供应链风险管理

An empirical analysis of supply chain risk management in the German automotive industry

J¨orn-Henrik Thun?,Daniel Hoenig

Industrieseminar,Mannheim Business School,University of Mannheim,68131Mannheim,Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received25June2008

Accepted19October2009

Available online27October2009

Keywords:

Supply chain management

Risk management

Automotive industry

Empirical analysis

a b s t r a c t

The purpose of this paper is the empirical analysis of supply chain risk management practices.The

analysis is based on a survey with67manufacturing plants conducted in the German automotive

industry.After investigating the vulnerability of supply chains in general and examining key drivers of

supply chain risks,the paper identi?es supply chain risks by analyzing their likelihood to occur and

their potential impact on the supply chain.The results are visualized in the

probability-impact-matrix

distinguishing between internal and external supply chain risks.Furthermore,instruments for dealing

with supply chain risks are investigated.Therefore,the impact of supply chain risk management on

performance is tested.In order to distinguish between companies with a high degree of supply chain

risk management and those with no or only limited implementation the plants are grouped by means of

a cluster analysis based on factors re?ecting the instruments of supply chain risk management.In

particular,groups are created representing two different approaches to deal with supply chain risks,i.e.

reactive and preventive supply chain risk management.The clusters are investigated concerning

differences in terms of performance criteria.The analyses reveal that companies with a high

implementation degree show a better supply chain performance.Furthermore,the results show that

the group using reactive supply chain risk management has higher average value in terms of

disruptions resilience or the reduction of the bullwhip effect,whereas the group pursuing preventive

supply chain risk management has better values concerning?exibility or safety stocks.

&2009Elsevier B.V.All rights reserved.

1.Introduction

In a business environment characterized by high complexity and

uncertainty,manufacturing companies are forced to manage their

supply chains effectively in order to increase ef?ciency and

reactivity.Catastrophes such as9/11,hurricane Katrina,or the

Tsunami in2004have raised the attention on this issue.But also

everyday problems such as supplier losses or quality problems

make supply chain risk management important.It aims at

mitigating the negative impact of external disturbances and tries

to manage certain risks within supply chains.Especially the

automotive industry is well known for their efforts to improve its

supply chains according to their demanding business environment.

Since the1990s,a focus of managing supply chains lies in the

improvement of cost-ef?ciency(Lee,2004).Companies further-

more try to meet the requirements of competition through the

intensive implementation of concepts streamlining supply chain

processes(Childerhouse et al.,2003).This,for example,is

incorporated in the automotive industry through widely used

concepts such as just-in-time and just-in-sequence in order to

create lean supply chains(Svensson,2004;Thun et al.,2007).The

trend towards lean supply chains results in low inventories

achieved by close collaboration with customers and suppliers on

the one hand,but leads to high vulnerability on the other hand

since turbulences in the supply chain can barely be compensated

without safety stocks.Another reason for increasing supply chain

risks is the trend towards outsourcing due to the fact that additional

dependencies are created and the complexity in the network rises

(J¨uttner et al.,2003).The more complex a network is,the more

interfaces do exist and the higher the vulnerability will be(Peck,

2005).In a similar way,globalization increases supply chain risks

(Berry,2004)because aspects such as transportation risks,cultural

risks or exchange rate risks gain importance.

Numerous articles address the effects of external events on

supply chains and the companies involved(e.g.Chopra and Sodhi,

2004).Especially,catastrophes and their consequences have

augmented the attention to risk in supply chains within the last

years.For example,after the terrorist attacks of September11,

2001,Ford and Toyota had to stop their production in their

manufacturing plants in the US due to signi?cant delays in

delivery of parts coming from foreign countries(Shef?,

2001).Other examples are delayed deliveries due to quality

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage:https://www.360docs.net/doc/aa5653003.html,/locate/ijpe

Int.J.Production Economics

0925-5273/$-see front matter&2009Elsevier B.V.All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.10.010

?Corresponding author.Tel.:+491703128459.

E-mail address:thun@is.bwl.uni-mannheim.de(J.-H.Thun).

Int.J.Production Economics131(2011)242–249

problems or a complete loss of a supplier caused by its insolvency. In December2001,Land Rover had to worry about the production of its key model Discovery since its only supplier for Chassis, UPF-Thompson,?led for bankruptcy(Shef?and Rice,2005).Only by a high expense of goodwill,Land Rover could avert a nine-month disruption of production as well as the loss of1500jobs. Another demonstrative example for damage amounting to millions of dollars is the case of the German components supplier Robert Bosch who delivered its customers with defective high-pressure pumps for diesel fuel injection systems in the beginning of2005.However,a sub-supplier of Bosch was accountable for this mistake and,hence,the entire supply chain was affected.

These examples show that new risks emerge from the dependency and integration of companies in the supply chain. But not only such dramatic incidents disrupt supply chains,also more ordinary and workaday problems might affect supply chains.Often,comparable disruption is provoked by risks related to customers and suppliers as well as infrastructure and network.

A well known network risk is a phenomenon commonly referred to as the Bullwhip-effect which describes the ampli?cation of inventory when moving up the value chain(Lee et al.,1997).

Consequences of supply chain disruptions might be?nancial losses,a negative corporate image or a bad reputation eventually accompanied by a loss in demand as well as damages in security and health(J¨uttner et al.,2003).In the light of these risks and their inherent consequences,it can be assumed that the performance of a supply chain will be affected negatively. Although,general statements regarding the?nancial losses of affected companies and industries involved in supply chain disruptions are neither possible nor reasonable,yet,some examples of companies exist that estimated their daily loss to $50–$100million showing clearly the meaning of such negative incidents(Rice and Caniato,2003).Altogether,the prevailing developments stress the need for the management of risks within a supply chain.

Although supply chain risk management has gained attention in the past years in academia(J¨uttner,2005),there is a lack of work on this subject matter.There is a need for empirical work in the?eld of supply chain risk management analyzing the main supply chain risks and investigating instruments for an effective supply chain risk management.The main objective of this paper is to analyze the status quo of supply chain risk management in Germany based on a study conducted in the automotive industry. In particular,the purpose is to investigate the relevance of different risks in terms of their probability of occurrence and their potential impact on the supply chain.Furthermore,several instruments of supply chain risk management are analyzed regarding their potential to cope with supply chain risks.Hence, the relationship between the implementation of these instru-ments and different performance criteria is analyzed.

2.Literature review

Risk management in general is described as the identi?cation and analysis of risks as well as their control.A main particularity of Supply Chain Risk Management(SCRM)contrary to traditional risk management is that it is characterized by a cross-company orientation aiming at the identi?cation and reduction of risks not only on the company level,but rather focusing on entire supply chains.

However,in many industries risk management is still under-stood primarily as a company-speci?c task as it is pointed out by J¨uttner(2005,p.131):‘‘Companies implement organization-speci?c risk management,but there is little evidence of risk management at the supply chain level’’.Other studies show that only a minority of companies have implemented adequate methods for risk management although they are quite aware of the consequences of risks for their supply chain(Tang,2006). Hence,companies seem to have a huge catch up to do in terms of implementing instruments for risk identi?cation,analysis,and control in order to establish an effective supply chain risk management for creating secure and resilient supply chains.

The impact of an incident on a supply chain depends on the particularity of the incident on the one hand and on the design of the supply chain on the other hand.The latter refers to the aspect of vulnerability of a supply chain.Christopher and Peck(2004, p.3)de?ne vulnerability as‘‘an exposure to serious disturbance, arising from risks within the supply chain as well as risks external to the supply chain’’.The mitigation and control of vulnerability is the aim of supply chain risk management which is de?ned as

’’

the identi?cation and management of risks for the supply chain, through a co-ordinated approach amongst supply chain members, to reduce supply chain vulnerability as a whole’’(J¨uttner et al.,2003, p.201).A special challenge of supply chain risk management lies in the multitude of risks within a supply chain.A central aspect is the identi?cation of the relevance of a particular risk for a supply chain.

In terms of survey research papers deal with supply chain risk. Atkinson(2006)deals with lean manufacturing and global sourcing in the context of supply chain risk management.A survey of purchasing executives shows that only half of all respondents reported monitor supply chain risks often.Further-more,the study reveals that only the risk management depart-ment has a broad view to address risks from one end of the supply chain to the other.Blackhurst et al.(2005)conducted a study in several industries analyzing global sourcing and supply-chain disruptions empirically.They identi?ed critical issues for disrup-tion analysis and mitigation as well as resilient supply-chain design.Craighead et al.(2007)evaluate different kinds of supply chain disruptions based on an empirical study.Besides design characteristics they investigate two categories of supply chain risk management,i.e.the capabilities of recovery and warning.

Based on a sample of827disruption announcements,Hendricks and Singhal(2005)investigate the effects of supply chain disrup-tions on stock prices and equity risks.They conclude that?rms do not recover quickly from the negative effects of disruptions.Based on the?ndings from an exploratory quantitative survey and qualitative group discussions with supply chain managers J¨uttner (2005)shows that44%of the responding companies expect the vulnerability of their supply chains to increase within the next?ve years.It is argued that the concept of supply chain risk management is still in its infancy although the data reveals a clear need for dealing with risk issues in supply chains.

Kleindorfer and Saad(2005)investigate a data set on accidents in the US Chemical Industry.Based on empirical results they derive implications for the design of supply chain risk manage-ment.Although this brief literature review contains a couple of articles dealing with supply chain risk management,it clearly shows that there is still a de?cit of academic work in terms of survey based research(see for an exception Wagner and Bode, 2006).Even the link between instruments of supply chain risk management and performance should be investigated empirically in order to give evidence on the question of which instruments are regarded as being effective.

3.Hypotheses

3.1.Vulnerability of supply chains

Although many companies are aware of risks that might in?uence their supply chain negatively,managers fail to implement

J.-H.Thun,D.Hoenig/Int.J.Production Economics131(2011)242–249243

供应链公司

整合和相互

联系沟通

?牛鞭效应也是

??目前问题最?大

的?风险之?一

supply chain的重要性T

需要对供应链?风险进?行评估和分析。本?文以德

国的?几家汽?车公司进?行相关性?风险分析。

供应链?风险分析与传统?风险分析的区别在于，前者更注重的不是公司层

?面的?风险分析，?而是整个供应链过程的。

在供应链中采?用?工具进?行?风险分

析?十分有必要。

供应链的

脆弱性，

是最需要

解决的问

题之?一。

前?人对供应

链?风险中，

全球采购和

供应链缺陷

进?行了研

究。除了设

计环节，还

在?风险管理

中调查了

recovery

and

warning

vulnerabili

ty 升?高，

影响股票

价格。

还在应该采?用何种?风险分析?工具上纠结。

suitable instruments of supply chain risk management (Tang,2006).A possible reason for disregarding these instruments is that some risks are eventually underestimated in terms of their likelihood or impact on the supply chain.A further reason might be that managers are simply not familiar with appropriate instruments and neglect them accordingly.Finally,the dif?culty to quantify the bene?ts of hedging against supply chain risks might hinder the implementation of appropriate instruments.Often,the problem is the economic legitimation of instruments for supply chain risk management to prevent disturbances or disruptions (Zsidisin et al.,2000).This is pointed out by a manager in a study by Rice and Caniato (2003,p.28):‘‘Nobody gets credit for solving problems that did not happen’’.Although it seems to be indispensable to build up supply chain risk

management before a

serious incident

can show its

relevance (Norrman and Jansson,2004),many companies fail to do so.Accordingly,the following hypothesis is formulated:H 11.Supply chains are regarded as being susceptible in terms of supply chain risks.

3.2.Drivers of supply chain risks

Some developments have forced companies to change their way of doing business in order to maintain the competitiveness of their supply chain.On the one hand,companies have to offer a great range of different products or variants in order to satisfy customer demand which leads to higher vulnerability due to higher complexity (Harland et al.,2003).Furthermore,companies

can no longer afford to focus on local markets.They are forced to realize the potential of global markets in terms of suppliers as well as customers resulting in a highly complex supply chain.Due to a high interconnectedness of companies and close relationships within complex networks supply chains have become more vulnerable for disturbances (Zsisidin et al.,2005).Accordingly,the trend towards globalization must be regarded as a source for supply chain risks too.Besides complexity,the need for a lean supply chain acts as a driver for supply chain risks as well.Lean

management approaches prove to be very ef?cient and seem to be indispensible in order to be competitive in the automotive industry but they bear the risk of making supply chains vulnerable.This is also stressed by Norrman and Jansson (2004,

p.434):‘‘The leaner and more integrated supply chains get,the more likely uncertainties,dynamics and accidents in one link affect the other links in the chain’’.Furthermore,companies focus on their core competence and tend to outsource other activities to business partners.Also the ongoing trend towards single sourcing

raises supply chain risks due to a higher dependency in terms of delivery problems.Accordingly,ef?ciency and complexity are regarded as key drivers of supply chain risks.

H https://www.360docs.net/doc/aa5653003.html,plexity and ef?ciency are key drivers for supply chain

risks.

3.3.Supply chain risks

In the following,risks driving the vulnerability of supply chains are discussed based on an approach by Christopher and Peck (2004)who distinguish between external and internal supply chain risks.In terms of internal supply chain risks,cross-company-based risks and internal company risks can be differ-entiated.Internal company risks deal with disruptions caused by problems within the organizational boundaries of the company such as machine breakdowns or IT problems.These risks can be in?uenced by a company directly (Rice and Caniato,2003).In the context of cross-company-based supply chain risks it can be distinguished between purchasing risks and demand risks.

Purchasing risks are concerned with ‘‘upstream’’activities in the

supply chain (Zsidisin,2003).Here,companies are faced with the risks related to suppliers,e.g.quality problems of delivered parts (Zsidisin et al.,2000).Furthermore,the ?nancial instability of a supplier can lead to its insolvency and therefore can result in the total loss of a supplier (Giunipero and Eltantawy,2004).Technological changes or innovation in terms of the product design might overstrain a supplier’s capabilities and therefore lead to disturbances at the supply site.

Demand risks are based on ‘‘downstream’’activities in the supply chain (Svensson,2002).These risks can be related to the distribution of products or can be based on uncertainties in terms of demand forecasts which might result in delivery bottlenecks,

high inventories,or inef?cient capacity utilization (Cachon and Lariviere,2001).Finally,external supply chain risks deal with environmental causes that can barely be in?uenced and lead directly or indirectly to disturbances within the supply chain.They can be caused by sociopolitical,economical,technological or geographical reasons.Examples are earthquakes or hurricanes as well as terrorist attacks or political instabilities (Kleindorfer and Saad,2005).

Subsequent to risk identi?cation,an assessment of the risks concerning their probability of occurrence and the extent of the adverse effect on the entire supply chain should be carried out.Although the exact quanti?cation of these values is often dif?cult

since a precise assessment of the probability of occurrence and their effect is hardly possible it is advisable to evaluate the identi?ed risk at least in a qualitative way.

It is presumed that internal supply chain risks have a higher likelihood to occur than external supply chain risks since the majority of the latter are predominantly exceptional (e.g.war or terrorist attacks),whereas internal supply chain risks such as

supplier problems or a change in customer demand cannot be regarded as uncommon incidents.Hence,these supply chain risks

are expected to have a higher probability.Furthermore,it is expected that external supply chain risks such as natural disasters will show a higher impact since their occurrence is normally accompanied by grave consequences.The risks can be depicted in a portfolio regarding the dimensions ‘‘probability’’and ‘‘impact’’based on a Likert-scale (Wittmann,2000).Fig.1shows the probability-impact-matrix.

Accordingly,the following two hypotheses are formulated concerning the probability and impact of typical supply chain risks.

H 13a.Internal supply chain risks have a higher likelihood to occur than external supply chain risks.

H 13b.External supply chain risks have a greater impact on the supply chain than internal supply chain risks.

high

1probability

low

grave

weak

impact C 12

3

452

34

5Fig.1.Probability-impact-matrix.

J.-H.Thun,D.Hoenig /Int.J.Production Economics 131(2011)242–249244

何种?风险分析?工具才是合适的，?一直是个?大问题

产品的不同需求和国际

市场需求， 造成了供应链的出错率

?高

全球化趋势和对精细化管理

的需求引发了供应

链?风险。越精细、

整合化的管理，就

越容易造成动态?风

险。

外包也在

增加供应链管理?风

险。

公司内部，机器breakdown 算是内部供应链的?小问题。

?而在整个供应链上下游，则?面临外包产品的质量问题，?金

融?风险不稳定性，以及产品设计中的技术变?革和创新等等问题。

供应链下游的问题就很多

啦，如需求预

测，物流运输，也会被很多外部因素如社会、经济、

?自然因素所影

响。要量化?风

险，分析负?面因素和影响。让?人想到了?黑

天鹅。。。内部会发?生的

问题，如供应

商、消费需求

变化都是可预测的，但是外

部发?生的改变

却很难预测，

?而且影响更

?大。简直就是?黑天鹅嘛

?高?风险难预测的就是immediate action

供应链?风险主要存在于内部，在可视的内部供应链管理上。还有?一部分难察觉到？？

全球供应链的构建，产品的多样性要求，外包等等需要，都提升了供应链?风险。

3.4.Instruments of supply chain risk management

The instruments of supply chain risk management can be

differentiated in preventive instruments and reactive instru-ments.(Note that both,as well preventive as reactive instruments are induced before an incident occurs,but only preventive instruments show also their impact beforehand,whereas reactive instruments can only show an impact afterwards when a incident already occurred although they are induced ex ante.)Preventive instruments are cause-related measurements that

strive for lowering the probability of risk

occurrence.Examples for risk

avoidance are the concentration

on

products with constant

demand and

few

variants or the

focus on secure markets.Furthermore,some risks, e.g.natural disasters,can be dodged geographically by locating production sites in safe areas.More common are instruments that do not completely eliminate the risks but decrease their probability of occurrence signi?cantly.For instance,companies can focus on certi?ed suppliers in order to guarantee high quality and a high on-time delivery ratio.That way,delivery problems can be avoided.Furthermore,supplier relationship management or even supplier development can help to reduce supply-site uncertainties and hence lead to lower supply chain risks (Giunipero and Eltantawy,2004).Also approaches for improving the transparency of and the informa-tion transmission within supply chains such as RFID,mobile devices,or ‘‘Tracking &Tracing’’can decrease the probability of occurrence of supply chain risks (Byrne,2005;Shef?and Rice,2005).

Reactive instruments are effect-oriented measurements that strive for mitigating the negative impact of an incident.Reactive instruments do not directly act on the risks but strive for absorbing the damage caused by a risk.Accordingly,the supply chain should be designed in a way that the consequences of an incurred risk are cushioned.The creation of a resilient supply chain can be achieved in two different ways:Improving ?exibility

or building up redundancies (Rice and Caniato,2003),whereby we concentrate on the latter.The common approach for creating redundancies is to build up safety stocks (Shef?and Rice,2005).Another classical example is the approach of dual sourcing or multiple sourcing.If one supplier fails due to quality problems or other delivery problems,still at least one further supplier is available ensuring the delivery of parts.Moreover investments in a back-up IT system can be named in this context.Although most of the mentioned instruments lead to ef?ciency losses which result from the conscious creation of redundancies,this approach must nevertheless be regarded as rational if these losses are interpreted as insurance premium (Shef?,2001).Against the background of this discussion the following hypotheses are formulated:H https://www.360docs.net/doc/aa5653003.html,panies with a high degree of supply chain risk management show a higher performance than companies with a low degree.

H 14b.There is a difference between companies using preventive instruments contrary to those using reactive instruments in terms of performance criteria.

4.Analysis 4.1.Research design

Due to the differences existing between industries it is reasonable to concentrate on one speci?c industry.In this study we focus on the automotive industry in Germany.This industry is suitable as it is characterized by close collaboration and high

complexity of supply chains.The great majority of the participat-ing companies belongs to 1st tier supplier (structural data of the sample is shown in Appendix A).The purpose of the analysis is the empirical investigation of the discussed issues of supply chain risk management in order to give some insights on this topic from a practitioner’s point of view.For this study,204companies have been contacted and 185questionnaires have been sent out.The ?nal data base comprises the data of 67companies.As potential respondents for this survey managers in charge of supply chain management or logistics are chosen since they are expected to be the most knowledgeable in providing the desired information about supply chain risk management.The questions used for this analysis are measured by ?ve-point Likert scales ranging from ‘‘strongly disagree’’to ‘‘strongly agree’’(the questions are shown in Appendix A).The data base contains multiple items about typical supply chain risks and instruments as well as indicators for the competitive performance of the plants.The items concerning supply chain risk management are used to create factors presenting a statistical construct for the particular subject matter as described in the following.

4.2.Results

Before typical supply chain risks and the instruments of supply chain risk management will be analyzed,the main risk drivers and the estimations in terms of supply chain vulnerability will be examined.Regarding the latter,the respondents are asked for their estimation concerning the vulnerability of their supply chain.The average value of all respondents is 3.19on the ?ve-point Likert-scale.Almost 40%of the companies regard them-selves as being highly vulnerable (point 4or 5on the Likert-scale).Only every fourth manager estimates his supply chain as being little or not at all susceptible in terms of supply chain disruptions (point 1or 2on the Likert-scale).Altogether it can be stated that the majority of the managers (almost 75%)do not regard the vulnerability of their supply chain as being low.Hence,hypothesis H 11cannot be rejected.Furthermore,the managers are asked to give their estimations about the key developments driving supply chain risks.Fig.2depicts the results.

As it can be seen from the ?gure,the trend towards globalization of supply chains and the necessity to offer many product variants have the highest mean values.Hence,factors increasing the complexity of supply chains must be regarded as key drivers for supply chain risks.But also approaches for building up a lean supply chain such as outsourcing,reduction of suppliers,or a focus on ef?ciency are drivers of supply chain risks.The results indicate that hypothesis H 12cannot be rejected.

In order to give empirical evidence concerning the potential risk a company might be confronted with,the various risks are depicted in the ‘‘probability/impact’’-matrix.The risks can be compared regarding their probability of occurrence and their impact on the supply chain.Furthermore,the most critical risks can be identi?ed.Fig.3shows the results of the ‘‘probability/impact’’-matrix in terms of internal and external supply chain risks.

As the ?gure indicates there are obvious differences in terms of supply chain risks.Supplier quality problems must be regarded as most critical risk since they have both,a high probability and a high impact.Supplier failure and a malfunction of the IT system are seen as severe problems but are less likely to occur.The highest probability values are observed in terms of increasing raw material prices,customer demand changes,and delivery chain disruptions.A T -test concerning the difference between external and internal supply chain risks shows that the latter show higher

J.-H.Thun,D.Hoenig /Int.J.Production Economics 131(2011)242–249245

beforehand

afterward 前向减少减少供应链?风险的?方法：选择可靠的供应商选择安全的?生产地点采?用RFID 技术

移动设施和跟踪设备

建?立冗余技术

后向减少供应链?风险的?方法。。冗余技术和提?高灵活度都能减少供应链

?风险，前者?用得更多，但是会使效率降低。

75%的受访者认为，供应链缺陷?水平式不低的。因此不能拒绝H1

average values in terms of

their probability on a high signi?cance level (p o 0.05).Hypothesis H 13a cannot be rejected,accordingly (The mean values and the results of the T -test are shown in Appendix A).Regarding the impact,external supply chain risks do not show higher values.In fact,the opposite is true since internal supply chain risks have higher values on a very high signi?cance level (p o 0.05).Hence,hypothesis H 13b is rejected.

In the following,the instruments of supply chain risk manage-ment will be investigated.This is done by means of a factor analysis and a cluster analysis.In a ?rst step,the items in terms of the instruments of supply chain risk management are aggregated by a factor analysis.For the validity of the factors their Eigenvalues and the explained variance are tested.The Eigenvalue of each factor exceeds the minimum threshold of 1.0,and the explained variance of the factors is 450%.Additionally,all factor loadings are 40.4.The reliability of the factors is tested by Chronbach’s Alpha.Following Nunnally (1978),a value of 0.7is regarded as acceptable,whereas Sakakibara et al.(1997)regard a value of 0.6as satisfying for newly developed scales.All created factors have at least an Alpha 40.6.Accordingly,all created factors ful?ll the criteria for validity and reliability and can be used for further analyses.The criteria for validity and reliability as well as the factor loadings are presented in Table 1.

An analysis of the mean values shows that the instru-ments are predominantly implemented on a low level only.Furthermore,a T -test on a high signi?cance level (p o 0.1)

comparing the instruments of preventive and reactive supply chain risk management reveals that the latter has been imple-mented even less (see Appendix A for the values of the T -test).In order to identify plants actively applying instruments of supply chain risk management the companies are separated by means of a cluster analysis.For the cluster analysis Ward’s method with the squared Euclidean distance is used.The cluster analysis divides the plants into three groups,whereby one group represents the companies with a focus on preventive instruments of supply chain risk management,another group concentrates on reactive instruments,and the last group shows companies with a low implementation degree.The results of the cluster analysis are con?rmed by a discriminant analysis which classi?es 93%of the companies in accordance to the groups created by the cluster analysis (Table 2).

A comparison of means reveals that there exist differences in terms of several performance measures (Fig.4).Most of the T -tests are on a high signi?cance level (p o 0.05)or at least on a signi?cance level of p o 0.1.(Note :Those performance criteria with p o 0.05are marked with **and those with p o 0.1are marked with *.)Hence,hypothesis H 14a cannot be rejected since only two of the investigated performance criteria do not show signi?cant differences.

The results of the analysis are twofold.Firstly,the comparison shows that the group with the lowest values for supply chain risk

PROBABILITY

low

grave

I M P A C T

weak

high

machine breakdowns strike technological change supplier failure

supplier quality prob lem s delivery chain disrupts.

malfunction of IT system

increasing raw

material prices change in

customer demand war terrorist attack

increasing customs duty

transportation failure

oil crisis

natural

disaster

import restriction accident (e.g. fire)

external supply chain risks internal supply chain risks

Fig.3.Supply chain risks.

1

2

3

4

5

Central Distribution Centralized Production

Focus on efficiency Reduction of Suppliers Outsourcing

Product Variants

Globalization Fig.2.Drivers of supply chain risks.

Table 1

Validity and reliability of factors.Factors

Preventive SCRM Reactive SCRM

Mean

Suppliers with high quality

0.919 3.3Suppliers with a high on-time delivery ratio

0.909 3.2Prevention of geopolitical risks 0.676 2.9Supplier development 0.598

3.9Multiple sourcing 0.875 2.5Back-up IT systems 0.827 2.9Dual sourcing 0.698 2.7Safety stocks 0.419

2.1

Eigenvalue

2.486 2.112Explained variance 62.1452.80Chronbach’s Alpha

0.78

0.68Table 2

Average values of the SCRM groups.

Variables Preventive SCRM Reactive SCRM No SCRM

à1.437à0.750Preventive SCRM 0.551à0.249Reactive SCRM

0.261

1.312

J.-H.Thun,D.Hoenig /Int.J.Production Economics 131(2011)242–249

246前向?工具应?用得更多

management also have the lowest values for every single performance criteria.This leads to the supposition that supply chain risk management seems to improve the performance of a supply chain.Secondly,there exist differences between the two groups conducting supply chain risk management.The group pursuing the

instruments for preventive supply chain risk management has higher average values in terms of an increased ?exibility and decreased stocks.Furthermore,this group has higher values concerning reactivity and cost reduction.Contrary to that,the group representing the companies with reactive supply chain risk management instruments has higher average values in terms of the reduction of the bullwhip effect and external disruptions resilience.Hence,hypothesis H 14b cannot be rejected.

5.Conclusion

The empirical analysis reveals that supply chains are predomi-nantly regarded as being vulnerable.A reason might be the rather low implementation degree of the instruments of supply chain risk

management which is in accordance to the literature (J ¨uttner,2005;

Tang,2006).Furthermore,factors rising complexity such as globalization and product variants on the one hand,and factors increasing ef?ciency such as outsourcing or reduction of suppliers on the other hand are identi?ed as key developments driving supply chain risks and therefore increasing supply chain vulner-ability.Globalization fosters supply chain risk since the resulting dependencies might lead to risks on the demand side as well as on the supply side.Moreover,many product variants result in supply chain risks because they increase the uncertainty in a supply chain.In terms of ef?ciency outsourcing raises the amount of interfaces and the dependency between companies making the supply network more vulnerable.The reduction of the amount of supplier additionally can improve supplier relationships on the one hand,but leads to a dependency on the other hand.Beyond that the ongoing trend towards offshoring will also increase the vulner-ability of supply chains,since supply relationships will be more complex and susceptible to faults due to cross-national connections.

In addition to the drivers described above the resulting supply chain risks are investigated.The analysis shows that potential risks threatening supply chains are evaluated differently con-cerning their impact on the supply chain and their probability to occur.The results reveal that internal supply chain risks are regarded as being more likely to occur and that they would also

have a greater impact on the supply chain.The latter result might be in?uenced by the fact that managers estimate the impact of incidents with a higher likelihood stronger since they implicitly reevaluate the impact based on its expectation value.However,the results indicate that most of the risks supply chains are confronted with arise from inside the supply chain.This indicates that managers are able to act on these risks directly.

Additionally,the study reveals that supply chain risk manage-ment has the potential to improve supply chains in the automotive industry.A comparison of means shows that those companies having a low implementation degree of supply chain risk management instruments have lower average values in all of the investigated performance criteria such as resilience against external disruptions,reactivity improvement,or ?exibility.Furthermore,a T -test shows that reactive instruments of supply chain risk management are less implemented than preventive instruments.A reason for this might be the fact that reactive instruments are cost intensive since they are primarily based on

resource-binding redundancies such as safety stocks.In a further step,the companies are grouped by a cluster analysis separating the companies in groups pursuing reactive or preventive supply chain risk management.The group using preventive instruments shows higher values in terms of increased ?exibility,decreased stocks,reactivity,and cost reduction.The group using reactive instruments shows higher average values concerning a reduction of the bullwhip effect and external disruptions resilience.These results reveal that reactive supply chain management is effective in terms of external impacts on the one hand,but leads to inef?ciencies due to the redundancies on the other hand.Contrary to that,preventive supply chain risk management supports the creation of a resilient supply chain.

As research limitations the following aspects should be mentioned.This study focuses on the automotive industry exclusively.Further research could transfer the ideas to other industries such as electronics or machinery in order to test general validity of the results.Additionally,an international survey would give interesting insights concerning the degree of implementation in other countries or could identify cultural differences with respect to supply chain risk management.Acknowledgment

This research is ?nancially supported by the Julius-Paul-Stiegler-Ged¨achtnis-Stiftung.

Fig.4.Supply chain performance measures.

J.-H.Thun,D.Hoenig /Int.J.Production Economics 131(2011)242–249247

前向和后向供应链管理各有各的好。前向可以提?高灵活度，降低库存。

后向可以减少?牛鞭效应和外部出现问题的?比率。

安全库存也相当于是冗

余技术

Appendix A

Questions Vulnerability

Do not agree Do agree

absolutely

In general,do you consider your supply chain as vulnerable to incidences?&&&&&Developments driving supply chain risks

In your opinion,to which extent do the following developments contribute to an increase of risk within your supply chain?Do not agree Do agree absolutely Focus on ef?ciency instead of security aspects &&&&&Globalization of the supply chain &&&&&Focus on central distribution &&&&&Inforced outsourcing &&&&&Reduction of suppliers &&&&&Increased product variety &&&&&Centralized production &&&&&Typical risks and their consequences

How do you estimate the probability of the following risks and their consequences concerning your company?Probability Consequences Very low Very high Very low Very high &&&&&Supplier failure

&&&&&&&&&&Supplier quality problems &&&&&&&&&&Oil crisis

&&&&&&&&&&Terrorist attack &&&&&&&&&&Strike

&&&&&&&&&&Malfunction of IT-system &&&&&&&&&&Accident (e.g.?re)&&&&&&

&&&&

Natural disaster &&&&

&

Probability Consequences

Very low Very high Very low Very high &&&&&Machine breakdowns

&&&&&&&&&&Import or export restrictions &&&&&&&&&&Transportation failure

&&&&&&&&&&Delivery chain disruptions &&&&&&&&&&Increasing customs duty

&&&&&&&&&&Change in customer damand &&&&&&&&&&Technological change

&&&&&&

&&&

&

Increasing raw material prices

&&&&&

Company data Number of Employees Frequency Revenue Frequency o 1001o 504100–5001650–10010501–100012101–500211000–500014501–1000745000244100024Overall 67

Overall

67

ANOVA

Probability

Impact External supply chain risk 2.0125 3.1250Internal supply chain risk 2.9444 3.8889Overall

2.5059

3.5294

J.-H.Thun,D.Hoenig /Int.J.Production Economics 131(2011)242–249

248

Sum of squares df Means of squares F Signi?cance Probability n internal or external risk 3.6781 3.67810.754.005

5.13115.342

8.80916

Impact n internal or external risk 2.4711 2.47114.459.002

2.56415.171

5.03516

Implementation Preventive instruments 3.35

Reactive instruments 2.65

Overall 3.00

Sum of squares df Means of squares F Signi?cance Implementation degree n preventive or reactive instrument0.98010.980 5.444.058

1.0806.180

2.0607

References

Atkinson,W.,2006.Supply chain management:new opportunities for risk managers.Risk Management53(6),10–15.

Berry,J.,2004.Supply chain risk in an uncertain global supply chain environment.

International Journal of Physical Distribution&Logistics Management34(9), 695–697.

Blackhurst,J.,Craighead,C.W.,Elkins,D.,Hand?eld,R.B.,2005.An empirically derived agenda of critical research issues for managing supply-chain disruptions.International Journal of Production Research43(19),4067–4081. Byrne,P.M.,2005.RFID:unlocking high performance in supply chain planning.

Logistics Management44(9),29–30.

Cachon,G.P.,Lariviere,M.A.,2001.Contracting to assure supply:how to share demand forecasts in a supply chain.Management Science47(5),629–646. Childerhouse,P.,Hermiz,R.,Mason-Jones,R.,https://www.360docs.net/doc/aa5653003.html,rmation?ow in automotive supply chains—present industrial practice.Industrial Manage-ment&Data Systems103(3),137–149.

Chopra,S.,Sodhi,M.S.,2004.Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown.MIT Sloan Management Review46(1),53–62.

Christopher,M.,Peck,H.,2004.Building the resilient supply chain.The International Journal of Logistics Management15(2),277–287.

Craighead,C.W.,Blackhurst,J.,Rungtusanatham,M.J.,Hand?eld,R.B.,2007.The severity of supply chain disruptions:design characteristics and mitigation capabilities.Decision Sciences38(1),131–156.

Giunipero,L.C.,Eltantawy,R.A.,2004.Securing the upstream supply chain:a risk management approach.International Journal of Physical Distribution& Logistics Management34(9),698–713.

Harland,C.,Brenchley,R.,Walker,H.,2003.Risk in supply networks.Journal of Purchasing&Supply Management9(2),51–62.

Hendricks,K.B.,Singhal,V.R.,2005.An empirical analysis of the effect of supply chain disruptions on long-run stock price performance and equity risk of the ?rm.Production&Operations Management14(1),35–52.

J¨uttner,U.,2005.Supply chain risk management—understanding the business requirements from a practitioner perspective.The International Journal of Logistics Management16(1),120–141.

J¨uttner,U.,Peck,H.,Christopher,M.,2003.Supply chain risk management: outlining an agenda for future research.International Journal of Logistics6(4), 197–210.

Kleindorfer,P.R.,Saad,G.H.,2005.Managing disruption risks in supply chains.

Production and Operations Management14(1),53–68.

Lee,H.L.,2004.The triple-a supply chain.Harvard Business Review82(10),102–112.Lee,H.L.,Padmanabhan,V.,Whang,S.,https://www.360docs.net/doc/aa5653003.html,rmation distortion in a supply chain:the bullwhip effect.Management Science43(4),546–558.

Norrman,A.,Jansson,U.,2004.Ericsson’s proactive supply chain risk management approach after a serious sub-supplier accident.International Journal of Physical Distribution&Logistics Management34(5),434–456.

Nunnally,J.C.,1978.Psychometric Theory.New York.

Peck,H.,2005.Drivers of supply chain vulnerability:an integrated framework.Inter-national Journal of Physical Distribution&Logistics Management35(4),210–232. Rice Jr.,J.B.,Caniato,F.,2003.Building a secure and resilient supply network.

Supply Chain Management Review7(5),22–30.

Sakakibara,S.,Flynn,B.B.,Schroeder,R.C.,Morris,W.T.,1997.The impact of just-in-time manufacturing and its infrastructure on manufacturing performance.

Management Science43(9),1246–1258.

Shef?,Y.,Rice Jr.,J.B.,2005.A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise.MIT Sloan Management Review47(1),41–48.

Shef?,Y.,2001.Supply chain management under the threat of international terrorism.The International Journal of Logistics Management12(2),1–11. Svensson,G.,2002.A conceptual framework of vulnerability in?rms’inbound and outbound logistics?ows.International Journal of Physical Distribution& Logistics Management23(2),110–134.

Svensson,G.,2004.Key areas,causes and contingency planning of corporate vulnerability in supply chains.International Journal of Physical Distribution& Logistics Management34(9),728–748.

Tang, C.S.,2006.Robust strategies for mitigating supply chain disruptions.

International Journal of Logistics9(1),33–45.

Thun,J.-H.,Marble,R.P.,Silveira Camargos,V.,2007.A conceptual framework and empirical results of the risk and potential of just in sequence—a study of the German automotive industry.Journal of Operations and Logistics1(2),

I.1–I.13.

Wagner,S.,Bode, C.,2006.An empirical investigation into supply chain vulnerability.Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management12(6),301–312. Wittmann,E.,2000.Risikomanagement im internationalen Konzern.In:D¨orner,D., Horva′th,P.,Kagermann,H.(Eds.),Praxis des Risikomanagements.Stuttgart, pp.789–820.

Zsidisin,G.A.,2003.A grounded de?nition of supply risk.Journal of Purchasing& Supply Management9,217–224.

Zsidisin,G.A.,Panelli,A.,Upton,R.,2000.Purchasing organization involvement in risk assessments,contingency plans,and risk management:an exploratory study.Supply Chain Management5(4),187–197.

Zsisidin,G.A.,Ragatz,G.L.,Melnyk,S.A.,2005.The dark side of supply chain management.Supply Chain Management Review9(2),46–52.

J.-H.Thun,D.Hoenig/Int.J.Production Economics131(2011)242–249249