Recovery strategies as dynamic capabilities: Differential mediation effects of proactive and reactive approaches in the supply chain disruption-productivity relationship

Richmond Wardie Darko; Elizabeth Ayamga

doi:10.14254/jsdtl.2025.10-2.10

Richmond Wardie Darko ⁽¹⁾ , Elizabeth Ayamga ⁽²⁾

(1) Department of Supply Chain and Information Systems, Kwame Nkruma University of Science and Technology, Kumasi , Ghana

(2) Department of Management, Accra Technical University, Barnes Rd, Accra , Ghana

https://doi.org/10.14254/jsdtl.2025.10-2.10

Issue
Vol. 10 No. 2 (2025)

Keywords:

supply chain disruption, proactive recovery strategies, reactive recovery strategies, firm productivity, dynamic capabilities, supply chain resilience

PDF

Abstract

Purpose. This study investigates how supply chain disruptions affect firm productivity and examines the differential mediating roles of proactive and reactive recovery strategies in manufacturing firms operating in emerging economies. Methodology. Drawing on the Resource-Based View and Dynamic Capabilities Theory, the research employs a cross-sectional survey design with data collected from 250 pharmaceutical and automotive manufacturing firms in Ghana. Structural Equation Modelling using SmartPLS 4.0 with bootstrapping procedures (5,000 subsamples) was applied to test direct effects and mediation hypotheses. Results. Supply chain disruptions negatively impact firm productivity (β = -0.247, p = 0.001). Proactive recovery strategies significantly mediate this relationship with a large positive indirect effect (β = 0.396, p < 0.001), indicating that anticipatory capabilities substantially buffer disruption-induced productivity losses. Reactive recovery strategies show no significant mediating effect (β = -0.039, p = 0.452), suggesting that post-disruption responses alone are insufficient for maintaining productivity. Theoretical contribution. The study advances supply chain resilience theory by reconceptualizing recovery strategies as dynamic capabilities with differential effectiveness. It provides empirical evidence distinguishing proactive from reactive mechanisms and demonstrates that the indirect effect of proactive recovery substantially exceeds the direct negative effect of disruptions, indicating that well-developed anticipatory capabilities can more than offset disruption impacts. Practical implications. Supply chain managers should prioritize investments in proactive recovery capabilities, including supply base diversification, contingency planning, scenario analysis, and real-time monitoring systems. For transport and logistics firms, proactive strategies such as alternative routing plans, carrier diversification, and fleet redundancy represent critical resilience investments with measurable productivity returns.

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure; SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

Full text article

Generated from XML file

References

al-Saba, T. T. (2024). Automotive market analysis: Saudi compact SUV segment. Saudi Aramco Business Ambulkar, S., Blackhurst, J., & Grawe, S. (2014). Firm's resilience to supply chain disruptions: Scale development and empirical examination. Journal of Operations Management, 33-34, 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.11.002
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Brandon-Jones, E., Squire, B., Autry, C. W., & Petersen, K. J. (2014). A contingent resource-based perspective of supply chain resilience and robustness. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 50(3), 55-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12050
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Craighead, C. W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M. J., & Handfield, R. B. (2007). The severity of supply chain disruptions: Design characteristics and mitigation capabilities. Decision Sciences, 38(1), 131-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2007.00151.x
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Hair, J. F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-x
Hosseini, S., Barker, K., & Ramirez-Marquez, J. E. (2016). A review of definitions and measures of system resilience. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 145, 47-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.08.006
Ivanov, D. (2020). Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: A simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) case. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 136, 101922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.101922
Ivanov, D. (2021). Supply chain viability and the COVID-19 pandemic: a conceptual and formal generalisation of four major adaptation strategies. International Journal of Production Research, 59(12), 3535-3552. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1890852
Li, Y., Chen, K., Collignon, S., & Ivanov, D. (2021). Ripple effect in the supply chain network: Forward and backward disruption propagation, network health and firm vulnerability. European Journal of Operational Research, 291(3), 1117-1131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.09.053
Piercy, N., & Rich, N. (2015). The relationship between lean operations and sustainable operations. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 35(2), 282-315. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2014-0143
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Scholten, K., & Schilder, S. (2015). The role of collaboration in supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20(4), 471-484. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-11-2014-0386
Ezmigna, I., & Omain, S.Z. (2023). The Impact of Using Technology Integration on Supply Chain Functions and Stages. In: Hamdan, A., Harraf, A., Buallay, A., Arora, P., Alsabatin, H. (eds) From Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, vol 470. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28314-7_81
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7%3C509::AID-SMJ882%3E3.0.CO;2-Z

Authors

Richmond Wardie Darko

Department of Supply Chain and Information Systems, Kwame Nkruma University of Science and Technology, Kumasi

Elizabeth Ayamga

Department of Management, Accra Technical University, Barnes Rd, Accra

lizpik18@gmail.com (Primary Contact)

Darko, R. W., & Ayamga, E. (2025). Recovery strategies as dynamic capabilities: Differential mediation effects of proactive and reactive approaches in the supply chain disruption-productivity relationship. Journal of Sustainable Development of Transport and Logistics, 10(2), 204–228. https://doi.org/10.14254/jsdtl.2025.10-2.10

Download Citation

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.