Purpose of this paper:

This paper examines how German automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) have responded to the semiconductor supply disruptions triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent geopolitical shocks. The study aims to systematize OEMs' strategic responses by applying Supply Chain Resilience Theory (SCRT) as the primary analytical lens, while drawing on Resource Dependence Theory (RDT) and Global Value Chain Theory (GVCT) to contextualize inter-firm dynamics and upstream and downstream governance structures.

Design/methodology/approach:

This research is based on a desk-based case study that draws exclusively on secondary data sources, including industry reports, press reports, and company publications. The analysis applies a qualitative, theory-driven coding framework based on the SCRT and supplemented by constructs from the RDT and the GVCT. The study reconstructs how OEMs have adapted their sourcing, product design and architecture, and collaboration and coordination practices to mitigate long-term vulnerability to high-tech component shortages.

Findings:

The analysis shows two predominant categories of strategic actions that go hand in hand: (1) redefining the approach to electronic control unit development towards standardized platforms and architectures (2) redefining the approach to the supply chain towards direct sourcing of semiconductors and ‘deep-tier’ collaboration. These actions are underpinned by capabilities such as flexibility in production planning and product design decisions, as well as end-to-end supply chain visibility. OEMs are increasingly integrating resilience considerations into the early stages of product development as a strategic response to supply uncertainties.

Value:

This study contributes to the SCRT by providing an empirically grounded typology of resilience strategies used by OEMs during a supply crisis in systemic components. It also shows how design-based and relational interventions interact with structural features of global value chains and resource asymmetries and provides a multi-theoretical perspective on building resilience in complex manufacturing environments.

Research limitations/implications:

The study is based on secondary data and does not include primary field research or interviews. Further research could extend this work by empirically testing the effectiveness of different resilience levers over time or by taking the perspective of other supply chain actors.

Practical implications:

The results offer actionable insights for supply chain and product strategists seeking to reduce technology dependency and improve upstream resilience. Proactive modularity of design, early supplier integration, and visibility capabilities are highlighted as critical tools for building adaptability in high-risk ecosystems.

Purpose

The changing dynamics of global disruptions—deadly COVID pandemics, extreme climate events, growing geopolitical conflicts, and unpredictable trade wars—in recent years calls into question the adequacy of the traditional stability-and-recovery supply chain risk management and resilience frameworks (Linnenluecke 2015; Mithani 2020). These frameworks have, unquestionably, generated valuable insights that help firms absorb shocks, adapt to changes, and restore operational performance. However, their preoccupation with returning to a stable equilibrium by building capabilities to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disruptions while maintaining operations continuity is becoming increasingly problematic (Guntuka et al. 2024). Such an emphasis assumes that the social and economic orders as well as the international institutional mechanisms that underpin the global business landscape would not change. This assumption ignores the disruption-induced fractures in the global trade systems upon which extant supply chain configurations, production and sourcing systems, and logistics infrastructures have been built.

Compounding the increasing vulnerability of the global trade structure to evolving forms of unprecedented disruptions is the emergence of regenerative supply chains (Gualandris et al. 2023). Sustainability scholarship, of late, has moved beyond the goal of minimizing negative environmental impacts toward the benefits of restoring and enhancing natural and social systems through supply chain activities (Bag et al. 2025a; Howard et al. 2018). This paradigm shift further highlights the limitations of the resilience framework as a theoretical lens for supply chain risk management. Resilience focuses on maintaining system functionality (Potts and Le Hunte 2024). Regenerative approaches warrant supply chain activities to contribute to ecological regeneration, community resilience, and long-term system vitality (Basile 2026; Hsu et al. 2025). This regeneration emphasis begs a “net positive” outcome, demanding transformation of production systems, sourcing strategies, and supply network governance, among others (Bag et al. 2025b; Onomakpo 2025).

This study argues that transilience offers a more appropriate theoretical lens for examining how supply chains respond to disruption while simultaneously advance sustainability and regenerative development. Craighead et al. (2020) explain that transilience amalgamates resiliency and transformability, defining it as “the ability to simultaneously restore some processes and change—often radically—others” (p. 840). Having been employed to explore how innovation shapes established production and marketing systems (Abernathy and Clark 1985), transilience offers a theoretical lens to capture the capacity of systems to both restore and transform besides maintaining systems functionalities when responding to disruption. Within supply chain management, transilience emphasizes the ability of supply networks to maintain critical operations while simultaneously experimenting with new configurations, technologies, and governance structures that enhance long-term adaptability.

By synthesizing the emerging literature on transilience (or transiliency), this paper presents the foundational principles of transilience, contrasting them with those of resilience. It proposes a generic model of supply chain transilience management and suggests an agenda for further investigations.

Methodology

This study synthesizes the conceptual underpinnings and empirical findings from 34 papers that either apply or discuss the transilience concept in management and supply chains. These papers were identified from a search in Scopus using the search string “transilient*” AND (“management” OR “supply chain”), which appears in “all fields.” The initial search uncovered 65 papers. After removing papers not written in English and limiting them to only journal publications, 44 documents remained. Further excluding papers not published in the knowledge domains of management and supply chain based on the source title of the publications resulted in 34 papers.

To establish the foundational principles of transilience (or transiliency), we employed an inductive analytical approach to identify core themes based directly on insights from the 34 papers. We followed the Grodal et al. (2021) data categorisation framework to systematically group key themes into conceptual clusters. This approach led to the development of a conceptual framework that illustrates the core dimensions of transilience and its pathways to engendering transformative change in supply chain structure.

Findings

Our preliminary findings suggest that transilience differs from resilience in five major aspects: overarching goal, system orientation, key attributes, response to disruption, and disruption management focus (see Table 1).

Table 1: Conceptual Differences between Resilience and Transilience

Resilience Transillience

Overarching Goal Recover from disruption Transform through disruption

System Orientation Adaptation, stability & recovery Adaptation, transformation &

regeneration

Key Attributes Redundancy, buffers, flexibility, Innovation, network redesign,

& learning & digitalization

Disruption Response Bounce back Bounce forward

Disruption Mgt Focus Operational continuity Innovation & structural

redesign

Integrating insights from resilience, sustainability transitions, and a host of management theories (e.g., resource orchestration theory, resource dependence theory, institutional theory, structural inertia, and real options theory), transilience reframes disruption more as an opportunity for systemic improvement and less as a threat. Embracing a transilience mindset appears to help drive supply chain beyond recovery toward innovation, sustainability transitions, and regenerative transformation.

Value

In contrast to resilience, transilience provides a broader and more forward-looking perspective, which is particularly relevant when supply chains are viewed as complex adaptive systems. Adopting transilience as a theoretical lens enables the dynamic processes through which supply chains manage disruptions while simultaneously build regenerative configurations to be captured.

Research Implications

Focusing on understanding how organizations are pressured to reconsider existing practices and explore alternative operations models during disruption, transilience provides a conceptual lens for studying how disruptions can catalyze innovations and resource restructure to build regenerative supply chains.

Research Limitations

Based exclusively on literature review, the proposed conceptual framework needs empirical validation.

Practical Implications

Understanding how transformations occur during periods of disruption offers pragmatic approaches for managerial practices to treat disruption as opportunities for change: process renewal, systems reset, and configuration redesign.

References

Abernathy, W. J. and Clark, K. B. (1985) Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research policy 14 (1), 3-22.

Bag, S., Chiarini, A. and Srivastava, G. (2025a) Building Regenerative Supply Chains: A Qualitative Study of SMEs in the Agro‐Food Chains. Business Strategy and the Environment 34 (8), 10803-10823.

Bag, S., Rahman, M. S., Routray, S. and Khurana, R. (2025b) Regenerative supply chain orientation and coopetition in supply chain networks for ESG initiatives: A parallel mediation study. Journal of Business Research 201.

Basile, V. (2026) Resilient, Restorative, and Regenerative Business Model (3R-BM). Resilient Business Models: Innovating Through Global Challenges to Creating Sustainable Futures. Springer. 153-181.

Craighead, C. W., Ketchen Jr, D. J. and Darby, J. L. (2020) Pandemics and supply chain management research: toward a theoretical toolbox. Decision Sciences 51 (4), 838-866.

Grodal, S., Anteby, M. and Holm, A. L. (2021) Achieving rigor in qualitative analysis: The role of active categorization in theory building. Academy of Management Review 46 (3), 591-612.

Gualandris, J., Branzei, O., Wilhelm, M., Lazzarini, S., Linnenluecke, M., Hamann, R., Dooley, K. J., Barnett, M. L. and Chen, C. M. (2023) Unchaining supply chains: Transformative leaps toward regenerating social–ecological systems. Journal of Supply Chain Management 60 (1), 53-67.

Guntuka, L., Carnovale, S. and Falcone, E. (2024) Supply Chain Plasticity: A Responsive Network Capability to Ensure Resilience. Journal of Business Logistics 45 (4).

Howard, M., Hopkinson, P. and Miemczyk, J. (2018) The regenerative supply chain: a framework for developing circular economy indicators. International Journal of Production Research 57 (23), 7300-7318.

Hsu, K., Shevchenko, A. and Yang‐Sun, Yang S. (2025) Regeneration and Supply Chain Complexity: Insights From the Forest Sector. Journal of Supply Chain Management.

Linnenluecke, M. K. (2015) Resilience in Business and Management Research: A Review of Influential Publications and a Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 19 (1), 4-30.

Mithani, M. A. (2020) Adaptation in the Face of the New Normal. Academy of Management Perspectives 34 (4), 508-530.

Onomakpo, H. O. (2025) AI-Enabled Regenerative Supply Chains: A RSSCM Framework. Scientific Research Journal of Business, Management and Accounting 3 (1), 1-31.

Potts, M. and Le Hunte, B. (2024) Reframing resilience as a systemic issue: Meta‐competencies that transform individuals and learning ecologies. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 41 (5), 750-760.