Global Journal of Economic and Finance Research

Severe climate events and abrupt environmental compliance rules frequently stall multi-tier manufacturing operations. Firms often respond by pouring capital into digital upgrades predictive software, sensor tracking, and enterprise software suites. Yet plants still sit idle during acute ecological disruptions. This paper examines this disconnect, known as the digital paradox, by assessing how supply chain integration mediates between digital tools and operational resilience. We surveyed 284 operations and logistics directors across manufacturing plants that recently endured climate-related disruptions. Modeling the data via Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), we found that digital capability does support resilience on its own (), but most of the operational benefit flows indirectly through supply chain integration (), accounting for 52.8% of resilience variance overall. Supplier integration carries the heaviest burden (), followed by cross-functional internal integration () and customer integration (). Tracking tools and predictive algorithms provide early signals, but they remain passive monitors without aligned supplier contracts, shared safety buffers, and unified operational routines. Building resilient networks require firms to treat digital software as an enabler for joint coordination rather than a replacement for collaborative relationships.

Digital transformation, Supply chain resilience, Supply chain integration, Environmental shocks, Empirical survey, PLS-SEM, Operational disruption

1. Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377701400320
2. Autry, C. W., McGinnis, M. A., & Goldsby, T. J. (2010). Information technology orientation and supply chain agility: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Logistics, 31(2), 117–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2158-1592.2010.tb00143.x
3. Cao, M., & Zhang, Q. (2011). Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 29(3), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.12.008
4. Craighead, C. G., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M. J., & Handfield, F. T. (2007). The severity of supply chain disruptions: Design characteristics and mitigation capabilities. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2006.889062
5. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
6. Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.1255632
7. Flynn, B. B., Huo, B., & Zhao, X. (2010). The impact of supply chain integration on performance: A contingency and configuration approach. Journal of Operations Management, 28(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.06.001
8. Fosso Wamba, S., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., Ren, S. J. F., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J. (2017). Big data analytics and firm performance: Effects of dynamic capabilities. Journal of Business Research, 70, 356–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.009
9. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
10. Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Addison-Wesley.
11. Gebauer, R., Fleisch, M., & Friedli, C. (2005). Overcoming the service paradox in manufacturing companies. European Management Journal, 23(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2004.12.006
12. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
13. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
14. Hofmann, E., & Rüsch, M. (2017). Industry 4.0 and the current status as well as future prospects on logistics. Computers in Industry, 89, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2017.04.002
15. Ivanov, D. (2020). Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: A simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak case. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 136, Article 101922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.101922
16. Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
17. Lee, H. L. (2004). The triple-A supply chain. Harvard Business Review, 82(10), 102–113.
18. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114
19. Mario, H., Shen, J., & Wiengarten, F. (2023). The digital paradox in manufacturing: When digital visibility leads to operational vulnerability. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2023.3278912
20. Min, S., Mentzer, J. T., & Ladd, R. T. (2001). Defining supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics, 22(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2158-1592.2001.tb00001.x
21. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
22. Prajogo, D., & Olhager, J. (2012). Supply chain integration and performance: The effects of long-term relationships, information technology and sharing, and logistics integration. International Journal of Production Economics, 135(1), 514–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.09.001
23. Rai, A., Patnayakuni, R., & Seth, N. (2006). Firm performance in supply chains: The role of information technology capability. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 273–298. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148738
24. Sarkis, J. (2021). Supply chain sustainability: Learning from the COVID-19 pandemic and climate crises. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 41(1), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-08-2020-0568
25. Scholten, K., & Schilder, S. (2015). The role of collaboration in supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20(4), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-11-2014-0386
26. Sheffi, Y. (2005). The resilient enterprise: Overcoming vulnerability for competitive advantage. MIT Press.
27. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
28. Tse, Y. K., Tan, K. H., Chung, S. H., & Lim, M. K. (2011). Quality risk in globally outsourced supply chains: An empirical approach. International Journal of Production Research, 49(1), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2010.508941
29. Wagner, S. M., & Neshat, N. (2013). A metaphor for risk in supply chains: The impact of environmental shocks. International Journal of Production Economics, 145(1), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.10.008
30. Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. (2007). Green supply chain management: Pressures, practices and performance within the Chinese automobile industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(11–12), 1041–1052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.05.021