The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2042-6747.htm

JHLSCM
11,1 Dynamic capabilities in
humanitarian supply chain
management: a systematic
46 literature review
Received 2 October 2020 Abdussamet Polater
Revised 15 November 2020
Accepted 15 November 2020 A.C.Ç. School of Civiil Aviation, Erzincan Binali Yildirim University,
Erzincan, Turkey

Abstract
Purpose – The main purpose of this paper is to examine the extant literature of humanitarian supply chain
management (HSCM) which specifically use dynamic capabilities (DCs) view. By this means, the objectives of
this study are to identify and assess the DCs used in the HSCM context, the factors positively and negatively
affecting the DCs and how the DCs affect humanitarian supply chain (HSC) operations. Furthermore, this
research aims to give directions for future research in the field of HSCM.
Design/methodology/approach – This study adopts systematic literature review (SLR) approach proposed
by Denyer and Tranfield (2009). Based on a SLR, this study synthesizes and compares the evidence, has a
specific focus and research questions, has certain inclusion and exclusion criteria and provides evidence-based
implications to the researchers and practitioners. This is a method which is replicable, transparent and
auditable. The SLR methodology provides scholars and practitioners a basis for comprehending the current
situation of relevant topic and taking correct steps in their future actions.
Findings – This SLR deduces that applying DCs view is still in its infancy in the HSCM literature. The result of
this SLR reveals that supply chain agility (SCA), supply chain resilience (SCR), reconfiguration/transformation,
integration, (short-term) collaboration, sustaining, sensing, seizing and knowledge access DCs have been used
in the HSCM literature. In addition, it is determined that only one paper analyzed the influence of DCs on
predisaster performance while rest of the papers focused on the postdisaster performance.
Originality/value – The result of the exhaustive literature search indicates that this is the first SLR that
specifically analyzes the application of DCs view in the HSCM domain. This investigation determined the DCs
used in HSCM and revealed the relations between the dependent and independent variables through the
comprehensive model. In this way, this review provides a guidance to researchers in conduct their future
investigations and practitioners to carry out supply chain (SC) operations by considering the factors affecting
their operations.
Keywords Dynamic capabilities, Humanitarian supply chain management, Humanitarian logistics,
Systematic literature review
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
Humanitarian supply chains (HSCs) are expected to be “multiple, global, dynamic and
temporary” as they have to develop response capability for multiple interventions at different
locations in the world (Van Wassenhove, 2006, p. 480), carry out diverse tasks such as
response, recovery and development for different kinds of disasters (Kov
acs and Spens, 2007)
and deal with the provision of various types of materials (Besiou et al., 2014; Oloruntoba and
Kov
acs, 2015). However, dynamically changing environment of humanitarian relief
operations caused by unexpected situations such as damaged transportation
infrastructures, custom-related problems, late shipments and demand variations increase
Journal of Humanitarian Logistics
and Supply Chain Management
the difficulty of managing HSC operations (Fikar et al., 2018). On the other hand, the extent of
Vol. 11 No. 1, 2021 damage caused by large-scale disasters makes the involvement of various actors inevitable in
pp. 46-80
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2042-6747
DOI 10.1108/JHLSCM-10-2020-0089 The author has no conflict of interest to declare.
all phases of disaster management (Heaslip and Kov
acs, 2019; Matopoulos et al., 2014; Dynamic
Rasouli, 2019). As a result, this situation leads to the emergence of ad hoc network structures. capabilities in
These structures are considered dynamic since the number and types of included
organizations change in different stages of disasters and the coordination level between
humanitarian
different networks may differ according to the changing circumstances. These factors entail SCM
constant adjustments in the network inconsistent with the formal plans. The ability of
managing cooperation among different organizations and reconfiguration capabilities of
actors for establishing new ties can increase the capacity of collaborative networks and 47
effectiveness in the disaster recovery stage (Day, 2014; Noori and Weber, 2016). Furthermore,
demand management is more challenging in HSCs than business supply chains (SCs). This is
because the involvement of various stakeholders creates diverse source of information and
consequently demand related information, which is obtained from a dynamically changing
disaster environment, may not reflect the actual need of the victims. Information verification
and the difficulty of using state-of-art technologies in the chaotic environment of surge
operations can be counted as other challenges for achieving effective HSCM (Sheu, 2010).
The abovementioned factors increase the level of unpredictability in taking the right steps
in the management of HSCs and necessitate to find dynamic solutions to supply chain
management (SCM)-related problems. The increasing number and cost of humanitarian crisis
put a spotlight on the need for well-functioning HSCs. This leads humanitarian organizations
(HOs) to adopt the state-of-the-art business methods. In this sense, dynamic capabilities (DCs)
view has recently gained attention of HSCM-focused investigations thanks to its facilitating
function of creating new static capabilities or modifying the existing ones all along the SC
partners (Defee and Fugate, 2010). As an extension of resource-based view, DCs view is
believed to provide better solutions to the volatile environment of HSCs due to its strength to
combine, transform and reconfigure the existing competencies and resources to match the
requirements of a changing environment (Altay et al., 2018; Prakash et al., 2020; Tabaklar,
2017; Teece et al., 1997, p. 515). For example, the positive and significant effect of supply chain
agility (SCA) and supply chain resilience (SCR) DCs to the Indian humanitarian supply chain
management (HSCM) in the disaster preparation and response phases is an evidence of the
importance of using DCs view in HSCM (Altay et al., 2018). The strategic-level agility
capabilities of World Food Program and their impact on SC operations can be regarded as
another solid proof for accomplishing HSC operations by applying DCs (L’Hermitte et al.,
2016). In addition, the case of humanitarian operations in Indonesia reveals how
collaborative, transformation and integration DCs play a significant role in the SC
operations of both super large and local HOs (Lu et al., 2019).
Although the importance of DCs approach to generate dynamic solutions to HSCM
problems by the HSCM literature is evident, the existing HSCM literature reviews (LRs) have
not systematically investigated the HSCM studies that specifically applied DCs approach.
The existing HSCM-oriented LRs have touched briefly on the importance of DCs in
humanitarian context (Agarwal et al., 2019; Behl and Dutta, 2019; Prakash et al., 2020; Soosay
and Hyland, 2015; Stechemesser et al., 2015; Tabaklar et al., 2015), yet they have not discussed
the role of DCs systematically and in detail. In addition, when the author searched the
literature with the combination of “dynamic capability/capabilities” and “literature review”
keywords, it was observed that the dominant number of studies are organizational
management focused and only 1 out of 45 papers investigated crisis response at
organizational level (Adrot and Robey, 2008).
The increasing tendency of applying DCs as a result of its positive impact on the HSCM
and absence of a literature review, which analyzes the studies used DCs within the context of
HSCM, strongly manifest a strong need for investigating the current status of DCs approach
in the HSCM literature and bringing the researchers’ attention to the DCs view in managing
HSCs. The result of the exhaustive literature search indicates that this is the first systematic
JHLSCM literature review (SLR) that particularly analyzes the use of DCs view in the HSCM domain. In
11,1 this regard, the main purpose of this paper is to examine the extant literature of HSCM which
specifically use DCs view. By this means, the objectives of this study are to identify and
assess the DCs used in the HSCM context, the factors positively and negatively affecting the
DCs and how the DCs affect HSC operations. Furthermore, this research aims to give
directions for future research in the emerging field of HSCM. The study provides a
comprehensive model as a result of synthesizing the findings. The aim of presenting the
48 relationships through a comprehensive model is believed to be a guidance especially for
humanitarian SC practitioners in their planning and response processes. Understanding the
extant literature is important for theory extension and theory building. Thus, the results of
this SLR can give new insights to researchers on the application of DCs in HSCM and to
understand the relationships between DCs and HSC operations.
The article consists of seven sections and is organized as follows. The next section
provides an overview of the literature base of DCs view, DCs in SCM and HSCM to facilitate
reader understanding the main concepts. Section 3 presents the methodology used in the
study. The findings of the SLR can be found in Section 4. This section presents the descriptive
analysis and discuss the identified DCs used in HSCM. Section 5 constitutes the discussion
part which synthesize the findings in three subsections. Section 6 presents the comprehensive
model created as a result of analysis. Lastly, Section 7 includes the conclusion, limitations and
recommendations for further research.

2. Literature
2.1 Dynamic capabilities view
Based on the idea of “creative destruction of existing competences”, DCs, which are
characterized as “difficult-to-replicate enterprise capabilities”, are regarded as the antecedents
of success at firm-level (Teece et al., 1997, pp. 509–516). Teece et al. (1997) state that winning
organizations are the ones that can timely respond and innovate rapidly and flexibly; not the
ones that have large amount of technologies but do not have the capabilities to gain
sustainable advantage by gaining benefit from them. For this purpose, they formulated DCs
as “renewing competences (i.e. dynamism) þ adaptation, integration, and reconfiguration
(i.e. capabilities) of skills, resources and competences”.
DCs are defined as integrating, building, and reconfiguring internal and external
competencies to address rapidly changing environments (Teece et al., 1997) and consists of
specific routines (e.g. product development, resource allocation, knowledge creation, alliance
and acquisition, exit routines) (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000) which refers to the “repetitive
pattern of activity” (Nelson and Winter, 1982, p. 97). DCs concept distinguishes the
characteristics of routines for stable conditions from high-velocity ones. While routines are
semi-structured, simple, experiential and based on situation-specific new knowledge in
high-velocity conditions, they are considered as stable processes, which significantly rest on
existing knowledge, in moderately dynamic conditions (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Helfat
and Peteraf, 2003). The characteristics of the former one is in line with the humanitarian
setting. Simple routines allow for focusing on overall characteristics of the current system
conditions, obtaining real-time information and new knowledge without locking decision-
makers into the past experiences. (Altay et al., 2018; Lee and Rha, 2016; Tabaklar et al., 2015).
Teece (2007) explained the subcomponents of DCs as sensing and shaping, seizing and
reconfiguring. Sensing is identifying opportunities and threats by exploring the customer
needs, structural changes in industries, technological developments, position of suppliers and
competitors. In a nutshell, it is a continuous scanning and analysis of business ecosystem.
Besides its mechanical side of making sense of the internal and external environment via
using, i.e. information systems, individual capabilities such as having adequate knowledge,
creativeness, wisdom and ability to comprehend customer behavior are also prerequisite for Dynamic
effective use of sensing capability (Augier and Teece, 2009; Teece, 2007). capabilities in
After an opportunity is sensed by an organization, this effort is expected to be transferred
into a new product, process or service by utilizing the seizing capability (Augier and Teece,
humanitarian
2009; Teece, 2007). This requires investing in commercialization and development activities. SCM
However, there are some factors that impact the investment decisions such as existing
routines, asset value, managerial consensus, organizational structure, risk taking attitude,
established capabilities, path-dependent routines, managerial skills and project’s financial 49
issues. Besides establishing a suitable condition for investment decisions, determining a
business model, which in turn affects investment priorities, is important. It includes the
elements of choosing right technology, market segments, financial approaches, sales
strategies and entails adopting soft factors such as being creative, a good understanding of
customers, suppliers and competitors (Piening, 2013; Teece, 2007; Teece et al., 1997). In order
to have long-term competitive advantage it is not only enough to produce but also protect
them against competition. Therefore, selecting enterprise boundaries by applying legal
protection is vital for the competitiveness (Petricevic and Verbeke, 2019; Teece, 2018).
Reconfiguration can be described as the capability to “escape from unfavorable path
dependencies” (Teece, 2007, p. 1335). This is achieved by reconfiguring the assets, business
models, management of cospecialization, corporate governance, organizational structures
and knowledge management routines as organizational size and the market characteristics
change. Thus, it provides continuity of evolutionary fitness. Yet, speed of change depends on
whether innovation is incremental or radical in nature (Augier and Teece, 2009; Teece, 2007;
Teece et al., 1997).
In the literature, there are certain ways for the stratification of capabilities. While some
scholars classify them as zero, first and second-order capabilities (Winter, 2003), others adopt
more general classification named as ordinary and DCs. Zero and first order (ordinary)
capabilities are regarded static structurally and consist of skilled staff, facilities, equipment
processes, operational and administrative tasks. They can be benchmarked to understand
whether an organization has accomplished best practices and technical efficiency (Teece,
2014). Second-order (dynamic) capabilities represent the ability of changing organizational
assets to respond to changing business environment. It should not be forgotten that even
signature processes can be imitable eventuating in degradation into an ordinary capability
and this requires the need of being updated in the course of time (Laaksonen and Peltoniemi,
2018; Zollo and Winter, 2002). This increases the importance of DCs in terms of continuously
or semi-continuously reconfiguring even signature processes (Teece, 2014).

2.2 Dynamic capabilities in supply chain management

Today, SCs need to be more dynamic for responding to rapid change in technology and
business ecosystem. This makes managing flow of required resources by adapting to the
changes in marketplace a more challenging task for SC professionals (Yu et al., 2019).
Therefore, employing DCs view and building SC capabilities with the cooperation of SC
partners in a business environment that SCs compete with each other has started to gain
ground (Defee and Fugate, 2010). The empirical has supporting evidences between the
relationships with dynamic SC capabilities, better performing SCs and competitive
advantage (Cheng et al., 2014; Nakano et al., 2013; S
aenz et al., 2014; Sangari and Razmi,
2015). The pioneering research studies of Beske (2012, 2014) also underlined the importance
of the SC wide capability development efforts in sustainability setting. Partner development,
knowledge sharing, reconceptualizing SCs by including other stakeholders, joint
development of products and processes can be shown as examples for dynamic
sustainable SCM (Beske, 2012; Beske et al., 2014). Nevertheless, it is needed to mention
JHLSCM that DCs in the SC domain is a young topic when considered that one of the first papers was
11,1 published in 2003 within the context of meat industry (Zylbersztajn and Filho, 2003) and the
efforts to determine the elements of dynamic SC capabilities (DSCCs) is still evolving in a
diverse range of contexts as it is presented below.
Globalization, digitization, faster product introduction and disasters are counted among
the factors that create dynamic business environment and force SCs to have higher level of
capabilities (Hong et al., 2018). In order to be resilient to disruptions and to increase firm
50 performance, approaching SC visibility, agility and flexibility from DC perspective is
important. With this regard, SC visibility (sensing capability) makes it possible to follow
shifts stemming from upstream and downstream sides of SCs. After detecting the market
changes, SCA (seizing capability) provides adaptability to increase operational performance
and have sustainable competitive advantage in the changing business environment (Blome
et al., 2013; Lee and Rha, 2016). However, all these efforts cannot be fulfilled without the
necessary reconfigurations in SC strategies, resources and operational processes.
Restructuring SC resources and operations can be achieved by SC flexibility that results in
gaining intended operational outputs and organizational performance (Lee and Rha, 2016).
Another study conducted by Aslam et al. (2018) determined market sensing (sensing), SC
agility (seizing) and SC adaptability (transforming) as DSCCs. The investigation revealed that
SCA and adaptability significantly and simultaneously affect SC efficiency and SC
responsiveness (SC ambidexterity) (Aslam et al., 2018). On the other hand, Defee et al.
(2010) defined DSCCs for the first time and introduced the knowledge accessing and
co-evolving capabilities. Knowledge accessing refers to knowing about the capabilities of SC
partners so that it will be possible to make best use of those capabilities rather than absorbing
or duplicating them. Secondly, co-evolving promotes the developing new capabilities with the
joint efforts of SC members. These two DCs are regarded as antecedents of efficient use of
static capabilities, developing new effective capabilities, temporary competitive advantage
and consequently sustainable competitive advantage (Defee and Fugate, 2010).
SC resilience, defined as rebounding from an unexpected event, is regarded as a dynamic
SC capability (Brusset and Teller, 2017; Golgeci and Ponomarov, 2013) and an antecedent of
firm performance (Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2017; Irfan et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2019). The
previous studies, which used DCs theory, show the impact of firm innovativeness,
IT systems, SC disruption orientation, SC dynamism and logistics capabilities on SC
resilience (Golgeci and Ponomarov, 2013; Irfan et al., 2020; Mandal et al., 2017a, b; Parast, 2020;
Sabahi and Parast, 2020; Yu et al., 2019). On the other hand, the study of Hendry et al. (2019)
investigated the relationship between DCs (sensing, seizing, transforming) on SC resilience
instead of considering SC resiliency as a dynamic capability (Hendry et al., 2019).
As an important factor to improve operational routines, logistical business continuity
planning increases financial performance through logistics competitive capability (Ojha
et al., 2013). Another dynamic logistics capability is 3PL management capability which
aims to establish long-term relations with logistics service providers in such a way that
creates mutual benefits out of contractual arrangements. The empirical finding exhibits
that 3PL management capability plays an important role on a firm’s logistics outsourcing
decisions (Wan et al., 2019). Similarly, Brekalo et al. (2013) proposed logistics alliance
management capabilities and investigated its effect on logistics alliance performance
(Brekalo et al., 2013).
As it is mentioned above the topic has been evolving over the last decade and using DCs
view in SCM field is not limited by abovementioned capabilities and studies. SC management
skills (Tatham et al., 2017), strategic purchasing (Brandon-Jones and Knoppen, 2018), dynamic
collaboration capabilities (Allred et al., 2011), supplier integration (Vanpoucke et al., 2014), SC
integration (Vickery et al., 2013), supply management alignment (Handfield et al., 2015) and
demand planning (Swierczek, 2020) are among the other dynamic SC capabilities have been Dynamic
discussed in the literature. capabilities in
humanitarian
2.3 Humanitarian supply chains SCM
Compared to commercial SCs, HSCs are considered more instable due to the uncertainty that
disasters bring and their unique SC formation (Charles et al., 2010). For example, disasters’
speed of manifestation can pose more challenges to accomplish 3R principle (right time, right 51
place and right material) in sudden-onset disasters than slow-onset disasters (Antai et al.,
2015). Another issue is the position of the donors HSCs. Although the main aim of disaster
operations is to serve victims as the “end customers” in the chain, the expectations, terms and
conditions of donors from humanitarian agencies affects the regular flow of funds for the
flawless management of HSCs (Oloruntoba and Gray, 2006; Oloruntoba and Kov
acs, 2015).
Additionally, using media to get information from the disaster zone can mislead decision-
makers to give correct SCM decisions. Furthermore, country-specific conditions such as civil
unrest, socio-political conjuncture, security problems and damaged logistics infrastructure
are among the other factors of unstable humanitarian SCM (Oloruntoba and Kov
acs, 2015).
This unpredictable and unique environment of disasters leads HSCs to apply some
commercial SCM concepts. In this sense, SCA is relevant for satisfying the need of
stakeholders while accomplishing effective and efficient SC operations (Oloruntoba and
Kov
acs, 2015; Scholten et al., 2010). In addition, the inherently resource-light nature of HSCs is
a factor that encourage to benefit from commercial SCA principles (Kov
acs and Tatham,
2009; Oloruntoba and Kov
acs, 2015). Benefited from SCM literature, Charles et al. (2010)
developed the house of SCA framework to evaluate and improve the capabilities of
humanitarian SCs. In order to assess the level of agility, flexibility (mix, volume, product and
delivery flexibility), effectiveness (completeness and reliability) and responsiveness (velocity,
reactivity and visibility) components need to be measured concurrently. The result of
measurement exhibits how much a humanitarian SC can provide a quick and sufficient
response to short-term changes (Charles et al., 2010). On the other hand, agility in HSCs is
needed to build resilient SCs (Dubey et al., 2014) and it is a significant factor for the
performance of postdisaster phase (Oloruntoba and Kov
acs, 2015). Resilience refers to the
capability of surviving in the face of disasters and regaining back its original state (Ivanov,
2020). This can be accomplished by obtaining government support, having proper capacity
planning, establishing a strong collaboration and coordination among SC members and
providing agility (Singh et al., 2018).
The impact of SC coordination and collaboration capabilities for a successful disaster
operation is significant given the fact that hundreds of organizations are involved and
operate jointly in disaster operations as in the case of 2004 Asian tsunami (Wankm€ uller and
Reiner, 2019). Despite the importance of these capabilities, low number of successful cases
shows that collaboration and coordination efforts are found difficult to accomplish and are
among the primary weaknesses in humanitarian operations (Rey, 2017). Balcik et al. (2010)
identified that the number and diversity of actors, donor expectations and funding structure,
competition for funding, the effects of the media, unpredictability, resource scarcity or
oversupply and cost of coordination affect adversely coordination efforts in humanitarian
relief chains (Balcik et al., 2010). Nevertheless, humanitarian sector tries to find new methods
such as establishing public–private partnerships (David Swanson and Smith, 2013; Van
Wassenhove, 2006), improving SC visibility (Maghsoudi and Pazirandeh, 2016), utilizing
cloud computing (Schniederjans et al., 2016) and big data analytics (Dubey et al., 2019a, b, c) to
overcome the current problems of developing relationships in humanitarian SCM.
Furthermore, as an evolving field, HSCM is open to learn and use methods and
approaches from the management research. As discussed in the following sections in
JHLSCM detail, DCs view has gained attention in the field of HSCM, which is depicted as “locked in
11,1 vocabulary of static state”, in recent years by applying agile, resiliency and flexibility
principles of SCM (L’Hermitte et al., 2015; Tabaklar et al., 2015, p. 292).

3. Method
This study adopts SLR approach proposed by Denyer and Tranfield (2009) to identify “key
52 scientific contributions”, analyze, synthesize and report the extant literature of HSCM that
uses DCs view. The SLR is a common methodology applied in the HSCM literature (Abidi
et al., 2014; Akter and Wamba, 2019; Banomyong et al., 2019; Gupta et al., 2019; Nurmala et al.,
2017; Rasouli, 2019). The SLR methodology provides scholars and practitioners a basis for
comprehending the current situation of relevant topic and taking correct steps in their future
actions. This is a method which is replicable, transparent and auditable. In this paper, the
formalized procedure is followed: (1) Formulate research questions; (2) Locating the research;
(3) Determine selection and evaluation criteria; (4) Data analysis and synthesis; (5) Report and
discuss the results (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009). Because this study synthesizes and
compares the evidence, has a specific focus and research questions, has certain inclusion
and exclusion criteria and provides evidence-based implications to the researchers and
practitioners, this study is referred as SLR.

3.1 Question formulation

Determining the focus and scope of a SLR has the foremost importance since it affects the
subsequent steps of the review such as determining inclusion criteria and data to be extracted
from the relevant papers (Booth et al., 2012; Tranfield et al., 2003). In this sense, it is critical to
create clear and well-defined research questions which develop the knowledge base of the
paper to avoid ambiguity (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009). Considering the fact that the main
focus of this study is to understand how the DCs view has been discussed in the HSCM
literature by this time, the main research question of this study is determined as: What is the
current status of literature with regard to applying DCs approach in HSCM research? The
following subresearch questions were also formulated to give more insight to the SLR:
(1) What are the DCs used in the HSCM context?
(2) What are the main factors that positively and negatively affect DCs?
(3) What are the positive and negative impacts of DCs on HSC operations?

3.2 Locating studies

This phase of the SLR aims to determine locations where all relevant evidence can be
aggregated. Because the HSCM is a multidisciplinary research area, this study considered
operations management journals, general management journals, disaster and humanitarian
management journals to assure the reliability and intactness of database sources which
encompass a broad range of journals and papers. In order to collect the papers, Web of
Science, SCOPUS, EBSCOHOST and ABI Inform electronic databases were selected. These
databases are considered prevalent and have been benefited by the previous studies
(Abidi et al., 2014; Altay and Narayanan, 2020; Banomyong et al., 2019; Behl and Dutta, 2019;
Gossler et al., 2020; Nurmala et al., 2017).
Three categories of structured keywords were determined in accordance with the scope of
the research and based on the research questions. As the focus of the study is to understand
how DCs approach has been discussed and implemented within the HSCM context,
keywords, which fall under the definition of SCM and humanitarian, were used.
The keywords of “dynamic capabilities” or “dynamic capability” were used because some Dynamic
papers preferred to use singular form of DCs for the reason that they focused on only one type capabilities in
of dynamic capability.
humanitarian
(1) Keywords related to humanitarian and disaster: “disaster*”, “emergenc*”, SCM
“humanitarian”, “relief”, “extreme event”, “catastroph*”. The asterisk means that
the extension of these words is also used in searching papers: e. g. disaster, disastrous,
emergency, emergencies. 53
(2) Keywords related to dynamic capabilities: “dynamic capability”, “dynamic
capabilities”.
(3) Keywords related to supply chain: “supply”, “supply chain”, “supplier”, “logistics”,
“supply chain management”, operation.
In this study, all possible combinations of keywords were applied by using the Boolean
connectors (AND/OR) in the “title”, “keywords”, “abstract” and subsequently “all fields”
search was conducted: disaster* OR “emergenc*” OR “humanitarian” OR “relief” OR
“extreme event”, “catastroph*” AND “dynamic capability” OR “dynamic capabilities” AND
“supply” OR “supply chain” OR “supplier” OR “logistics” OR “supply chain management” OR
“operation”. The date of publication was not restricted in this SLR to increase the possibility
of finding more articles. Although time limit was not set on the date range, no paper was
found before 2012. The literature search was completed in September 2020.

3.3 Study selection and evaluation

In this study, a set of explicit selection criteria was used in order to maintain transparency,
evaluate the relevance of each paper to the research question, provide a basis of updating the
SLR and inclusion and exclusion choice, as summarized in Table 1 (Booth et al., 2012; Denyer
and Tranfield, 2009). In this SLR, only peer-reviewed articles were selected due to their high-
quality and books, conference papers, book chapters were excluded due to their ambiguity in
the peer-review process. Another criterion is related to language limitation. Because English
is considered as the prominent language of science, papers written only in English were
included. Furthermore, this study included qualitative, quantitative and also mixed method
research, which have empirical and theoretical perspectives, in order to analyze the literature
from a broader perspective. Lastly, this study only included the studies discussing SCM from
DCs view in the humanitarian industry. That is, studies examining the for-profit SCM
(i.e. hotel, textile, electronic, automobile industries) and DCs were excluded.
As a result of initial screening, which consist of only reading title, abstract and keywords
sections, 257 papers were collected (Table 2), and information related to the papers were
accessed in an electronic spreadsheet and after duplicates were removed 46 papers remained
(Figure 1). Next, abstract, title and keyword (plus) sections of the articles were analyzed and

Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria

(1) Papers written in English language (1) Papers written in languages other than English
(2) Papers used qualitative, quantitative (2) HSCM papers which do not use DCs view explicitly
and triangulated data (3) Papers not related to natural, man-made disasters and
(3) Papers published in peer-reviewed humanitarian operations
journals (4) Papers published as editorials, letters to the editor,
(4) Empirical and conceptual papers conference proceedings, books, book chapters and gray Table 1.
(5) Papers investigating HSCM by using literature Inclusion and
DCs view exclusion criteria
 54
11,1

Table 2.
JHLSCM

Initial search results

Keywords WOS SCOPUS EBSCOHOST ABI INFORM

Humanitarian AND “dynamic capabilit*” AND supply OR 6 6 1 6 3 4 2 2 1 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 3 1 2 2 3

“supply chain” OR supplier OR logistics OR “supply chain
management” OR operation
Disaster* AND “dynamic capabilit*” AND supply OR 11 10 1 5 3 7 3 3 1 1 0 1 2 2 1 1 0 2 5 4 1 3 0 4
“supply chain” OR supplier OR logistics OR “supply chain
management” OR operation
Emergenc* AND “dynamic capabilit*” AND supply OR 9 9 4 7 5 9 2 2 2 3 1 8 1 1 2 0 1 3 2 2 3 2 2 5
“supply chain” OR supplier OR logistics OR “supply chain
management” OR operation
Relief AND “dynamic capabilit*” AND supply OR “supply 3 3 1 4 2 3 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
chain” OR supplier OR logistics OR “supply chain
management” OR operation
“Extreme event” AND “dynamic capabilit*” AND supply OR 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
“supply chain” OR supplier OR logistics OR “supply chain
management” OR operation
Catastroph*AND “dynamic capabilit*” AND supply OR 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
“supply chain” OR supplier OR logistics OR “supply chain
management” OR operation
the 19 papers, which did not include the predetermined keywords, were eliminated. Then, all Dynamic
sections of the remaining papers were read exhaustively, and nine papers were decided to be capabilities in
included to this SLR. The accepted papers are in line with the inclusion and exclusion criteria
and were published in the leading operations and SCM journals (see Table 3–5).
humanitarian
SCM
3.4 Data analysis
Following the selection and evaluation step, a data extraction form was prepared by using 55
Microsoft Excel for aggregating and analyzing structured and categorical data such as DCs
used in the papers, disaster type, title, journal, location and year. The author read the
introduction, findings, quotes, methodology, discussion and conclusion sections meticulously
and repeatedly to be sure that there is no any missing point. The information gained as a

n n
n n

Figure 1.
Paper screening
process
Source(s): Modified from (Gimenez and Tachizawa, 2012)

Category Information

Descriptive Author The first author

analysis Year Year of publication
Publication source Journals in which the articles published
DCs name DC(s) used in each paper
Location The geographical dispersion of the disaster effected countries
and regions
Research method Classification of methods used (mathematical modeling,
survey, case studies, literature review, etc.)
Data type Classification of data type (qualitative, quantitative and
mixed method)
Disaster type The type of disaster(s) investigated
Content Research aim The intention of the paper
analysis Key findings The conclusions derived from the papers
Research interests The SCM research area used in each paper
Independent variables The enablers, moderators, mediators affecting DC
affecting DCs
Dependent variables The dependent variable in the study
affecting DCs Table 3.
Additional theory used in The additional theories applied in each paper Coding scheme for the
papers papers

Disaster types Investigated country/region Frequency

Earthquake Haiti (1), Nepal (1) and N/S (1) 3

General India (1) and N/S (4) 5 Table 4.
Common natural disasters Indonesia (1) 1 Disaster types
 56
11,1

Table 5.
JHLSCM

variables and
DCs, influencing
factors, dependent

additional theories
Dynamic capability in
Paper HLSCM Variables effecting DC Dependent variable(s) Additional theory

Altay et al. SC agility (1) Organizational culture (flexibility and control Pre- and postdisaster 
(2018) orientation) [Moderators of DC] performance
(2) Temporal orientation; Interdependency
perception [Control variables of DC]
Lu et al. (2019) Transformation; (1) People, processes, technology and collaboration Post-disaster performance Resource dependency
integration [Enablers of DC] (Supply chain agility)
collaboration (2) Risks and opportunities [Drivers of DC]
(3) HO size [Control variables of DC]
L’Hermitte et al. SC agility (1) People, processes and technology [Enablers of DC] Postdisaster performance 
(2015) (2) Risks and opportunities (demand, supply, process (Supply chain agility)
and environmental related) [Drivers of DC]
L’Hermitte et al. SC agility (1) People, processes and technology [Enablers of DC] Postdisaster performance 
(2016) (2) Risks and opportunities [Drivers of DC] (Supply chain agility)
Gabler et al. SC resilience; short-term (1) Stakeholders’ commitment of resources Postdisaster performance Resource-based view;
(2017) collaboration; [Moderators of DC] (Supply chain resilience) competing values; supply
reconfiguration (2) Short-term collaboration [Mediator of DC] chain governance
(3) External environment, scope of the disaster,
characteristics of the relationship (Indirect effect
through collaboration) [Antecedents of DC]
Altay et al. SC resilience (1) Organizational culture (flexibility and control Pre- and postdisaster 
(2018) orientation) [Moderators of DC] performance
(2) Temporal orientation; interdependency
perception [Control variables of DC]
Mishra et al. Sustaining (1) Continuous learning process [Antecedent of DC] Postdisaster performance Theory of constraints
(2020) (2) Lean thinking culture [Moderator of DC] (HSC effectiveness and waste
reduction)
Mishra et al. Sensing and seizing (1) Fluid information; technology; coordination; Postdisaster performance Theory of constraints
(2020) contingency planning [Antecedents of DC] (HSC effectiveness and waste
(2) Lean thinking culture [Moderator of DC] reduction)

(continued )
 Dynamic capability in
Paper HLSCM Variables effecting DC Dependent variable(s) Additional theory

Gralla et al. Sensing (1) Information scarcity [Constraint of DC] Postdisaster performance Sensemaking theory
(2016) (Humanitarian logistics
performance)
Vaillancourt Knowledge access; (1) Knowledge; partnership [Antecedents of DC] Postdisaster performance 
et al. (2017) reconfiguring (Procurement management)
Mishra et al. Reconfiguring (1) Technology; collaboration [Antecedents of DC] Postdisaster performance Theory of constraints
(2020) (2) Lean thinking culture [Moderator of DC] (HSC effectiveness and waste
reduction)
Kov
acs et al. N/S (1) Skill [Antecedent of DC] Logistics and SC Resource-based view
(2012) performance
humanitarian
Dynamic

57
capabilities in
SCM

Table 5.
JHLSCM result of analyzing papers were accessed into the data extraction form simultaneously. Thus,
11,1 the extracted data provided a complete summary of the literature that facilitates the
classification of all related information and synthesizing. Secondly, synthesis was carried out
to make associations between the elements identified in each article. This is important
because it offers a research-specific arrangement of all included papers and presents a holistic
view to readers. In this way, it was possible to engage in rigorous reflection on research
findings and draw conclusion out of the analysis (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009).
58
4. Findings
4.1 Descriptive results
4.1.1 Distributions of the papers by publication source and year. Figure 2 presents the number
of papers published in each journal and their year of publication. The findings reveal that
nine articles were published in six different journals. The first paper, which is suitable to the
inclusion criteria, was published in 2012 and it offers solutions for logistics management
skills on empirical basis. This is the first empirical investigation to analyze the required skills
of logisticians within the framework of DCs (Kov
acs et al., 2012). As it can be seen in Figure 2,
while Journal of Business Logistics, Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain
Management, Production Planning and Control published more than one paper, rest of the
journals published only one article each. When we look at the profile of these journals, we can
observe that most of them are leading SCM, operations management and humanitarian SCM
journals.
4.1.2 Methodological categorization and data type. The results obtained after the
spreadsheet analysis shows that qualitative research with six papers is observed as the
dominant method among nine papers. These investigations have case study and conceptual
methodological basis and made proposals as a result of interviews and theoretical
discussions. There are two papers applied triangulated data. They both used secondary data
in addition to interview and observation methods to analyze the topic from different
perspectives. The findings indicate that there is only one quantitative research using survey
method. It is understood that qualitative research methods have been used to explore the
young research interest of analyzing HSCM using DCs theory (see Figure 3).

n n n

n n n

n n n

Figure 2.
Number of papers,
publication sources
and year of publication
 Dynamic
capabilities in
humanitarian
SCM
n

59

n
n
Figure 3.
n Research methods and
n
data types

4.1.3 Disaster types and investigated locations. The SLR results indicate that majority of the
papers did not propose a solution for a specific disaster type. The findings present that four
studies investigated SC operations in Asia continent while five papers did not specify any
country. On the other hand, three papers focused on natural disasters in Nepal, Haiti and
Indonesia.
4.1.4 Applied DCs, performance indicators, influencing factors of DCs and additional
theories. As a result of the paper analysis, the DCs used in each study, the variables affecting
the DCs, the dependent variables and additional theories in the studies were identified. It was
identified that there are 3 moderators, 3 control variables, 4 enablers, 4 drivers, 1 mediator,
12 antecedents which directly and indirectly influence the 9 DCs. For instance, the model
created by Altay et al. shows that SCA, as a dynamic capability, affects pre- and postdisaster
performance and organizational culture elements have moderating effect in this relationship.
The analysis suggests that some studies contributed to the field by generating HSCM-
specific DCs such as sustaining capability of Mishra et al. (2020), being purposeful, being action-
focused, being collaborative and being learning-oriented capabilities of L’Hermitte et al. (2015)
and short-term collaboration capability of Gabler et al. (2017). At the same time, the DCs
proffered by organizational studies (Teece et al., 1997) were benefited to investigate the
impact of DCs on HSCM performance. In addition, the case study of UNICEF reveals that the
SC partners are aware of each other’s capabilities and make the best use of those capabilities
for humanitarian operations (Vaillancourt, 2017). It can be said that this idea is in line with the
knowledge access capability offered by Defee et al. (2010). Although the authors did not name
it as knowledge access capability, from this point of view it clearly refers to the DC offered by
Defee et al. (2010).
Although disaster management is commonly discussed for taking actions before and after
disasters, the extant HSCM and DCs literature mainly focused on postdisaster phase with
seven articles. Only one paper studied the effect of DCs for both pre- and postdisaster phases.
On the other hand, one paper did not mention any dynamic capability but rather approached
DCs as a general concept. Additionally, some papers used DCs with other theoretical point of
views such as resource dependency and resource-based view.

4.2 Dynamic capabilities used in the HSCM literature

4.2.1 Supply chain agility. Agility is originated from manufacturing and organizational fields
(Lu and Ramamurthy, 2011; Ramasesh et al., 2001; Teece et al., 2016; Zhang and Sharifi, 2000).
JHLSCM Nevertheless, the significance of it has been increasing in the context of profit and nonprofit
11,1 SCs (Altay et al., 2018; Braunscheidel and Suresh, 2009; Swafford et al., 2006). SCA, which is
regarded as a higher-order dynamic capability (Blome et al., 2013; Vickery et al., 2010), is
comprehended as SC-wide ability to quickly respond to the changes in a dynamic and
turbulent environment by aligning supply network and SC operations (Oloruntoba and
Kov
acs, 2015). In this sense, SCA moves beyond organizational boundaries and encompasses
the elements of being market sensitive, virtual, network-based and process integrated (Blome
60 et al., 2013; Christopher, 2000). This firm-specific capability facilitates to seize opportunities,
provide flawless service and increase performance (Braunscheidel and Suresh, 2009; Dubey
et al., 2019a, b, c; Van Hoek et al., 2001).
SCA has a paramount impact on reacting to operational interruptions rooted in disasters
and humanitarian crisis. It differentiates in HSC context in terms of the evacuation and the
rehabilitation processes (Altay et al., 2018). Furthermore, in humanitarian logistics context,
agility does not only include inventory prepositioning and deploying supplies and staff to the
disaster field. It also necessitates to have the capability of problem recognition (sensing),
determination of required resources (seizing) and revising the strategies for effective disaster
SC operations (reconfiguring/transforming). However, it will be incomplete when only paying
regard to quickly diagnosing impending problems and making immediate adjustments at
operational level by overlooking strategic level capabilities. Within this scope, L’Hermitte
et al. (2015, p. 211) defines SCA from DCs perspective as follows “Agility is the adaptive
capacity of an organisation as a whole to build strategic capabilities that support operational
responsiveness and flexibility in order to manage existing or arising risks, uncertainties, and
opportunities in the logistics and supply chain environment”. This definition highlights the
importance of achieving the balance between having long-established capabilities and being
able to respond to the sudden changes (L’Hermitte et al., 2015).
L’Hermitte et al. (2015) argue that applying DCs in humanitarian logistics setting is
suitable because HOs need to identify environmental changes, seize opportunities and
respond and adjust organizational resources to manage disruptions continuously.
Furthermore, DCs provide systems view approach to HOs because the constant contact
with regular and temporary members of their supply network is inevitable to accomplish
disaster operations successfully. As a result of their analysis, the authors determined four
strategic level of DCs which are listed as being purposeful, being action-focused, being
collaborative and being learning-oriented. Although DCs are critical to increase flexibility
and responsiveness in humanitarian operations, antecedents of DCs provide continuity in
building DCs. In this regard, the impact of people, processes and technology cannot be
ignored. The study conducted by L’Hermitte et al. (2015) also discussed agility drivers: the
risks and opportunities (demand, supply, process and environmental related). These drivers
are described as factors that lead HSCs to continuously adapt and transform their operations
when needed (L’Hermitte et al., 2015).
In a case study L’Hermitte et al. (2016) empirically analyzed the impact of the
abovementioned four strategic agile DCs on agile humanitarian SC operations (L’Hermitte
et al., 2016). Although L’Hermitte et al. (2015) classified agile DCs at individual, team,
organizational and supply network levels, in this study they investigated the impact of
organizational and SC level agile DCs on operational performance. As a result of analyzing
the literature, they determined the subcomponents of these four DCs. The being collaborative
DC, which is the most mentioned DC by respondents, both measures internal and external
collaboration capability. The findings indicate its importance by the evidence of interviewees
(L’Hermitte et al., 2016, p. 86):
in the field, you rely a lot on the regional bureau. [. . .] If you have an issue, you call them. [. . .]
(FW6-08) (within the organization)
 the need for developing better coordination mechanisms between organisations with different Dynamic
mandates, in particular between humanitarian organisations and the military (FW5-01) (outside the
organization) capabilities in
humanitarian
Although deductive approach was used to determine categories in this study, the interview SCM
results revealed one more subcategory (inductive approach) named as the physical structure
available in the field and this is the least mentioned factor by the interviewees (L’Hermitte et al.,
2016, p. 89). 61
It is important to know the factors affecting SCA as well as the consequences of it. Within
this regard, the effect of organizational culture should be taken into account on the
relationship between SCA and humanitarian SC performance in both pre- and post–disaster
phases. Considering the competing values model, Altay et al. (2018) hypothesized that control
and flexible orientation would positively affect the relationship between SCA and disaster
performance in preparedness and response phases. The results present that SCA does not
have a positive effect on postdisaster performance directly. But the effect is significant under
the moderating effect of flexible orientation. Another finding of the study indicates that even
though SCA directly affects predisaster performance, control orientation does not have an
influence on the path connecting SCA and predisaster performance. In addition, it was
observed that the control variable, i.e. temporal orientation does not have a significant and
positive effect on the disaster performance (Altay et al., 2018). Adapting the current methods
of SCA measurements that are applied for commercial SCs can be useful within the context of
HSCM. Adopting the SCA definition of Eckstein et al. (2015) which emphasizes the ability of
an organization to sense and respond rapidly to short-term and temporary changes, the scale
used by Altay et al. (2018) includes items which question sensing capability (. . . can quickly
detect changes, identify opportunities, sense threats in our environment), seizing capability
(. . . can make quick decisions to deal with changes in environment) and reconfiguring
capability (. . . can adjust our supply chain operations to the extent necessary to execute our
decisions; . . . can increase its short-term capacity as needed; . . . can adjust the specification of
orders as requested by our partners) (Blome et al., 2013; Eckstein et al., 2015; Gligor and
Holcomb, 2012). It can be mentioned that using these measurement items is in accordance
with the novel framework offered by Teece et al. (1997).
4.2.2 Supply chain resilience. Originated from social psychology theory, resilience refers to a
system’s ability to absorb environmental changes and restoring the initial structure and
function (Dixit et al., 2020). For the SC context Ponomarov and Holcomb (2009, p. 131) defined
SC resilience as “the adaptive capability of the supply chain to prepare for unexpected events,
respond to disruptions, and recover from them by maintaining continuity of operations at the
desired level of connectedness and control over structure and function.” This definition highlights
the importance of adaptability because the preferred state may be different from present
conditions and adapting to new conditions can facilitate SCs to recover quickly, return the
predisaster state or even reaching a better state (Lee and Rha, 2016; Ponomarov and Holcomb,
2009). In order to establish resilient SCs to deal with emerging problems caused by uncertain
and dynamic environments (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014), HSCs are expected to adopt proactive
and reactive approach to develop resilience capabilities (Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2017). The
proactive approach includes establishing (in)formal communication channel, creating
redundant capacity, having financial strength, being resourceful, flexible and robust. On the
other hand, reactive characteristics of SC resilient are mitigation of disruptions in a short time
with the smallest impact, quick response ability to the unexpected conditions and restoring to
normal or more developed condition efficiently (Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2017).
Besides the benefits of SC resiliency for commercial operations, empirical findings present
that it has a significant importance on pre- and postdisaster performance for humanitarian
SCs. In addition, flexible orientation, which refers to an organization’s tendency to being
JHLSCM creative, impulsive and risk-taking, increases the impact of SC resiliency on postdisaster
11,1 performance. Similarly, control orientation, which focuses on hierarchy and efficiency culture
of an organization, has a positive and significant effect on the on the path linking SC
resiliency and predisaster performance (Altay et al., 2018).
Even though it is important to know the outcomes of SC resilience in humanitarian context,
understanding the antecedents of it is critical for the effective HSCM. The nature of disaster
operations necessitates different organization to collaborate in order to save human life (Mishra
62 et al., 2020). For this reason, public and private organizations need to take joint action even if it is
for a one-off and short-term humanitarian operation. Thus, the capability of governing this
short-term relationship will increase SC resilience. Furthermore, adjustment, i.e. redesigning
structure and course of SC, of governance barriers (unidirectional communication, divergent
goals and internalization) and facilitators (alignment, communication, structure, quantification
and interdependency) have an indirect impact on SC resilience. Yet another important issue is to
establish swift trust, which refers to trust for ad hoc organizational structures, among involving
parties and to manage its effect on SC resilience through short-term collaboration dynamic
capability (Gabler et al., 2017, pp. 134–135; Dubey et al., 2019a, b, c).
4.2.3 Other dynamic capabilities. As a vital element of DCs, sensing is regarded as an
antecedent for the seizing and reconfiguration (Aslam et al., 2018). For this reason,
organizations are expected to have generative-sensing capabilities in order to hypothesize
about potential threats and opportunities (Teece et al., 2016). Within this regard, sensemaking is
necessary when organizations deal with ill-defined problems such as disaster operations which
there is limited time to formulate the problem and then create a solution. For this reason, using
real-time data are important in operational stage. Defined as constant sense of present
conditions and operations, dynamic perception shapes decision-makers’ perception of the
available options for each action. As a dynamic capability, dynamic perception also serves to
formulate problems and to reconfigure resources as a consequence of the changing
environment of humanitarian ecosystem (Gralla et al., 2016). Defining sensing as “the ability
of humanitarian stakeholders’ ability to identify opportunities to increase operational efficiency
through Lean thinking, which could involve the use and application of technology”, the findings of
Mishra et al. (2020) highlight the importance of sensing to effectively apply seizing and
reconfiguring capabilities (Mishra et al., 2020, p. 5; Vaillancourt, 2017). In addition, some items,
which Altay et al. (2018) used in the SCA scale, indicate the sensing capability. For instance,
they tried to understand how swiftly an organization can sense threats, detect changes and
opportunities (Altay et al., 2018). Sensing is also essential to regularly follow the technological
and technical developments so that upgrade the current systems. At operational level,
obtaining tools used for sensing such as well-established information infrastructure is critical
but can be problematic issue in developing countries and using mobile phone applications and
social media can be inevitable to gain information from a disaster zone. In addition, as a
complementary method, it is suggested to establish local stations to learn demand from the
first-hand as an alternative way of sensing (Mishra et al., 2020). Mishra et al. (2020) suggest
applying the seizing capability to design and align operating models with the current conditions
and a lean thinking approach in HSCs. On the other side, being exposed to environmental
turbulences such as disasters increases the necessity to apply for reconfiguration of essential
capabilities (Defee and Fugate, 2010) owing to its positive outcome of creating SC-wide
competitive advantage. As humanitarian operations have wider operational scope and involves
usual and unusual SC players, it is inevitable to continually reconfigure the competences, SC
structures and processes (Vaillancourt, 2017). For this reason, being able to adjust SC
operations, structures, procurement policies and SC cultures in dynamic environment of
humanitarian crisis effectively and understand their effect on disaster performance is of
significance for HOs (Altay et al., 2018; Lu et al., 2019; Mishra et al., 2020).
 Knowledge accessing dynamic capability, which was introduced by Defee and Fugate Dynamic
(2010), refers to knowing about the capabilities of a company’s SC partners so it is able to capabilities in
make the best use of those capabilities (Defee and Fugate, 2010). Although Vaillancourt (2017)
did not mention explicitly, the paper explains how UNICEF’s SC operates by using this
humanitarian
capability. In this study, they analyzed how SC members benefit utilizing UNICEF’s SCM
worldwide operations and procurement consolidation ability in humanitarian operations. In
return, UNICEF gains some benefits from its SC partners through developing knowledge
base in the countries where it carries out operations (Vaillancourt, 2017). Governments, local 63
and international nongovernmental organizations play different roles in humanitarian
operations owing to their unique organizational capabilities. For instance, while the Nepalese
government had the function of information dissemination, and international
nongovernmental organizations can help local NGOs by using their purchasing power
(Mishra et al., 2020). This also underscores the importance of applying collaborative capability
to establish a good and mutually beneficial relationships with external organizations
(Lu et al., 2019). Sustaining capability, as an extension of DCs theory, has been recently
proffered by Mishra et al. (2020). This dynamic capability concentrates on creating a
long-term lean thinking strategy that benefits all stakeholders to succeed their humanitarian
aims by using optimum amount of resources (Mishra et al., 2020, p. 12).
The role of humanitarian logisticians is critical to successfully manage SCs in dynamic
environment of disaster times (Rajakaruna et al., 2017) as one of the interview participants
states “[We are] particularly keen to have dynamic staff who are able to think on their feet.”
(Kov
acs et al., 2012, p. 252). The skills of logistics staff members taking part in humanitarian
operations not only provide effectiveness in SC operations but also develops and maintains
DCs such as SCA. For example, Kov
acs et al. (2012) identified the importance of functional
skills some of which are inventory and asset management, purchasing and procurement,
transportation and fleet management from the analysis of job advertisements. On the other
hand, skills such as stress management, customs clearance, marketing and customer
relationship management achieved a very low score. As contextual skills “knowledge of
donor regulations” and “liaison with other organizations”, “training” are determined having
high score among the humanitarian logistics skills (Kov
acs et al., 2012). However, it might be
difficult to have required number of skilled staff in disaster times and HOs may experience
staff shortages. In order to overcome this problem, HOs need to quickly integrate existing and
new (i.e. external manpower) staff members into the existing system to support the
humanitarian logistics operations (Lu et al., 2019).
In their study, Lu et al. (2019) discussed the role of agility-buildings strategies and DCs
perspective which affect ramp-up operations of HOs. This paper further elaborates the
importance of DCs (transformation, integration and collaboration) for the second-tier HOs which
are not resource-rich for prepositioning of required supplies and manpower (Lu et al., 2019,
p. 848). Thus, developing agility-building strategies in the ramp-up process requires to count in
organization size, funding capability and DCs enablers (people, process and technology). Thus,
it is recommended that adopting one-size-fits-all approach and proposing general solutions for
any kind of organization will be misleading for the disaster operations. Mishra et al. (2020)
compared HOs’ abilities and capabilities based on organization size as well.

5. Discussion
5.1 Supply chain agility in relation to sensing, seizing, reconfiguring, (short-term)
collaboration capabilities and organizational culture
SCA is an extensively applied dynamic capability in the SCM literature within the context of
manufacturing and service industries (Aslam et al., 2018; Blome et al., 2013; G€olgeci et al.,
2019; Gyarmathy et al., 2020; Irfan et al., 2019; Mandal, 2017; Mandal et al., 2017a, b), as well as
JHLSCM it has started to gain ground in the HSCM literature. SCA enables HOs to respond to disaster-
11,1 affected regions “with right humanitarian aids in right time” (Altay et al., 2018, p. 1160). The
perceived benefits gained by SCA has led it to be considered at the strategic level so as to
support operational responsiveness and flexibility. The SCA definition of L’Hermitte et al.
(2015) and the measurement items, which present the strategic view of Blome (2013) and
Gligor (2012) (Blome et al., 2013; Gligor and Holcomb, 2012), used by Altay et al. (2018) and
also their approach to SCA as a SC strategy point out this fact. This strategic focus approach
64 is in accordant with the main idea of DCs view (Teece and Pisano, 1994; Teece et al., 1997).
As a strategic-level capability, dynamic capability of SCA is regarded to consist of four
subelements, namely “being purposeful”, “being action-focused”, “being learning-oriented” and
“being collaborative” and significantly affect the SC flexibility and responsiveness (L’Hermitte
et al., 2015). The “being purposeful” is defined as “a shared purpose contributes to
co-orientation of action across partners in the supply network at the SC level” (L’Hermitte et al.,
2015, p. 224). Having a collective purpose enables HOs and SCs to have a strong identity,
direction and strength to cope with unexpected and disrupting events. As a result, this
increases the organizational and interorganizational agility bearing in mind that it is more
challenging to have a collective action at SC level (Gabler et al., 2017; L’Hermitte et al., 2016).
The studies of Helfat et al. (2007) and Adner and Helfat (2003) support this view in addition to
McCann and Selsky’s (2012) (Adner and Helfat, 2003; Helfat et al., 2007; McCann and Selsky,
2012). With this regard, managers of HOs should be able to get the SC-wide purpose across to
SC members. Given the conflicting goals of donors, suppliers, HOs and governments,
embracing collective purpose can increase the sense of being a SC partner and the motivation
to find dynamic solutions for the unusual problems. For this reason, it can be beneficial to
investigate the effect of this dynamic capability from a multi-echelon SC perspective for
different disaster conditions. Another dynamic capability is “being action-focused” which
essentially refers to taking proactive actions (building preparedness) to facilitate operational
capabilities. For accomplishing this purpose, sensing or dynamic perception capability and
“being learning-oriented” capability are critical in order to understand the opportunities and
threats to take right steps in the preparation phase and to find suitable solutions in the
dynamically changing response stage (Gralla et al., 2016). Within the scope of being action-
focused, HSCs need to acquire required resources, have the ability of information sharing in
supply network, have clear and standardized processes, build personnel with appropriate
skills, have effective leadership and have pre-established local presence or connections in the
field. Sensing the developments in the business ecosystem and obtaining all these factors can
be regarded as antecedents to seize the opportunities and threats in humanitarian operations.
In addition, it can be mentioned that “being purposeful” gives direction to all SC members to
take aligned actions and “being collaborative” is essential for providing system-wide
approach as well as responding more effectively by joining the forces of SC members.
The empirical findings of McCann and Selsky’s (2012), Roberts (2009) and Ozeroglu (2020)
highlight the significance between being action-focused and agility (Ozeroglu and Kocyigit,
2020; Roberts, 2009). Considering the significance of sensing and learning to have a better
“being action-focused” capability, HSCs ought to use state-of-the-art technologies in order to
make sense out of data obtained from constantly changing operating environment of
humanitarian relief operations, to have better absorptive capacity and to develop
collaborative relationships with SC partners. At this juncture, it can be stated that more
investigation is needed to extend this discussion and bring new perspectives to the HSCM
research. “Being collaborative” of agility capabilities is about establishing internal and
interorganizational relationships for the purpose of overcoming problems collaboratively.
This is a critical element for agility since it is not viable for an organization to build agility by
itself. At this point, the knowledge-accessing capability of Defee et al. (2010) could be
appropriate to consider identifying the capabilities of each SC member, assigning suitable
roles to each SC player in the SC operations and so create appropriate collaboration between Dynamic
SC partners. For the success of internal collaboration, job rotation, developing strong capabilities in
relationship between staff members and organizational departments, integration between
departments, eliminating functional silos to enable people from different departments
humanitarian
understand each other are presented as prerequisites. On the other hand, external SCM
collaboration can be strengthened by having solid coordination mechanisms, formal and
informal relationships between stakeholders. This will increase the ability to create less
turbulent space, to find innovative solutions and to have unilateral actions (Helfat et al., 2007; 65
McCann and Selsky, 2012). Again, “being purposeful” can be regarded as a foundation of
“being collaborative” since it may help organizations understand each other and develop long-
term relationships. It can be stated that the impact of SC collaboration, as a dynamic
capability, on SC operations is a widely accepted in the literature (Fawcett et al., 2012; Mandal,
2017; McAdam et al., 2017; Swanson et al., 2017). Considering the positive effect of “being
collaborative” on SCA, researchers and practitioners may analyze the positive effects of the
well-established concepts of social capital, psychological contract, SC proximity on “being
collaborative” in addition to the abovementioned factors. Therefore, it can be stated that there
is a room for further analysis to determine the factors which improve collaborative efforts in
HSCM setting. Lastly, “being learning-oriented” continuously improves and transforms
humanitarian SC operations through analyzing processes, practices, experiences gained from
past operations and sharing them with other organizations to give better decisions and quick
response across the SC. As a proactive approach, it encourages to revise the current strategies
and practices and also cross-organizational learning. According to the SC learning literature
it can be emphasized that the “being collaborative” and “being purposeful” can play a
significant role in learning process (Gibson et al., 2016; Lambrechts et al., 2012; Willis et al.,
2016; Yang et al., 2019). The role of this dynamic capability has an important place in the SCM
and DCs literature (L’Hermitte et al., 2017; Li et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2019). However, despite
the importance of it, the evidence shows that HOs’ efforts can be regarded insufficient given
the fact that it is not applied to its full potential and there is no integrated and formal
mechanism established for the learning practices (L’Hermitte et al., 2016). The
abovementioned DCs can be built by obtaining and effectively utilizing the technology,
process and people as it is the case in surge capacity management which are affected by the
correct management of system and staff members (Hick et al., 2009; Therrien et al., 2017).
Instead of providing general solutions for any kind of HOs, Lu et al. (2019) analyzed HOs
based on their sizes and compared the strategies which they use for building agility
capability in the ramp-up process. The main findings indicate that second-tier HOs are more
tended to apply DCs view because the lack of resources leads them to leverage resources from
internal and external sources. Therefore, they are more inclined to use transformation and
integration capabilities than super-large HOs to achieve operational-level agility. Depending
on their size and power to obtain required resources, HOs can select adaptation, shaping or
avoidance agility-building strategies (this refers to the resource dependency theory) and
collaborative capabilities (this refers to the dynamic capability) to make required
transformation and integration at operational level. For instance, given their limited
budget to hire a large number of staff members for each different task, developing
ambidextrous capabilities (adaptation strategy) for staff management can be a suitable
choice to build manpower agility for the second-tier HOs. Thus, multiskilled staff members
can be assigned to different tasks (transformation capability) or external manpower can be
used in the ramp-up phase (integration capability) by taking into consideration the current
needs of a disaster area. In contrast, super-large HOs can prefer to hold a well-trained
taskforce (shaping strategy) for the potential humanitarian operations. Mishra et al. (2020,
p. 8) addressed a similar strategy, which were used by international NGOs, to sense the real
conditions in earthquake in Nepal: “. . . we sent staff to locations, and the people were able to
JHLSCM request help directly and we could provide it directly to them”. In either case, organizations select
11,1 a suitable strategy for developing and obtaining skilled staff members to increase SCA in a
dynamic environment of humanitarian operations. The different approaches used by large
and second-tier HOs are an indication of importance of developing appropriate human
resource planning and investigating its effect on HSCM. In this way, the scarce resources of
HOs will not be wasted, and flawless humanitarian operations can be achieved. In addition,
while super-large HOs are financially powerful to preposition supplies to avoid supply
66 shortages (avoidance strategy), second-tier HOs may have to allocate the funds, which are
planned to be used in the development activities, to fulfill ad hoc emergency needs
(adaptation strategy) (Lu et al., 2019). The empirical findings of Mishra et al. (2020, p. 9)
presents how the international NGOs utilize avoidance strategy: “In the case of my
organisation, as I said before, we had emergency stockpiles. . .”. Another point that
differentiates the local and large HOs is the level of supplier dependency. Local HOs tend
to sign long-term agreements with suppliers due to the lack of financial resources for
prepositioning of supplies. Thus, local HOs need to develop collaborative capability more
than larger HOs, especially, in the preparedness period. Although this creates more supplier
dependency for local HOs, it enables them to respond quickly in surge times. Despite the fact
that the firm size is commonly considered as an important factor in the SCM literature (Cheng
et al., 2014; Chiang et al., 2012; Dubey et al., 2018; Swierczek, 2020), the findings of this SLR
indicate that there is a more need to provide solutions for HOs of different sizes to develop
suitable DCs for more effective HSCM.
The impact of organizational factors, i.e. flexibility and control orientation, on the
relationship between SCA and humanitarian SC performance is of interest to researchers
(Altay et al., 2018). Flexible oriented culture provides growth, human resource development
and resource acquisition through flexibility, morale, readiness and alignment. In other words,
it is the representation of an organization’s willingness to change and encourage creativity as
well as spontaneity to adjust operational processes. On the other side, control oriented culture
can lead to achieve stability, efficiency, control and productivity by means of goal setting,
planning, information management and communication. This signifies an organizational
environment which values avoidance from confusion, predictability and hierarchy for
accomplishing long-term goals and strengthening core competencies (Khazanchi et al., 2007;
Liu et al., 2010). The previous investigations, which analyzed commercial SCs, determined
that organizational culture have a significant effect on SCA (Braunscheidel and Suresh, 2009;
Jermsittiparsert and Wajeetongratana, 2019; Malekifar et al., 2014). From this perspective, it is
expected that SCA will have a significant effect on pre- and postdisaster performance under
the moderating effect of flexible and control orientations. However, the findings of Altay et al.
(2018) indicate that although SCA has a positive and significant effect on predisaster
performance, the control orientation, as a moderator, does not have any significant effect on
the relationship between SCA and predisaster performance. In addition, the study of Altay
et al. (2018) reveals that SCA does not have a direct effect on postdisaster performance,
although the findings of L’Hermitte et al. (2016) and Dubey et al. (2014) show that SCA has a
significant effect on postdisaster performance (Dubey et al., 2014). In this case, the different
results obtained for the role of SCA on humanitarian SC performance may be attributed to
using different analysis techniques and scales. However, Altay et al. (2018) revealed an
important finding that flexible orientation, which is an indicator of nontraditional and
innovation-oriented organizational culture, enables SCA to improve postdisaster
performance. Given the fact that DCs are related to idiosyncratic characteristics of
organizational culture and history-honed routines (Teece, 2014), the existing literature
supports this view by presenting the effect of two types of organizational culture on the
relationship between SCA and disaster performance. This indicates that HOs should invest in
establishing a suitable organizational culture that supports SCA. Despite the existing
findings of the literature, it is believed that the relationship between organizational culture, Dynamic
DCs and HSC performance is required to have more theoretical discussion. capabilities in
humanitarian
5.2 SC resilience in relation to organizational culture, reconfiguring, sensing, knowledge- SCM
access and (short-term) collaboration capabilities
The antecedents and consequences of SC resilience, as a dynamic capability, have started to
draw attention of researchers in order to analyze its effect on SC and firm performance in the 67
manufacturing and service industries over the last decade (Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2017;
Dabhilkar et al., 2016; Hendry et al., 2019; Sabahi and Parast, 2020). Parallelly, it has been
started to be used in the humanitarian context recently.
Building resilient SCs is regarded as a critical factor to deal with uncertainties in the
complex environment of disasters and for increasing the speed of coming to normal (Altay
et al., 2018). The empirical findings support that the capability of HOs to restore material flow,
to retrieve usual operational performance and to cope with disruptions quickly (SC resilience
items) play a significant role on readiness training, forecasting ability to meet demand
disruptions, having a disaster response team, having robust security systems (predisaster
performance) as well as quick response to disasters, absorbing major losses, preserving the
ability to deal with crisis and recovering from disaster with minimum cots (postdisaster
performance) (Altay et al., 2018). The empirical findings suggest HOs to have flat
organizational structures, create an environment to support equality, merit and innovation
(flexible orientation) to increase the effect of SC resilience on postdisaster performance.
Furthermore, as opposed to SCA the effect of the control orientation is significant for the path
between SC resilience and predisaster performance. This result can be interpreted as a result
of the rule, hierarchy- and stability-focused organizational culture does not meet the rapid,
quick, immediate attributes of SCA. On the other hand, control-oriented HOs can achieve
more SC resilience to gain back the predisaster position and continue the regular operations
(Altay et al., 2018). The significant relationship between SCR, disaster performance and
control and flexible orientation gives direction to practitioners to evaluate their
organizational cultures and question the level of SCR in pre- and postdisaster phases.
Gabler et al. (2017) contributed to the field by considering the dynamic capability of SCR as
an outcome and analyzing the factors affecting it. In addition, the second dynamic capability,
short-term collaboration, was considered as an antecedent of SCR. Short-term collaboration
emerges when public–private organizations have to work together temporarily with the aim
of responding a disaster or recover from it. This enables to create a sense of responsibility and
to fulfill collective purpose along the humanitarian SCs. However, achieving successful short-
term collaboration depends on focusing on common goal of SC (reconfiguration), clearly
outlining the roles among SC partners, establishing well-functioning communication system
and relationship between partners which can be effective when there is bilateral
communication. The effectiveness of adjusting these factors (categorized as barriers and
facilitators to short-term collaborations) will impact the level of SC resilience. Additionally,
“plug and play” SCs (this indicates short-term collaboration) require restructuring the
relationships between SC members (this refers to the SC reconceptualization capability) as a
result of changing conditions and this attempt can be succeeded by evaluating each partner’s
contribution to the disaster operation (knowledge-access capability) (Beske et al., 2014; Defee
and Fugate, 2010; Vaillancourt, 2017). These findings imply the necessity of keeping
communication channels open regardless the nature (short or long term) of the relationship.
The study also proposes that the need of establishing short-term collaboration increases in
sudden-onset disasters more than slow-onset disasters. Thus, there is a correlation between
the speed of disaster occurrence and willingness to collaborate and consequently effective
governance of collaboration. The scope of disaster is related to the requirement of effective
JHLSCM short-term collaboration because of the fact that organizations cannot cope with the
11,1 destructive effect of large-scale disasters alone. With this regard, it can be mentioned that the
characteristics of each disaster type plays a significant role on the relationship between SC
collaboration and SCR. In addition, aligning goals among SC partners and building swift trust
are among the critical factors influencing the effectiveness of short-term collaboration. The
fact remains that the trusted (contractual) relationships, which refers to pre-established
relationships, may less necessitate to apply short-term collaboration. Lastly, the ability of
68 allocating resource and the level of resource commitment, i.e. how much SC members
dedicated to share their resources for humanitarian operations, in a dynamic environment are
other factors that affect SC resilience by the moderation of short-term collaboration
(Gabler et al., 2017).

5.3 Sustaining capability in relation to waste management, collaboration, sensing, seizing

and reconfiguring capabilities
Being concerned about gaining long-term competitive advantage by using lean approach
leads organizations to concentrate on DCs rather than ad hoc solutions (Hansen and Møller,
2016). Lean thinking model can be operationalized by applying DCs which have a mediation
role to eliminate waste and increase efficiency (Mishra et al., 2020). For instance, sensing
capability is used for specifying constraints such as fluid information, demand and supply
mismanagement, limitations for transportation and distribution, technological
insufficiencies. After understanding the influencing factors, HOs can seize the
opportunities and threats by revising the operating models. For the purpose of achieving
the lean thinking culture HSCs adapt their existing culture and structure for the current
disaster conditions. In line with the findings of L’Hermitte et al. (2016), the role of coordination
was emphasized for sensing and seizing of logistics and procurement opportunities.
In addition, collaboration is regarded as an important element of transformation capability as
Lu et al. (2019) and Gabler et al. (2017) laid stress on it for successful HSC operations. The
combination of three fundamental DCs of Teece et al. (2018, 2010) with the lean thinking
culture creates the basis of sustaining dynamic capability (Teece, 2010, 2018). HSCs can apply
dynamic capability of sustaining through long-term lean thinking strategy, which focuses on
waste elimination and supply-demand alignment, for achieving their goals efficiently.
Thanks to its cyclical nonstop nature, sustaining capability building on the concepts of
continuous learning and measurement of performance will facilitate (1) determining the
constraints disrupting humanitarian operations, wastages of relief supplies (especially
perishable products) in humanitarian SCs and (2) creating additional capabilities to manage
relief materials correctly for the benefit of disaster victims. Furthermore, it will enable
government and nongovernmental organizations to reduce their SC costs and economic
losses (Mishra et al., 2020). Despite empirical finding presenting the importance of sustaining
capability for the HSC operations, sustainable dynamic capability, which facilitates
providing humanitarian assistance equally and efficiently to the victims, is not sufficiently
in the agenda of researchers and practitioners and requires more attention by the
practitioners as well.

6. Comprehensive model
Figure 4 illustrates the factors positively affecting the determined DCs as well as the positive
effect of DCs on HSCM based on the synthesis of the extant literature. By distilling the
literature, the comprehensive model was provided for the use of both practitioners and
researchers. In this way, it was aimed to facilitate the understanding of abovementioned
relationships and answer the research questions visually.
 ● Unidirectional Dynamic
communication
● Divergent goals
capabilities in
● Internalization humanitarian
● Interdependency
● External environment SCM
● Scope of the disaster
● Swift trust
Stakeholders’ Control
commitment orientation 69
Knowledge-
Pre-disaster
access
Collaboration performance

● Information
technology
● Information
management

SCR
Post-disaster
performance
● Sensing
● People ● Seizing
● Processes ● Reconfigurati
● Technology on/Transform
ation
● Sustaining
Waste reduction

Flexible Integration
SCA
orientation

Lean thinking
culture

● Being purposeful
● Being collaborative (Relationship building and collaborative
problem solving; Integration of the different parts
● of the organisation)
● Being learning-oriented (Institutionalized identification of
past operational successes and failures; Critical evaluation of
practices and processes based on past experiences; Sharing
of the lessons learned)
● Being action-focused (Appropriate skills and personal
attributes; Adequate level of resources and rapid resource
(re-)deployment; Suitable processes and procedures; Self- Figure 4.
organized and empowered teams; Effective leadership;
Extensive field presence)
Comprehensive model

7. Conclusions, limitations and recommendations for further research

7.1 Conclusions
This study systematically and meticulously analyzed the literature which focus on HSCM
from DCs perspective. In this sense, the author anatomized the introduction, finding,
methodology, discussion and conclusion parts of each paper in order to identify the DCs used
in the HSCM literature, factors affecting these DCs and their impact on HSCM performance.
This study can be considered as original on the ground that it is the first SLR analyzing the
role of DCs in HSCM context.
The result of this SLR reveals that nine papers have been used DCs view to investigate
HSCM so far. The studies of L’Hermitte et al. (2015, 2016), Gabler et al. (2017) and Mishra et al.
(2020) attempted to generate new HSCM-specific DCs and other six papers benefited from the
exiting DCs literature. The DCs used in the studies are SCA, SCR, reconfiguration/
transformation, integration, (short-term) collaboration, sustaining, sensing, seizing and
JHLSCM knowledge access. Another important finding is that majority of the exiting literature applied
11,1 qualitative data to investigate the newly emerging research field and only one paper used
survey method to offer solutions. In addition, it is determined that only one paper analyzed
the influence of DCs on pre- and postdisaster performance while eight papers focused on only
the postdisaster performance. Despite the small number of papers published within this
context, it is important that high-profile journals have laid the foundations of DCs in
humanitarian setting. Another point is that the studies, which focused on a specific country,
70 investigated the humanitarian operations in Asia continent. This can be explained by the
frequency and magnitude of natural disasters in these regions. The corollary of the wide-
spread and continual disasters is to find better ways to respond them.
The insights, which were retrieved from the investigated papers, underline some critical
relationships between the antecedents and consequences of DCs (Figure 4). The findings
unearth the fact that majority of the investigations applied more than one DC by adopting
ambidextrous approach and DCs affect each other. For instance, the study of Gabler et al.
(2017) related the short-term collaboration DC to SCR DC and Altay et al. (2018) used SCA and
SCR together. Moreover, the subelements of DCs are interconnected. To have collaborative
capability it is important to share common purpose and have a sense of understanding of the
operating environment and learning from the past experiences. On the other hand, it should
be noted that there are other factors exerting an influence on the DCs. This review findings
present that organizational factors have a critical role on DCs such SCA and SCR. It can be
exemplified that it is not possible to achieve postdisaster performance without a flexible
oriented organizational culture. Likewise, the effective management of people, technology
and process enables HOs to perform better disaster operations. Resource commitment of
stakeholders, establishing short-term collaboration, swift trust, information management
and logisticians’ skills to maintain operations are among the other variables affecting DCs
and HSC performance. Lastly, the lean thinking culture is important to reduce waste in HSC
operations when accomplishing objectives of HSCs.
This SLR deduces that applying DCs view is still in its infancy in the literature. Although
there have been attempts to investigate the role of DCs in HSCM, it is obvious that it is not
sufficient. First and foremost, this study contributed to the literature by bringing up the
significance of DCs in HSCM to the agenda. Secondly, this investigation determined the DCs
used in HSCM and revealed the relations between the dependent and independent variables
through the comprehensive model. In this way, this review provides a guidance to
researchers in conducting their future investigations and practitioners to carry out SC
operations by considering the factors affecting their operations in the dynamic nature of
humanitarian operations.

7.2 Limitations and recommendations for further research

Despite the fact that the SLR was conducted meticulously, this paper has some limitations.
Firstly, the papers, which were published only in English, were included. Thus, the author
could not analyze the papers written in other languages. Secondly, this review is based upon a
limited number of studies which specifically investigate HSCM with DCs perspective.
Thirdly, this study selected only peer-review journals due to their reliability as a result of
thorough peer-review process. Therefore, this investigation does not reflect the contributions
of studies such as thesis, conference proceedings and book chapters. Lastly, this study was
conducted by a single researcher. However, the author administered all processes by
following each step of producing SLR proposed by Denyer and Tranfield (2009).
Like other industries, the humanitarian sector is exposed to pressure to keep up with the
modern business methods as a result of changes in micro and macro environment. The
humanitarian business ecosystem has been evolving rapidly since the invaluable efforts of
Henry Dunant and this has led HOs to transform their way of conducting operations. Dynamic
Adapting the methods and techniques used by business enterprises into humanitarian sector capabilities in
plays an important role for the development of HSCs. With the intent of understanding the
trend of using DCs in SCM literature the author conducted a literature search. It was
humanitarian
performed in SCOPUS and Web of Science Core Collection databases with the keywords SCM
“dynamic capabilit*” in combination with “supply chain*”, “logistics”, “supply chain
management”, “supply network*”. The result of literature search, which included only peer-
review papers published in English, shows that 238 papers have been published since 2003. 71
There is a drastic increase in the number of papers published after 2018 with 25 papers in
2018, 50 papers in 2019 and 37 papers in 2020 (until September 28, 2020). The fact that
majority of articles has been published in operations management and SCM-oriented journals
shows the importance DCs has gained in these field. In these papers, they investigated
various kinds of supply chain-related DCs (e.g. demand planning, absorptive capacity,
knowledge scanning for strategic purchasing) and the affecting factors from various
perspectives. For the purpose of analyzing HSCM, it is suggested for future studies to
consider the extant SCM and DCs literature. However, it is not only enough to copy and paste
business approaches, e.g. DCs, to analyze HSCM. For this reason, as a next step, it is
important to develop DCs which are specific to HSCM. This SLR shows that there is an
important gap for determining HSCM-specific DCs for the future researchers. In addition,
because disaster types have different characteristics and are regarded as unique, it will be
highly valuable to analyze DCs by segmenting disasters. The findings show that only one
paper utilized survey method. In this sense, there is a need to develop more rigorous HSCM-
specific DCs scales and use correlational research methods to analyze the relationships
between barriers and success factors. HOs vary in terms of size (local or international),
ownership (government or nongovernmental) and founding purpose. This brings up
differences in operational issues. Therefore, future studies can compare the dissimilarities
between different kinds of HOs in developing and using DCs for HSCM. Another critical issue
in HSCM is collaboration of diverse stakeholders. To accomplish this, the role of social capital,
psychological contract and interorganizational citizenship can be investigated by the future
investigations.

References
Abidi, H., De Leeuw, S. and Klumpp, M. (2014), “Humanitarian supply chain performance
management: a systematic literature review”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 19 Nos 5/6,
pp. 592-608, doi: 10.1108/SCM-09-2013-0349.
Adner, R. and Helfat, C.E. (2003), “Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 1011-1025, doi: 10.1002/smj.331.
Adrot, A. and Robey, D. (2008), “Information technology, improvisation and crisis response: review of
literature and proposal for theory”, 14th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS
2008, AIS Electronic Library, Toronto, p. 397.
Agarwal, S., Kant, R. and Shankar, R. (2019), “Humanitarian supply chain management frameworks:
a critical literature review and framework for future development”, Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1749-1780, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-08-2018-0245.
Akter, S. and Wamba, S.F. (2019), “Big data and disaster management: a systematic review and
agenda for future research”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 283, pp. 939-959, doi: 10.1007/
s10479-017-2584-2.
Allred, C.R., Fawcett, S.E., Wallin, C. and Magnan, G.M. (2011), “A dynamic collaboration capability as
a source of competitive advantage”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 129-161, doi: 10.1111/j.
1540-5915.2010.00304.x.
JHLSCM Altay, N. and Narayanan, A. (2020), “Forecasting in humanitarian operations: literature review and
research needs”, International Journal of Forecasting, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2020.
11,1 08.001.
Altay, N., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R. and Childe, S.J. (2018), “Agility and resilience as antecedents of
supply chain performance under moderating effects of organizational culture within the
humanitarian setting: a dynamic capability view”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 29
No. 14, pp. 1158-1174, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2018.1542174.
72 Antai, I., Mutshinda, C. and Owusu, R. (2015), “A 3-R principle for characterizing failure in relief
supply chains’ response to natural disasters”, Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply
Chain Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 234-252, doi: 10.1108/JHLSCM-07-2014-0028.
Aslam, H., Blome, C., Roscoe, S. and Azhar, T.M. (2018), “Dynamic supply chain capabilities: how
market sensing, supply chain agility and adaptability affect supply chain ambidexterity”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 12, pp. 2266-2285,
doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-09-2017-0555.
Augier, M. and Teece, D.J. (2009), “Dynamic capabilities and the role of managers in business strategy
and economic performance”, Organization Science, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 410-421.
Balcik, B., Beamon, B.M., Krejci, C.C., Muramatsu, K.M. and Ramirez, M. (2010), “Coordination in
humanitarian relief chains: practices, challenges and opportunities”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 126 No. 1, pp. 22-34, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.09.008.
Banomyong, R., Varadejsatitwong, P. and Oloruntoba, R. (2019), “A systematic review of
humanitarian operations, humanitarian logistics and humanitarian supply chain performance
literature 2005 to 2016”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 20, pp. 1384-1425, doi: 10.1007/
s10479-017-2549-5.
Behl, A. and Dutta, P. (2019), “Humanitarian supply chain management: a thematic literature review
and future directions of research”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 283, pp. 1001-1044, doi:
10.1007/s10479-018-2806-2.
Besiou, M., Pedraza-Martinez, A.J. and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2014), “Vehicle supply chains in
humanitarian operations: decentralization, operational mix, and earmarked funding”,
Production and Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 11, pp. 1950-1965, doi: 10.1111/
poms.12215.
Beske, P., Land, A. and Seuring, S. (2014), “Sustainable supply chain management practices and
dynamic capabilities in the food industry: a critical analysis of the literature”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 152, pp. 131-143, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.026.
Beske, P. (2012), “Dynamic capabilities and sustainable supply chain management”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 372-387, doi: 10.
1108/09600031211231344.
Blome, D., Schoenherr, T. and Rexhausen, C. (2013), “Antecedents and enablers of supply chain agility
and its effect on performance: a dynamic capabilities perspective”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 1295-1318, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2012.728011.
Booth, A., Papaioannou, D. and Sutton, A. (2012), Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature
Review, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Brandon-Jones, A. and Knoppen, D. (2018), “The role of strategic purchasing in dynamic capability
development and deployment: a contingency perspective”, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 446-473, doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-10-2015-0656.
Brandon-Jones, E., Squire, B., Autry, C.W. and Petersen, K.J. (2014), “A contingent resource-based
perspective of supply chain resilience and robustness”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 55-73, doi: 10.1111/jscm.12050.
Braunscheidel, M.J. and Suresh, N.C. (2009), “The organizational antecedents of a firm’s supply chain
agility for risk mitigation and response”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 119-140, doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2008.09.006.
Brekalo, L., Albers, S. and Delfmann, W. (2013), “Logistics alliance management capabilities: where Dynamic
are they?”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 43
No. 7, pp. 529-543, doi: 10.1108/IJPDLM-06-2012-0194. capabilities in
Brusset, X. and Teller, C. (2017), “Supply chain capabilities, risks, and resilience”, International Journal
humanitarian
of Production Economics, Vol. 184, pp. 59-68, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.09.008. SCM
Charles, A., Lauras, M. and van Wassenhove, L. (2010), “A model to define and assess the agility of
supply chains: building on humanitarian experience”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 40 Nos 8/9, pp. 722-741, doi: 10.1108/ 73
09600031011079355.
Cheng, J.H., Chen, M.C. and Huang, C.M. (2014), “Assessing inter-organizational innovation
performance through relational governance and dynamic capabilities in supply chains”,
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 173-186, doi: 10.1108/SCM-05-2013-0162.
Chiang, C.Y., Kocabasoglu-Hillmer, C. and Suresh, N. (2012), “An empirical investigation of the impact
of strategic sourcing and flexibility on firm’s supply chain agility”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 49-78, doi: 10.1108/
01443571211195736.
Chowdhury, M.M.H. and Quaddus, M. (2017), “Supply chain resilience: conceptualization and scale
development using dynamic capability theory”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 188, pp. 185-204, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.03.020.
Christopher, M. (2000), “The agile supply chain: competing in volatile markets”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 37-44, doi: 10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00110-8.
Dabhilkar, M., Birkie, S.E. and Kaulio, M. (2016), “Supply-side resilience as practice bundles: a critical
incident study”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 36 No. 8,
pp. 948-970, doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-12-2014-0614.
David Swanson, R. and Smith, R.J. (2013), “A path to a public-private partnership: commercial logistics
concepts applied to disaster response”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 335-346,
doi: 10.1111/jbl.12031.
Day, J.M. (2014), “Fostering emergent resilience: the complex adaptive supply network of disaster
relief”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 7, pp. 1970-1988, doi: 10.1080/
00207543.2013.787496.
Defee, C.C. and Fugate, B.S. (2010), “Changing perspective of capabilities in the dynamic supply chain
era”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 180-206, doi: 10.1108/
09574091011071915.
Denyer, D. and Tranfield, D. (2009), “Producing a systematic review”, in Buchanan, D.A. and Bryman, A.
(Eds), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, Sage Publications Ltd, London,
pp. 671-689.
Dixit, V., Verma, P. and Tiwari, M.K. (2020), “Assessment of pre and post-disaster supply chain
resilience based on network structural parameters with CVaR as a risk measure”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 227, p. 107655, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107655.
Dubey, R., Ali, S.S., Aital, P. and Venkatesh, V.G. (2014), “Mechanics of humanitarian supply chain
agility and resilience and its empirical validation”, International Journal of Services and
Operations Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 367-384, doi: 10.1504/IJSOM.2014.059999.
Dubey, R., Luo, Z., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., Hazen, B.T. and Douglas, M.A. (2018), “Big data and
predictive analytics in humanitarian supply chains: enabling visibility and coordination in the
presence of swift trust”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 485-512, doi: 10.1108/IJLM-02-2017-0039.
Dubey, R., Altay, N. and Blome, C. (2019a), “Swift trust and commitment: the missing links for
humanitarian supply chain coordination?”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 283,
pp. 159-177, doi: 10.1007/s10479-017-2676-z.
JHLSCM Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. and Childe, S.J. (2019b), “Big data analytics capability in supply chain
agility”, Management Decision, Vol. 57 No. 8, pp. 2092-2112, doi: 10.1108/MD-01-2018-0119.
11,1
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Roubaud, D., Fosso Wamba, S., Giannakis, M. and Foropon, C.
(2019c), “Big data analytics and organizational culture as complements to swift trust and
collaborative performance in the humanitarian supply chain”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 210, pp. 120-136, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.023.
Eckstein, D., Goellner, M., Blome, C. and Henke, M. (2015), “The performance impact of supply chain
74 agility and supply chain adaptability: the moderating effect of product complexity”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 10, pp. 3028-3046, doi: 10.1080/
00207543.2014.970707.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000), “Dynamic capabilities: what are they?”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 21 Nos 10–11, pp. 1105-1121, doi: 10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:
10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E.
Fawcett, S.E., Fawcett, A.M., Watson, B.J. and Magnan, G.M. (2012), “Peeking inside the black box:
toward an understanding of supply chain collaboration dynamics”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 44-72, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-493X.2011.03241.x.
Fikar, C., Hirsch, P. and Nolz, P.C. (2018), “Agent-based simulation optimization for dynamic disaster
relief distribution”, Central European Journal of Operations Research, Vol. 26, pp. 423-442, doi:
10.1007/s10100-017-0518-3.
Gabler, C.B., Richey, R.G. and Stewart, G.T. (2017), “Disaster resilience through public–private short-
term collaboration”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 130-144, doi: 10.1111/
jbl.12152.
Gibson, T., Kerr, D. and Fisher, R. (2016), “Accelerating supply chain management learning:
identifying enablers from a university-industry collaboration”, Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 470-484, doi: 10.1108/SCM-10-2014-0343.
Gimenez, C. and Tachizawa, E.M. (2012), “Extending sustainability to suppliers: a systematic
literature review”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 531-543, doi: 10.1108/
13598541211258591.
Gligor, D.M. and Holcomb, M.C. (2012), “Understanding the role of logistics capabilities in achieving
supply chain agility: a systematic literature review”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 438-453, doi: 10.1108/13598541211246594.
G€olgeci, I., Assadinia, S., Kuivalainen, O. and Larimo, J. (2019), “Emerging-market firms’ dynamic
capabilities and international performance: the moderating role of institutional development
and distance”, International Business Review, Vol. 28 No. 6, p. 101593, doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.
2019.101593.
Golgeci, I. and Ponomarov, S.Y. (2013), “Does firm innovativeness enable effective responses to supply
chain disruptions? An empirical study”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 604-617,
doi: 10.1108/SCM-10-2012-0331.
Gossler, T., Wakolbinger, T. and Burkart, C. (2020), “Outsourcing in humanitarian logistics – status
quo and future directions”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 403-438, doi: 10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2018-0400.
Gralla, E., Goentzel, J. and Fine, C. (2016), “Problem formulation and solution mechanisms: a
behavioral study of humanitarian transportation planning”, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 22-35, doi: 10.1111/poms.12496.
Gupta, S., Altay, N. and Luo, Z. (2019), “Big data in humanitarian supply chain management: a review
and further research directions”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 283, pp. 1153-1173, doi: 10.
1007/s10479-017-2671-4.
Gyarmathy, A., Peszynski, K. and Young, L. (2020), “Theoretical framework for a local, agile supply
chain to create innovative product closer to end-user: onshore-offshore debate”, Operations and
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 108-122, doi: 10.31387/oscm0410256.
Handfield, R.B., Cousins, P.D., Lawson, B. and Petersen, K.J. (2015), “How can supply management Dynamic
really improve performance? A knowledge-based model of alignment capabilities”, Journal of
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 3-17, doi: 10.1111/jscm.12066. capabilities in
Hansen, D. and Møller, N. (2016), “Conceptualizing dynamic capabilities in lean production: what are
humanitarian
they and how do they develop?”, EMJ - Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4, SCM
pp. 194-208, doi: 10.1080/10429247.2016.1238727.
Heaslip, G. and Kov
acs, G. (2019), “Examination of service triads in humanitarian logistics”,
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 595-619, doi: 10.1108/IJLM-09- 75
2017-0221.
Helfat, C.E. and Peteraf, M.A. (2003), “The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 997-1010, doi: 10.1002/smj.332.
Helfat, C.E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M.A., Singh, H., Teece, D.J. and Winter, S.G. (2007),
Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations, Dynamic Capabilities:
Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations, 1st ed., Blackwell Publishing, Malden.
Hendry, L.C., Stevenson, M., MacBryde, J., Ball, P., Sayed, M. and Liu, L. (2019), “Local food supply
chain resilience to constitutional change: the Brexit effect”, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 429-453, doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-03-2018-0184.
Hick, J.L., Barbera, J.A. and Kelen, G.D. (2009), “Refining surge capacity: conventional, contingency,
and crisis capacity”, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, Vol. 3 No. S1, pp. 9-S67,
doi: 10.1097/DMP.0b013e31819f1ae2.
Hong, J., Zhang, Y. and Ding, M. (2018), “Sustainable supply chain management practices, supply
chain dynamic capabilities, and enterprise performance”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 172, pp. 3508-3519, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.093.
Irfan, M., Wang, M. and Akhtar, N. (2019), “Impact of IT capabilities on supply chain capabilities and
organizational agility: a dynamic capability view”, Operations Management Research, Vol. 12,
pp. 113-128, doi: 10.1007/s12063-019-00142-y.
Irfan, M., Wang, M., Zafar, A.U., Shahzad, M. and Islam, T. (2020), “Modeling the enablers of supply
chain strategies and information technology: improving performance through TISM approach”,
VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, pp. 2059-5891, doi: 10.1108/
VJIKMS-06-2019-0082.
Ivanov, D. (2020), “Viable supply chain model: integrating agility, resilience and sustainability
perspectives—lessons from and thinking beyond the COVID-19 pandemic”, Annals of
Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-020-03640-6.
Jermsittiparsert, K. and Wajeetongratana, P. (2019), “The role of organizational culture and it
competency in determining the supply chain agility in the small and medium-size enterprises”,
International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 416-432.
Khazanchi, S., Lewis, M.W. and Boyer, K.K. (2007), “Innovation-supportive culture: the impact of
organizational values on process innovation”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 871-884, doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2006.08.003.
Kov
acs, G. and Spens, K.M. (2007), “Humanitarian logistics in disaster relief operations”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 99-114, doi: 10.1108/
09600030710734820.
Kov
acs, G. and Tatham, P. (2009), “Responding to disruptions in the supply network – from dormant
to action”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 215-229, doi: 10.1002/j.2158-1592.2009.
tb00121.x.
Kov
acs, G., Tatham, P. and Larson, P.D. (2012), “What skills are needed to be a humanitarian
logistician?”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 245-258, doi: 10.1111/j.2158-1592.
2012.01054.x.
Laaksonen, O. and Peltoniemi, M. (2018), “The essence of dynamic capabilities and their measurement”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 184-205, doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12122.
JHLSCM Lambrechts, F., Taillieu, T., Grieten, S. and Poisquet, J. (2012), “In-depth joint supply chain learning:
towards a framework”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 627-637, doi: 10.1108/
11,1 13598541211269238.
Lee, S.M. and Rha, J.S. (2016), “Ambidextrous supply chain as a dynamic capability: building a resilient
supply chain”, Management Decision, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 2-23, doi: 10.1108/MD-12-2014-0674.
L’Hermitte, C., Bowles, M., Tatham, P. and Brooks, B. (2015), “An integrated approach to agility in
humanitarian logistics”, Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management,
76 Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 209-233, doi: 10.1108/JHLSCM-04-2014-0016.
L’Hermitte, C., Tatham, P., Bowles, M. and Brooks, B. (2016), “Developing organisational capabilities to
support agility in humanitarian logistics: an exploratory study”, Journal of Humanitarian
Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 72-99, doi: 10.1108/JHLSCM-02-
2015-0006.
L’Hermitte, C., Brooks, B., Bowles, M. and Tatham, P.H. (2017), “Investigating the strategic antecedents
of agility in humanitarian logistics”, Disasters, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 672-695, doi: 10.1111/disa.12220.
Li, M., Wang, Z. and Zhao, X. (2018), “The role of indigenous technological capability and interpersonal
trust in supply chain learning”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 118 No. 5,
pp. 1052-1070, doi: 10.1108/IMDS-08-2017-0350.
Liu, H., Ke, W., Wei, K.K., Gu, J. and Chen, H. (2010), “The role of institutional pressures and
organizational culture in the firm’s intention to adopt internet-enabled supply chain
management systems”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 372-384, doi: 10.
1016/j.jom.2009.11.010.
Lu, Y. and Ramamurthy, K. (2011), “Understanding the link between information technology
capability and organizational agility: an empirical examination”, MIS Quarterly: Management
Information Systems, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 931-954, doi: 10.2307/41409967.
Lu, Q., Wu, J., Goh, M. and De Souza, R. (2019), “Agility and resource dependency in ramp-up process
of humanitarian organizations”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 845-862, doi: 10.1108/IJLM-05-2018-0119.
Maghsoudi, A. and Pazirandeh, A. (2016), “Visibility, resource sharing and performance in supply
chain relationships: insights from humanitarian practitioners”, Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 125-139, doi: 10.1108/SCM-03-2015-0102.
Malekifar, S., Taghizadeh, S.K., Rahman, S.A. and Khan, S.U.R. (2014), “Organizational culture, IT
competence, and supply chain agility in small and medium-size enterprises”, Global Business
and Organizational Excellence, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 69-75, doi: 10.1002/joe.21574.
Mandal, S., Bhattacharya, S., Korasiga, V.R. and Sarathy, R. (2017a), “The dominant influence of
logistics capabilities on integration: empirical evidence from supply chain resilience”,
International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 357-374, doi: 10.1108/IJDRBE-05-2016-0019.
Mandal, S., Korasiga, V.R. and Das, P. (2017b), “Dominance of agility in tourism value chains: evidence
from India”, Tourism Review, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 133-155, doi: 10.1108/TR-11-2016-0048.
Mandal, S. (2017), “The influence of dynamic capabilities on hospital-supplier collaboration and
hospital supply chain performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 664-684, doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-05-2016-0249.
Matopoulos, A., Kov
acs, G. and Hayes, O. (2014), “Local resources and procurement practices in
humanitarian supply chains: an empirical examination of large-scale house reconstruction
projects”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 621-646, doi: 10.1111/deci.12086.
McAdam, R., Humphreys, P., Galbraith, B. and Miller, K. (2017), “Developing management capability
within a horizontal supply chain in performance measurement deployment and evolution:
a Dynamic Capabilities and Goal Theory perspective”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 28
Nos 6–8, pp. 610-628, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2017.1309706.
McCann, J.E. and Selsky, J.W. (2012), Mastering Turbulence: The Essential Capabilities of Agile and Dynamic
Resilient Individuals, Teams, and Organizations, Personnel Psychology, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA. capabilities in
Mishra, J.L., Chiwenga, K.D., Mishra, N. and Choudhary, S. (2020), “Extending dynamic capabilities
humanitarian
towards lean thinking in humanitarian supply chains”, Production Planning and Control. doi: SCM
10.1080/09537287.2020.1834136.
Nakano, M., Akikawa, T. and Shimazu, M. (2013), “Process integration mechanisms in internal supply
chains: case studies from a dynamic resource-based view”, International Journal of Logistics 77
Research and Applications, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 328-347, doi: 10.1080/13675567.2013.813919.
Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.D. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, an Evolutionary
Theory of Economic Change, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Noori, N.S. and Weber, C. (2016), “Dynamics of coordination-clusters in long-term rehabilitation”,
Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 296-328,
doi: 10.1108/JHLSCM-06-2016-0024.
Nurmala, N., de Leeuw, S. and Dullaert, W. (2017), “Humanitarian–business partnerships in managing
humanitarian logistics”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 82-94, doi: 10.1108/SCM-
07-2016-0262.
Ojha, D., Gianiodis, P.T. and Manuj, I. (2013), “Impact of logistical business continuity planning on
operational capabilities and financial performance”, International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 180-209, doi: 10.1108/IJLM-06-2012-0049.
Oloruntoba, R. and Gray, R. (2006), “Humanitarian aid: an agile supply chain?”, Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 115-120, doi: 10.1108/13598540610652492.
Oloruntoba, R. and Kov
acs, G. (2015), “A commentary on agility in humanitarian aid supply chains”,
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 708-716, doi: 10.1108/SCM-06-2015-0244.
Ozeroglu, E. and Kocyigit, Y. (2020), “Organizational agility in health organizations: the role of
visionary leadership”, Pressacademia, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 13-22, doi: 10.17261/Pressacademia.
2020.1184.
Parast, M.M. (2020), “The impact of R&D investment on mitigating supply chain disruptions:
empirical evidence from U.S. firms”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 227,
p. 107671, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107671.
Petricevic, O. and Verbeke, A. (2019), “Unbundling dynamic capabilities for inter-organizational
collaboration: the case of nanotechnology”, Cross Cultural and Strategic Management, Vol. 26
No. 3, pp. 422-448, doi: 10.1108/CCSM-02-2019-0044.
Piening, E.P. (2013), “Dynamic capabilities in public organizations”, Public Management Review,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 209-245, doi: 10.1080/14719037.2012.708358.
Ponomarov, S.Y. and Holcomb, M.C. (2009), “Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience”,
The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 124-143, doi: 10.1108/
09574090910954873.
Prakash, C., Besiou, M., Charan, P. and Gupta, S. (2020), “Organization theory in humanitarian
operations: a review and suggested research agenda”, Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 261-284, doi: 10.1108/JHLSCM-08-2019-0051.
Ramasesh, R., Kulkarni, S. and Jayakumar, M. (2001), “Agility in manufacturing systems: an
exploratory modeling framework and simulation”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 12
No. 7, pp. 534-548, doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000006236.
Rasouli, M.R. (2019), “Intelligent process-aware information systems to support agility in disaster
relief operations: a survey of emerging approaches”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 1857-1872, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1509392.
Rey, F. (2017), “The complex nature of actors in humanitarian action and the challenge of
coordination”, The Humanitarian Studies Unit, in Reflections on Humanitarian Action, Pluto
Press, Sterling, Virginia, London, pp. 99-119, doi: 10.2307/j.ctt18fs9tr.9.
JHLSCM Roberts, N. (2009), Digitally Enhancing Customer Agility and Competitive Activity: How Firms Use
Information Technology to Sense and Respond to Market Opportunities in Hypercompetitive
11,1 Environments, Clemson University, Clemson.
Rajakaruna, S., Wijeratne, A.W. and Chen, Y. (2017), “Determinants of skills and competencies of
humanitarian logisticians: a Sri Lankan perspective for developing countries”, International
Journal of Human Resources Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 7-24.
S
aenz, M.J., Revilla, E. and Knoppen, D. (2014), “Absorptive capacity in buyer-supplier relationships:
78 empirical evidence of its mediating role”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 50 No. 2,
pp. 18-40, doi: 10.1111/jscm.12020.
Sabahi, S. and Parast, M.M. (2020), “Firm innovation and supply chain resilience: a dynamic capability
perspective”, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 254-269, doi: 10.1080/13675567.2019.1683522.
Sangari, M.S. and Razmi, J. (2015), “Business intelligence competence, agile capabilities, and agile
performance in supply chain an empirical study”, International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 356-380, doi: 10.1108/IJLM-01-2013-0012.
Schniederjans, D.G., Ozpolat, K. and Chen, Y. (2016), “Humanitarian supply chain use of cloud
computing”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 569-588, doi: 10.1108/SCM-01-
2016-0024.
Scholten, K., Scott, P.S. and Fynes, B. (2010), “(Le)agility in humanitarian aid (NGO) supply chains”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 40 Nos 8/9,
pp. 623-635, doi: 10.1108/09600031011079292.
Sheu, J.B. (2010), “Dynamic relief-demand management for emergency logistics operations under
large-scale disasters”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,
Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2009.07.005.
Singh, R.K., Gupta, A. and Gunasekaran, A. (2018), “Analysing the interaction of factors for resilient
humanitarian supply chain”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 21,
pp. 6809-6827, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1424373.
Soosay, C.A. and Hyland, P. (2015), “A decade of supply chain collaboration and directions for future
research”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 613-630, doi: 10.1108/SCM-06-2015-0217.
Stechemesser, K., Endrikat, J., Grasshoff, N. and Guenther, E. (2015), “Insurance companies’ responses
to climate change: adaptation, dynamic capabilities and competitive advantage”, Geneva Papers
on Risk and Insurance: Issues and Practice, Vol. 40, pp. 557-584, doi: 10.1057/gpp.2015.1.
Swafford, P.M., Ghosh, S. and Murthy, N. (2006), “The antecedents of supply chain agility of a firm:
scale development and model testing”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 170-188, doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2005.05.002.
Swanson, D., Jin, Y.H., Fawcett, A.M. and Fawcett, S.E. (2017), “Collaborative process design: a
dynamic capabilities view of mitigating the barriers to working together”, International Journal
of Logistics Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 571-599, doi: 10.1108/IJLM-02-2016-0044.
Swierczek, A. (2020), “Investigating the role of demand planning as a higher-order construct in
mitigating disruptions in the European supply chains”, International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 665-696, doi: 10.1108/IJLM-08-2019-0218.

Kov
acs, G. and Spens, K. (2015), “Borrowing theories in humanitarian
Tabaklar, T., Halld
orsson, A.,
supply chain management”, Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 281-299, doi: 10.1108/JHLSCM-07-2015-0029.
Tabaklar, T. (2017), Scalability and Resilience in Humanitarian Supply Chains, Hanken School of
Economics, Helsinki.
Tatham, P., Wu, Y., Kov
acs, G. and Butcher, T. (2017), “Supply chain management skills to sense and
seize opportunities”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 266-289,
doi: 10.1108/IJLM-04-2014-0066.
Teece, D. and Pisano, G. (1994), “The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction”, Industrial and Dynamic
Corporate Change, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 537-556, doi: 10.1093/icc/3.3.537-a.
capabilities in
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)
humanitarian
18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z. SCM
Teece, D., Peteraf, M. and Leih, S. (2016), “Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: risk,
uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy”, California Management Review, Vol. 58
No. 4, pp. 13-35, doi: 10.1525/cmVr.2016.58.4.13. 79
Teece, D.J. (2007), “Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable)
enterprise performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 1319-1350, doi: 10.1002/
smj.640.
Teece, D.J. (2010), “Technological innovation and the theory of the firm: the role of enterprise-level
knowledge, complementarities, and (dynamic) capabilities”, in Bronwyn, H. and Hall, N.R. (Eds),
Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Elsevier BV., Rosenberg, Vol. 1, pp. 679-730, doi: 10.
1016/S0169-7218(10)01016-6.
Teece, D.J. (2014), “The foundations of enterprise performance: dynamic and ordinary capabilities in
an (economic) theory of firms”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 328-352,
doi: 10.5465/amp.2013.0116.
Teece, D.J. (2018), “Business models and dynamic capabilities”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 51 No. 1,
pp. 40-49V, doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007.
Therrien, M.C., Normandin, J.M. and Denis, J.L. (2017), “Bridging complexity theory and resilience to
develop surge capacity in health systems”, Journal of Health, Organisation and Management,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 96-109, doi: 10.1108/JHOM-04-2016-0067.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222, doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
Vaillancourt, A. (2017), “Procurement consolidation in humanitarian supply chains: a case study”,
International Journal of Procurement Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 178-193, doi: 10.1504/IJPM.
2017.082786.
Van Hoek, R.I., Harrison, A. and Christopher, M. (2001), “Measuring agile capabilities in the supply
chain”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 21 Nos 1/2,
pp. 126-147, doi: 10.1108/01443570110358495.
Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2006), “Humanitarian aid logistics: supply chain management in high gear”,
Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 57, pp. 475-489, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.
2602125.
Vanpoucke, E., Vereecke, A. and Wetzels, M. (2014), “Developing supplier integration capabilities for
sustainable competitive advantage: a dynamic capabilities approach”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 32 Nos 7–8, pp. 446-461, doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2014.09.004.
Vickery, S.K., Droge, C., Setia, P. and Sambamurthy, V. (2010), “Supply chain information technologies
and organisational initiatives: complementary versus independent effects on agility and firm
performance”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 23, pp. 7025-7042, doi:
10.1080/00207540903348353.
Vickery, S.K., Koufteros, X. and Droge, C. (2013), “Does product platform strategy mediate the effects
of supply chain integration on performance? a dynamic capabilities perspective”, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 750-762, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2013.
2266301.
Wan, Q., Yuan, Y. and Lai, F. (2019), “Disentangling the driving factors of logistics outsourcing:
a configurational perspective”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 32 No. 6,
pp. 964-992, doi: 10.1108/JEIM-10-2018-0236.
JHLSCM uller, C. and Reiner, G. (2019), “Coordination, cooperation and collaboration in relief supply
Wankm€
chain management”, Journal of Business Economics, Vol. 90, pp. 239-276, doi: 10.1007/s11573-
11,1 019-00945-2.
Willis, G., Genchev, S.E. and Chen, H. (2016), “Supply chain learning, integration, and flexibility
performance: an empirical study in India”, International Journal of Logistics Management,
Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 755-769, doi: 10.1108/IJLM-03-2014-0042.
Winter, S.G. (2003), “Understanding dynamic capabilities”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24,
80 pp. 991-995, doi: 10.1002/smj.318.
Yang, Y., Jia, F. and Xu, Z. (2019), “Towards an integrated conceptual model of supply chain
learning: an extended resource-based view”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 189-214, doi: 10.1108/SCM-11-2017-0359.
Yu, W., Jacobs, M.A., Chavez, R. and Yang, J. (2019), “Dynamism, disruption orientation, and resilience
in the supply chain and the impacts on financial performance: a dynamic capabilities
perspective”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 218, pp. 352-362, doi: 10.1016/j.
ijpe.2019.07.013.
Zhang, Z. and Sharifi, H. (2000), “A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing organisations:
an introduction”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 62 Nos
1–2, pp. 7-22, doi: 10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00217-5.
Zollo, M. and Winter, S.G. (2002), “Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities”,
Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 339-351, doi: 10.1287/orsc.13.3.339.2780.
Zylbersztajn, D. and Filho, C.A.P.M. (2003), “Competitiveness of meat agri-food chain in Brazil”, Supply
Chain Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 155-165, doi: 10.1108/13598540310468751.

Corresponding author
Abdussamet Polater can be contacted at: apolater@erzincan.edu.tr

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com