A Meta‐Analytic Review of Supply Chain Risk Management: Assessing Buffering and Bridging Strategies and Firm Performance

• Date: 01 July 2020
• Published date: 01 July 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12219
• Author: James K. Summers,Jennifer Blackhurst,Pam Manhart

A META-ANALYTIC REVIEW OF SUPPLY CHAIN RISK

MANAGEMENT: ASSESSING BUFFERING AND BRIDGING

STRATEGIES AND FIRM PERFORMANCE

PAM MANHART

Baylor University

JAMES K. SUMMERS

Iowa State University

JENNIFER BLACKHURST

University of Iowa

Supply chain risk management has received considerable attention as firms

experience more frequent and severe impact disruptions. We meta-analyti-

cally test the Bode et al. (2011) framework of buffering and bridging supply

chain risk management strategies to determine their effect on supply chain

risk management. We analyze the supply chain risk management literature

to find that both buffering and bridging strategies contribute to supply

chain risk management. We also address the benefit of supply chain risk

management. Results indicate that supply chain risk management provides

a strong contribution to overall firm performance. Additionally, we identify

cultural differences of these relationships. Although supply chain risk man-

agement strategies may be applied universally, their efficacy varies by

culture. In conclusion, we identify and provide guidance for future work.

Keywords: supply chain risk management; meta-analysis; buffering strategies; bridg-

ing strategies; firm performance

INTRODUCTION

Supply chain disruption is any unplanned and unan-

ticipated event that interrupts the flow of materials or

services (Craighead et al., 2007; Kleindorfer & Saad,

2005). These disruptions result in significant financial,

operational, and relational costs (Hendricks & Singhal,

2005; Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009; Sodhi, Son, &

Tang, 2012; Speier et al., 2011; Wagner & Bode, 2008).

Moreover, the frequency and severity of supply chain

disruptions has been increasing (Aon Risk Solutions,

2017; Business Continuity Institute, 2017). For exam-

ple, supply chain visibility and collaboration have

resulted in more cyberattacks due to the interconnect-

edness of technology, networks, and systems. Recently,

‘WannaCry’ shut down numerous operations world-

wide resulting in financial losses as well as halted

patient care in the healthcare sector (Bossert, 2017).

Due to the resulting costs associated with supply

chain disruption, organizations have turned their

attention to better understanding and managing sup-

ply chain risk (Chopra & Sodhi, 2014), with many

firms re-evaluating their supply chain networks. Con-

sequently, organizations have developed supply chain

risk management (SCRM) to maintain business conti-

nuity and, thus, attenuate these costly disruptions

(Hohenstein et al., 2015).

Despite growing interest in SCRM, however, firms

struggle to effectively manage their supply chain risk

(Melnyk et al., 2014). SCRM is defined as ‘the identifi-

cation, assessment, treatment, and monitoring of sup-

ply chain risks, with the aid of the internal

implementation of tools, techniques, and strategies

and of external coordination and collaboration with

supply chain members so as to reduce vulnerability

and ensure continuity coupled with profitability, lead-

ing to competitive advantage’ (Fan & Stevenson, 2018,

p. 7). Embedded in this definition are two primary

reasons for this struggle: internal constraints (Chang,

Volume 56, Number 3

66

Journal of Supply Chain Management

2020, 56(3), 66–87

©2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Ellinger, & Blackhurst, 2015; J€

uttner & Maklan, 2011;

Knemeyer, Zinn, & Eroglu, 2009) and the external

environment (Slobodow, Abdullah, & Babuschak,

2008).

To address internal and external factors, firms

employ two strategies: buffering and bridging (Bode

et al., 2011; Fennell & Alexander, 1987; Meznar &

Nigh, 1995). On the one hand, buffering strategies

have an internal focus and maintain business continu-

ity by establishing safeguards to minimize the firm’s

exposure to risk and uncertainty in the environment

(Bode et al., 2011; Fennell & Alexander, 1987). Bridg-

ing strategies, on the other hand, have an external

focus and maintain business continuity by attempting

to influence the environment through boundary-span-

ning activities (Bode et al., 2011; Fennell & Alexander,

1987; Meznar & Nigh, 1995). The two strategies take

divergent approaches to SCRM, so we therefore inves-

tigate them separately.

Further, supply chain networks have become

increasingly global, yet many research findings are

based upon a single region of the globe (Pagell, Katz,

& Sheu, 2005). Subsequently, a growing debate ensues

regarding the universal application of research find-

ings (Revilla & S

aenz, 2014). To understand SCRM

strategies more fully, we need to understand the effect

of cultural differences across nations of the world.

Consequently, the primary purpose of this paper is

to provide a systematic and quantitative review of

SCRM to reveal patterns unobservable in separate

studies (Glass, 1976). The subsequent purpose is to

help close the gap in understanding how SCRM

enables firms to more effectively manage supply chain

risk. We synthesize empirical SCRM work to identify

the strength of SCRM relationships to guide future

research by also identifying relationships with missing

moderators and inconsistent constructs. This results in

the following research questions: (1) What is the

impact of buffering strategies on SCRM? (2) What is

the impact of bridging strategies on SCRM? (3) Are

there cultural differences in the relationships between

buffering strategies and SCRM and bridging strategies

and SCRM? (4) What is the impact of SCRM on firm

performance?

We contribute to the literature in the following

ways. First, we meta-analytically test the Bode et al.

(2011) framework by assessing the strength of rela-

tionships between buffering strategies and SCRM and

bridging strategies and SCRM. We find independent

support for both strategies. Second, we examine both

buffering strategies’ impact on SCRM and bridging

strategies’ impact on SCRM across cultural differences.

We find that the impact of both bridging strategies

and buffering strategies varies by culture. Third, we

address the relationship between SCRM and firm per-

formance. We find that SCRM contributes to overall

firm performance and should be considered strategic.

Last, we provide a research roadmap outlining the

most promising avenues for developing and testing

more comprehensive SCRM theory.

In the following section, we present our theoretical

foundation and hypothesis development. Next, we

describe our methods of data collection, coding and

analysis. Third, we report our results. Finally, we dis-

cuss theoretical contributions, managerial implica-

tions, limitations, and future work.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS AND

HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

Theoretical Foundations

We utilize resource dependence theory (RDT; Pfeffer

& Salancik, 1978) and information processing theory

(IPT; Tushman & Nadler, 1978) as introduced by

Bode et al. (2011). The central position of RDT is

that firms must acquire and maintain resources creat-

ing dependencies (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). There-

fore, firms seek independence by safeguarding

themselves from the environment (Pfeffer & Salancik,

1978). IPT seeks to reduce information processing

needs and/or improve information processing (Huber

& Daft, 1987; Tushman & Nadler, 1978). Firms,

therefore, simplify complex processes with automa-

tion, reducing the number of firms in the supply

base, narrowing product lines, and designing products

for flexible manufacturing (Flynn & Flynn, 1999).

They also create boundary-spanning linkages to

gather, interpret, and synthesize information to

reduce environmental uncertainty (Frohlich & West-

brook, 2001; Tushman & Nadler, 1978). Both lenses

are required to explain all aspects of both buffering

strategies and bridging strategies, which differentiate

their focus and approach via internal and external

dimensions (Fennell & Alexander, 1987; Meznar &

Nigh, 1995). On the one hand, buffering has an

inward focus, creating internal structures that protect

and insulate the firm from the environment (Meznar

& Nigh, 1995). On the other hand, bridging has an

external focus, creating boundary-spanning linkages to

the environment. These linkages reduce the firm’s

environmental uncertainty by investing in external

relationships to gather more information (Flynn &

Flynn, 1999).

Buffering Strategies

According to IPT, buffering reduces information-pro-

cessing needs. Similarly, according to RDT, buffering

reduces resource dependence on supply chain network

partners. We conceptualize buffering strategies utiliz-

ing the measurement items developed by Bode et al.

(2011). Specifically, they develop the measurement

July 2020

A Meta-Analytic Review of SCRM

67