Abstract
Introduction
Supply chain resilience (SCRES) is defined as the capacity to persist, flexibly adapt, and transform in the face of change to recover from disruptions (Abdelaziz et al., 2024). The capability enables firms to address challenges, reduce risks, and enhance the overall organizational efficiency and success (Ambulkar et al., 2023). Several internal and external organizational resources and capabilities play a crucial role in building supply chain resilience (Musa & Pujawan, 2018), which is essential for coping with the risk of disruption and quickly returning to original organizational performance levels (Nartey, 2024). From a practical standpoint, firms face severe challenges such as geopolitical tensions, pandemics, climate-related risks, and technological disruptions. These challenges test the robustness of supply chains. The disruptions often expose vulnerabilities, making resilience not just a theoretical construct but a critical managerial priority (Parast & Shekarian, 2018).
In this context, the linkage between SCRES and organizational effectiveness (OE) is a complex yet crucial aspect that significantly influences the overall performance of firms. Organizational effectiveness is defined as the degree to which an organization achieves its strategic goals, optimizes resource utilization, and adapts successfully to environmental changes (Dhoopar et al., 2023). While firm performance (FP) often focuses on measurable outcomes such as financial results, market share, and operational outputs (Ambulkar et al., 2023), OE includes broader qualitative aspects, including internal processes, adaptability, and stakeholder satisfaction. An in-depth analysis is required to fully understand the complexities of this connection, as the strategic perspectives derived from such an examination are useful for businesses seeking to enhance their performance in a constantly changing world.
Researchers are increasingly interested in the link between SCRES and organizational performance. Cheng and Lu (2017) studied SCRES using the trajectory and resource-based views. They found that resilience helps improve coordination between organizations. Kosgey (2021) examined how SCRES affects manufacturing firms. The study showed that resilience plays a key role in improving organizational performance. Several studies, including Yu et al. (2019), also found that SCRES supports better performance in different business settings. Li et al. (2017) showed a clear connection between SCRES and financial performance (FP). They explained that a resilient supply chain can improve many parts of a firm’s operations. This growing scholarly attention is driven by the increasing frequency of global supply chain disruptions as well as the pressing need for firms to design resilient systems that safeguard competitiveness and long-term survival (Han et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2023). However, there remains debate among scholars and practitioners regarding the mechanisms through which resilience contributes to firm performance. Some argue that resilience provides short-term recovery without necessarily enhancing long-term competitiveness, while others suggest that resilience acts as a dynamic capability that strengthens strategic advantage (Beigi Firoozi et al., 2024; Han et al., 2020).
Some studies, like Tukamuhabwa et al. (2015), also conducted a timely review of the available literature on SCRES through a three-stage systematic search, and Kamalahmadi and Parast (2016) explored research development by conducting a literature survey, focusing on enterprise and SCRES. In a recent exploration, Al Naimat and Davies (2025) conducted a systematic review of supply chain management strategies and SME performance, and highlighted the growing interest in the areas of green SCM and supply chain resilience. In another study, Shishodia et al. (2023) identified nine crucial research areas, mapping structural relationships among SCRES dimensions. They examined how these dimensions, like risks, strengths, planning methods, and outcome measures, are linked, including vulnerabilities, capabilities, strategies, and performance metrics. Their study also identified key contributors, research platforms, research organizations, and current topics in this research domain. In addition, Razak et al. (2023) offered an understanding of traceability, emphasizing its benefits and role in enhancing SCRES. Similarly, Kochan and Nowicki (2018) developed a typological framework linking SCRES to supply chain capabilities, providing insights into the relationship and theoretical mechanisms. However, these studies primarily highlighted a single aspect of SCRES without a dedicated literature exploration of the relationship between SCRES and its impact on firm performance. Past systematic reviews have largely focused on resilience capabilities (Han et al., 2020; Kochan & Nowicki, 2018), supply chain agility antecedents (Beigi Firoozi et al., 2024), or the consequences of disruptions (Parast & Shekarian, 2018). An integrative review explicitly connecting SCRES with organizational effectiveness and firm performance remains underexplored. This shows a clear gap in the literature. Therefore, a thorough review is needed to examine how SCRES and OE are connected, and how they together affect firm performance.
Also, while existing studies have undertaken empirical examinations of the impact of SCRES on OE and FP (Abdelaziz et al., 2024; Ishak et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2019), this study aims to conduct a methodical review of the existing literature. In contrast to prior reviews that focus on resilience drivers or outcomes in isolation, this study integrates SCRES, organizational effectiveness, and firm performance within the TCCM framework. The objective is to identify notable gaps in understanding the relationship between SCRES and organizational effectiveness and to explore potential scope for future research in this domain. The study employs the TCCM (Theory, Context, Characteristics, Methods) framework, which is relevant for a comprehensive exploration of the literature (Negi & Jaiswal, 2024a). The TCCM framework is a systematic approach that emphasizes the examination of theories underpinning the relationship between SCRES, OE, and FP, the contextual factors influencing this dynamic, the distinctive characteristics shaping their interaction, and the diverse methods employed in empirical studies. This review of literature attempts to answer the following questions:
The significance of addressing these research questions is substantial. Understanding the dynamics between the SCRES, OE, and FP can provide actionable insights to organizations to understand uncertainties and disruptions effectively and to flexibly adapt to such situations. By strategically aligning these elements, organizations can enhance their ability to not only sustain themselves during challenging circumstances but also grow in dynamic business environments. This study adds to the existing knowledge base of SCRES and organizational effectiveness, and holds potential to provide theoretical insights for researchers in the domain of supply chain management, flexible management, organizational performance management, and similar areas. Also, it lays the groundwork for future research efforts, encouraging researchers to investigate further into this relationship and contribute to the evolving discourse on organizational resilience and performance.
Review Methodology
We have adopted a domain-based systematic literature review (SLR) methodology to ensure a structured and rigorous examination of existing literature. The purpose of this approach is to carefully review and combine existing studies to gain deeper insights into the topic. To accomplish this, we employed the TCCM (Theory-Context- Characteristics-Methods) framework developed by Paul and Rosado-Serrano (2019). The TCCM framework provides a structured approach for organizing and analyzing literature within the selected domain. Several studies have previously utilized this framework to guide their SLRs and shape future research agendas (Ghorbani et al., 2022; Negi & Jaiswal, 2024a). We have also used the Scientific Procedures and Rationales for Systematic Literature Reviews (SPAR-4-SLR) approach (Paul et al., 2021), as it is widely adopted in various studies across different disciplines. This protocol provides a structured and robust approach for conducting SLRs in the areas of social sciences of business studies (Negi & Jaiswal, 2024b; Sahoo et al., 2022). Figure 1 gives an overview of the review steps. By integrating this approach into our research, we ensured a methodologically sound and organized review of existing literature to provide meaningful research insights and indicate directions for further research.
SPAR-4-SLR approach for literature search and review process.
Assembling
As per the SPAR-4-SLR approach, the initial step involves assembling, which comprises identifying (such as reviewing the research area, questions, source types, and quality) and getting (such as determining search mechanisms, acquiring materials, specifying search periods, search keywords, and the number of articles retrieved) articles for a systematic literature review (Paul et al., 2021). The study’s domain includes Supply Chain Resilience, Organizational Effectiveness, and Firm Performance, with five research questions. The study included conceptual and empirical articles published in academic journals, as these sources undergo rigorous peer review, as noted by David and Han (2003). By concentrating only on articles published in journals, the SPAR-4-SLR approach aims to ensure the studies under review maintain a high standard of credibility and reliability. Sources like conference papers, books and chapters, dissertations, and editorials were excluded because they usually lack the strict peer-review process found in journal articles.
Regarding acquisition, the study used the Scopus database and Google Scholar as both the search tool and material source. Scopus provides crucial bibliometric data and allows direct access to articles for review and download (Thelwall, 2018). Compared to other databases like Web of Science, Scopus indexes a larger number of journals in the areas of social sciences, applied sciences, and emerging interdisciplinary fields (Schotten et al., 2017, which are highly relevant to this study. Also, most of the journals indexed in Web of Science are covered by Scopus, but Scopus additionally provides broader coverage in terms of disciplines and regional journals, making it a more comprehensive resource for this study (Pranckutė, 2021).
In addition, we used a manual search on Google Scholar to complement the Scopus search through snowballing and citation tracking (Martín-Martín et al., 2018). Google Scholar was particularly useful for identifying relevant articles that were either newly published, not yet indexed in Scopus, or discovered through references of the included papers. This ensured that potentially relevant research articles were not overlooked and strengthened the completeness of the literature acquisition process.
To ensure a broad and comprehensive coverage of the literature, we initially searched for studies using the Boolean function
The timeframe was set from January 2008 to June 2024, which resulted in 2,672 articles from Scopus. The starting year of 2008 was chosen deliberately, as the global financial crisis drew significant academic and managerial attention to the vulnerabilities and resilience of supply chains (Altomonte & Ottaviano, 2009). Extending the search up to June 2024 ensured that both foundational and the most recent studies available at the time of writing were included.
In addition, we conducted complementary searches on Google Scholar using different combinations of keywords across the three core constructs of the study. For supply chain resilience, we used terms such as “Supply Chain Resilience,”“Supply Chain Disruptions,”“Supply Chain Agility,” and “Supply Chain Robustness” (Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015). For organizational effectiveness (OE), the terms included “Organizational Effectiveness,”“Organizational Efficiency,” and “Organizational Productivity” (Bartuševičienė & Šakalytė, 2013; Elmuti, 2002). For firm performance (FP), we applied terms including “Firm Performance,”“Financial Performance,”“Business Performance,”“Corporate Performance,” and “Operational Performance” (Oliveira et al., 2022). These keywords were used in combination across multiple iterations to capture a range of further relevant literature. To further strengthen coverage, we employed snowballing and citation tracking techniques, which led to the identification of 17 additional relevant articles from Google Scholar.
Arranging
The second phase of the SPAR-4-SLR approach involves both purification and organization of the articles collected during the assembling stage (Paul et al., 2021). In the purification stage, we applied systematic inclusion and exclusion criteria to refine the initial pool of studies. The search results from Scopus and Google Scholar yielded 2,689 articles in total (2,672 from Scopus and 17 from Google Scholar). Fourteen duplicates were removed, leaving 2,675 articles. Screening titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 1,691 records that were not relevant to supply chain resilience, organizational effectiveness, or firm performance, leaving 984 articles. From these, 901 were excluded due to inaccessibility of full texts or insufficient alignment with the study scope, resulting in 83 articles. A detailed full-text review excluded 35 further records, leaving 48 Scopus articles. Complementary snowballing and citation tracking using Google Scholar identified 17 additional studies, of which 9 were retained after careful screening. This process resulted in a final sample of 58 articles, comprising 49 from Scopus and 9 from Google Scholar. By reporting exclusion numbers at each stage, our approach ensures transparency and reproducibility of the review process.
Once the final sample was established, we moved to the organization stage and applied the TCCM (Theory–Context–Characteristics–Methodology) framework, consistent with prior reviews (Paul et al., 2021; Vasil et al., 2024). Each of the 58 articles was coded according to four dimensions. The theoretical foundations were identified, such as the Resource-Based Theory, the Dynamic Capabilities theory, the Resource Orchestration Theory, and others. The research context was coded by country and industry to capture differences in geographical and sectoral focus. The characteristics of the constructs were coded by categorizing variables into dependent, independent, control, mediating, and moderating types, in order to assess how supply chain resilience, organizational effectiveness, and firm performance were conceptualized and operationalized across the reviewed studies. Then, methodological approaches were coded, distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative studies, as well as identifying common data analytical techniques. This TCCM-based coding provided a structured organization of the final corpus, enabled a systematic comparison across studies, and laid the foundation for identifying theoretical, contextual, and methodological gaps in the literature.
Assessing
The final phase of the SPAR-4-SLR approach is assessment, which involves evaluating and reporting the findings from the selected articles. Using the TCCM framework, we analyzed the theories adopted, research contexts (participants, industries, countries), characteristics of variables (dependent, independent, control, mediating, and moderating), and methodological approaches (study types and data analysis techniques) of each article. Reporting of results is presented in subsequent sections using both visual and textual descriptions. This step enabled the identification of trends, gaps, and research opportunities in the literature.
As a limitation of the study, the papers were identified and retrieved from the Scopus database and Google Scholar. There was no requirement for any ethical clearance, as the review was based on secondary data (journal articles) accessible to anyone with a Scopus subscription. Additionally, no funding support was received for this study.
Review Findings (TCCM)
The identified literature was thoroughly examined to describe the research trend and provide valuable insights into the relationship between SCRES, OE, and FP within the framework of TCCM.
Publication Trends
Although our search covered the period from 2008 to 2024, the screening and manual identification process focused specifically on articles addressing supply chain resilience, organizational effectiveness, and firm performance. As a result, the earliest relevant publications identified were from 2011. The publication trend (Figure 2) shows a gradual increase in research on these topics from 2011 to 2019, with only sporadic publications during this period. Starting in 2020, the number of publications increased noticeably, rising from 7 articles in 2020 and 2021 to 10 in 2022, followed by a significant peak of 21 publications in 2023. Preliminary data for 2024 provides 6 publications, although the year was not yet completed when writing the paper. This trend suggests growing scholarly interest in this research domain, particularly over the last 4 years.
Year-wise publication trends of supply chain resilience, organizational effectiveness, and firm performance.
Most Contributing Journals
An analysis of the final sample of 58 articles revealed that research on SCRES, OE, and FP is published across a range of journals, with the top 10 journals accounting for 28 articles (Figure 3).
Most contributing journals of supply chain resilience, organizational effectiveness, and firm performance.
Theoretical Foundations (T)
This review analyzed the theoretical frameworks utilized in examining the relationship between SCRES, OE, and FP. Among the 58 articles surveyed, 52 employed 20 different theoretical perspectives/frameworks to explain this connection, with a specific focus on Supply Chain Flexibility and FP. Table 1 provides a summary of the theories employed.
Theories Employed in the SCRES, OE, and FP.
The following sections provide an examination of the leading and commonly utilized theories found in the review of literature.
Resource-Based Theory (RBT)
The RBT is widely utilized in the field, with 12 out of 52 studies employing it to explore how flexible supply chain management can improve OE and FP by strategically managing resources to attain a competitive advantage. RBT explains the mechanism by which rare, valuable, and inimitable resources strengthen SCRES, which subsequently enables higher OE and FP. By focusing on which resources provide a competitive advantage, the theory clarifies why and how resource deployment influences SCRES and performance outcomes. This theory served as a valuable framework for understanding the impact of SCRES on OE, which further impacts FP (Huang et al., 2023; Juan & Li, 2023; Mee-ngoen et al., 2020). The literature has predominantly focused on the role of agility and flexibility, especially in situations where external uncertainties have escalated (Queiroz et al., 2023; Shahadat et al., 2023; Wang & Pan, 2022).
Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT)
The next most prominent theory is DCT, which has been employed in 11 studies due to its relevant context for understanding how organizations adapt, innovate, and build competitive advantage in dynamic environments (Haq & Aslam, 2023). DCT clarifies how the ability to sense, seize, and reconfigure resources under uncertainty links SCRES to improved OE and FP. This highlights the dynamic processes behind resilience. As per the study by Junaid et al. (2023), organizations must continuously assess and enhance their capabilities to effectively respond to disruptions, uncertainties, and changes in the business environment. This includes the ability to quickly reconfigure supply chain networks, adjust production processes, and collaborate with partners to mitigate risks and maintain operations during crises. Organizations that possess strong dynamic capabilities can manage resources more effectively, adapt to market changes through innovation, and take advantage of new opportunities. This often results in higher levels of organizational effectiveness (Alshahrani & Salam, 2022; Hamidu et al., 2023; Haq & Aslam, 2023).
Resource Orchestration Theory (ROT)
The ROT has been utilized by six studies to explore how organizations effectively combine and utilize their resources to achieve strategic objectives and competitive advantage in dynamic business environments. ROT emphasizes the managerial actions of structuring, bundling, and leveraging resources. It advances beyond RBT and DCT by detailing how firms orchestrate their resources through structuring and leveraging processes. Lin and Fan (2024) explained that resource orchestration theory helps explain how organizations can fully utilize their resources through effective management. According to El Baz et al. (2023), the theory focuses on how resources are organized to achieve specific objectives. Jafari et al. (2022) outlined three main stages in this process: structuring, bundling, and leveraging resources. Chunsheng et al. (2020) utilized this theory in their study and suggested that organizations should coordinate and use resources like supply chain integration and digital technologies to improve resilience and support sustainable performance.
Resource Dependence Theory (RDT)
RDT has been applied in the four studies by Ganbold et al. (2021), Suharto (2023), Lin et al. (2021), and others, to explore how organizations effectively manage their external dependencies to achieve strategic objectives and competitive advantage in dynamic business environments. It helps explain how managing external dependencies and inter-organizational relationships strengthens resilience, which enables firms to sustain operations and achieve better performance under uncertainty. Lin and Fan (2024) explained the relevance of the theory in understanding how organizations navigate their reliance on external resources through effective management practices, which complements the perspective of resource dependence. Chunsheng et al. (2020) applied this perspective in their research, proposing that organizations should actively manage their external dependencies, including supply chain relationships and regulatory compliance, to strengthen organizational resilience and sustainable performance.
Information Processing Theory (IPT)
IPT has been applied in three studies concerning the linkage between SCRES, OE, and FP. This theory helps to identify how organizations acquire, interpret, and use information from both internal and external sources to make decisions and respond effectively to environmental stimuli (Yuan & Li, 2022). By emphasizing information acquisition and interpretation, IPT explains how timely data flow enables organizations to sense risks, respond efficiently, and thus strengthen resilience–performance outcomes. It is essential for supply chains to actively communicate with stakeholders to improve transparency and trackability across operations (Belhadi et al., 2024; Yuan & Li, 2022). Using the framework of organizational IPT, Badruddin et al. (2020) proposed hypotheses linking Lean and Agile supply chain strategies to improvements in efficiency and overall firm performance.
Contingency Theory
Within the relationship of SCRES, OE, and FP, Contingency Theory establishes the critical role of environmental contingencies, organizational structures, and strategic alignment. This theory explains variation in outcomes by clarifying that SCRES strategies are effective only when aligned with specific environmental and organizational contingencies. It posits that organizations should tailor their approaches to SCRES based on the unique challenges and uncertainties they face, adjusting their structures and processes accordingly (Pham & Doan, 2020). Contingency Theory emphasizes the importance of developing adaptive capabilities to handle uncertainty effectively, leading to enhanced organizational effectiveness and firm performance (Ishak et al., 2023).
Other Theories
In addition to the theories previously discussed, several other theoretical perspectives have also been employed by different authors in their research on the relationship between SCRES, OE, and FP. Complementarity Theory, as examined by Feizabadi and Alibakhshi (2022) used to identify how organizational resources and capabilities synergize to enhance overall performance. Absorptive Capacity Theory, included by Huo et al. (2021), focuses on organizations’ ability to acquire, assimilate, and apply new knowledge. Strategic Choice Theory helped to analyze how organizations make strategic decisions in response to environmental contingencies (Musa & Pujawan, 2018). Abdelaziz et al. (2024) have employed the Evolutionary Theory, which emphasizes the need for organizations to continuously evolve their supply chain strategies and capabilities to remain resilient in dynamic environments.
Integrative Perspective
Together, these theories explain how SCRES supports OE and FP. While RBT and ROT highlight the role of valuable internal resources and their orchestration, DCT emphasizes adaptive processes that transform resources into resilience capabilities. RDT and IPT extend the explanation by focusing on external dependencies and information flows that strengthen resilience in uncertain environments. Contingency and other contextual theories clarify why certain SCRES strategies succeed in some conditions but not in others, which suggests the need for alignment with environmental and organizational factors.
These theoretical foundations show that SCRES is not a singular construct but an outcome of resource configurations, dynamic capabilities, external alignments, and contextual adaptations. Drawing on several theories reveals the various pathways through which SCRES contributes to enhanced organizational effectiveness and firm performance.
Context (C)
The findings regarding the contexts explored in research on SCRES, OE, and FP are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. These findings related to the countries are based on 49 out of 58 studies, as some studies did not specify the countries investigated. Similarly, 54 out of 58 studies were considered for industries, as some did not mention any industry. The reported relative frequencies indicate the proportion of studies focusing on specific industries or countries relative to the total number of studies examined.
Industries Examined in the SCRES, OE, and FP.
Countries Included in the SCRES, OE, and FP Studies.
Industry
In the context of SCRES, OE, and FP, the analysis of the industries investigated reveals several significant patterns, as shown in Table 2. Core Manufacturing Firms are the most frequently studied industry, with 37 out of the total 58 studies focusing on this sector (Haq & Aslam, 2023; Jafari et al., 2022; Mee-ngoen et al., 2020; Piprani et al., 2022). This focus on core manufacturing firms highlights their strategic importance and vulnerability within supply chains. Their significant economic contribution and role in producing essential goods make them crucial for supply chain stability and economic resilience.
Li et al. (2017) have stated that manufacturing sectors often play a central role in supply chains, as they involve the production of goods that serve as inputs for other industries or end consumers. The next most studied sector is Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), which was the focus of six studies. This reflects the increasing acknowledgment of their significance in global supply chains and their distinct challenges in maintaining resilience and competitiveness (Abdelaziz et al., 2024; Alshahrani & Salam, 2022; Nguyen et al., 2022). The garment manufacturing sector, examined in three studies (Huang et al., 2023; Lu et al., 2023; Shahadat et al., 2023), was likely chosen by the researchers for investigation due to its global importance, especially in regions with substantial apparel industries (Huang et al., 2023; Shahadat et al., 2023). The agricultural sector, explored in two studies (Itang et al., 2022; Pham & Doan, 2020), faces challenges from weather conditions, market volatility, and supply chain complexities. Research aims to understand how agricultural firms mitigate risks, optimize production processes, and enhance overall performance amidst uncertainties (Itang et al., 2022). Rapid urbanization is shifting food consumption toward safer and more diverse options, yet traditional agriculture struggles to meet these demands despite technological advancements (Pham & Doan, 2020).
In addition to the previously mentioned sectors, six studies have examined various other industries, including hospitals, pharmaceuticals, automotive component companies, the semiconductor industry, and banking. These studies provide insights into the specific challenges and opportunities faced by these firms. The healthcare sector has drawn considerable focus, especially because of the unique challenges brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic (Feizabadi & Alibakhshi, 2022; Junaid et al., 2023; Nguyen et al., 2021). The semiconductor industry was studied by Ishak et al. (2023), and the banking sector by Hadi & Herianingrum (2020). These studies highlight the diverse range of industries facing unique challenges in supply chain management, emphasizing the need for tailored solutions to enhance resilience and effectiveness.
Country
As demonstrated in Table 3, a significant portion of the reviewed studies focus on the Asian region, totaling 37 studies. Notably, China leads with eight exclusive studies, highlighting its pivotal role in global supply chain dynamics. Following closely, Indonesia and Vietnam contribute seven and four studies, respectively, underlining Southeast Asia’s growing importance in supply chain research. India is represented by two studies conducted by Ambulkar et al. (2023) and Baral et al. (2021). Asian countries attract researchers due to their economic significance, complex supply chains, diverse cultural and institutional contexts, dynamic market dynamics, and policy implications.
In the case of Europe, a limited yet diverse set of countries has been investigated, including France, the Czech Republic, Sweden, and the UK, with a combined total of four identified studies. These investigations highlight Europe’s unique supply chain challenges and organizational dynamics (Abdelaziz et al., 2024; El Baz et al., 2023). In Africa, Ghana stands out with one study, contributing to the understanding of supply chain resilience and organizational effectiveness within the continent’s unique context. North America and South America are each represented by two and one study, respectively, with the USA and Brazil serving as focal points for research in these regions. Additionally, four studies explore cross-country supply chain phenomena, while nine studies do not specify a particular country, indicating a broader focus on global or multi-country supply chain contexts.
Characteristics (C)
The review has also been conducted to extract the key findings regarding the most significant characteristics within the domain, aiming to stimulate research focused on establishing relationships. Table 4 presents a comprehensive overview of the variables examined in these studies, categorized according to their respective roles within each study, including independent, mediating, moderating, control, and dependent variables.
Variables Investigated in the SCRES, OE, and FP Studies.
Dependent Variables
In our investigation into dependent variables (DVs) related to SCRES, OE, and FP, we identified a wide range of variables from prior research. These include foundational metrics like “Financial Performance” (ROA, ROE) and “Sales Growth Rate,” as well as novel indicators such as “Supply Chain Performance,”“Operational Performance,”“Market Share of Products,” and various other performance metrics. Financial measures like “ROA” and “ROE” provide insights into a firm’s profitability and efficiency (Ambulkar et al., 2023; Chunsheng et al., 2020). The “Sales Growth Rate” reflects market demand and competitiveness (Huang et al., 2023; Lu et al., 2023). Profitability measures like “Average Return on Investment” (Li et al., 2017) and “Profit Margin Ratio” evaluate a firm’s profit generation capabilities. Other variables, such as “Return on Total Assets” and “Sales over Assets,” assess asset utilization efficiency (Ambulkar et al., 2023; Lu et al., 2023). Additionally, metrics like “Supply Chain Performance” (Belhadi et al., 2024), “Operational Performance” (Ganbold et al., 2021), “Economic Performance,”“Environmental Performance,”“Social Performance” (Cui et al., 2023), “Cost Performance” (Huo et al., 2021), and “Market Share of Products” (Lin et al., 2021) evaluate various aspects of organizational performance, including efficiency, sustainability, and competitiveness.
Independent Variables
In our investigation into independent variables, we identified a diverse set, including “Organizational Culture,” SC Preparedness,”“SC Agility,” and “SC Robustness,” which reflect the complexities of organizational dynamics and strategic decision-making (Ambulkar et al., 2023; Bui et al., 2024; Chunsheng et al., 2020; Junaid et al., 2023; Ladeira et al., 2021). Other key factors include “Product Structure Intensity,”“Brand Intensity,”“Research and Development Intensity,”“Corporate Social Responsibility,”“AI,”“Adaptive Capabilities,”“Flexibility,”“Supply Chain Collaboration,”“Environmental Uncertainty,”“Supply Chain Integration,”“Blockchain Technology,”“Manufacturing Flexibility,”“SC Digitalization,” and “SC Dynamic Capabilities” (Abdelaziz et al., 2024; Huang et al., 2023; Lin et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2021, 2022; Suharto, 2023). These variables help researchers understand their impact on SC Resilience, Organizational Effectiveness, and Firm Performance, contributing to a deeper understanding of organizational resilience and performance in complex and uncertain environments.
Control Variables
In our analysis of control variables, we identified factors influencing organizational dynamics and performance, such as “Firm Size,”“Business Years,”“Business Sector,” and “Geographic Area” (Ambulkar et al., 2023; Bahrami & Shokouhyar, 2022; El Baz et al., 2023). Additional control variables include “Supply Chain Disruption Orientation,”“Firm Average Inventory Level,”“Number of Employees,”“Work Experience,”“Annual Revenue,”“Big Data Analytics,”“Business Type,” and “Risk Management Culture” (Chunsheng et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2019). These factors help mitigate confounding effects and provide insights into the relationships between key variables in Supply Chain Resilience, Organizational Effectiveness, and Firm Performance.
Mediating Variables
The key mediating variables identified in our study include “Supply Chain Agility,”“Customer Development,”“AI Technology Advantage,”“SC Collaboration,”“Environmental Uncertainty,”“SC Finance,”“Resource-based View,”“Dynamic Capability,”“Mass Communication,”“Organizational Resilience,”“SC Digitalization,” and “Risk Management Culture” (Bui et al., 2024; Juan & Li, 2023; Lu et al., 2023; Queiroz et al., 2023; Wang & Pan, 2022). By investigating these mediating variables, researchers aimed to explain the mechanisms through which they influence the relationships between independent and dependent variables.
Moderating Variables
The moderating variables play pivotal roles in shaping the strength and direction of relationships between independent and dependent variables, thereby influencing overall organizational outcomes (Gligor et al., 2019). The main moderating variables identified in our study include different factors of “Environmental Uncertainty” such as munificence, dynamism, and complexity, “Digital Technology Adoption” (DTA), “Supply Chain Orientation,”“Environmental Dynamism,”“Innovation Orientation,”“Supply Chain Collaboration” (SCC), and “Logistics Flexibility” (LGF) (Alkhatib & Momani, 2023; Haq & Aslam 2023; Jafari et al., 2022; Pham & Doan, 2020).
Methodology (M)
The methodology analysis explores practical research approaches in studying SCRES, OE, and FP. The classification into quantitative and qualitative methods organizes the various research techniques used. Quantitative approaches dominate, with 54 out of 58 articles employing cross-sectional studies using surveys or questionnaires (Bui et al., 2024; Lu et al., 2023), as shown in Table 5. No articles focused on experimental studies or meta-analyses, possibly due to practical challenges and the field’s emerging nature. Four articles represented qualitative methods, mainly as review papers, without using interviews or experimental methods. This imbalance suggests a need for more diverse research methods, including qualitative approaches, to provide deeper insights into supply chain resilience.
Research Methods and Data Analysis Techniques Used to Study the SCRES, OE, and FP.
In terms of data analysis, the majority of articles utilized advanced statistical methods. Regression, correlation, and
Discussion of the Findings and Future Research
The TCCM review demonstrates that SCRES is fundamentally a dynamic, multidimensional capability rather than a static attribute. The predominance of Resource-Based Theory, Dynamic Capabilities Theory, and Resource Orchestration Theory highlights that resilience emerges not only from possessing valuable resources but also from the firm’s ability to orchestrate and adapt them in response to disruptions (Haq & Aslam, 2023; Juan & Li, 2023; Lin & Fan, 2024). Complementary perspectives, such as Resource Dependence Theory and Information Processing Theory, emphasize that effective resilience depends on managing external dependencies and information flows, which highlights that internal capabilities alone are insufficient for sustained performance (Lin et al., 2021; Yuan & Li, 2022). Theoretically, these insights suggest the need for integrative models that combine resource-based, dynamic, and contextual approaches to fully capture the mechanisms linking SCRES, OE, and FP.
Contextual analysis indicates that research is heavily concentrated in core manufacturing firms and Asian markets. This reflects both the economic significance and vulnerability of these settings (Haq & Aslam, 2023; Mee-ngoen et al., 2020). While this focus offers rich insights, it also limits generalizability. Underexplored sectors such as SMEs, agriculture, and services, and regions including Africa and South America, may exhibit distinct resilience mechanisms due to differences in resource availability, market dynamics, and institutional contexts (Abdelaziz et al., 2024; Pham & Doan, 2020). For practitioners, this highlights that SCRES strategies must be context-sensitive, combining flexibility, digital tools, and collaboration tailored to industry-specific and regional challenges.
The characteristics of SCRES, including agility, digitalization, and collaborative practices, interact with mediating and moderating factors to influence OE and FP. This complexity indicates that single-dimensional interventions are insufficient and organizations must adopt a portfolio approach to resilience. This involves developing adaptive capabilities, implementing real-time information systems, and promoting collaborative supply chain relationships. Together, these strategies enable organizations to respond effectively to uncertainty and disruption (Junaid et al., 2023; Wang & Pan, 2022). Methodologically, the heavy reliance on cross-sectional, quantitative studies limits understanding of temporal and process-oriented dynamics. Longitudinal and mixed-methods research is essential to uncover how SCRES evolves and how its impact on performance manifests over time (Lin & Fan, 2024; Lu et al., 2023).
These findings collectively highlight that supply chain resilience is not merely a defensive mechanism but a strategic enabler. Organizations that actively align resources, processes, and relationships with environmental demands are better positioned to achieve sustained performance outcomes.
Despite existing research covering both empirical and theoretical dimensions, many avenues for future study remain. Based on our systematic review, we propose a research agenda to advance the field. Figure 4 outlines future research directions based on our literature assessment.
Future research directions to further explore SCRES, OE, and FP.
Future Directions for Theory Development (T)
The review indicates that while traditional theories and frameworks have been applied, modern concepts could further enrich the understanding of the domain. For example, digitalization and Industry 4.0 highlight technology’s role in enhancing supply chain visibility and agility (Shahadat et al., 2023). Concepts such as blockchain technology, the Internet of Things, and artificial intelligence can provide insights into how firms use digital tools to improve visibility, traceability, and agility (Ganbold et al., 2021; Wang & Pan, 2022). Examining digital ecosystems, data analytics, and predictive modeling can help anticipate and mitigate disruptions (Junaid et al., 2023). Integrating these modern concepts with traditional theories can enrich research findings and improve SCRE and FP. The future research can apply the following theories:
Complexity Theory
Future research could apply Complexity Theory to study supply chain resilience, organizational effectiveness, and firm performance. This approach could offer insights into decision-making, risk management, and the balance between efficiency and resilience (Chand et al., 2022; Thelwall, 2018). Exploring concepts like agent-based modeling, network theory, or chaos theory could reveal complex behaviors and patterns within supply chains, enhancing understanding of resilience and performance.
Stakeholder Theory
Expanding Stakeholder Theory to include a broader range of stakeholders—such as suppliers, customers, employees, communities, and regulatory bodies—offers a framework for enhancing firm performance through better supply chain resilience (Sahoo et al., 2022). Future research could explore how firms cultivate collaborative relationships with these stakeholders to build more agile and sustainable supply chains, and how effective stakeholder engagement fosters trust and co-creation of value (Shahadat et al., 2023).
Agency Theory
Future research could investigate how agency relationships within supply chains affect decision-making, risk management, and firm performance. Studies may focus on aligning incentives between principals (e.g., firms) and agents (e.g., suppliers) and how agency conflicts impact supply chain resilience and profitability (Baral et al., 2021). Additionally, researchers could examine the role of contract design, monitoring mechanisms, and performance incentives in addressing agency problems and improving supply chain and firm performance.
Institutional Theory
Future research could examine how institutional pressures and norms influence supply chain practices, governance, and performance metrics (Shahadat et al., 2023). Studies may explore how regulatory frameworks, industry standards, and cultural norms affect firms’ adoption of resilience strategies and their performance outcomes (Li et al., 2017). Additionally, research could investigate how firms navigate uncertain and conflicting institutional environments to build resilient supply chains.
Complex Network Theories
Future research could explore how network structures and dynamics affect SCRE and FP (Mee-ngoen et al., 2020). Studies may analyze network topology, such as centrality, density, and connectivity, and their impact on information flow and resource allocation. Additionally, research could investigate how network ties, collaborations, and alliances contribute to resilience through knowledge sharing and collective action.
Future Directions for Context (C)
The concentration of studies within a single country limits the generalizability of findings, underscoring the need for future research to compare outcomes across various organization sizes, sectors, and countries (Baral et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2023). Cultural differences should also be considered, highlighting the importance of extending research to other geographies for broader insights into global supply chain management (Junaid et al., 2023). Most studies have focused on countries like China, Indonesia, and Vietnam; thus, diversifying research to include developed, developing, and underdeveloped regions is crucial for a better understanding of supply chain effectiveness and performance (Ambulkar et al., 2023). Additionally, while much of the research centers on manufacturing, there is a need to explore supply chain dynamics in service sectors such as travel, transportation, and healthcare (Baral et al., 2021). Future studies should also examine sector-specific challenges, compare findings across industries, and investigate how emerging technologies impact supply chain strategies, especially for SMEs (Ishak et al., 2023; Juan & Li, 2023).
Future Directions for Characteristics (C)
Future research in supply chain management and organizational effectiveness offers several promising avenues. Studies could investigate how survivability mediates the relationship between sustainability and business performance, providing insights into mechanisms that drive organizational success amid challenges (Belhadi et al., 2024). Exploring the impact of process digitization and emerging technologies on the survivability of SMEs can shed light on how technological advancements shape resilience (Baral et al., 2021; Ishak et al., 2023). Additionally, examining alternative mediating mechanisms like supply chain integration and inter-organizational systems capability can offer a comprehensive view of supply chain dynamics (Lu et al., 2023).
Future research should consider context factors such as market share and environmental uncertainty, which significantly influence supply chain outcomes (Lu et al., 2023). Investigating how exploitative and explorative supply chain competencies affect disruptions can provide valuable insights into building resilience (Ambulkar et al., 2023). Examining capabilities or resources that enhance agility and resilience, as well as how turbulence, disruption, and complexity moderate supply chain relationships, is essential (Pham & Doan, 2020; Suharto, 2023). Understanding specific organizational practices that contribute to resilience can improve disruption management (Alshahrani & Salam, 2022; Musa & Pujawan, 2018). These research opportunities aim to deepen our understanding of supply chain dynamics and their implications for organizational effectiveness and firm performance.
Future Directions for Methodology (M)
The field of supply chain management, OE, and FP has largely been dominated by empirical, quantitative studies focused on manufacturing (Haq & Aslam, 2023; Jafari et al., 2022; Mee-ngoen et al., 2020; Piprani et al., 2022). To advance research, further studies should employ a diverse range of methods, including both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Current research predominantly uses cross-sectional data from questionnaires (Bui et al., 2024; Lu et al., 2023). Incorporating time series or multilevel data could explore the dynamic impacts of supply chain performance metrics, such as on-time delivery and inventory turnover. Similarly, metrics for organizational effectiveness, such as financial performance and customer satisfaction, should be examined.
Future research should also address gaps in experimental and meta-analytic studies. Quasi-experimental designs could assess the effects of new technologies or regulations on supply chains, while meta-analyses could synthesize findings across industries and regions, identifying trends and effective strategies. Additionally, qualitative research using visual and textual methods, such as process mapping and interviews, can offer deeper insights into how supply chain flexibility affects organizational outcomes. Interpretive methodologies like grounded theory and thematic analysis can further enhance understanding of the mechanisms driving supply chain effectiveness and firm performance.
Conclusion and Limitations
This study systematically reviews the relationship between SCRES, OE, and FP using the Theory, Context, Characteristics, and Methodology framework. Analyzing 58 articles from Scopus and Google Scholar, it integrates theoretical frameworks, contextual dimensions, variables, and methodologies to provide insights into enhancing SCRES and FP in a complex business environment. The study underscores the need for modern theories and innovative methods, such as digitalization, the circular economy, and risk analytics, to improve strategic decision-making and operational practices.
For researchers, this study offers a structured synthesis of literature, identifies gaps, and suggests future research directions. For managers, it provides actionable insights into supply chain dynamics and emphasizes the importance of modern theories and methods in improving strategic and operational outcomes. This knowledge can help firms enhance resilience and performance in today’s dynamic market.
While the study provides valuable insights, it has certain limitations. The literature review was confined to articles identified from the Scopus database and Google Scholar, which may have excluded some pertinent studies available in other databases. In addition, this study is limited to the TCCM approach, but it could be enhanced through methodological triangulation by incorporating other approaches, such as detailed bibliometric analysis, meta-analysis, or systematic literature mapping. Also, literature reviews rely on the depth and quality of the existing studies. Consequently, the analysis is constrained by the limitations and biases of the reviewed articles, potentially affecting the robustness of the conclusions. In addition, although the study provides theoretical and methodological insights, the practical applications of these findings for managers might be limited. The translation of theoretical insights into actionable strategies for improving supply chain resilience and firm performance may require further empirical research and practical validation.
Footnotes
ORCID iDs
