Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Quality Models for Preventing the Impact of Supply Chain Disruptions in Future Crises

Sustainability 2025, 17(8), 3293; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083293

by Miroslav Drljača^1,2,*

, Saša Petar³, Grace D. Brannan^4,5 and Igor Štimac^6,7

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2:

Consuelo Reguera

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Reviewer 4: Anonymous

Reviewer 5: Anonymous

Sustainability 2025, 17(8), 3293; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083293

Submission received: 9 March 2025 / Revised: 29 March 2025 / Accepted: 3 April 2025 / Published: 8 April 2025

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Global Supply Chain Management for Sustainable Organizational Performance)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript explores quality models for preventing supply chain disruptions in future crises. The topic is highly relevant, particularly in the post-pandemic world where global supply chains continue to face vulnerabilities. The study introduces three models (individual organisation, national economy, and global) to improve supply chain resilience. While the paper presents an interesting framework, there are areas requiring further refinement in terms of clarity, methodology, and theoretical foundation.

The literature review is weak. There is insufficient engagement with existing research on supply chain disruptions and resilience models. The authors should include discussions on well-established models such as Sheffi's resilience framework, Kraljic's purchasing model, or ISO 28000 Supply Chain Security Standards.
The paper lacks a strong theoretical foundation. While quality management principles are mentioned, the integration of established theories such as Supply Chain Resilience Theory, Risk Management Frameworks, or Complex Adaptive Systems would strengthen the argument.
The study claims to apply scientific cognition methods but does not provide enough details on how the models were developed.
The case study methodology is underdeveloped. There is no explanation of how data was collected, analysed, or validated.
It is unclear whether the proposed models were tested or empirically validated. Have they been applied in real-world settings? If not, a simulation-based validation or expert panel review would add credibility.
The paper presents several techniques and methodologies used in supply chain management, but having taught manufacturing supply chain principles myself, I notice that some key techniques are missing from the tables. These include: MCDM, Line Balancing, Discrete Event Simulations, Linear and Multi-Objective Programming, Agent-Based Modelling and System Dynamics, etc. The inclusion of these techniques would enhance the comprehensiveness of the models and their applicability to complex, real-world supply chain problems.
There are some grammatical errors and awkward sentence constructions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some grammatical errors and awkward sentence constructions.

Author Response

Review 1

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your effort in reviewing our paper. Your comments will surely help us to make the necessary corrections and improvements and to improve the quality of the paper. Our responses to your comments are below:

The literature review is weak. There is insufficient engagement with existing research on supply chain disruptions and resilience models. The authors should include discussions on well-established models such as Sheffi's resilience framework, Kraljic's purchasing model, or ISO 28000 Supply Chain Security Standards.

In the meantime, we consulted and added 23 new literature sources or 33% related to disruptions in supply chains and strengthening their resilience. Among them is the paper: Kraljić, "Purchasing Must Become Supply Management. Harvard Business Review." 1983 [7]. We studied Kraljić's model, and we can state that in our paper, we have similar thoughts and findings in several places. Namely, Kraljić talks about four types of material, regarding risks: 1) Leverage items, 2) Strategic items, 3) Bottleneck items and 4) non-critical (routine) items. In our paper, we list "Strategic products" such as: food, water, medicines and medical equipment, energy. And we also mention some risks in this connection, such as conflicts, and in extreme cases even wars. However, this division should be understood and interpreted flexibly. For a producer at the level of an individual organization, depending on what he produces, "Strategic item" (Kraljić) or "Strategic product" (authors of this paper), some banal material or semi-product, of low value, may have the character of "Strategic". For the level of the national economy or the state, it is something completely different, as well as for the global level. In this sense, our thinking goes in the same direction, with an understanding of diversity when it comes to levels of responsibility (individual organization, national economy, global level).

ISO 28001:2007 - Security management systems for the supply chain - best practices for implementing supply chain security, assessments and plans - Requirements and guidance, and ISO 28000:2022 - Security and resilience - Security management systems - Requirements, are documents that can certainly help in creating the resilience of supply chains at all three levels, especially when it comes to individual organizations. This resilience of the supply chain is created directly, through the resilience of the organization's management system through the resilience of its structural elements. For this reason, in Figure 2, which shows models for individual organizations, a closer context is shown, and it is shown that IMS - Integrated Management System is meant. The picture shows an example of integration, e.g. ISO 9001 as the basic norm for the quality management system and the most applied management system and ISO 31001- Risk management. Integrations can be and in practice are different (ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO 27001 and many others). IMS is important because all management systems are integrated to a greater or lesser extent, regardless of the level of management knowledge. And they do not necessarily have to be certified. For this reason, we have emphasized the need to understand IMS in Figure 2. In this sense, the ISO 28001 management system can also be part of the integration. Since these are standards with a harmonized structure, this facilitates the process of integration, auditing and later management of the system. Therefore, Figure 2 clearly shows that the ISO 28000 standard has been considered and is listed in the bibliography at position 41. To emphasize the possibility of applying this norm in the Integrated Management System.

Added text (line 613-618) that reads:

"Part of an integrated management system can also be a management system in accordance with the requirements of the international standard ISO 28001:2007 - Security management systems for the supply chain — Best practices for implementing supply chain security, assessments and plans — Requirements and guidance," which additionally contributes to strengthening the resilience of supply chains that are important for individual organizations."

The paper lacks a strong theoretical foundation. While quality management principles are mentioned, the integration of established theories such as Supply Chain Resilience Theory, Risk Management Frameworks, or Complex Adaptive Systems would strengthen the argument.

In addition to the principles of quality management (7) and ISO 9000 standards, the paper also lists 10 principles on which the Quality Manifesto for the 21st century is based. In each of the three models, we specify the mandatory use of a certain number of quality tools that make up the Quality toolbox. When talking about IMS - Integrated Management System, in the Model for individual organizations we positioned it as a narrower context of the organization, which we also explained in the answer to your previous comment. Additionally, in the text of the paper, we processed part of the requirements arising from the ISO 28001 and ISO 31001 standards and studied numerous additional sources of literature, and therefore we think that we have eliminated the lack of a strong theoretical foundation.

The study claims to apply scientific cognition methods but does not provide enough details on how the models were developed.

Added text (line 486-494)

“The models were developed based on the knowledge gained from the study of the three cases discussed in the paper. These case studies showed that disruptions in supply chains, in all three cases, occurred due to different circumstances that have common causes: 1) lack of management knowledge, 2) lack of preventive action, 3) not using quality tools to the extent that it was objectively necessary, 4) due to human error, 5) due to poor risk management, 6) due to the absence of measures that would prevent damage and improve the situation in the short term, 6) due to the weakness of the management system that affected insufficient resistance to disturbances. These reasons conditioned the development of the model in a way and 8) thanks to the absence of automatic reaction.”

The case study methodology is underdeveloped. There is no explanation of how data was collected, analysed, or validated.

The data was collected by researching the literature on each individual case study, which is listed in the literature list at the end of the paper. Furthermore, reports from various world institutions that analysed the causes of these cases and their consequences on the economy (WHO, WTO, UN, EU, etc.), as well as reports from investigative bodies that investigated the causes of circumstances that changed the context that affected disruptions in supply chains (Ever Given, COVID-19). In doing so, several methods of scientific knowledge were applied: analysis, synthesis, comparison, case study, historical method, etc.).

It is unclear whether the proposed models were tested or empirically validated. Have they been applied in real-world settings? If not, a simulation-based validation or expert panel review would add credibility.

These models were discussed and revised by experts gathered in the IAQ QiLTT - International Academy for Quality, Quality in Logistics Think Tank, which consists of 17 experts from 14 countries around the world. The models were not in practical application until now, except partially, because they were not developed. The models are now being presented to the public for the first time as proposals for complete solutions. The idea and research process have been presented at several international congresses and symposia, but only in this paper are the results and complete models presented.

The paper presents several techniques and methodologies used in supply chain management, but having taught manufacturing supply chain principles myself, I notice that some key techniques are missing from the tables. These include: MCDM, Line Balancing, Discrete Event Simulations, Linear and Multi-Objective Programming, Agent-Based Modelling and System Dynamics, etc. The inclusion of these techniques would enhance the comprehensiveness of the models and their applicability to complex, real-world supply chain problems.

MCDM is concerned with structuring and solving decision and planning problems involving multiple criteria. Elements of MCDM are largely represented in all three models. Namely, in the part of the model called "Methods" there are suggested methods, which are actually criteria that management systems lack at all three levels (individual organization, national economy, global) in order to be sufficiently resistant to disturbances. The same is the case with "Measures" in all three models, because the non-implementation or implementation of these measures is a criterion. The same can be said for "Quality tools". "Indicators" are actually criteria that, when fulfilled, activate the mechanism of automatic action in order to prevent the occurrence of major damage due to disruptions in supply chains. Some of the methods you mention would certainly be useful to apply and we agree with you, however, we are of the opinion that testing the model in "laboratory conditions", for which e.g. was an appropriate Agent-Based modelling AI technique, it would not give adequate results. Namely, the social processes that are taking place and the change of context that is happening continuously, daily changes the conditions in which the model should work and give positive results.

There are some grammatical errors and awkward sentence constructions.

We thank you for the observed grammatical errors. The paper will be revised by an academically trained native English speaker.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1-Three historical events with consequences for the supply chain are developed, but a theoretical framework is missing

2-Justify the choice of these events, as appropriate for the topic under investigation

3-In the introduction section, statements are made that would require bibliographical justification, such as: Review

4-Section 3.2-- Stranding of the vessel Ever Given in the Suez Canal. Include more bibliographic citations

5-Result Section. It should have more development, it is very genetic

6-Table 2 Quality toolbox. A lot of information that would need to be developed

7-Discussion. Needs further development and clarity; it's too generic. How can this development, developed in the models, be applied to the three case studies?

What does the topic of study contribute compared to other published material?

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Dear reviewer!

Thank you for your comments, which will help us to improve the quality of the text and the paper itself. Below are our responses to your comments:

1-Three historical events with consequences for the supply chain are developed, but a theoretical framework is missing

We added the theoretical framework (line 39-86) and two references (3 and 4), and 13 more (6., 8., 9., 10., 11., 12., 13., 14., 16., 17., 19., 20., 21.)

"Throughout history, there have been several circumstances that have influenced the change of context, resulting in disruptions or interruptions in the development of supply chains.

Added text (line 42-75)

“Without delving far into the past, there have been several such circumstances since the beginning of the 21st century. The terrorist attack in New York in 2001 [3], the emergence of a mysterious disease called SARS in 2002-2004, the war in Iraq in 2003, the economic crisis in 2008 and the eruption of the Ejafjalajökull volcano in Iceland, the corona virus pandemic (COVID-19) in 2019/2020 marked as a new respiratory disease. The change of context in recent times was also influenced by other circumstances, which caused significant disruptions in the development of global supply chains, namely the blockade of the Suez Canal due to the stranding of the ship Ever Given in 2021 and the war in Ukraine that began in 2022. The above circumstances, each in its own way, have influenced the change of context, which has resulted in a new view of the development of supply chains, reverse processes compared to the period 40 or 50 years ago [4], the need for a more flexible interpretation of some quality concepts. The changes are significant and have led to a new paradigm in the development of supply chains. As a result, supply chain resilience has become a vital strategic priority for governments and businesses, to minimize disruptions and maintain the continuity of work and the quality of life of citizens in unstable conditions.

All the above circumstances have influenced the change of context which, to a greater or lesser extent, has disrupted the functioning of supply chains. And disruptions or interruptions in supply chains, especially global ones, cause an imbalance of supply and demand. If the disruptions last longer, they cause product shortages, price increases and inflation, the development of the illegal market and crime, conflicts, and in extreme cases when it comes to strategic products and resources (food, water, medicines, energy) they can even cause wars.

Supply chain resilience is increasingly recognized as a foundation for economic stability, growth, development and sustainability, particularly in regions where political instability, economic dependencies and infrastructural differences create unique vulnerabilities. Supply chain resilience refers to the ability of a supply chain to anticipate, adapt and recover from disruptions, and to maintain operational continuity.”

2-Justify the choice of these events, as appropriate for the topic under investigation

Added text (line 76-86)

“In this paper, the authors have chosen three cases that occurred in the recent past, to clarify the context that influences disruptions and interruptions in supply chains through fresh examples, the consequences of which are still felt today, namely the COVID-19 pandemic, the stranding of the ship Ever Given in the Suez Canal, and the war in Ukraine.

In addition, these three cases were chosen to demonstrate the impact on specific supply chains. The COVID-19 case study is a good example of interruptions and disruptions in all supply chains (lockdown), but also specific ones, such as vaccines and medical equipment. The case study of the Ever-Given stranding also disrupted supply chains that use the maritime route through the Suez Canal, which is characteristic of commodity flows from the Far East to Western Europe. The case study of the war in Ukraine particularly disrupted energy (oil, gas) and food (grain) supply chains.”

3-In the introduction section, statements are made that would require bibliographical justification, such as: Review

Reference (18) has been added to meet the requirements for bibliographic justification.

Pujawan, I. N.; Bah, A. U. Supply chains under COVID-19 disruptions: literature review and research agenda. Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal. 2022., Volume 23, Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/16258312.2021.1932568

4-Section 3.2-- Stranding of the vessel Ever Given in the Suez Canal. Include more bibliographic citations

References have been added (34) and (35):

Mechai, N.; Wicaksono, H. Causal Inference in Supply Chain Management: How Does Ever Given Accident at the Suez Canal Affect the Prices of Shipping Containers? Procedia Computer Science. 2024, Volume 232, pp. 3173-3182.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2024.02.133

Lee, J. M.; Wong, E. Y. Suez Canal blockage: an analysis of legal impact, risks and liabilities to the global supply chain. MATEC Web of Conferences. 2021, 339(6).

DOI:10.1051/matecconf/202133901019

5-Result Section. It should have more development, it is very genetic

Added text (line 431-434)

“These disturbances occur from the global level, through the level of the national economies of countries, to individual organizations. When it comes to individual organizations, disruptions in supply chains first affect multinational companies, and indirectly their numerous subcontractors of various sizes, around the world.”

Added text (line 449-450)

“These circumstances can be natural disasters, terrorism, pandemics, bad management of global processes, accidents, etc.”

Added text (line 676-685)

“The model assumes that all management activities are planned. After the plans are planned and institutionalized through decisions of the management, supervisory boards, owners, etc., work is done on the implementation of these plans. During the implementation, as well as after the completion of the implementation of the activities from the plan, it is necessary to carry out controls to see whether the business processes are proceeding in the planned direction and so that corrections can be made during the process, on time, without delivering a non-conforming product or service. After the implementation of the activities, and based on the experience of the cycle, improvement plans and programs are adopted because the essence of the model is in continuous improvement, from cycle to cycle.”

6-Table 2 Quality toolbox. A lot of information that would need to be developed

Added text (line 575-578)

“Application of Quality tools implies competent staff for the application of these tools. In addition to the application itself, the ability to assess which Quality tools can be used to solve certain specific problems in practice is also necessary. This implies continuity of education for quality management.”

Added text (line 579-584)

Both the seven Quality Tools and the seven New Management Tools serve distinct but complementary purpose. While Quality Control tools focus primarily on problem identification, data analysis, and process improvement, the new management tools offer frameworks for strategic planning, decision-making, and project management. Organization can benefit from integrating both sets of tools into their quality management practices.”

7-Discussion. Needs further development and clarity; it's too generic. How can this development, developed in the models, be applied to the three case studies?

Added text (line 963-975)

“By applying this model, the management of individual organizations will be aware of the need to build and manage IMS, which implies the development of staff competencies, both for identifying problems and for choosing and applying quality tools for problem solving and strategic thinking. They will understand the need to apply the "simplify the business" principle, in order to simplify procedures and the application of quality as their own development strategy, which implies a higher level of materialization of quality management principles. It will implement the necessary measures in order to timely develop alternative directions of supply chains, secure itself from the influence of the dominant supplier/customer, and design alternative products of a high level of quality. It will optimize its logistics processes. It will have a developed system of Indicators, which will enable predicting the arrival of a crisis and automating the reaction to a crisis. A management system arranged in this way will create the organization's resistance to disruptions in supply chains in future crises.”

Added text (line 976-991)

“By applying this model, governments of individual countries will be aware of the need to use their own resources in terms of a higher level of self-sufficiency in food and energy production, as much as possible. They will develop awareness of the need to create strategic alliances, so that in future crises they can more easily solve problems by working together with partners within the alliance. They will understand the need to apply the principle of "simplify the business" to simplify laws and regulations and apply quality as their own development strategy, which implies a higher level of materialization of the principle of quality management. They will implement the necessary measures to develop alternative supply chain directions in a timely manner, secure themselves from the influence of a dominant supplier/buyer, design alternative products of a high-quality level. They will optimize their logistics processes. They will have a developed Indicators system, which will enable the prediction of the coming crisis and the automation of the reaction to the crisis. They will develop inclusive institutions to be of service to citizens and the economy to the greatest extent possible. They will work on understanding the context. A governing system arranged in this way will create the national economy’s resilience to disruptions in supply chains in future crises.”

Added text (line 992-1003)

“By applying this model on a global level, global decision-makers should develop awareness of the need for global cooperation, so that in future crises the world can more easily overcome global supply and demand disruptions and prevent them through joint action. Collaboration should institutionalize international agreements that need to be respected. Global decision-makers should understand the need to apply the principle of "simplify the business" in order to simplify international rules for the flow of people and goods and the application of quality as a global development strategy, which implies a higher degree of materialization of the principles of quality management on a global level. Optimize global logistics processes. They will have a developed system of Indicators, which will enable the prediction of the coming crisis and the automation of the response to the crisis. All this is in the function of creating the resilience of the global community for future disruptions in global supply and demand in future crises.”

What does the topic of study contribute compared to other published material?

The answer to this question is given at line (1006-1026)

This paper has theoretical and practical significance and contribution. Theoretically, it consists in developing three quality models for preventing the impact of supply chain disruptions in future crises and defining four groups of requirements that need to be met in order for management systems at the level of an individual organization, a national economy or a state and at a global level to be more resilient to the consequences that will arise in future crises due to disruptions or interruptions in supply chains. Also, a system of quantified indicators has been developed, which enables decision-makers at all three levels of the model to make decisions that will be based on facts, which is one of the principles of quality management.

The practical significance and contribution is that, if the methodology described in all three models is followed and indicators are applied, the management system at all three levels can be strengthened in practice and made more resilient to the harmful impact of disruptions in supply chains in future crises, which should result in significant financial savings and prevention of erosion of the quality of life of citizens.”

Additionally:

This study is based on the results of the research of real cases from the immediate past, where the reasons for the occurrence of damage due to disruptions and interruptions in the development of supply chains were detected. For this reason, it was possible in the developed models that are proposed in the paper, to clearly determine the directions of action through the fulfilment of four groups of requirements in each model: Methods, Measures, Quality tools and Indicators.

(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript proposes quality models to prevent the negative impacts of supply chain disruptions in future crises from the perspectives of individual organizations, national/states and globality, respectively. The topic is meaningful, and the models are well established. I still have some minor concerns as follows which may further help to improve the paper.

There is lack of Literature Review Section in this manuscript, and the review for previous relevant literature is far from sufficient. I recommend the authors cite more existing references on supply chain disruptions and supply chain resilience, and elucidate the differences between this work and previous studies.
In the tables of “Indicators of the individual organization model”, “National economy model indicators” and “Global model indicators”, in the column “Interpretation”, please further explain how to determine the threshold value for each indicator.
Different supply chain disruptions and crises have different characteristics, i.e., Pandemic COVID-19, Stranding of the vessel Ever Given in the Suez Canal, and the war in Ukraine, will have different negative impacts on the supply chain. How the proposed quality models apply to different types of supply chain disruptions requires further explanation.
There are a few writing mistakes in the manuscript. For example, in Line 299, there is lack of a period between “[25]” and “The”; in Line 311, “… the strategic role of in supply chains…” should be revised; There are two “Table 3” in the manuscript. Hence, I suggest the authors check and revise the text of the whole manuscript carefully.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Dear reviewer, we thank you for the comments you have sent us, which are intended to contribute to the improvement of this paper. We accept your comments and below we present our responses to what has been done.

There is lack of Literature Review Section in this manuscript, and the review for previous relevant literature is far from sufficient. I recommend the authors cite more existing references on supply chain disruptions and supply chain resilience and elucidate the differences between this work and previous studies.

Added ten more literature resources (6-14) that talk about supply chain disruptions and supply chain resilience. Quotations have been added to the text (line 61-65 and 73-74). The difference between this work and other already published works is that it responds to the problem of interruption and disruption in supply chains by proposing three models for three levels of the problem, namely 1) for individual organizations, 2) for national economies or states and 3) a global model. These models are very simple and concrete and offer solutions by applying concrete methods, measures, and quality tools and develop a system of indicators that can be used to monitor the arrival of a crisis. Also, the indicator system offers values that imply automaticity of action. Attempts to develop models in already published papers primarily refer to attempts to develop mathematical models. The models presented in this paper are concrete and clear, easy to understand and sufficiently elaborated to represent a guide for decision-makers at all three levels on how to apply the model, meet its requirements and make the governance system at all three levels more resilient to disruptions that will occur in future crises.

2. In the tables of “Indicators of the individual organization model”, “National economy model indicators” and “Global model indicators”, in the column “Interpretation”, please further explain how to determine the threshold value for each indicator.

Added text (line 595-599)

“In Table 3, the values in the "Interpretation" column were not chosen randomly. These are values that are considered in economic theory and practice as threshold values when it is necessary to take certain measures to create the resilience of the management system at the level of an individual organization. These values can be interpreted flexibly, but at the levels shown in Table 3, they are a clear signal for action.”

Added text (line 742-756)

“In Table 4, the values in the "Interpretation" column are values that in economic theory and practice are the limit values of macroeconomic indicators of the national economy, when it is necessary to take certain measures in order to create the resilience of the national economy. These values can be interpreted flexibly, but at the levels shown in Table 4, they are a clear signal for action.”

Added text (line 868-874)

“In Table 5, the values in the "Interpretation" column are values that are considered in economic theory and practice to be the threshold values of macroeconomic indicators of global economic trends, when it is necessary to take certain measures to create the resilience of the global economy. These values can be interpreted flexibly, but at the levels shown in Table 5, they are a clear signal for action. Commodities traded on world stock exchanges were selected to make the indicators as objective as possible, because changes in the prices of these commodities clearly reflect trends in the global economy.”

3. Different supply chain disruptions and crises have different characteristics, i.e., Pandemic COVID-19, Stranding of the vessel Ever Given in the Suez Canal, and the war in Ukraine, will have different negative impacts on the supply chain. How the proposed quality models apply to different types of supply chain disruptions requires further explanation.

Added text (line 477-483)

“Regardless of the different causes of disruptions in the development of supply chains in the three case studies mentioned above, they cause the same problems in the development of supply chains, which are manifested in delays in delivery deadlines, shortages of certain raw materials, semi-finished products and products, stoppages in production, rising prices, the development of the illegal market, etc. So, all of this is always a consequence of the imbalance of supply and demand. For this reason, the presented models at all three levels have the task of mitigating the consequences of the supply and demand imbalance.”

4. There are a few writing mistakes in the manuscript. For example, in Line 299, there is lack of a period between “[25]” and “The”; in Line 311, “… the strategic role of in supply chains…” should be revised; There are two “Table 3” in the manuscript. Hence, I suggest the authors check and revise the text of the whole manuscript carefully.

Thank you for pointing out the errors. These errors have been corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study discussed the quality models for preventing the impact of supply chain disruptions in future crises. The research has several innovative and insightful findings, which will definitely be helpful for practitioners and academicians around the globe. Following are the comments for authors to further revise this draft;

Currently, the abstract is little confusing. It is suggested to rewrite the abstract and emphasized on the purpose of the study, research method and key findings.
Introduction section should be discussed the findings of recently published literature on the similar topics. Also, It is recommended to include a subsection of 'research objective and contribution'.
Authors should explain the research gap first and than discussing the importance of this study, which will leading toward research objective and contribution of the research.
Authors adopted the case study method to conducting this research. Overall, it is suitable but authors can further cite the newly published articles.
Discussion section is not sufficient and required a significant improvement. It is very important for the authors to discuss their key findings in detailed with the support of previously published literature.
Conclusion section need to be added.
The conclusion section should contain practical implications, research limitations and future research avenues.

Overall, this article is suitable but required some revision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The english is understandable.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we thank you for taking the time to review this paper. We also appreciate your comments and suggestions, which are intended to contribute to the improvement of this paper.

Below we provide responses to your comments.

Currently, the abstract is little confusing. It is suggested to rewrite the abstract and emphasized on the purpose of the study, research method and key findings.

The abstract has been partially rewritten to further emphasize the purpose of the research and the following text has been added:

Added text (line 24-26, and 29)

“The purpose of this paper is to design three original models, the implementation of which should significantly reduce the damage caused by disruptions in supply chains in future crises:…”

It is further emphasized that the Key Finding, too.

The abstract states the application of scientific methods of cognition, but they are not listed individually or explained further, due to word limits, in accordance with the journal's instructions. However, the methods are discussed in detail in Chapter 2. Materials and Methods, and therefore we believe that the reader will understand which methods were applied and in which part of the research.

2. Introduction section should be discussed the findings of recently published literature on the similar topics. Also, it is recommended to include a subsection of 'research objective and contribution'.

In the “Introduction”, a significant part of the text that discussed the findings of recently published literature on the similar topics was added (text line 39-86 was added) and 23 new references (sources) of recently published literature were added.

Subsection "1.1. Research objectives and contribution" was added, in which the text was added (line 162-164):

“The objective of this research is to design relatively simple models understandable to practitioners and academicians around the globe, containing Methods, Measures, Quality tools, by applying which management systems at all three levels of governance will gain resilience to reduce the damage from disruptions in supply chains in future crises. Also, to develop a system of Indicators that will signal the need for active action in the direction of implementing appropriate measures, thereby achieving automaticity in action.”

The contribution of this paper is theoretical and practical, which is explained in detail in the chapter "7. Conclusion", (lines 1006-1019) where this text is provided:

“This paper has theoretical and practical significance and contribution. Theoretically, it consists in developing three quality models for preventing the impact of supply chain disruptions in future crises and defining four groups of requirements that need to be met in order for management systems at the level of an individual organization, a national economy or a state and at a global level to be more resilient to the consequences that will arise in future crises due to disruptions or interruptions in supply chains. Also, a system of quantified indicators has been developed, which enables decision-makers at all three levels of the model to make decisions that will be based on facts, which is one of the principles of quality management.

3. Authors should explain the research gap first and then discussing the importance of this study, which will leading toward research objective and contribution of the research.

Discussion of models can be found in the existing literature, but generic models are offered. Attempts to develop models in already published papers primarily refer to attempts to develop mathematical models. The models presented in this paper are concrete and clear, easy to understand and sufficiently elaborated to represent a guide for decision-makers at all three levels on how to apply the model, meet its requirements and make the governance system at all three levels more resilient to disruptions that will occur in future crises.

For this reason, among other things, it was necessary to design relatively simple and understandable models that could be implemented in a short time in management systems at all three levels covered in this paper. For this reason, the objectives of the paper were defined as follows: (lines 162-167)

The contribution of this approach is also in the application of one of the basic principles in the models, namely "simplify the business". This contributes to easier understanding, application of the model, fulfilment of model requirements, monitoring of model effectiveness and resilience of the management system at all three levels.

4. Authors adopted the case study method to conducting this research. Overall, it is suitable, but authors can further cite the newly published articles.

A few more quotes have been added as follows:

Added text (lines 228-232):

In conclusion, lockdown measures have halted and disrupted the flows of people and goods, influencing the differential socio-spatial aspects of the global system of cities. The world system of cities within the global political economy underscores nations’ interdependence through continuous flows of people, goods, services, energy, knowledge, and information [17]

Added text (lines 256-258)

“Because the Suez Canal was blocked and there were no passages, most of the shipments, especially those from Asia to Europe, had been delayed drastically” [37].

Added text (lines 270-272)

“The case of the stranding of the Ever Given has touched upon and highlighted several burning issues related to international shipping in the modern era.”

Added text (lines 288-292):

“The Russian-Ukraine war not only caused disruptions in the international logistics and supply chain, but also changed the supply and demand of the international supply chain. Since the invasion of Ukraine began, over 1000 international companies including Chinese companies have curtailed their business activities in Russia. The international sanctions further alter the international supply chains” [21].

5. Discussion section is not sufficient and required a significant improvement. It is very important for the authors to discuss their key findings in detailed with the support of previously published literature.

Added additional clarifications (lines 963-1003), as follows:

“By applying this model, the management of individual organizations will be aware of the need to build and manage IMS, which implies the development of staff competencies, both for identifying problems and for choosing and applying quality tools for problem solving and strategic thinking. They will understand the need to apply the "simplify the business" principle, to simplify procedures and the application of quality as their own development strategy, which implies a higher level of materialization of quality management principles. It will implement the necessary measures to timely develop alternative directions of supply chains, secure itself from the influence of the dominant supplier/customer, and design alternative products of a high level of quality. It will optimize its logistics processes. It will have a developed system of Indicators, which will enable predicting the arrival of a crisis and automating the reaction to a crisis. A management system arranged in this way will create the organization's resistance to disruptions in supply chains in future crises.

By applying this model, governments of individual countries will be aware of the need to use their own resources in terms of a higher level of self-sufficiency in food and energy production, as much as possible. They will develop awareness of the need to create strategic alliances, so that in future crises they can more easily solve problems by working together with partners within the alliance. They will understand the need to apply the principle of "simplify the business" to simplify laws and regulations and apply quality as their own development strategy, which implies a higher level of materialization of the principle of quality management. They will implement the necessary measures to develop alternative supply chain directions in a timely manner, secure themselves from the influence of a dominant supplier/buyer, design alternative products of a high-quality level. They will optimize their logistics processes. They will have a developed Indicators system, which will enable the prediction of the coming crisis and the automation of the reaction to the crisis. They will develop inclusive institutions to be of service to citizens and the economy to the greatest extent possible. They will work on understanding the context. A governance system arranged in this way will create the national economy’s resilience to disruptions in supply chains in future crises.

By applying this model on a global level, global decision-makers should develop awareness of the need for global cooperation, so that in future crises the world can more easily overcome global supply and demand disruptions and prevent them through joint action. Collaboration should institutionalize international agreements that need to be respected. Global decision-makers should understand the need to apply the principle of "simplify the business" to simplify international rules for the flow of people and goods and the application of quality as a global development strategy, which implies a higher degree of materialization of the principles of quality management on a global level. Optimize global logistics processes. They will have a developed system of Indicators, which will enable the prediction of the coming crisis and the automation of the response to the crisis. All this is in the function of creating the resilience of the global community for future disruptions in global supply and demand in future crises.”

6. Conclusion section need to be added.

The Sustainability journal Template contains this instruction:

“5. Conclusions

This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex.”

7. The conclusion section should contain practical implications, research limitations and future research avenues.

Regardless of the answer under 6, we have added chapter 7. Conclusion consists of practical implications, research limitations and future research avenues (line 1006-1037).

Added text (lines 1020-1026):

“The limitations that accompanied this research are manifested in the fact that disruptions in supply chains caused by circumstances that were processed in the paper as case studies, are still present. These disturbances have not been eliminated, especially not the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the war in Ukraine is still ongoing. Global supply chains are taking place in difficult conditions and due to the geopolitical realignment at the global level, which has been happening in recent years, especially in recent months.

Further research, added text (1027-1037)

“Further research and development of the presented models should be continued in the direction of further development of methods, definition of additional measures and development of indicator systems. The indicator system can be further developed and improved in such a way that, in addition to the quantification of indicators which implies automaticity of reaction, their quantification is established which enables monitoring of trends, which would be a significant contribution to anticipatory crisis management. In this way, surprises of any kind would be avoided, which was characteristic of the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, when disruptions and interruptions in supply chains, both in individual organizations and countries and at the global level, represented a surprise for all participants in the global market, with a significant negative impact on the quality of life of all people on the planet.”

Overall, this article is suitable but required some revision.

Thank you very much.

x) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

The English is understandable.

Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study presents a novel approach to enhancing supply chain resilience through quality models, but significant methodological, structural, and theoretical gaps need addressing to meet academic rigor and practical relevance.

Thisstudy inadequately situates its three resilience models within established supply chain resilience frameworks (e.g., ISO 28001, SCOR, dynamic capabilities theory). Critical literature by Pettit et al. (2010) on resilience strategies and Ivanov (2020) on disruption propagation is omitted. To strengthen relevance, explicitly align the proposed models with existing paradigms (e.g., redundancy vs. flexibility) and clarify their novel contributions to quality-driven resilience.
The case study methodology lacks transparency in data collection (e.g., reliance on secondary GDP projections without validation) and analytical rigor (no coding protocols or triangulation). Adopt a structured approach per Yin (2014): define data sources (interviews, primary reports), justify case selection (e.g., why Croatia/EU?), and address geographic/sectoral biases to enhance generalizability.
The conceptual “Quality Toolbox”(Table 2) and resilience indicators (Table 3) lack empirical validation. Pilot-test the models via simulations or industry partnerships to demonstrate efficacy. For example, specify how FMEA addresses geopolitical risks versus logistical disruptions and validate indicator thresholds (e.g., ≥50% supplier dependence) against sector benchmarks (automotive vs. pharmaceuticals).
The analysis ignores tensions between resilience strategies (e.g., Jüttner & Maklan, 2011: redundancy increases costs) and practical barriers (e.g., geopolitical resistance to the “Global Model”). Expand the discussion to address trade-offs (Just-in-Time vs. stockpiling), policy alignment (WTO/UNSDG compliance), and omissions (digital tools like blockchain/AI).
Figures lack resolution and labels (e.g., undefined “LDC”in Fig. 1), Table 1 conflates micro/macro impacts without causal links, and terminology is inconsistent (e.g., “JiT”vs. “JIT”). Redesign visuals with professional tools (e.g., Lucidchart), streamline tables to align with the three-model framework, and standardize abbreviations per journal guidelines.
The “Global Model”assumes international cooperation but neglects ethical dilemmas (e.g., COVID-19 vaccine hoarding). Integrate ethical frameworks (e.g., distributive justice) and cite real-world initiatives (e.g., COVAX) to address equity in resource sharing during disruptions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we thank you for the effort you have put into reviewing our paper. We also thank you for the comments you have given us, with the intention of improving the quality of the paper. We will try to use your comments and suggestions to the maximum extent possible to improve the quality of our paper. Our responses to your comments are below.

This study inadequately situates its three resilience models within established supply chain resilience frameworks (e.g., ISO 28001, SCOR, dynamic capabilities theory). Critical literature by Pettit et al. (2010) on resilience strategies and Ivanov (2020) on disruption propagation is omitted. To strengthen relevance, explicitly align the proposed models with existing paradigms (e.g., redundancy vs. flexibility) and clarify their novel contributions to quality-driven resilience.

The paper by Pettita et al. (2010) is very interesting and useful. The main finding of the author is that supply chain resilience can be assessed in terms of two dimensions: vulnerabilities and capabilities. If one looks at the 13 Capability factors in the mentioned paper and the 8 Vulnerability factors, it can be concluded that all of them in a closer or broader context are covered by the three models presented in our work. Vulnerability of the supply chain is also implied in our work and can be seen in the tables showing the indicators for all three models. Given that there are Indicators, it means that there is also a vulnerability. And as for Capability, the models we propose are precisely in the function of strengthening capability through resilience. We also try to clarify in our work that the resilience of the supply chain can be created by strengthening the capability of the management system (individual organization, state, global level) through the development of their structural elements.

Most or all of the management tools that Petitt et al. mention in their paper, we have included in all three models through the Quality toolbox.

Most or all of the management tools that Petitt et al. mentions in their paper, we have included in all three models through the Quality toolbox.

We have added to the list of literature under the number:

"Petit, T. J.; Fik, J.; Croxton, K. L. Ensuring supply chain resilience: development of a conceptual framework. Journal of business logistics. 2010, Vol. 31, No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2158-1592.2010.tb00125.x" [28].

We have added text on the contribution of quality to the resilience of supply chains (lines 656-664):

"The contribution of quality management to strengthening the resilience of supply chains is a complex phenomenon. It manifests itself through the application of quality management principles and the Quality Manifesto for the 21st Century to the organization of the management system of an individual organization. The participants of the supply chain are numerous organizations, entrepreneurs in various industries (raw material producers, transport organizations, manufacturers of semi-finished products and products, logistics and distribution centres, etc.). The degree of materialization of quality management principles in these organizations has a dominant effect on the level of quality of the supply chain."

Added text (line 569-572)

“In addition to the tools listed in table 2, it is possible to use other tools such as SCRAM, a supply chain resilience assessment and management tool, developed by researchers at The Ohio State in collaboration with the U.S. Air force, Dow Chemical, L Brands and several other companies.” [39]

2. The case study methodology lacks transparency in data collection (e.g., reliance on secondary GDP projections without validation) and analytical rigor (no coding protocols or triangulation). Adopt a structured approach per Yin (2014): define data sources (interviews, primary reports), justify case selection (e.g., why Croatia/EU?), and address geographic/sectoral biases to enhance generalizability.

Added text (line 214-216)

“Importantly, to link theory and practice by presenting the breadth of case study research and its historical significance at a practical level. When the process has been given careful attention, the potential result is the production of a high-quality case study.” [28]

3. The conceptual “Quality Toolbox” (Table 2) and resilience indicators (Table 3) lack empirical validation. Pilot-test the models via simulations or industry partnerships to demonstrate efficacy. For example, specify how FMEA addresses geopolitical risks versus logistical disruptions and validate indicator thresholds (e.g., ≥50% supplier dependence) against sector benchmarks (automotive vs. pharmaceuticals).

FMEA is just one of the tools in the Quality tool box. In the paper, we did not suggest that all tools are applied in models to solve all problems. On the contrary, we said that "For this reason, it is left to the organization's management and experts to choose which and how many quality tools they will use in solving certain problems." (lines 560-562). For this reason, it is not necessary to solve the problem of global geopolitical risks by applying FMEA or only with the FMEA tool.

As for, e.g. ≥50% dependence on the supplier, if the organization breaks or disrupts that supply chain, it will have problems with production, deliveries and fulfilment of contractual obligations. This was demonstrated in three case studies in practice, which are discussed in this paper.

4. The analysis ignores tensions between resilience strategies (e.g., Jüttner & Maklan, 2011: redundancy increases costs) and practical barriers (e.g., geopolitical resistance to the “Global Model”). Expand the discussion to address trade-offs (Just-in-Time vs. stockpiling), policy alignment (WTO/UNSDG compliance), and omissions (digital tools like blockchain/AI).

There is resistance to the geopolitical model of globalization in the world and it is evident that we are witnessing a geopolitical realignment. However, this does not mean that global supply chains do not exist. They are still going on. And the global model presented in our work refers to global supply chains. And therefore, in the document under Methods, it is stated that the method "Collaboration", "International agreements", principle "Simplify the business" and "Quality as a strategy" should be used. There are problems in collaboration, implementation and compliance with international agreements, but this does not mean that they should be abandoned. And wars are tried to be solved with the same methods. "Quality as a global strategy" would mean the application of quality management principles in solving global problems and imbalances.

5. Figures lack resolution and labels (e.g., undefined “LDC”in Fig. 1), Table 1 conflates micro/macro impacts without causal links, and terminology is inconsistent (e.g., “JiT”vs. “JIT”). Redesign visuals with professional tools (e.g., Lucidchart), streamline tables to align with the three-model framework, and standardize abbreviations per journal guidelines.

When it comes to the concept of JIT, it is one of the concepts that has undergone a transformation during the disruptions in supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic. Namely, the change has occurred in the fact that manufacturers still ensure safety stocks for critical components to be able to finish products and make deliveries in accordance with contracts. This does not mean giving up on this concept that eliminates the need for the existence and accumulation of stocks. It means adapting the JIT concept to changes in the context, with the aim of making the supply chain resilient to the impact of the crisis.

Terminology corrected.

6. The “Global Model” assumes international cooperation but neglects ethical dilemmas (e.g., COVID-19 vaccine hoarding). Integrate ethical frameworks (e.g., distributive justice) and cite real-world initiatives (e.g., COVAX) to address equity in resource sharing during disruptions.

There are numerous ethical dilemmas in today's world. Despite international cooperation, in some situations there is inequality in the distribution of resources, especially when they become scarce, as happened during the COVID-19 pandemic with vaccines. In this context, we have witnessed two different approaches: 1) ethically problematic when individual countries hoarded vaccines because they were available to them at some point, without taking into account others, and 2) positive examples in ethical terms, when, for example, the EU implemented joint procurement for member states. Ethical problems in supply chains still exist today, and some are manifested in Case study 3 in our paper, The War in Ukraine. These ethical problems in global supply chains are one of the reasons why we propose "Quality as a global strategy" in addressing global imbalances.

(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is clear evidence of improvement in the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments. The authors have addressed the concerns raised and revised the paper accordingly. The manuscript has reached a satisfactory level and can be accepted, subject to the editor's discretion.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have well addressed all my concerns, and the quality of the manuscript has been improved. I agree it to be accepted in the current form.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been sufficiently improved.

Article Menu

Quality Models for Preventing the Impact of Supply Chain Disruptions in Future Crises

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI