
21. Chopra, Sunil, and ManMohan S. Sodhi. 2014. Reducing the Risk of Supply Chain Disruptions. MIT Sloan Management Review 55: 73–80.
22. Christopher, Martin. 1992. Logistics: The Strategic Issues, 1st ed. New York: Chapman & Hall.
23. Christopher, Martin, and Hau Lee. 2004. Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 34: 388–96.
24. Christopher, Martin, and Helen Peck. 2004. Building the Resilient Supply Chain. The International Journal of Logistics Management 15: 1–14.
25. Cigolini, Roberto, and Tommaso Rossi. 2010. Managing operational risks along the oil supply chain. Production Planning & Control 21: 452–67.
26. Colicchia, Claudia, Richard Wilding, and Fernanda Strozzi. 2012. Supply chain risk management: A new methodology for a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17: 403–18.
27. Craighead, Christopher W., Jennifer Blackhurst, M. Johnny Rungtusanatham, and Robert B. Handfield. 2007. The Severity of Supply Chain Disruptions: Design Characteristics and Mitigation Capabilities. Decision Sciences 38: 131–56.
28. de Matta, Renato. 2016. Contingency planning during the formation of a supply chain. Annals of Operations Research 257: 45–75.
29. Dey, Asoke, Paul LaGuardia, and Mahesh Srinivasan. 2011. Building sustainability in logistics operations: A research agenda. Management Research Review 34: 1237–59.
30. Diehl, Doreen, and Stefan Spinler. 2013. Defining a common ground for supply chain risk management—A case study in the fast-moving consumer goods industry. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 16: 311–27.
31. Dyer, Jeffrey H., and Kentaro Nobeoka. 2000. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal 21: 345–67.
32. Ellis, Scott C., Raymond M. Henry, and Jeff Shockley. 2010. Buyer perceptions of supply disruption risk: A behavioral view and empirical assessment. Journal of Operations Management 28: 34–46.
33. Ellram, Lisa M., and P. Sue Siferd. 1998. Total cost of ownership: A key concept in strategic cost management decisions. Journal of Business Logistics 19: 55.
34. Fernandes, Leão José, Ana Paula Barbosa-Póvoa, and Susana Relvas. 2011. Supply Chain Risk Management Review and a New Framework for Petroleum Supply Chains. In Quantitative Financial Risk Management. Edited by Dash Wu. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 227–64.
35. Fink, Arlene. 1998. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From Paper to the Internet. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
36. Fugate, Brian, Funda Sahin, and John T. Mentzer. 2006. Supply Chain Management Coordination Mechanisms. Journal of Business Logistics 27: 129–61.
37. Garvey, Myles D., Steven Carnovale, and Sengun Yeniyurt. 2015. An analytical framework for supply network risk propagation: A Bayesian network approach. European Journal of Operational Research 243: 618–27.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/risks9010016