Despite extensive research across supply chain management, ecology, and psychology, relatively little attention has been paid to integrating the distinct definitions of resilience that have emerged from each field. In supply chains, resilience is measured as a firm’s ability to return to normal performance after disruption. In ecology, C.S. Holling distinguished resilience (the magnitude of disturbance a system can absorb) from stability (speed of return to equilibrium). In psychology, resilience ranges from a personal trait to a dynamic recovery process. Common capabilities — flexibility, visibility, agility, redundancy, and collaboration — appear across all three traditions. While individual resilience improvements may seem incremental, cumulative effects across global supply chains amount to billions of dollars in avoided losses annually.

Curated by Business Science Daily — peer-reviewed sources, human-verified. Learn more

About Our Curation Process

Business Science Daily curates academic research in business and management. Each featured study is selected from reputable, peer-reviewed journals, institutional repositories, or working papers (e.g., Elsevier, Sage, NBER, SSRN).

Articles are carefully summarized to ensure clarity and accuracy, with direct citations or links to original sources. Our process emphasizes transparency, academic integrity, and accessibility for a broader audience.

Learn more in our Editorial Standards & AI Policy.

Resilience is the capability of a system to return to its original (or desired) state after being disrupted (Christopher & Peck, 2004). (Acocella, Caplice, & Sheffi, 2024; Sheffi & Rice Jr, 2005, 2006) relates resilience to the firm’s ability to bounce back, returning to their normal performance level, including production, services and fill rate, after disruption (s). Fiksel (2006) focuses on the capabilities, categorising them into three processes as follows: to survive, to adapt, and to grow in the face of turbulent change. (Priya Datta, Christopher, & Allen, 2007) enhanced Fiksel’s (2006) definition by identifying resilience as not only the ability to maintain control over performance variability at the time of disturbances but also as an indigenous capability of an adaptive system to respond to unexpected and significant shifts. Thus, the dominant literature within supply chain studies has identified resilience as a constructive attitude towards the consequences of unforeseen challenges (El Baz & Ruel, 2021; Gebhardt, Spieske, Kopyto, & Birkel, 2022; Shen & Sun, 2023), to recover the performance (Hosseini, Ivanov, & Dolgui, 2019; Spiegler, Naim, & Wikner, 2012). Overall, various dimensions for resilience are listed, such as collaboration, visibility, velocity, flexibility, agility, redundancy, and social capital and relational competences (Carvalho, Azevedo, & Cruz-Machado, 2012; Christopher & Peck, 2004; Johnson, Elliott, & Drake, 2013; Sheffi & Rice Jr, 2005, 2006; Wieland & Wallenburg, 2013).

Within Supply Chain Resilience (SCRES) studies, the majority of supply chain management researchers have perceived resilience as the ability of SC, as a system, to cope with the consequences of unforeseen incidents, aiming to return to its original or desired state (Blackhurst, Dunn, & Craighead, 2011; Cabral, Grilo, & Cruz- Machado, 2012; Carvalho et al., 2012; Jüttner & Maklan, 2011; Zsidisin & Wagner, 2010). The overall perception regarding SCRES can, as a consequence, be explained as dynamic abilities of the SC (1) being prepared for probable unforeseen incidents, (2) being ready to respond to disruptions in an effective way, and (3) preparedness for recovery by progressing the operations with remaining authority on structures and functions (Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009). Ponomarov and Holcomb’s (2009) utterances assert the findings of Christopher and Peck (2004), considering (1) resilience as a set of organisational capabilities which could be developed at the pre-disruption stage, and (2) requires a high inter and intra-organisational collaboration. The processes necessitated (3) the agility dimension, reacting in time to the unexpected incidents, as well as (4) having a cultural environment for detecting and managing the probable risks. Therefore, the SCRES mainstream can be summarised into: the ability of firms to absorb consequences of shocks received by extreme incidents, as well as an adaptive ability to adjust to new situations (Johnson et al., 2013). Also, the resilience has historically been garnished by unforeseen incidents, being disruption-driven, i.e., (Asbjornslett, 1999; Christopher & Peck, 2004; Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009; Sheffi & Rice Jr, 2005; Wagner & Bode, 2006; Wagner & Neshat, 2010). The disruption or unforeseen incidents are explained as single, discrete, unique events, are happening; have happened; or are expected to happen, with consequences, usually in a negative format, forcing firms to become resilient.

The second trait is about attaining resilience, which requires recognising a set of capabilities (es) of substance (s). Regarding the capability-oriented perspective, SCRES is a set of organisational capabilities including response capability, visibility, warning capability, recovery, agility, flexibility, robustness and redundancy that assist firms to react to the consequences of disruptions and mitigate the future risks of recurrence (Ambulkar, Blackhurst, & Grawe, 2015; Brandon‐Jones, Squire, Autry, & Petersen, 2014; Faruquee, Paulraj, & Irawan, 2021; Ponis & Koronis, 2012; Tukamuhabwa, Stevenson, Busby, & Zorzini, 2015).

The results of an extensive literature review conducted by Pettit, Fiksel, and Croxton (2010) demonstrate determinants, differently labelled, for SCRES consisting of vulnerability and capability dimensions, i.e., the vulnerability factors include turbulence, deliberate threats, external pressures, resource limits, sensitivity, connectivity, supplier/customer disruptions. And capability sub-categories are flexibility in sourcing, flexibility in order fulfilment, capacity, efficiency, visibility, adaptability, anticipation, recovery, dispersion, collaboration, organisation, market position, security, and financial strength. Pettit et al. (2010) discussed that the desired level of resilience, to an optimal threshold, can be achieved by making balance between vulnerabilities and capabilities.

To understand the SCRES procedures, Kamalahmadi and Parast’s (2016) study aimed to obtain the principles of SCRES, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. In this study, three phases of SCRES are proposed: (1) anticipating the occurrence of disruptions and preparedness (anticipation); (2) the ability to survive and continue the functionality (resistance); and (3) the capability to mitigate the negative effects of disruptions (recovery and responses). Furthermore, four main principles as such are introduced, including SC re-engineering (flexibility and redundancy), collaboration (trust and information sharing), agility (visibility and velocity), and supply chain risk management culture (leadership and innovation).

Two perceptions towards resilience are evident within the SCM literature: Considering resilience as a reactive process OR resilience as a proactive procedure (A. Ali, Mahfouz, & Arisha, 2017; I. Ali, Nagalingam, & Gurd, 2017; Dabhilkar, Birkie, & Kaulio, 2016; Faruquee, Paulraj, & Irawan, 2024; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015). As argued by Sheffi (2001; Sheffi & Rice Jr, 2005), supply chain risk management is tightened to redundancies and safety buffers, equipping the SC to minimise the risk of significant damage. This perspective is extended to the SCRES as the ability of SC to take actions after risk has happened (Grötsch, Blome, & Schleper, 2013). Therefore, based on this perspective, the preparation ought to take place in advance, including having action plans to soften an agile response to the disruptions (Knemeyer, Zinn, & Eroglu, 2009). Resilience, therefore, in these studies, is considered as a reactive process to minimise the consequences of disruptions, mainly considered as a set of risks to be mitigated.

Proactive resilience, on the other hand, refers to the ability of firms to avoid the consequences of future disruption at large if not all (Wang, Dou, Muddada, & Zhang, 2018). Proactive resilience guides firms to anticipate and constantly monitor disruptions and their consequences, as well as the probable changes in the business ecosystems to establish deterrent measures (A. Ali et al., 2017; Dabhilkar et al., 2016; Faruquee et al., 2024; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015). The process includes the determination of catastrophic risk factors, their potential implications on SC and the relevant plan of action to prevent or mitigate the consequences (Knemeyer et al., 2009). Overall, the reactive and proactive stances are embedded by different perceptions of resilience from different fields of study, including engineering, ecology, and psychology.

Three different perceptions around resilience are foreseeable. The dominant SCRES literature focuses on an engineering perspective, which is a combination of stability and resilience in ecological determinants, examining the ability of systems (firms or networks) to handle the consequences of disruptions to bounce back to the equilibrium state. According to C. S. Holling (1996), engineering resilience concentrates on stability near an equilibrium steady state, where resistance to disturbance and speed of return to the equilibrium are used to measure the property. The ecological resilience, however, refers to the conditions far from any equilibrium steady state, where instabilities can flip a system into another regime of behaviour—that is, to another stability domain (Crawford S Holling, 1973). In this case, the measurement of resilience is the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before the system changes its structure by changing the variables and processes that control behaviour (C. S. Holling, 1996).

Crawford S Holling (1973) elaborates the ecological standpoint regarding resilience, asserting that “resilience” and “stability” are two distinct properties. The resilience is therefore a property of dynamic systems (Adobor & McMullen, 2018; Crawford S Holling, 1973; C. S. Holling, 1996), which makes examining the characteristics and dynamics of the supply chain as a system as such sensible (Walker, Holling, Carpenter, & Kinzig, 2004). (Ivanov, 2021; Ivanov & Dolgui, 2020; Ruel, El Baz, Ivanov, & Das, 2024) extended this perspective to SCRES. Based on this ecological perspective, resilience consists of relationships within a system that measure the system’s ability to absorb changes of state variables, driving variables, and parameters, and can survive. Subsequently, resilience is the property of the system and persistence, or probability of extinction, is the result. Stability, on the other hand, is the ability of a system to return to an equilibrium state after a temporary disturbance. The more rapidly it returns, and with the least fluctuation, the more stable it is. Thereon, stability is another system’s property (Crawford S Holling, 1973; C. S. Holling, 1996).

The third perspective is about the field of psychology, considering resilience as the ability of individuals to bounce back from negative emotional conditions and being able to adapt to the evolving needs of stressful events (Bajaj & Pande, 2016; Chmitorz et al., 2018; Oshio, Taku, Hirano, & Saeed, 2018). The psychological perception of resilience has three orientations (Hu, Zhang, & Wang, 2015), including: trait, outcome, and process. The trait perspective represents that resilience is a personal attribute which guides individuals to cope with misfortunes, adapt, and continue development (Hu et al., 2015). This perspective isolated the individuals against the negative implications of adversities (Connor & Davidson, 2003; Ong, Bergeman, Bisconti, & Wallace, 2006). Simply put, resilience rather than being disruptive-driven is considered capability- oriented and as an indigenous characteristic of individuals. Resilience is therefore the property of the system. The outcome-oriented approach, on the other hand, considers resilience as a behavioural outcome that assists individuals to overcome the consequences of adversities and recovery (Harvey & Delfabbro, 2004; Masten, 2001). This perception represents another fundamental point of view that resilience, rather than being a set of abilities, is the output of certain capabilities. Finally, resilience is considered neither the capability nor the output but a dynamic process based on which individuals can actively adapt and recover constantly from the consequences of super adversaries (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005; Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000).

Read more below.