Content uploaded by Michael Wang
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael Wang on Dec 21, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
© 2024, Emerald Publishing Limited. This AAM is provided for your own personal use only. It may not be
used for resale, reprinting, systematic distribution, emailing, or for any other commercial purpose without
the permission of the publisher. Accepted on 04 December 2024 for publication in Benchmarking: An
International Journal.
1
Supply Chain Risks in the Dairy Industry
Abstract
Purpose
- Supply Chain Risk (SCR) has been extensively explored in various sectors, yet there is a
notable scarcity of SCR studies in the dairy industry. This study aims to identify the
primary and distinctive risks in the dairy supply chain (DSC), propose a typological model
for SCR, highlight challenges specific to the DSC, and offer mitigation strategies.
Design/methodology/approach
- We employ a systematic literature review to collect and review relevant research articles
published between 2010 and 2019 to identify the main risks and mitigation strategies
associated with the DSC, enabling to construction of a typological model of DSC risks.
Findings
- Results of the systematic review of the SCR literature show that the main DSC risks include
on-farm risk (e.g., risks originating from the farming system), off-farm risk (e.g., supply
risk, demand risk, and manufacturing risk), and inherent SCR (e.g. logistics risk,
information risk, and financial risk). Notably, we find that the farming system plays a key
role in today’s agricultural supply chain operations, indicating the importance of
considering on-farm risk in the entire DSC. Additionally, mitigation strategies are located
in response to the identified DSC risks by the typology of DSC risks.
Originality/value
- This paper is the first attempt to develop a typological model of SCR for the dairy industry
by a systematic literature review. The findings contribute to providing a comprehensive
understanding of DSC risks by bridging the gap of ignoring the on-farm risks of the DSC
in the existing literature. The typology may serve as a guide in practice to develop
mitigation strategies in response to DSC risks.
Keywords: dairy supply chain risk, risk identification, dairy farm
1
1 Introduction
Globalization has significantly increased the complexity and risk for organizations
(Bhattacharyya, 2011, Guillot et al., 2024). Most businesses rely on their supply chain networks
to maintain competitiveness in the marketplace (Christopher and Peck, 2004, Wang et al., 2016).
In recent years, factors like climate change, geopolitical shifts, economic fluctuations, and global
pandemics have highlighted supply chain risks (SCR) across various industries (Wang, 2023).
These risks can stem from both internal supply chain operations and the external environment
(Wang et al., 2015a). To navigate unforeseen "black swan" events, firms must develop resilient
strategies. Effectively managing SCR is crucial to fostering resilience in supply chains across
diverse sectors (Wang et al., 2023). Notably, SCR management requires targeted analysis of
specific industries or supply chains to generate insights relevant to researchers and managers,
enhancing understanding, prioritization, and mitigation of associated risks (Wang, 2018). This
paper focuses on the dairy industry, one of the most significant sectors globally.
The dairy industry, a critical component of the global food supply chain, plays an essential
role in providing key products to consumers worldwide (Chouinard et al., 2008). As the industry
continues to evolve, it faces numerous challenges that require robust risk management strategies.
The dairy supply chain (DSC) has drawn increasing attention due to the rising global demand for
dairy products: dairy is a valuable source of essential nutrients for maintaining a healthy life. It is
projected that demand for dairy will increase by approximately 63% from 2007 to 2050, driven by
population growth and rising incomes (Alexandratos, 2012). The major increase in per capita dairy
consumption is anticipated in developing countries like India and China (Alexandratos, 2012). In
developing nations, the dairy industry plays a multifaceted role, contributing to food security,
economic growth, poverty reduction, and sustainable agriculture. In developed countries, the dairy
industry's importance extends beyond nutritional value, encompassing economic, cultural, and
environmental dimensions (Ibrhm et al., 2020). For instance, the IDFA’s 2021 Economic Impact
Study revealed that the US dairy industry accounted for 3.5% of the nation's GDP. In the UK, milk
represented 16.4% of the total agricultural output, with a market value of £4.4 billion in 2020. New
Zealand leads globally as the top exporter of milk, with exports valued at 7.8 billion US dollars in
2022. The DSC involves all stages of production, processing, distribution, and retailing of dairy
products. It plays a crucial role in delivering dairy products from farms (the point of origin) to
final consumers (the endpoint of consumption) (Ibrhm et al., 2020).
The DSC is a complex system encompassing stakeholders such as farmers, milk processors,
distributors, retailers, and end consumers (Mor et al., 2018, Maina et al., 2020). The DSC may
include both drinking milk dairies and cheesemaking dairies, with the former also producing
cream, butter, soured products, and milk powder (Sonesson and Berlin, 2003, Maina et al., 2020).
The business-to-business (B2B) model plays a vital role in the DSC (Maina et al., 2020, Guillot et
al., 2024). The DSC is subject to strict food quality controls, covering factors like temperature,
humidity, and sanitation. This research focuses on the entire DSC, from farm to consumer (see
Figure 1).
Although SCR has long been recognized as a challenge for businesses (Zsidisin, 2003b, Tang
and Nurmaya Musa, 2011, Sodhi and Tang, 2021), most studies have centered on the
manufacturing sector (Thun et al., 2011, Grötsch et al., 2013, Blackhurst et al., 2008, Ho et al.,
2015). Traditional SCRs in food supply chains range from macro-level to operational management
and information management levels, spanning supply and demand risks (Diabat et al., 2012,
Prakash, 2017). Given the increasing global emphasis on environmental awareness, the DSC faces
additional risks, including those related to food safety (Dani and Deep, 2010), consumers
(Tostivint et al., 2017), reputation (Chen et al., 2014), the value chain (Ibrhm et al., 2020), and
climatic uncertainty (Jaffee et al., 2010), beyond conventional SCRs (Sodhi and Tang, 2012,
Jüttner et al., 2003, Christopher and Lee, 2004). SCR management can be approached through
2
either B2C or B2B models (Guillot et al., 2024). It is essential to take a comprehensive view when
assessing end-to-end SCRs in the dairy sector. As previously mentioned, prioritizing specific
industries for SCR management is key to creating effective and impactful strategies (Wang, 2018,
Wang and Jie, 2020). Effective management of DSC risks is essential to building a resilient supply
chain for dairy products. However, risks specific to the DSC have received limited attention, with
relatively few studies dedicated to addressing these challenges. Globally, there is a strong demand
for research in the DSC. To address this gap, this paper aims to develop a typology of DSC risks
by identifying primary risks, significant challenges, and risk mitigation strategies. This research is
part of the New Zealand DSC Research Project, designed to address challenges and support the
New Zealand dairy industry. We propose the following research questions:
RQ1 What are the key SCRs in the dairy industry?
RQ2 What are the major challenges in mitigating the DSC risk?
RQ3 What are the mitigation strategies for SCR in the DSC?
RQ4 How are the insights and findings important in creating a resilient DSC?
This investigation begins with a systematic literature review on supply chain management and
SCR within the dairy sector, focusing on research published between 2010 and 2019. We then
identify concerns and obstacles associated with managing SCRs in the dairy industry. Finally, we
outline risk mitigation strategies from relevant studies reviewed in the literature. This contributes
to bridging the gap in understanding and managing DSC risks. By systematically reviewing
pertinent studies, this paper proposes a typology for DSC risks, covering both on-farm and off-
farm risks. Note that, for scope management, details regarding farm-level risks have been
excluded. For further details, refer to Boehlje and Eidman (1984) and Leppälä et al. (2012).
This study aims to illuminate the various risk dimensions within the DSC and examine
contemporary risk management strategies adopted by industry stakeholders. From farm-level
production challenges to distribution network vulnerabilities, each stage of the DSC involves
unique risks that require careful consideration and strategic planning. This paper contributes to the
body of knowledge on dairy SCR management and aims to provide valuable insights for industry
professionals, policymakers, and researchers working to enhance the resilience and adaptability of
the DSC in a constantly evolving global context.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents background
information on SCR, while Section 3 outlines the research methodology. Sections 4 and 5 contain
an analysis of the reviewed literature and the results. The final section offers the study’s conclusion
and implications.
2 Supply chain risk
The concept of risk is closely tied to uncertainty (Wang et al., 2015a). The International
Organization for Standardization (ISO 31000) defines risk within the context of risk management
as "The effect of uncertainty on objectives. An effect is a deviation from the expected." This
definition highlights how risk reflects the potential impact of uncertainty on achieving
organizational goals, emphasizing the dynamic nature of risk management. ISO 31000 offers a
comprehensive framework that includes principles, a structured approach, and processes to help
organizations effectively manage risks.
In supply chain literature, risk is frequently described as a multidimensional concept (Jüttner
et al., 2003, Wang et al., 2023). It can refer to risk drivers, sources, and consequences, with
potential effects being either positive or negative (Tang and Nurmaya Musa, 2011, Sodhi and
Tang, 2012, Wang et al., 2015b). Importantly, the structure of supply chains can vary significantly
across industries, which affects the nature of associated risks. For instance, the courier(Wang,
3
2018), pharmaceutical (Wang and Jie, 2019a), forest (Wang et al., 2023), and meat industries
(Wang and Jie, 2019b) all have distinct supply chain structures. This variation necessitates
industry-specific approaches to effective SCR management.
A supply chain is a network of organizations involved in producing goods and services to
meet consumer needs (Christopher and Peck, 2004). SCRs are not confined to individual firms
but also involve coordination and cooperation across organizational boundaries (Jüttner, 2005).
SCR can encompass both operational risks and disruption risks (Tang, 2006). Disruption risks can
lead to major supply chain interruptions, such as those caused by natural disasters or pandemics.
In contrast, operational risks are tied to business processes and activities that can impact supply
chain efficiency and effectiveness (Sodhi and Tang, 2012). Managing SCRs is increasingly vital
for the DSC (Ibrhm et al., 2020).
SCRs can be categorized from various perspectives (Guillot et al., 2024, Ho et al., 2015).
Christopher and Peck (2004) proposed three primary categories of risk: internal to the firm,
external to the firm but internal to the supply chain network, and external to the network. They
further divided these into five subcategories: process, control, supply, demand, and environmental
risks. Tang and Nurmaya Musa (2011) categorized major SCRs into material, information, and
financial flows. Wang et al. (2015b) divided supply chain uncertainty and risk into three
categories: company-side, customer-side, and environmental uncertainties. Another classification
differentiates between risks originating within the company (internal) and those from outside
(external). Internal SCRs include operational, financial, and quality-related risks, while external
SCRs involve risks linked to supply chain partners and the external environment, such as supply,
demand, and environmental risks (Wang and Jie, 2019a, Wang et al., 2022). Sodhi and Tang (2021)
highlighted widespread challenges and risks in supply chains. Studying SCRs is essential for the
dairy industry, as it enables stakeholders to understand key challenges and to address them through
both proactive and reactive risk mitigation strategies.
Dairy
Farm
Factory
Wholesaler
Retailer
Consumer
Suppliers
Material flow
On-farm
Off-farm
Information flow
Financial flow
4
Figure 1. A typical dairy supply chain (Source: Authors’ work)
3 Research methodology
The paper examines pertinent literature on dairy SCR management, specifically focusing on
English articles published in the past decade, spanning from 2010 to 2019. Systematic reviews use
explicit and rigorous criteria to identify, critically evaluate, and synthesize all the literature on a
particular topic. Although they require significantly more effort than traditional reviews,
systematic reviews yield consistent results, demonstrating that the findings are robust and
generalizable (Kitchenham, 2004).
The search for articles was conducted across several scientific electronic databases, including
Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, Emerald, and ScienceDirect. The initial search utilized
the keyword “dairy supply chain risk,” which yielded only 38 results on Google Scholar. To
broaden the search scope, a pilot search led to the inclusion of additional keywords: “dairy supply
chain,” “dairy industry,” and “supply chain risk.” These terms were used to search titles, abstracts,
author keywords, and Keywords Plus. Figure 2 presents the database search process used in this
study.
The relatively low number of publications highlights a research gap in the existing literature.
The researchers screened the search results, evaluating titles, keywords, abstracts, and full articles,
while excluding irrelevant and duplicate studies. A total of 69 full-text articles were reviewed,
with some excluded due to a lack of alignment with the research objectives. The final database
search was completed in the first week of February 2020, resulting in a total of 50 articles being
included in the study.
Keyword:
“Dairy Supply Chain Risk”
Keyword:
“Supply Chain Risk” and “Dairy
industry”
Keyword:
“Dairy Supply Chain” and “Supply
Chain Risk”
Google Scholar: 38
Scopus: 0
Web of Science: 1
Emerald: 1
ScienceDirect: 0
Google Scholar: 294
Scopus: 6
Web of Science: 1
Emerald: 29
ScienceDirect: 15
Google Scholar: 135
Scopus: 9
Web of Science: 3
Emerald: 29
ScienceDirect: 15
Removing
duplicates /
scanning title,
abstract and
full text.
Target
studies: 50
5
Figure 2 Literature keyword search process (Source: Authors’ work)
Figure 3 presents a systematic review flow diagram for this study, visually depicting the
process of conducting a systematic review - a research methodology used to rigorously analyze
and synthesize the existing literature on a specific topic or research question (Liberati et al., 2009).
The PRISMA flow diagram provides transparency and clarity regarding the stages of the review
process, helping readers understand how studies are identified, screened, assessed for eligibility,
and included in the final analysis.
The process begins with identifying relevant studies through comprehensive literature
searches across various databases, journals, and other sources. After the initial identification,
duplicates are removed, and the remaining studies are screened based on predefined inclusion and
exclusion criteria. This stage involves reviewing titles and abstracts to determine whether a study
meets the initial eligibility criteria. Studies that pass this screening undergo a detailed assessment
to determine their suitability for inclusion in the systematic review, often involving a full-text
review of the selected studies.
Only studies that meet the inclusion criteria are incorporated into the systematic review, with
the flow diagram typically indicating the number of studies included at this point. Studies that do
not meet the inclusion criteria are excluded from the review. Relevant data from the included
studies are then systematically extracted, including study characteristics, methodology, results,
and other key information. The findings are synthesized to develop a DSC risk framework,
allowing for overall conclusions regarding the research question.
6
Figure 3 Systematic review flow diagram (Source: Liberati et al. (2009))
4 Analysis and synthesis
In this section, the analysis of the publications aims to provide an overview of the literature,
with the papers being thoroughly analyzed and synthesized. The characteristics of the publications,
such as publication date and source, are presented. Notably, the study was conducted before the
outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which helps mitigate any potential bias related to assessing
the impact of COVID-19, as the pandemic has significantly increased interest in research on SCRs.
The rise in publications, illustrated in Figure 4, indicates a growing interest among researchers and
practitioners in the field of SCR within the dairy sector from 2010 to 2019. Table 1 lists the primary
journals referenced during the sampling process.
Identification
Records identified
through database
searching.
Screening
Records screening
Eligibility
Full-text articles assessed.
Included
Papers included in
qualitative synthesis.
7
Figure 4 Number of articles by year of publication (Source: Authors’ work)
Table 1 List of key Journals for literature review
Journal
• International Journal of Production Economics
• International Journal of Production Research
• Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
• Journal of Cleaner Production
• Benchmarking: An International Journal
• European Journal of Operational Research
• International Journal of Logistics Management
• Journal of Supply Chain Management
• British Food Journal
• Production Planning & Control
• Management Science
• Omega
DSC risks have been identified and scattered in previous studies. For example, Mishra and
Shekhar (2011) identified 14 risks from a dairy industry perspective. Zubair and Mufti (2015)
explored 28 risks in the dairy products sector. Yu and Huatuco (2016) identified 13 risks in the
DSC. Prakash et al. (2017) emphasized the importance of identifying risks in the supply chain of
milk and milk-based products. Their study classified SCRs into four categories: environmental
risk, supply risk, demand risk, and process risk, based on previous SCR research (Christopher and
Peck, 2004, Manuj and Mentzer, 2008). Liu et al. (2019) conducted a case study identifying 9
types of DSC risks in the New Zealand dairy industry. It is insightful to integrate these SCRs
within the dairy industry context. The DSC risks from the selected 13 dairy risk studies are
summarized in Table 2.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
8
Table 2 Summary of relevant DSC risks (2010-2019)
Authors
Risks
Methods
Dani and
Deep (2010)
Type I risks have a direct influence on food safety. Type II risks
are all other risks affecting the food supply chain, which
influence indirectly on food safety.
Secondary data
research
Leppälä et al.
(2011)
Detailed dairy on-farm risks, including preparation for the
milking process risks, feeding process risks, milking process
risks, washing and Cleaning risks, and closing the milking
process risks. The main risks for the whole DSC include risks
that are associated with environmental effects, the image of
farming, animal health and disease, milk quality, profitability
and welfare for suppliers, and milk production interruptions
Case study, semi-
structured
interviews
Mishra and
Shekhar
(2011)
Low milking cattle, Illiteracy of the milk
Producers, Non-remunerative price of milk, Logistical risks,
Hazard risks, Demand Unpredictability, Lack of product
Reliability, High cost of fodder and medicines, Lack of
leadership skills of secretaries, Delivery risks, Product
shortages, Seasonal fluctuations in production,
Process/control/quality risks, Incompatible price w.r.t quality
Questionnaire
survey
Diabat et al.
(2012)
Macro-level risks, Demand management risks, Supply
Management Risks, Product/Service Management Risks,
Information Management Risks
Case study,
Interpretive
Structural
Modeling (ISM)
Nasir et al.
(2014)
Financial risk, technological risk, human resource risk,
government policy and support, political risk, mismanagement
of staff, and natural risk.
Interview
Daud et al.
(2015)
Production risks, animal condition risks, personal risks, and
input and output market risks.
Case study,
observations,
informal interview
Zubair and
Mufti (2015)
Demand-side risk, supply-side risk, logistics-side risk, external
risk, informational risk
Questionnaire
survey
Manning and
Soon (2016)
Internal organizational and external SCR
Literature review
Yu and
Huatuco
(2016)
Demand risk, supply risk, operational and
control risks, environmental risks
Case study, semi-
structured
interviews
Chari and
Ngcamu
(2017)
Disaster risks included natural disaster risks and political and
economic meltdown in the country; for example: drought,
cyclones, floods, animal diseases, and crop pests.
Mixed method
approach,
structured
questionnaires,
semi-structured
interviews, and
observations.
Prakash et al.
(2017)
Four categories of risk were identified: environment risks,
supply risks, demand risks, and process risks
Integrated approach
for risk analysis
and mitigation
(IARAM), case
study.
Mithun Ali et
al. (2019)
lack of skilled personnel, poor leadership, failure within the IT
system, capacity, and poor customer relationship
DEMATEL
method
Liu et al.
(2019)
Raw milk quality risk, Milk solids price risk, Raw milk volume
risk, Raw material quality risk, Customer order risk, Process
stability risk, Product quality risk, Product price risk, Product
delivery time risk
Case study
9
We found that very few supply chain studies use a common approach to identify SCRs in
supply chains (Tang, 2006, Simangunsong et al., 2012). However, DSC is distinct from other
supply chains due to its specific risk structures, which are influenced by the critical agricultural
sector (Bachev, 2013). Farming plays a central role in the DSC, and we have included on-farm
risks in the framework. On-farm risks may directly affect upstream suppliers, such as quality, food
safety, and supply, making it essential to consider on-farm risks in the overall DSC system. This
broadens the scope to include all key stakeholders in the DSC.
Researchers have proposed valuable risk classifications within the DSC. Jaffee et al. (2010)
introduced an agricultural SCR framework, covering both on-farm risks related to climate,
environment, and biophysical factors, as well as off-farm risks involving market conditions,
logistics, infrastructure, management, operations, and public policy. Leppälä et al. (2011)
examined on-farm risks and risk management in the DSC, highlighting that dairy production
involves complex external supply chain operations (e.g., emissions) and requires precise internal
operations (such as quality control and farmer expertise). Mishra and Shekhar (2011) studied
various risks in the dairy industry, categorizing them by their impact as high, medium, or low.
Diabat et al. (2012) classified food SCRs into five categories: macro-level risks, demand
management risks, supply management risks, information management risks, and product/service
management risks. Nasir et al. (2014) investigated the main risk factors in the dairy industry.
Daud et al. (2015) identified key sources of risk in a DSC, including the quality of milking
animals, feed availability, milking handling practices, milk bulking practices, and milk
transportation. Zubair and Mufti (2015) prioritized 28 SCRs in the dairy products sector.
Chaudhuri et al. (2016) examined sourcing-related risks, logistics risks, production risks, and
storage risks in food processing supply chains. Nakandala et al. (2017) highlighted volatile
demand, supply quality risk, and supplier delivery delays as major risks in fresh food supply
chains. Chari and Ngcamu (2017) explored the impact of disaster risks on DSC performance, with
major consequences including job losses, food insecurity, reduced milk productivity, and overall
slow growth in dairy businesses. Bilska and Kołozyn-Krajewska (2019) developed a risk
management model for dairy product losses. Kataike et al. (2019) investigate dynamics of
supplier–buyer relationships within the DSC.
Although generic SCR frameworks have been introduced in DSC risk (Yu and Huatuco, 2016,
Prakash et al., 2017), agricultural SCRs result from a range of factors including the vagaries of
weather, unpredictable nature of biological processes, seasonality of production, geographical
separation of production, and the uncertain political economy of food and agriculture (Jaffee et al.,
2010). The main sources of risks include the quality of the milking animal (Daud et al., 2015),
feed availability (Daud et al., 2015), milking process practices (Nasir et al., 2014), etc. appear in
the dairy farm, which plays a vital role in a DSC.
A typical DSC comprises on-farm and off-farm stages in the supply chain network (Kataike
et al., 2019). Farming is a critical part of the food supply chain, where disruptions in production
processes can have severe consequences (Leppälä et al., 2012). On-farm internal and external risk
factors directly influence the entire DSC. The consideration of both internal organizational and
external SCRs within the food supply chain has been applied to SCR models (Manning and Soon,
2016). Additionally, quality risks arising from dairy farm practices (Leppälä et al., 2011) are
significant. Thus, we have included the on-farm risks in the typology. Moreover, the risks related
to the flow of physical goods, information, and finances are considered logistics risk, information
risk, and financial risk (Tang and Nurmaya Musa, 2011, Ho et al., 2015). These are inherent SCRs
that persist along the entire supply chain. By separating these risks from on-farm and off-farm
risks, we provide a clear and logical framework for identifying and measuring different types of
risks for various purposes within a complex DSC system.
10
4.1 A typology of dairy supply chain risk
In this section, we detail the on-farm, off-farm, and inherent SCRs in the DSC. A typology
encompassing various DSC risks has been proposed (Figure 5). The major SCRs are examined
under both the on-farm and off-farm stages as follows.
4.1.1 On-farm supply chain risk
The on-farm SCRs refer to risks associated with dairy farming systems that create uncertainty
regarding the ability to ensure a consistent supply of products that meet desired quantity, quality,
and safety standards for consumers (Wang et al., 2012, Bachev, 2013, Daud et al., 2015). On-farm
SCRs involve challenges and uncertainties that directly impact agricultural operations, from
cultivation to the early stages of the supply chain. These risks can significantly affect farmers,
influencing crop yields, production efficiency, and overall farm sustainability. Risks within the
on-farm segment increase the vulnerability of the DSC (Ibrhm et al., 2020). Most previous
studies focus on distribution (off-farm) and farming (on-farm) risks separately. This paper
proposes a typological model that incorporates both on-farm and off-farm risks, promoting a more
integrated, systemic approach to supply chain management.
From the dairy farm's perspective, on-farm risk can either be internal, originating from within
the farm, or external, stemming from broader factors affecting the farm. The on-farm SCRs are
summarized in Table 3.
Table 3 On-farm SCRs
On-farm SCRs
Internal risk
Internal factors within a dairy farm can affect the reliability, cost-
effectiveness, and efficiency of production, processing, and marketing
activities throughout the entire DSC. These risks include plant and
animal diseases, technological challenges, milk quality and quantity
issues, risks related to the milking process, farm management and
operational risks, as well as the illnesses of the owner or laborers
(Jaffee et al., 2010, Manning and Soon, 2016).
External risk
External factors are often beyond the control of the dairy farm.
On-farm external risks include biological and natural environmental
risks, such as global warming, extreme weather, drought, flooding, and
other natural disasters, as well as public policy and institutional risks
(Prakash, 2017, Bachev, 2013, Jaffee et al., 2010).
4.1.2 Off-farm supply chain risk
The off-farm SCRs refer to risks arising from processors, traders, distributors, and consumers
(Bachev, 2013). The off-farm risk classification is adopted from the fresh food supply chain
(Nakandala et al., 2017) and traditional SCR literature (Zsidisin and Ritchie, 2009, Wang, 2018,
Tang and Nurmaya Musa, 2011, Sodhi and Tang, 2012, Ho et al., 2015, Diabat et al., 2012). Off-
farm risks include supply risk, demand risk, manufacturing risk, and environmental risk in the
11
dairy industry (Diabat et al., 2012, Dani and Deep, 2010, Prakash, 2017, Bachev, 2013, Jaffee et
al., 2010). The off-farm SCRs are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4 Off-farm SCRs
Off-farm SCRs
Supply risk
Zsidisin (2003a) defined supply risk as the likelihood of an event occurring
within the inbound supply chain, such as individual supplier failures or
disruptions in the supply market, that prevents the purchasing firm from
meeting customer demand or poses threats to customer safety and well-being.
Off-farm supply risks are related to sourcing (Zsidisin, 2003b), procurement
(Mishra and Shekhar, 2011), supplier selection (Anggrahini et al., 2018), and
availability (Dani and Deep, 2010).
Demand risk
Demand risk refers to the uncertainty and risk arising from the downstream
supply chain system. It involves uncertainties emerging downstream of the
supply chain that could disrupt the company’s supply (Yu and Huatuco, 2016).
Retailers face market risk, which represents the demand risk for the entire
supply chain (Leat and Revoredo‐Giha, 2013). Factors contributing to demand
risk include price fluctuations (Yu and Huatuco, 2016), consumer trust (Li et
al., 2019), and forecasting challenges (Daud et al., 2015).
Manufacturing
risk
Manufacturing risk is associated with internal operational and control risks.
It can be defined as “the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal
processes, people, and systems, or external events” (Yu and Huatuco, 2016).
These risks may arise from internal processes or interactions with external
factors, including quality (Tse and Tan, 2012), process issues (Prakash et al.,
2017, Mishra and Shekhar, 2011), products (Diabat et al., 2012), and services
(Bachev, 2013).
Environmental
risk
Off-farm environmental risk refers to events that can directly impact the
company or its upstream and downstream dairy supply system. Stakeholders in
the supply chain generally have limited control over off-farm environmental
factors, so they must design appropriate strategies to manage these risks (Leat
and Revoredo‐Giha, 2013). Environmental risks include factors such as policy
and politics, macroeconomic conditions, societal trends, technological changes,
and natural environmental events (Mason-Jones and Towill, 1998, Diabat et al.,
2012, Nasir et al., 2014, Wang et al., 2022). Off-farm environmental risks do
not conflict with on-farm external risks, which primarily focus on
environmental risks within the farm itself.
4.1.3 Inherent supply chain risk
Supply chain management considers three main flows, including the material flow, the
information flow, and the financial flow (Christopher, 2005, Ho et al., 2015). Accordingly, the
major SCRs are inherent in the material, information, and financial flows (Tang and Nurmaya
12
Musa, 2011). We can define them are logistics risk, information risk, and financial risk. The
inherent SCR may arise from any component within its supply chain. The inherent SCRs are
summarized in Table 5.
Table 5 Inherent SCRs in the Dairy Industry
Inherent SCRs
Logistics risk
Dairy products, such as milk and yogurt, are highly perishable and
prone to expiration and spoilage. To maintain product quality, raw milk
must be preserved through a cold chain, a temperature-controlled supply
chain. The inherent characteristics of dairy commodities and their
production processes add complexity to milk logistics, creating distinct
risks and challenges that differ from those associated with other goods
(Anggrahini et al., 2018, Liu et al., 2019, Jaffee et al., 2010). As a result,
the DSC requires customized logistics solutions. Mishra and Shekhar
(2011) found that logistical-related risks account for more than two-thirds
of the risks at the processing plant level. The logistics risks include delays,
operational risks (Dani and Deep, 2010, Jose, 2019), and infrastructure-
related risks (Mishra and Shekhar, 2011).
Information risk
Information risk refers to the likelihood of loss due to incorrect,
incomplete, or unauthorized access to information (Wang et al., 2015b).
In the DSC, information risk is linked to various stakeholders, including
farms (Jose, 2019), processors (Mishra and Shekhar, 2011), and
customers (Li et al., 2019). This may also encompass digital risks within
modern supply chain systems. It is crucial to evaluate information risks
from multiple perspectives to ensure comprehensive risk management.
Financial risk
The level of financial risk is determined by a company's profitability
and liquidity, reflecting its ability to repay loans and interest, as well as
its capacity to maintain ongoing capital investments for sustainable
growth (Manning and Soon, 2016). This risk can occur at both on-farm
and off-farm stages and is a critical consideration for farmers and business
owners. Additionally, the unpredictability of milk production poses
another financial risk, potentially leading to financial losses for the dairy
industry (Nasir et al., 2014).
13
Figure 5. A conceptual risk framework of DSC (Source: Authors’ work)
4.2 Key challenges and issues in the dairy supply chain
The DSC is complex, with each country facing unique challenges. Leppälä et al. (2011)
identified several key issues in the DSC, including environmental, social, ethical, and economic
challenges. Bachev (2013) categorized these challenges into four generic risk types: natural,
market, private, and social. For instance, Yu and Huatuco (2016) highlighted the challenges faced
by the Chinese DSC following the 2008 melamine scandal, which resulted in increased costs,
reduced sales, and greater market uncertainty, further exposing vulnerabilities in the supply chain.
Similarly, Mor et al. (2018) identified challenges in the Indian dairy industry, such as issues with
information systems, the perishable nature of dairy products, traceability of quality-related
concerns, milk adulteration risks, cold chain inefficiencies, demand fluctuations, and inadequate
logistics and infrastructure.
A systematic review of the literature reveals that numerous factors contribute to the challenges
in the DSC, including natural disasters, weather fluctuations, policy shifts, technological failures,
infectious diseases, terrorism, and food scandals. These challenges are closely related to
Dairy Supply
Chain risks
Demand risk
Environmental
risk
Manufacturing
risk
Internal risk
On-Farm Supply
Chain risk
External risk
Off-farm supply
chain risk
Supply risk
Information risk
Financial risk
Logistics risk
Inherent supply
chain risk
14
sustainability in the DSC. For example, adhering to environmental protection, animal welfare, and
food safety regulations is critical for sustainability. Strategies for reducing food waste, improving
packaging efficiency, and promoting recycling also contribute to environmental sustainability.
Sustainability in the DSC encompasses managing and optimizing various factors to ensure the
long-term viability of the industry, balancing environmental, social, and economic considerations.
Given the global nature of this study, it emphasizes the importance of contextualizing the DSC
framework to make informed decisions regarding risk management in different settings.
4.2.1 Food Safety
Food safety is a major concern of food SCR management (Nakandala et al., 2017, Dani and
Deep, 2010) as it directly impacts human health and even lives. Contamination, poor food quality,
and animal diseases can lead to public health emergencies, both domestically and internationally.
Among the threats, food adulteration is one of the most serious concerns (Levi et al., 2020) and it
has been widely recognized as a significant challenge in the dairy industry. For example, the 2008
Fonterra and Sanlu infant formula scandal, where melamine contamination led to the deaths of six
babies and affected 30,000 victims in China, underscores the importance of ensuring food safety
(Dani and Deep, 2010). This event sparked increased research into the risks of adulteration across
all stages of the DSC. Tse and Tan (2011) argue that quality risks may arise from raw materials,
manufacturing processes, or logistics operations at any tier of the supply network. Nasir et al.
(2014) emphasized that adulteration is a major risk factor associated with distribution and is
considered an unethical social risk. The Sanlu incident, in particular, revealed that the
decentralized and dispersed supply chain sourcing model contributed to ineffective quality control
and supervision (Chen et al., 2014), highlighting the need for robust quality management in the
DSC.
Food safety risks can arise at any stage of the DSC (Mor et al., 2018, Daud et al., 2015, Bachev
and Nanseki, 2008). Effective food safety management and traceability are critical for the success
of milk supply chains (Sellitto et al., 2018, Li et al., 2019). Previous studies on food supply chains
have identified three main categories of food safety risks: biological, chemical, and physical
hazards. It is essential to manage these risks throughout the entire DSC to ensure safety and quality
(Yu and Huatuco, 2016).
4.2.2 Food Waste
Food waste has been a key topic in agricultural supply chain studies. Product losses and
service risks leading to food waste may occur at various stages, from production and processing
to distribution and consumption (Parfitt et al., 2010, Tostivint et al., 2017). Food waste is a
significant issue with profound economic, social, and environmental consequences. The Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that one-third of all perishable food produced globally
is wasted before reaching consumers (Parfitt et al., 2010). Food waste has direct implications for
food security, surplus production, and greenhouse gas emissions (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014).
Dairy products are particularly susceptible to spoilage, given their perishable nature, making
effective logistics and supply chain management essential to minimize waste. Efficient DSC risk
management can help reduce food waste by improving the supply chain's effectiveness.
Moreover, food waste may be considered a resource (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014). The waste
can be reused and recycled in supply chain systems. In the DSC, the food waste may be recycled
into animal feed, this requires good DSC management to integrate and collaborate with the
stakeholders and manage the risks across the DSC from farm to folk. Understanding and
addressing food waste is crucial for promoting sustainability, reducing environmental impact, and
ensuring global food security. Educational programs at all levels can contribute to changing
attitudes and behaviors toward food consumption and waste. Addressing food waste requires a
15
multi-faceted approach that involves collaboration among stakeholders, technological innovations,
policy interventions, and changes in consumer behavior.
4.2.3 Health and Environmental Consciousness
Growing concerns about environmental pollution and animal welfare issues have led to
increased consumer demand for products with "credence attributes," such as eco-friendly and
animal welfare certifications (Yang and Renwick, 2019). Seen as an opportunity with potential
price premiums, the market signal also challenges the DSC. Dairy farms need to have lower
environmental impacts. For example, to deliver products with credence attributes, such as organic
and carbon-neutral, dairy farmers are expected to change or adapt to reduce environmental
footprints (e.g., carbon emissions and nutrient pollution), which are associated with high
mitigation costs (Yang et al., 2020). Similarly, the processors and distributors need to keep those
attributes “intact” throughout the supply chain.
Besides, challenges may come from the blind spot of the dairy industry that alternative dairy
products, i.e. “lab-grown” milk or synthetic milk, have been on the way to the market. The
pioneering firms of synthetic milk claim that animal-free milk is better for the environment and
healthier than cow’s milk as it is free of lactose, hormones, antibiotics, gluten, and cholesterol.
Although consumers’ attitudes toward the “new” products have not been clear, the traditional dairy
industry needs to prepare for it from on-farm to off-farm practices, requiring the readiness of each
process of the DSC. Moreover, practices that promote the health and well-being of dairy animals
contribute to sustainability and align with consumer expectations for responsible farming.
4.3 DSC Risk Mitigation
SCR management is a systematic process of managing the risk events that can cause negative
impacts in the supply chain, and their likely incidence and consequences (Jaffee et al., 2010).
Effective risk management requires coordination among supply chain members to ensure
profitability and continuity while reducing overall vulnerability (Christopher, 2005, Tang, 2006).
No single universal solution exists for managing the diverse types of risks in the DSC (Bachev,
2013). However, there are several primary risk management strategies, including avoidance
(eliminating or withdrawing from risk), reduction (optimizing or mitigating risk), sharing
(outsourcing or insuring risk), and retention (accepting and budgeting for risk) (Zsidisin and
Ritchie, 2009). Qualitative assessments can assist risk managers in prioritizing risks, making
decisions, and allocating resources effectively (Wang et al., 2012).
Several studies have discussed risk mitigation strategies for the DSC. Leppälä et al. (2011)
emphasized the importance of farm-level risk management in ensuring the sustainability of the
food supply chain. Nasir et al. (2014) suggested that the most supported mitigation strategy in
DSC risk management is technological development. Technology plays a vital role in DSC risk
management. Various innovative solutions were explored to tackle SCRs (Wang et al., 2020). For
example, tracking and tracing technologies can improve the visibility and traceability of food
supply chains (Wang and Li, 2012). Nasir et al. (2014) suggested that the DSC risk mitigation
strategies include technological development, insurance management, human resource
management, government support, feed management, disease management, and transport
management in Bangladesh. Yu and Huatuco (2016) recommended increased collaboration with
partners, improved system flexibility, and the establishment of buffers at critical nodes across the
supply chain in China. Food safety, product quality, and associated economic benefits in the dairy
industry can be achieved through technological innovation (Mor et al., 2018). A high level of
collaborative working across supply chains can significantly help mitigate risk (Peck, 2006, Yu
and Huatuco, 2016). Table 6 presents an overview of DSC risk mitigation strategies.
16
Table 6 Dairy Supply Chain Risk Mitigation
Techniques of risk
managing
Risk mitigation strategies
Studies
Risk avoidance
(eliminates,
withdraws from, or
does not become
involved)
• Initiative to remove political uncertainty
• Hiring skilled staff
• Supply chain collaboration
• Innovation
• Motivational and incentive facilities for staff
• Assurance of adequate institutional credit
• Support with a low rate of interest
Nasir et al.
(2014), Yu and
Huatuco (2016),
Mor et al. (2018)
Risk reduction
(optimize)
• Adoption of improved technology (Milking
machine, feed mixture, grass cutting, improved
processing facilities)
• ICT application
• Acquisition and integration
• Reduction of risks through merger
Nasir et al.
(2014), Yu and
Huatuco (2016)
Prakash et al.
(2017)
Mor et al. (2018)
Risk sharing
(transfers – outsource
or insure),
• Buying insurance against production loss
• Conjoint venture
• Development of Guanxi (“relationship”) with
supplier
• Pooling strategy
• Decentralized approach to building specialized
capacity
Nasir et al.
(2014), Yu and
Huatuco (2016)
Risk-retention
(accepts and budget)
• Focus on product diversification and value
creation.
• Promote information sharing, cooperation, and
better coordination.
• Increasing system flexibility
Nasir et al.
(2014), Yu and
Huatuco (2016)
4.4 Creating a resilient Dairy supply chain
In the aftermath of the pandemic, there is growing consensus among companies about the
importance of effectively managing SCRs and building resilient supply chains (Dohale et al.,
2021). Managing DSC risks plays a crucial role in creating a resilient supply chain for dairy
products. This study provides a comprehensive understanding of DSC risks, which supports the
development of a resilient and sustainable supply chain (Wang and Wang, 2023). Our findings
suggest both reactive and proactive approaches to strengthen the DSC’s resilience. Implementing
risk mitigation strategies enables professionals, policymakers, and researchers in the dairy industry
to address SCRs and minimize their impacts. Proactively recognizing potential disruptions,
applying mitigation strategies, and enhancing the agility and adaptability of the supply chain are
critical to ensuring a steady supply of dairy products, meeting consumer demand despite
challenges or uncertainties.
Furthermore, innovative technologies and methods hold significant potential to transform the
dairy industry, driving efficiency, sustainability, resilience, and competitiveness in an increasingly
dynamic global market. For instance, blockchain technology offers enhanced transparency and
traceability throughout the DSC by securely recording and sharing information about each stage
of production, processing, and distribution (Wang et al., 2021). This improves food safety, quality
control, and consumer trust by providing immutable records of product origin, handling, and
certification. Automation technologies, including GPS systems, robotic systems, automated
17
feeding systems, and health monitoring devices, streamline farm operations and reduce labor
requirements (Amin-Chaudhry et al., 2022, Lunner-Kolstrup et al., 2018). These technologies not
only improve efficiency but also enable more consistent management practices and better animal
welfare. Advanced data analytics and predictive modeling allow dairy farmers to make data-driven
decisions regarding herd management, feed optimization, disease prevention, and resource
allocation (Taneja et al., 2020). Supply chain digitalization can significantly enhance business
performance (Wang and Prajogo, 2024) and enhance agility (Wang et al., 2024). By leveraging
historical data and predictive algorithms, farmers can anticipate challenges, optimize performance,
and mitigate risks more effectively. However, adopting new technologies may introduce additional
risks and costs for farmers, potentially creating opportunities for further research in the coming
years.
5. Results
The study provides a comprehensive framework for understanding risks within the DSC.
While the research was conducted in New Zealand, the findings and risk framework are not limited
to this context and can be broadly applied across different countries. The research also offers
valuable insights into the key risks within the DSC, along with strategies to enhance its resilience
and sustainability. The following results outline the major risk categories identified, their impacts,
and the potential solutions proposed in the study.
On-farm risks were further subdivided into internal risks and external risks. Internal risks refer
to factors inherent to the dairy farming operation, impacting the reliability, costs, and efficiency
of production, processing, and marketing activities (Maina et al., 2020). These include challenges
such as plant and animal diseases, technological disruptions, variations in milk quality and
quantity, milking process risks, farm management issues, and illnesses among farm laborers.
External risks encompass factors beyond the immediate control of the farm, including biological
and environmental threats such as global warming, extreme weather, drought, and other natural
disasters, as well as policy and regulatory uncertainties (Sodhi and Tang, 2021). These risks can
significantly affect farm output and the overall resilience of the supply chain, potentially leading
to disruptions in the consistent supply of dairy products.
Off-farm risks, which pertain to actors beyond the farm level (processors, distributors, and
consumers), were categorized into four key areas: supply risk, demand risk, manufacturing risk,
and environmental risk (Ho et al., 2015, Guillot et al., 2024). Supply Risk was associated with
uncertainties in the procurement process, including supplier reliability and raw material
availability. This was highlighted as a critical area, as disruptions in supply can directly impact the
ability to meet consumer demand. Demand Risk focused on uncertainties arising from market
demand, such as price fluctuations, changes in consumer preferences, and inaccurate forecasting.
These factors contribute to unpredictability in production planning and inventory management.
Manufacturing Risk involved internal operational risks during processing and product
manufacturing, including quality control, production processes, and service disruptions. These
risks were found to directly affect product consistency and safety. Environmental Risk concerned
external factors that impact the DSC, such as political changes, economic shifts, technological
advancements, and environmental changes. These risks highlighted the vulnerability of off-farm
operations to broader, uncontrollable forces.
The analysis identified inherent risks within the DSC, which relate to the core flows of the
supply chain: material, information, and financial (Guillot et al., 2024). Logistics Risk was found
to be particularly critical, given the perishable nature of dairy products. The need for cold chain
management, the risk of spoilage, and infrastructure limitations were highlighted as key logistical
challenges. These risks emphasize the necessity for specialized transportation and storage
solutions. Information Risk examines the accuracy, availability, and security of information shared
18
within the supply chain. Financial Risk focuses on the economic challenges faced by supply chain
actors, such as fluctuating milk prices, financial liquidity, and investment in sustainable practices.
This category underscores the importance of financial planning and risk management in
maintaining a stable supply chain. As DSC often involves B2B relationships, it is significant to
consider SCR management within B2B models (Guillot et al., 2024, Tiwari et al., 2024).
The study identified several pressing challenges that impact the global DSC, emphasizing the
importance of sustainability, food safety, and adaptation to changing consumer preferences. Food
Safety emerged as a top priority (Kataike et al., 2019), given its direct impact on consumer health.
Risks associated with contamination, adulteration, and traceability were highlighted as key
concerns that require stringent quality control measures throughout the supply chain. Food Waste
was another significant issue, with the study noting that a considerable amount of dairy products
are lost before reaching consumers. Addressing food waste was linked to enhancing supply chain
efficiency, adopting recycling practices, and reducing environmental impact. Health and
Environmental Consciousness reflected growing consumer demand for sustainably produced dairy
products. This area focuses on reducing the environmental footprint of dairy farming, ensuring
animal welfare, and adapting to innovations like synthetic milk. These challenges necessitate shifts
in both farming practices and supply chain operations to meet evolving consumer expectations.
The study highlighted several strategies that can be implemented both proactively and
reactively to mitigate the identified risks and build a more resilient DSC: Technological
advancements were identified as critical tools for managing risks in the DSC. Blockchain
technology, for instance, was noted as a promising solution for enhancing traceability and
transparency throughout the supply chain (Wang et al., 2021). By securely recording and sharing
information at every stage of production, processing, and distribution, blockchain technology can
improve food safety, quality control, and consumer trust. Automation technologies, including GPS
systems, robotic systems, and automated health monitoring, were found to improve efficiency and
resilience in dairy farming operations (Amin-Chaudhry et al., 2022, Lunner-Kolstrup et al., 2018).
These technologies reduce labor requirements and ensure more consistent management practices,
leading to better animal welfare and reduced operational risks. The study emphasized the role of
advanced data analytics and predictive modeling techniques in making data-driven decisions for
herd management, feed optimization, disease prevention, and resource allocation(Taneja et al.,
2020). By leveraging historical data and predictive algorithms, farmers can anticipate challenges
and mitigate risks more effectively, optimizing performance and minimizing potential disruptions.
The research further identified several key drivers essential for building a resilient DSC:
Proactively addressing SCRs and improving the agility and adaptability of the supply chain
emerged as fundamental strategies for ensuring a steady supply of dairy products, even in the face
of disruptions (Wang and Wang, 2023). Supply chain digitalization is a key driver in enhancing
agility and resilience (Wang et al., 2024). These measures ensure that the supply chain can respond
quickly to changing market conditions, environmental factors, and unforeseen challenges.
Increased collaboration among supply chain stakeholders was identified as crucial for risk
mitigation. By working together, dairy producers, processors, and distributors can improve
operational efficiency, share critical information, and address risks more effectively (Peck, 2006;
Yu and Huatuco, 2016). The role of government and policy interventions in supporting risk
mitigation strategies within the DSC was also highlighted. Policymakers can play a crucial role in
establishing regulations that support sustainability, food safety, and environmental responsibility
across the DSC.
6. Conclusion
19
SCRs and their management have been extensively discussed in previous studies (Wang and
Jie, 2019a, Ho et al., 2015, Tang and Nurmaya Musa, 2011). However, limited research has
specifically focused on the risks associated with the DSC. As emphasized earlier, understanding
SCRs requires a focused approach within specific industries, particularly when considering
practical applications. This paper examines both on-farm and off-farm SCRs in the dairy industry
through a systematic literature review of key research published between 2010 and 2019. It
provides a comprehensive framework for understanding these risks and proposes a typological
model of DSC risks. Understanding these risks is essential for managers to effectively oversee the
entire DSC. The risk framework developed in this study offers farm managers and DSC
practitioners actionable insights to improve both supply chain and farm management within the
dairy industry. Technological advancements and innovative practices are key to enhancing
efficiency in dairy production, reducing resource consumption, and mitigating environmental
impacts.
The study also highlights that many of the challenges within the DSC are linked to
sustainability. Addressing these challenges is crucial to building a more resilient and sustainable
dairy industry. Additionally, the paper underscores the importance of proactive risk management
within the DSC. The typological model provides a foundation for developing and testing
hypotheses regarding the impact of these risks on the industry. Moreover, transparent supply
chains enable consumers to trace the origin of dairy products, promoting accountability and
verifying sustainability claims. Consumer awareness and demand are essential for sustainable
practices to thrive. This study provides valuable insights for both practitioners and researchers in
understanding risks and risk management within the DSC. Future research could explore the
refinement of SCRs from different perspectives. An empirical investigation, such as a survey of
DSC management, could help validate and test the typological model proposed in this paper.
Additionally, it is crucial to investigate the risks associated with digitalization, as it is a growing
trend. With an increasing number of technologies being integrated into supply chains, effectively
managing digital risks will become increasingly significant in the near future.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to express our sincere gratitude to the editors and reviewers for their
invaluable contributions and insightful feedback in improving this paper.
References
Alexandratos, N. (2012), World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. In:
BRUINSMA, J. (ed.) ESA Working paper. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO).
Amin-Chaudhry, A., Young, S. & Afshari, L. (2022), “Sustainability motivations and challenges
in the Australian agribusiness”, Journal of Cleaner Production,Vol. 361 No.
Anggrahini, D., Baihaqi, I. & Anggani, P. C. (Year), Published. Supplier selection framework for
dairy industry in Indonesia. Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Operations Management, 2018. 2917-2926.
Bachev, H. (2013), “Risk management in the agri-food sector”, Contemporary Economics,Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 45-62.
Bachev, H. I. & Nanseki, T. (2008), Risk governance in Bulgarian dairy farming.
Bhattacharyya, D. K. (2011), Organizational Change and Development, New Delhi Oxford
University Press.
Bilska, B. & Kołozyn-Krajewska, D. (2019), “Risk management of dairy product losses as a tool
to improve the environment and food rescue”, Foods,Vol. 8 No. 10.
20
Blackhurst, J. V., Scheibe, K. P. & Johnson, D. J. (2008), “Supplier risk assessment and
monitoring for the automotive industry”, International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management,Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 143-165.
Boehlje, M. D. & Eidman, V. R. (1984), Farm management, J. Wiley.
Chari, F. & Ngcamu, B. S. (2017), “An assessment of the impact of disaster risks on dairy supply
chain performance in Zimbabwe”, Cogent Engineering,Vol. 4 No. 1.
Chaudhuri, A., Srivastava, S. K., Srivastava, R. K. & Parveen, Z. (2016), “Risk propagation and
its impact on performance in food processing supply chain”, Journal of Modelling in
Management,Vol. No.
Chen, C., Zhang, J. & Delaurentis, T. (2014), “Quality control in food supply chain
management: An analytical model and case study of the adulterated milk incident in
China”, International Journal of Production Economics,Vol. 152 No., pp. 188-199.
Chouinard, H. H., Paterson, T., Wandschneider, P. R. & Ohler, A. M. (2008), “Will Farmers
Trade Profits for Stewardship? Heterogeneous Motivations for Farm Practice Selection”,
Land Economics,Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 66-82.
Christopher, M. (2005), Logistics and supply chain management : strategies for reducing costs,
improving services and managing the chain of demand, New York, New York : Financial
Times Prentice Hall.
Christopher, M. & Lee, H. (2004), “Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,Vol. 34 No. 5,
pp. 388-396.
Christopher, M. & Peck, H. (2004), “Building the resilient supply chain”, The International
Journal of Logistics Management,Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 1-14.
Dani, S. & Deep, A. (2010), “Fragile food supply chains: reacting to risks”, International
Journal of Logistics Research and Applications,Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 395-410.
Daud, A., Putro, U. & Basri, M. (2015), “Risks in milk supply chain; a preliminary analysis on
smallholder dairy production”, Livestock Research for Rural Development,Vol. 27 No. 7,
pp. 1-14.
Diabat, A., Govindan, K. & Panicker, V. V. (2012), “Supply chain risk management and its
mitigation in a food industry”, International Journal of Production Research,Vol. 50 No.
11, pp. 3039-3050.
Dohale, V., Ambilkar, P., Gunasekaran, A. & Verma, P. (2021), “Supply chain risk mitigation
strategies during COVID-19: exploratory cases of “make-to-order” handloom saree
apparel industries”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management,Vol. No.
Grötsch, V. M., Blome, C. & Schleper, M. C. (2013), “Antecedents of proactive supply chain
risk management – a contingency theory perspective”, International Journal of
Production Research,Vol. 51 No. 10, pp. 2842-2867.
Guillot, R., Dubey, R. & Kumari, S. (2024), “B2B supply chain risk measurement systems: a
SCOR perspective”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 553-
567.
Ho, W., Zheng, T., Yildiz, H. & Talluri, S. (2015), “Supply chain risk management: a literature
review”, International Journal of Production Research,Vol. 53 No. 16, pp. 1-39.
IbrHM, S. M., Zimmerman, T. & Gyawali, R. (2020), Current Issues and Challenges in the
Dairy Industry, London, IntechOpen.
Jaffee, S., Siegel, P. & Andrews, C. (2010), “Rapid agricultural supply chain risk assessment: A
conceptual framework”, Agriculture and rural development discussion paper,Vol. 47 No.
1, pp. 1-64.
Jose, A. (2019), “Supply chain issues in SME food sector: a systematic review”, Journal of
Advances in Management Research,Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 19-65.
21
Jüttner, U. (2005), “Supply chain risk management: Understanding the business requirements
from a practitioner perspective”, International Journal of Logistics Management,Vol. 16
No. 1, pp. 120-141.
Jüttner, U., Peck, H. & Christopher, M. (2003), “Supply chain risk management: outlining an
agenda for future research”, International Journal of Logistics Research and
Applications,Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 197-210.
Kataike, J., Aramyan, L. H., Schmidt, O., Molnár, A. & Gellynck, X. (2019), “Measuring chain
performance beyond supplier–buyer relationships in agri-food chains”, Supply chain
management,Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 484-497.
Kitchenham, B. (2004), Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews Staffs, UK: Keele
University
Leat, P. & Revoredo‐Giha, C. (2013), “Risk and resilience in agri‐food supply chains: The
case of the ASDA PorkLink supply chain in Scotland”, Supply chain management: An
international journal,Vol. No.
Leppälä, J., Manninen, E. & Pohjola, T. (2011), Farm risk management applied to sustainability
of the food supply chain: a case study of sustainability risks in dairy farming.
Environmental Management Accounting and Supply Chain Management. Springer.
Leppälä, J., Murtonen, M. & Kauranen, I. (2012), “Farm Risk Map: A contextual tool for risk
identification and sustainable management on farms”, Risk Management,Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 42-59.
Levi, R., Singhvi, S. & Zheng, Y. (2020), “Economically motivated adulteration in farming
supply chains”, Management Science,Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 209-226.
Li, S., Sijtsema, S. J., Kornelis, M., Liu, Y. & Li, S. (2019), “Consumer confidence in the safety
of milk and infant milk formula in China”, Journal of Dairy Science,Vol. 102 No. 10, pp.
8807-8818.
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke,
M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J. & Moher, D. (2009), “The PRISMA statement for
reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare
interventions: explanation and elaboration”, BMJ,Vol. 339 No., pp. b2700.
Liu, X., Arthanari, T. & Shi, Y. (2019), “Making dairy supply chains robust against corruption
risk: a systemic exploratory study”, International Journal of Logistics Management,Vol.
30 No. 4, pp. 1078-1100.
Lunner-Kolstrup, C., Hörndahl, T. & Karttunen, J. P. (2018), “Farm operators’ experiences of
advanced technology and automation in Swedish agriculture: a pilot study”, Journal of
Agromedicine,Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 215-226.
Maina, C., Njehia, B. K. & Eric, B. K. (2020), “Enhancing organisational performance in the
dairy industry: Supply chain management approach”, International Journal of
Agriculture,Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 25-38.
Manning, L. & Soon, J. M. (2016), “Building strategic resilience in the food supply chain”,
British Food Journal,Vol. 118 No. 6, pp. 1477-1493.
Manuj, I. & Mentzer, J. T. (2008), “Global supply chain risk management ”, Journal of Business
Logistics,Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 133-155.
Mason-Jones, R. & Towill, D. R. (1998), “Shrinking the supply chain uncertainty circle”, IOM
Control,Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 17-22.
Mishra, P. K. & Shekhar, B. R. (2011), “Impact of Risks and Uncertainties on Supply Chain: A
Dairy Industry Perspective”, Journal of Management Research,Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-18.
Mithun Ali, S., Moktadir, M. A., Kabir, G., Chakma, J., Rumi, M. J. U. & Islam, M. T. (2019),
“Framework for evaluating risks in food supply chain: Implications in food wastage
reduction”, Journal of Cleaner Production,Vol. 228 No., pp. 786-800.
22
Mor, R. S., Bhardwaj, A. & Singh, S. (2018), “A structured-literature-review of the supply chain
practices in dairy industry”, Journal of Operations and Supply Chain Management,Vol.
11 No. 1, pp. 14-25.
Nakandala, D., Lau, H. & Zhao, L. (2017), “Development of a hybrid fresh food supply chain
risk assessment model”, International Journal of Production Research,Vol. 55 No. 14,
pp. 4180-4195.
Nasir, T., Quaddus, M. & Shamsuddoha, M. (2014), “Dairy supply chain risk management in
Bangladesh: field studies of factors and variables”, Jurnal Teknik Industri,Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 127-138.
Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., K. Steinberger, J., Wright, N. & Ujang, Z. B. (2014), “The
food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food
waste”, Journal of Cleaner Production,Vol. 76 No., pp. 106-115.
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M. & Macnaughton, S. (2010), “Food waste within food supply chains:
quantification and potential for change to 2050”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B,Vol. 365 No. 1554, pp. 3065-3081.
Peck, H. (2006), “Reconciling supply chain vulnerability, risk and supply chain management”,
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications,Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 127-142.
Prakash, S. (2017), “Risk analysis and mitigation for perishable food supply chain: a case of
dairy industry”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 2-23.
Prakash, S., Soni, G., Rathore, A. P. S. & Singh, S. (2017), “Risk analysis and mitigation for
perishable food supply chain: a case of dairy industry”, Benchmarking,Vol. 24 No. 1, pp.
2-23.
Sellitto, M. A., Vial, L. a. M. & Viegas, C. V. (2018), “Critical success factors in Short Food
Supply Chains: Case studies with milk and dairy producers from Italy and Brazil”,
Journal of Cleaner Production,Vol. 170 No., pp. 1361-1368.
Simangunsong, E., Hendry, L. C. & Stevenson, M. (2012), “Supply-chain uncertainty: a review
and theoretical foundation for future research”, International Journal of Production
Research,Vol. 50 No. 16, pp. 4493-4523.
Sodhi, M. S. & Tang, C. S. (2012), Managing supply chain risk, Boston, MA, Springer US.
Sodhi, M. S. & Tang, C. S. (2021), “Supply Chain Management for Extreme Conditions:
Research Opportunities”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 7-16.
Sonesson, U. & Berlin, J. (2003), “Environmental impact of future milk supply chains in
Sweden: a scenario study”, Journal of Cleaner Production,Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 253-266.
Taneja, M., Byabazaire, J., Jalodia, N., Davy, A., Olariu, C. & Malone, P. (2020), “Machine
learning based fog computing assisted data-driven approach for early lameness detection
in dairy cattle”, Computers and electronics in agriculture,Vol. 171 No., pp. 105286.
Tang, C. S. (2006), “Perspectives in supply chain risk management”, International Journal of
Production Economics,Vol. 103 No. 2, pp. 451-488.
Tang, O. & Nurmaya Musa, S. (2011), “Identifying risk issues and research advancements in
supply chain risk management”, International Journal of Production Economics,Vol. 133
No. 1, pp. 25-34.
Thun, J.-H., Drüke, M. & Hoenig, D. (2011), “Managing uncertainty – an empirical analysis of
supply chain risk management in small and medium-sized enterprises”, International
Journal of Production Research,Vol. 49 No. 18, pp. 5511-5525.
Tiwari, M., Bryde, D. J., Stavropoulou, F. & Malhotra, G. (2024), “Understanding the evolution
of flexible supply chain in the business-to-business sector: a resource-based theory
perspective”, International Studies of Management & Organization,Vol. 54 No. 4, pp.
380-406.
Tostivint, C., De Veron, S., Jan, O., Lanctuit, H., Hutton, Z. V. & Loubière, M. (2017),
“Measuring food waste in a dairy supply chain in Pakistan”, Journal of Cleaner
Production,Vol. 145 No., pp. 221-231.
23
Tse, Y. K. & Tan, K. H. (2011), “Managing product quality risk in a multi-tier global supply
chain”, International Journal of Production Research,Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 139-158.
Tse, Y. K. & Tan, K. H. (2012), “Managing product quality risk and visibility in multi-layer
supply chain”, International Journal of Production Economics,Vol. 139 No. 1, pp. 49-57.
Wang, B., Childerhouse, P., Kang, Y., Huo, B. & Mathrani, S. (2016), “Enablers of supply chain
integration: Interpersonal and interorganizational relationship perspectives”, Industrial
Management & Data Systems,Vol. 116 No. 4, pp. 838-855.
Wang, M. (2018), “Impacts of supply chain uncertainty and risk on the logistics performance”,
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 689-704.
Wang, M. (2023), “A measurement model for assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic
on supply chains”, International Journal of Agile Systems and Management,Vol. 16 No.
4, pp. 429–457.
Wang, M., Asian, S., Wood Lincoln, C. & Wang, B. (2020), “Logistics innovation capability and
its impacts on the supply chain risks in the Industry 4.0 era”, Modern Supply Chain
Research and Applications,Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Wang, M., Hill, A., Liu, Y., Hwang, K.-S. & Lim, M. K. (2024), “Supply chain digitalization
and agility: how does firm innovation matter in companies?”, Journal of Business
Logistics,Vol. Ahead of print No. Ahead of print, pp. 1-40.
Wang, M. & Jie, F. (2019a), “Managing supply chain uncertainty and risk in the pharmaceutical
industry”, Health Services Management Research,Vol. No., pp. 0951484819845305.
Wang, M. & Jie, F. (Year), Published. Towards a Conceptual Framework for Managing Supply
Chain Uncertainty and Risk in the Australian Red Meat Industry: A Resource-Based
View Approach. 2019 IEEE 6th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Applications, ICIEA 2019, 2019b. 714-722.
Wang, M. & Jie, F. (2020), “Managing supply chain uncertainty and risk in the pharmaceutical
industry”, Health Services Management Research,Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 156-164.
Wang, M., Jie, F. & Abareshi, A. (2015a), “A conceptual framework for mitigating supply chain
uncertainties and risks in the courier industry”, International Journal of Supply Chain
and Operations Resilience,Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 319-338.
Wang, M., Jie, F. & Abareshi, A. (2015b), “Evaluating logistics capability for mitigation of
supply chain uncertainty and risk in the Australian courier firms”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics,Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 486-498.
Wang, M., Kim, N. & Chan, R. Y. K. (2022), “Impacts of environmental uncertainty on firms'
innovation capability and stakeholder value: evidence from the Australian courier
industry ”, International Journal of Innovation Management,Vol. 26 No. 01, pp.
2250008.
Wang, M. & Prajogo, D. (2024), “The effect of supply chain digitalisation on a firm’s
performance”, Industrial Management & Data Systems,Vol. 124 No. 5, pp. 1725-1745.
Wang, M., Radics, R., Islam, S. & Hwang, K. S. (2023), “Towards Forest Supply Chain Risks”,
Operations and Supply Chain Management,Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 97-108.
Wang, M. & Wang, B. (2023), “Supply chain agility as the antecedent to firm sustainability
in the post COVID-19”, The International Journal of Logistics Management,Vol. 35 No.
1, pp. 281-303.
Wang, M., Wu, Y., Chen, B. & Evans, M. (2021), “Blockchain and Supply Chain Management:
A New Paradigm for Supply Chain Integration and Collaboration”, Operations and
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 111 – 122.
Wang, X. & Li, D. (2012), “A dynamic product quality evaluation based pricing model for
perishable food supply chains”, Omega,Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 906-917.
Wang, X., Li, D. & Shi, X. (2012), “A fuzzy model for aggregative food safety risk assessment
in food supply chains”, Production Planning & Control,Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 377-395.
24
Yang, W., Rennie, G., Ledgard, S., Mercer, G. & Lucci, G. (2020), “Impact of delivering ‘green’
dairy products on farm in New Zealand”, Agricultural Systems,Vol. 178 No., pp. 102747.
Yang, W. & Renwick, A. (2019), “Consumer Willingness to Pay Price Premiums for Credence
Attributes of Livestock Products – A Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Agricultural
Economics,Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 618-639.
Yu, C. & Huatuco, L. H. (Year), Published. Supply chain risk management identification and
mitigation: A case study in a Chinese dairy company. International Conference on
Sustainable Design and Manufacturing, 2016. Springer, 475-486.
Zsidisin, G. A. (2003a), “A grounded definition of supply risk”, Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management,Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 217-224.
Zsidisin, G. A. (2003b), “Managerial Perceptions of Supply Risk”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management,Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 14-26.
Zsidisin, G. A. & Ritchie, B. (2009), Supply Chain Risk: A Handbook of Assessment,
Management, and Performance, Boston, MA, Springer US, Boston, MA.
Zubair, M. & Mufti, N. A. (2015), “Identification and assessment of supply chain risks
associated with dairy products sector”, Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences,Vol. 11
No., pp. 167-175.
