Supply chain agility enablers and SME performance: The roles of supply chain risk management performance and risk management culture

  • 10 Views
  • 0 Downloads

Creative Commons License DMCA.com Protection Status
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Type of the article: Research Article

Abstract
This study examines associations between three proactive enablers of supply chain agility, SME performance, and supply chain risk management performance, and assesses the mediating and moderating roles of supply chain risk management performance and risk management culture. Data were collected through an online survey using convenience sampling and analyzed via PLS-SEM. The study included 224 SMEs operating in the West Bank, Palestine.
The findings indicated that market sensing (β = 0.358, p < 0.01) and supply chain integration (β = 0.318, p < 0.01) were positively and significantly associated with SME performance. In contrast, strategic sourcing (β = 0.050, p > 0.05) was not significant. Market sensing (β = 0.383, p < 0.01), strategic sourcing (β = 0.311, p < 0.01), and supply chain integration (β = 0.321, p < 0.01) were positively and significantly related to supply chain risk management performance. Supply chain risk management performance (β = 0.626, p < 0.01) was significantly related to SME performance. The results showed no moderating effect of risk management culture on the relationships between the three supply chain agility enablers and supply chain risk management performance (p > 0.05). Supply chain risk management performance significantly mediated the relationships between all three enablers and SME performance, with full mediation for strategic sourcing and partial mediation for supply chain integration and market sensing. Moreover, the model explains 77.3% of the variance in SME performance (R² = 0.773) and 61.3% of the variance in supply chain risk management performance (R² = 0.613).

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Figure 1. Proposed model
    • Figure 2. Structural model
    • Table 1. Sample characteristics (N = 224)
    • Table 2. Measurement scales
    • Table 3. Measurement model assessment and indicator-level collinearity
    • Table 4. Heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT) for discriminant validity
    • Table 5. Hypotheses testing
    • Table 6. PLS predict
    • Table A1. Measurement instrument
    • Conceptualization
      Mohammad Bargouthi, Prashanth Bharadwaj, Framarz Byramjee
    • Data curation
      Mohammad Bargouthi
    • Formal Analysis
      Mohammad Bargouthi, Framarz Byramjee
    • Investigation
      Mohammad Bargouthi, Prashanth Bharadwaj, Framarz Byramjee
    • Methodology
      Mohammad Bargouthi, Prashanth Bharadwaj
    • Project administration
      Mohammad Bargouthi
    • Resources
      Mohammad Bargouthi, Prashanth Bharadwaj, Framarz Byramjee
    • Validation
      Mohammad Bargouthi, Prashanth Bharadwaj, Framarz Byramjee
    • Visualization
      Mohammad Bargouthi
    • Writing – original draft
      Mohammad Bargouthi
    • Supervision
      Prashanth Bharadwaj, Framarz Byramjee
    • Writing – review & editing
      Prashanth Bharadwaj, Framarz Byramjee