A Dynamic Perspective on the Resilience of Firms:

A Systematic Literature Review and a Framework for Future Research

Please cite as: Conz, E., & Magnani, G. (2020). A dynamic perspective on the resilience of firms: A
systematic literature review and a framework for future research. European Management Journal, 38(3), 400-
412. [Link]

The present study aims to answer the following research question: how is the resilience
of firms defined in the business and management field? In doing so we answer to recent
calls for research in the field about a more thorough conceptualisation of the resilience
of firms. We conduct a systematic literature review of 66 selected papers published
between 2000 and 2017. By means of inductive content analysis, we analyse the
definitions of ‘resilience’ and elaborate a novel conceptual framework that introduces a
dynamic perspective on the resilience of firms. The proposed framework overcomes the
existing definitional fragmentation and raises awareness on the temporal dimension in
conceptualizing the resilience of firms through identifying four key categories, i.e.:
resilience as a proactive attribute (t-1), resilience as absorptive and adaptive attribute
(t); resilience as reactive attribute (t+1) and resilience as dynamic attribute. We
contribute to extant business and management literature on the resilience of firms by
clarifying the concept of resilience and providing a framework with a set of
propositions as well as detailed avenues for future research.

Keywords: resilience, firm, systematic literature review, content analysis

1. Introduction
During the last decade, increased market uncertainty and environmental disasters have

shifted the strategic goals of many organisations from a so-called ‘quest for profits’ to a

‘quest for resilience’ (Hamel and Välikangas 2003), focusing the attention of both

management scholars and practitioners on the topic of the resilience of firms (Baggio,

Brown, and Hellebrandt 2015; Carmeli and Markman 2011; Woods 2015; Mamouni Limnios

et al. 2014).

In common-sense, resilience is an attribute that defines individuals able to thrive

with difficulties and uncertainties and to feel better after something unpleasant happens.

In the academic literature, resilience refers to a rather abstract concept, characterised by a

1
great variety of interpretations and definitions. A search for the keyword “resilience” in the

Scopus library service (data-range 2000-2017) registers more than 60 thousand

documents, among which 2615 published in the business and management field,

distributed according to an exponential growth starting from 2010. Nonetheless, despite

the blooming of publications on resilience-related issues in management and business

disciplines (Bhamra, Dani, and Burnard 2011; Linnenluecke 2017), the conceptualisation of

the term is still fragmented. Apart a few studies - (Baggio, Brown, and Hellebrandt 2015;

Conz 2016; Gilly, Kechidi, and Talbot 2014; Mamouni Limnios et al. 2014) that aimed at

identifying the diversity of interpretations in different research areas - a systematisation

of the literature of resilience in the management and business area is still missing.

Moreover, the greater amount of studies has focused on the resilience of systems (Norris

et al. 2007) and supply chains (Ambulkar, Blackhurst, and Grawe 2015; Brandon-Jones et

al. 2014; Pettit, Fiksel, and Croxton 2010; Rice and Sheffi 2005), while the resilience of

firms is still underinvestigated.

With the aim of - at least partially - fill the above-mentioned gaps, the present

study addresses the following research question: how is the resilience of firms defined

and conceptualised in the business and management field? Starting from the most recent

contributions in business and management (Gilly, Kechidi, and Talbot 2014; Mamouni

Limnios et al. 2014), we conducted a systematic literature review of articles published

between 2000 and 2017 about resilience at the firm level, aiming to contribute to the

ongoing debate on resilience in the business and management area (Linneluecke 2017) .

We critically analyse the definitions of 66 selected publications by means of inductive

content analysis and elaborate a conceptual framework to categorise resilience for future

research in this field. Doing so, we advance a dynamic perspective of the resilience of

2
firms, overcoming the existing definitional fragmentation and raising awareness on the

temporal dimension when conceptualising the resilience of firms.

In the paper, we refer to “events” meaning the changes, shocks, traumas, altering the

firm’s equilibrium being the trigger of resilience. The paper is structured as follows. First,

we illustrate the research methodology (Section 2) describing our literature selection

criteria and data analysis protocol. Then, we present the main findings (Section 3) and

discuss the conceptual framework with a set of propositions (Section 4). Finally, based

on a critical analysis of existing research, we offer future research avenues to advance

the understanding of the resilience of firms (Section 5).

2. Method

2.1 Data sources and literature selection

Following the example of extant studies based on the same procedure (Dorn, Schweiger,

and Albers 2016; Skrzek-Lubasińska and Szaban 2018); we performed a systematic

literature review of relevant publications within the business and management field,

carrying out a computerised search of the literature inquiring Scopus and Web of

Knowledge library services. We adopted library services instead of publishers to have

two comprehensive datasets of academic publications on peer-reviewed journals and to

cross check the findings of our inquiry. We also followed the systematic literature

review approach proposed by Bergström, van Winsen, and Henriqson (2015), to

systematically select papers using Scopus.

Moreover, the interdisciplinary nature of the concept of resilience and its

application across several management fields, justified the choice to rely on a library

service rather than publishers or journals to search for relevant articles. The web-based

bibliography program RefWorks helped in managing references.

3
 In conducting our systematic search for papers, we coupled the term ‘Resilience’

trough the Boolean operator AND respectively with the keywords: ‘Firm*’,

‘Organisation*’, ‘SME*’ and ‘Enterprise*’. We set the data range in the interval 2000-

2017 (cut-off: 26 July 2017): the year 2000 records a substantial increase of

publications, as per our inquire of the library services with the keyword ‘Resilience’.

The search for keywords was run twice to increase the reliability of the study. Thanks to

the above-mentioned search, we could identify 775 potentially relevant articles. We then

proceed with a preliminary screening to a title/keyword and summary check, excluding

595 articles and retrieving 180 articles (including 33 duplicates). The remaining 147

articles have been analysed by each of the two authors and reviewed according to

specific inclusion and exclusion criteria in order to assess the relevance of the document

for the subsequent steps of analysis (see Section 2.2). To be included in our review a

study had to:

be published in English within the the management, business research, or

accounting fields. Studies dealing with resilience in other social sciences areas or

in medicine, engineering and physics where excluded (N = 15).

Be published between 2000 and 2017 in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Other

publication types (i.e. conference proceedings, books, book chapters, newspaper

articles, unpublished works, etc.) were excluded (N = 4).

Consider resilience at the firm level (both large and small firms). Thus, we

excluded articles dedicated to resilience at the individual level ( i.e. individuals,

teams, communities) and macro level (i.e. cities, regions, nations) of analysis. We

also did not considered articles dedicated to the resilience of no-profit, no-

governmental organisations and public institutions (N = 36).

4
 Explicitly adopt a definition of resilience (at the firm level) – either referring to

previous studies’ definitions, or by framing a new one. Consequently, articles, -

both empirical than conceptual - which provided a list of definitions from

different field from that of business and management (e.g. engineering, ecological

science, economics, finance) but not stated a univocally definition of resilience

were excluded (N = 35).

At this stage, we included 57 articles and excluded 90 articles. We examined the

bibliographical references of included papers to check the validity of the enquiry and to avoid

any potential omission. Accordingly, we manually added to the dataset (N = 9) works

consistent with our research question and inclusion criteria. We considered these

contributions relevant for the review because highly cited in the selected papers. Considering

the above-mentioned inclusion and exclusion criteria and the manual addition, our final

dataset consists of 66 studies. Figure 1 illustrates the systematic review flow.

***Figure 1 about here***

2.2 Descriptive analysis

The distribution of the selected literature in the time frame 2000-2017 (cut-off: 26 July 2017,

including online-first articles published up to this point), shows that 58 papers have been

published starting from the year 2009 (see Figure 2). The significant increase of documents

over last eight years signals a growing interest in the topic.

The International Journal of Production Research is the most represented, showing a

predominance of correlated contents, with 11 papers focused on the resilience of firms.

Strategic Management Journal gives a contribution to the field with three articles. Disaster

Prevention Management, International Journal of Production Economics, Journal of

Contingencies and Crisis Management, Journal of Operations Management are represented

5
by two articles each. The remaining 44 papers have been published heterogeneously in 44

different management journals.

***Figure 2 about here***

2.3 Inductive content analysis

Following the guidelines for conducting valid content analysis (Elo and Kyngäs 2008;

Seuring and Müller 2008; Bengtsson 2016), after reading several times the papers and

becoming familiar with the topic and making sense of the data, we identified the definitions

of resilience provided by the authors in the selected documents. Afterwards, we analysed

them by means of qualitative content analysis, adopting the so-called “conventional

approach” to the coding process, that is generally used in studies whose aim is to describe a

phenomenon, when existing theory or research literature is limited (Hsieh and Shannon

2005).

The inductive coding approach is particularly suitable to the purpose of our study,

because it is recommended when former knowledge about the phenomenon under

investigation is fragmented (Elo and Kyngas 2008). We performed the content analysis

individually and then discussed the results together, confronting emerging categories and

sub-categories of descriptions (see Table 1). To validate the results, we presented our

preliminary findings to expert researchers during conferences and research meetings to have

feedbacks and suggestions. To ensure the reliability of our study, hereafter we provided

some examples of the inductive content analysis process.

*** Table 1 about here***

In Pal, Torstensson, and Mattila (2014) resilience is defined as the capability to be

ready in time of crises and to sustain superior organisational performance. In this definition,

resilience is a capability developed within the firm at time (t-1) before an external event

occurs. We coded the readiness of the firm in the case a crisis alters its equilibrium as a

6
subcategory of resilience at time (t-1). Acquaah, Amoako-Gyampah, and Jayaram (2011)

state that resilience is the ability of a firm to persist in the face of substantial changes in the

business and economic environment and/or the ability to withstand disruptions and

catastrophic events. Accordingly, resilience is defined as an attribute that a firm owns

meanwhile an external event - disruption, catastrophic event - occurs, helping the firm to

withstand such unpredictable phenomenon. In this statement, we interpreted resilience as an

attribute of the firm at time t, when the event occurs. We coded the persistency of the firm in

withstanding an unpredictable event as subcategories of the main category ‘resilience at time

t’. McPhee (2014) refers to resilience as the capacity to survive to disruptions, identifying

resilience as an attribute a firm possesses after a critical event has occurred. We than coded

survive as subcategory of the main category ‘resilience at time (t+1)’.

Ambulkar, Blackhurst, and Grawe (2015) conceive resilience as the capability of a

firm to be alert to, adapt to, and quickly respond to changes brought by a supply chain

disruption. In this statement, three temporal units are set forth: i. resilience to be alert to

changes (t-1), ii. resilience to adapt while unexpected changes are under way (t), and iii.

resilience as to quickly respond to changes (t+1). This definition focuses on the alertness, the

adaptation and the responsiveness capabilities of the firm. We thus coded alertness,

adaptation and response as sub-categories of resilience at time (t-1), (t) and (t+1). Finally,

we revised each definition with the abovementioned coding process and we grouped

them into to the following four main temporal phases:

• proactive (at time t-1 before an event occurs);

• absorptive and adaptive (at time t meanwhile an event occurs);

• reactive (at time t+1 after an event has occurred);

• dynamic (involving a continuum along the phases t-1, t and t+1 before,

meanwhile, and after the event has occurred).

7
In inductively coding the definitions of resilience we recognised the sub-categories

belonging to each of the above-mentioned main categories by open coding nouns,

adjectives and verbs and grouping them according to their relationship with the main

category. We thus identified ‘alertness’, ‘readiness’, ‘preparedness’ as sub-categories

belonging to the category of resilience as proactive attribute (main category) of the firm

at time (t-1), before an event occurs. ‘Persistency’ and ‘withstand*’ are sub-categories of

the category of resilience as an absorptive attribute of the firm at time t and refer to the

firm attempt of absorbing the event meanwhile it is occurring. In a similar fashion,

‘changing’, ‘sustaining’, and ‘adapting’ are sub-categories of the main category of

resilience as an adaptive attribute the firm possesses in adapting to an event (time t,

meanwhile the event is occurring). ‘Responding’, ‘surviving’, ‘returning’, ‘bouncing

back’, are the sub-categories that define the category of resilience as reactive attribute of

the firm at time (t+1), after the event occurred.

3. Findings
Thanks to a thorough content analysis of 66 definitions of resilience corresponding to 66

selected articles it emerged that resilience is conceived by the literature as an attribute the

firm possesses along a continuum: before, meanwhile, and after an event (either external

or internal). The reviewed papers could be ascribed to each of those temporal categories ,

which we illustrate hereafter.

Four categories, that refer to a conceptualisation of resilience related to time, inductively

emerged from the analysis, viz. resilience as an attribute a firm possesses:

• before (t-1) an event1 (proactive phase);

1
From now on, we employ the term ‘event’ to include the variety of internal and external phenomena
(e.g. shocks and changes) described in literature, that unexpectedly occur and alter the equilibrium

8
 • meanwhile (t) an event (absorptive and adaptive phases);

• after (t+1) an event (reactive phase);

• before, meanwhile and after an event, dynamically (dynamic phase).

Table 2 illustrates the analysed papers, listed according to the above-mentioned

categories, reporting authors, publication year and definitions.

***Insert Table 2 about here***

Out of the 66 papers, three contributions adopt a definition of resilience that refers to

an attribute owned by the firm before an event occurs - viz. proactive attribute -, at time (t-1).

26 papers define resilience as an attribute owned at time t to adapt, or to absorb the shock

resulting from the occurring event – viz. adaptive or absorptive attribute. 12 papers define

resilience as an attribute owned at time (t+1) to bounce back, to return to a stable state after

an event –viz. reactive attribute. Finally, 25 papers describe resilience as an attribute that

simultaneously is:

• owned at time (t-1) to be alert to potential events;

• owned at time t to respond to an event;

• owned at time (t+1) to bounce back or recover from an event.

The following sections illustrate the four categories in detail.

3.1 Resilience as proactive attribute at time (t-1)

The group of papers, that falls in this category, conceptualises resilience as an attribute

owned by the firm before an event occurs (4,54% out of total papers analysed). Authors

within this category look at the set of resources and capabilities a firm needs to possess or

of the firm. Furthermore, in defining resilience, we employ the term ‘attribute’ to broadly include
the different definitions of the term - i.e. capacity, ability, capability - found in the business and
management literature when defying resilience.

9
develop in order to respond to unexpected events. Two papers (Brewton et al. 2010; Danes et

al. 2009) define the resilience of family firms as the reservoir of individual and family

resources that cushions the family firm against disruptions and is characterised by individual

and collective creativity used to solve problems and get work done. In particular, Brewton et

al. (2010) analyse the contribution of human, social, financial, capital resources, normative

and non-normative disruptions (i.e. foreseeable and unforeseeable changes in the family’s

structure) and the impact of natural disasters on the resilience of family firms. Similarly,

Danes et al. (2009) investigate firm sustainability in consequence of natural disasters and

define the resilience of family firms as a stored capacity to rely on when a disruptive event

occurs. Both studies emphasise the fact that resilience is about accumulating resources to

sustain the family business during times of struggle. In adopting this perspective, they

measure the set of social, financial and capital resources owned by the firm. Interestingly

these papers refer to “creativity” as an individual and collective capability, which brings the

family to a higher level of interaction and development of new resources, resulting in greater

responsiveness and resilience. Yet the authors do not provide further insights on this. How

creativity emerges, and how it may enhance resilience is yet to be thoroughly investigated.

Similarly, Pal, Torstensson, and Mattila (2014) define firm resilience as the capability to be

ready and to sustain superior organisational performance during times of crisis. In their

exploratory research, they investigate the enablers of resilience for small and medium sized

enterprises, identifying three broad assets required to bolster and develop resilience - i.e.

resourcefulness; dynamic competitiveness; learning and culture - tough without providing an

in-depth analysis of these determinants. To sum up, the papers falling within this category

seem to have identified the three key following components of resilience: i) pro-activity:

resilience is an active response to a crisis situation that involves taking proactive steps to be

able to thrive during and after a crisis; ii) resourcefulness: in order to be resilient, a firm

10
needs to possess various assets and resources - material, social, financial, human,

technological - to sustain the organisational performance during times of crisis; iii)

collectiveness: the development of coordinative and interactive dynamics both inside the

firm, promoting a shared and positive vision among employees, and outside the firm,

participating in the community planning activities, leading to trust and creativity in problem

solving.

3.2 Resilience as absorptive and adaptive attribute at time (t)

More than half of the analysed papers (59%) define resilience as an attribute the firm owns

meanwhile an event occurs (time t). Among the 26 papers that fit into this category, seven

describe resilience in relation to the absorption of the shock - that occurs as a consequence of

a critical event - to maintain stability and preserve assets. Scholars that focus on the

absorptive aspect of resilience, emphasise the robustness of the firm during the critical event

and the stability of its organisational structure. The absorptive interpretation of resilience is

rooted into the well-known notion of ‘engineering resilience’ (McGlade et al. 2006; Simmie

and Martin 2010), that emphasises control and constancy. It is related to the resistance of the

firm to disturbance, and the ability to quickly returning to a phase of equilibrium after the

shock. In line with the engineering perspective, Acquaah, Amoako-Gyampah, and Jayaram

(2011), through comparing the competitive strategy of family and non-family firms, describe

resilience as the ability to persist in the face of substantial changes, by remaining stable,

withstanding disruptions and catastrophes. Jaaron and Backhouse (2014) also explain

resilience as ability to sense and absorb a change. Dumitrascu and Dumitrascu (2016) as the

capacity to absorb shocks and serious impacts. Bogodistov and Wohlgemuth (2017) and Sin,

Musa, and Ng (2017) emphasise resilience as the ability of a firm to remain in a stable state,

growing its income and number of employees. In a similar vein, Biggs, Hall, and Stoeckl

(2012) refer to resilience as the capacity of the firm to remain in a stable state during a

11
disturbance, maintaining or increasing its income, despite external changes. In their

definition, the authors refer to “robustness” as the capability to resist to disruption. Similarly,

Ismail, Poolton, and Sharifi (2011) define resilience as the maintenance of a positive

adjustment under challenging conditions and identify in “operational agility” - defined as the

capability of a firm to be more and quickly responsive when dealing with turbulence - the

necessary component to develop resilience. When absorbing shocks that alter the equilibrium

of the organisation, agility, coupled with robustness, limit the effects of variables that can

threat stability and make the firm vulnerable. Organisational robustness is a key phase of

operational agility, and an imperative element to achieve resilience by resisting disruption

and trying to preserve the previous state of equilibrium.

The remaining 17 papers describe resilience in relation to the adaptation to a shock

by which firms recombine extant or novel resources and prompt internal changes. These

studies are influenced by the ecological sciences framework of resilience (Folke et al., 2002;

Gunderson and Holling, 2001; Holling, 2001; Walker et al., 2004; McGlade et al. 2006), that

- in contrast with the engineering view of returning to a pre-existing equilibrium point -

implies the existence of multiple equilibria and the possibility to shift from one equilibrium

to a new one. According to the ecological perspective, firms follow a process of ‘punctuated

equilibrium’, a succession of stable forms, taking the chance of a disturbance as an

opportunity to innovate and booster an internal change, sustaining business longevity and

continuity in the long-term. In line with this perspective, 8 papers (Ahmed, Kristal, and

Pagell 2014; Andres and Round 2015; Ates and Bititci 2011; Burnard and Bhamra 2011;

Dahles and Susilowati 2015; Duarte Alonso and Bressan 2015; Moore and Manring 2009;

Wedawatta and Ingirige 2012) define resilience as an ability or capacity to withstand, to

adapt, and to cope with turbulent changes, environmental risks, perturbations or external

shocks. In particular, three core competences are emphasised: adaptability, innovativeness

12
and flexibility. The more an organisation is adaptable, innovative and flexible, the more it

will be able to quickly adapt routines and strategies and to build a resilient response to

shocks.

Li et al. (2015) refer to resilience as an ability to reconfigure firm resources in a novel

way, to change and adapt them as an unpredictable event occurs, to cope with hostile

circumstances. The authors underline that adaptation implies the ability to orchestrate in a

rapid, timely and easily way by redeploying and reconfiguring existing technical and

organisational resources. Akgün and Keskin (2014) and Amann and Jaussaud (2012) define

resilience as the ability or capacity to take actions, and to deploy specific behavioural and

cognitive abilities. Lengnick-Hall and Beck (2005) and Scalera et al. (2014) describe

resilience as a blend of cognitive, contextual and behavioural properties that increase the

ability of a firm to overcome the uncertainty related to unexpected events, and to develop

customised responses. Both studies thus introduce the cognitive aspect of resilience tough

without providing further explanation of how cognition related-mechanisms could support,

determine, or enhance resilience. Starr, Newfrock, and Delurey (2003) and Huggins et al.

(2014) describe resilience as the ability and capacity to withstand discontinuities and adapt to

new environmental risks and systemic shocks. Furthemore, Huggins et al. (2014) link such

adaptive ability to innovation and networking, arguing that the two are key competences of

resilient entrepreneurial firms. Similarly, Penadés, Núñez, and Canós (2017) in analyzing

resilience in relation to emergency plan, define resilience by four characteristics: diversity,

efficiency, adaptability and cohesion. These four determinants are critical but would require

further in-depth investigation in order to understand their nature and inner constituents in

relation to resilience.

Finally, two studies do not specify whether resilience at time t is an absorptive or

adaptive attribute, but provide only a broad definition that identifies resilience as an attribute

13
the firm possesses meanwhile an event is taking place. Richtnér and Löfsten (2014) define

resilience as the capacity that allows companies to thrive in dynamic environments; Dai,

Eden, and Beamish (2017) as the ability to withstand stressors related to the war.

3.3 Resilience as a reactive attribute at time (t+1)

The category of reactive resilience comprises 12 papers (18,18%) that define resilience as the

attribute a firm owns to return to a stable equilibrium, to respond to change, maintaining or

reconfiguring its structure after an event occurred at time (t+1).

Linnenluecke and Griffiths (2010) broadly describe resilience as the capacity of

survival of an organisation that encounters unexpected adverse conditions. McPhee (2014)

defines resilience as the capacity to survive to disruptions, while Pal, Westerlind, and

Torstensson (2013) and Smallbone et al. (2012) as the ability of firms to respond to times of

crisis or to a change in order to maintain their competitive advantage. This set of papers does

not specify whether surviving implies maintaining the previous equilibrium state or a

reconfiguration of resources in order to reach new or multiple equilibria. For example, Su and

Linderman (2016) generally define resilience as the ability to cope with and respond to such

changes, but without stating how a firm might respond to change.

Bhamra, Dani, and Burnard (2011); Herbane (2015); Watanabe, Kishioka, and

Nagamatsu (2004) and Edgeman and Williams (2014) point out that resilience is about

recovering, rebounding, bouncing-back after shocks, returning to a pre-disturbance state.

Linnenluecke, Griffiths, and Winn (2012) argue that resilience is an organisational capacity

to absorb the impact of a shock and recover from the occurrence of an extreme weather event.

Carmeli and Markman (2011) define resilience the capacity to bounce-back from a seatback.

This set of studies, which describe resilience using the idea of ‘bouncing-back’ or recover to

a previous equilibrium state, roots the theoretical foundations in the engineering perspective

of resilience. According to this school, a system, after experiencing a shock that alters its

14
equilibrium at time t, in the phase (t+1) returns to its pre-existing organisational structure, i.e.

as it was before being affected by the unexpected event.

Tracey and French (2017) explain resilience as an ability of firms to adapt when

facing external difficulties, recovering after a drop in performance. They emphasise the

adaptive aspects of being resilient, according to which a firm recombines its structure to

adapt and to reach a new point of equilibrium, meaning a new organisational structure. This

perspective is influenced by the ecological school of resilience, according to which a

successful reconfiguration of the firm’s resources in consequence to the new environmental

conditions, permits to achieve a new state of equilibrium at time (t+1).

3.4 Resilience as a dynamic attribute

25 papers (39,39%) define resilience as an attribute that characterizes a firm before,

meanwhile the event is occurring, and after it has occurred. They thus emphasise the dynamic

aspect of resilience.

A few papers within this category are consistent with the engineering school

perspective and define resilience as a dynamic absorption of a shock. In this view, resilience

is the ability of the firm to absorb, to develop situation-specific responses and to engage in

transformative actions with the aim to capitalise on disruptive shocks (Lengnick-Hall, Beck,

and Lengnick-Hall 2011; van Essen et al. 2015). Chrisman, Chua, and Steier (2011) explain

resilience of family firms as the ability of an organisation to avoid, absorb, respond to and

recover from threatening situations. They adapt the conceptualisation of the term proposed by

Vogus and Sutcliffe (2007), and Trim and Lee (2008) that described resilience as the

maintenance of a positive adjustment under challenging conditions. Herbane (2013) also

adopts a view that emphasises a dynamic and engineering interpretation according to which

resilience is the capacity to absorb the pressure of internal and external threats or crises and

to recover to their pre-crisis state.

15
 Conversely, the majority of the definitions of resilience found in the papers within

this group (Blanco and Montes-Botella 2017; Ferreira and Saridakis 2017; Gray and Jones

2016; Morais-Storz and Nguyen 2017; Ortiz-de-Mandojana and Bansal 2016; Tognazzo,

Gubitta, and Favaron 2016; Marwa and Milner 2013), are ascribable to the ecological

perspective of resilience. Accordingly, resilience implies a dynamic adaptation to a shock,

meaning the ability to anticipate, to withstand, to cope with, and to adjust to shocks by

recombining existing resources with the consequence of emerging strengthened and more

resourceful. For example, Ambulkar, Blackhurst, and Grawe (2015) define resilience of firms

as the capability to be alert to, to adapt to, and to quickly respond to changes. Su et al. (2014);

Sullivan-Taylor and Branicki (2011) define resilience as a capability to prepare for, adapt to,

recover or respond to shocks, while Vargo and Seville (2011) define it as the ability not only

to survive but also to thrive in both good and adverse times. Accordingly, Teixeira and

Werther (2013) argue that resilience is a superior resource configuration capability displayed

by firms to develop and sustain their competitive advantage. According to the authors,

resilience is the capability to continuously renew the competitive advantage of the firm,

through innovation. This dynamic perspective is consistent also with Reinmoeller and van

Baardwijk (2005) and their conceptualisation of resilience as a capability of firms to self-

renew overtime through a portfolio of innovation strategies. The latter are categorized by the

authors according to the way through which (internal, external, new or existing) resources

and capabilities are recombined during the self-renewal process of the firm. This definition is

also adopted by Edgeman (2015) and Edgeman and Wu (2016). In this perspective, Hamel

and Välikangas (2003) refer to resilience as the capacity for continuous reconstruction, to

find novel responses through innovation but preserving organisational values, processes and

behaviours. Lalonde (2007) refers to resilience as a process that induces positive outcomes

like skills to bounce back and capacities for recovery and Demmer, Vickery, and Calantone

16
(2011) as the ability to continually evolve and thrive in the face of adverse and sometimes

hostile circumstances. Gunasekaran, Rai, and Griffin (2011) conceive resilience as the

capacity of adaptability, responsiveness, sustainability and competitiveness of small and

medium sized enterprises in evolving markets.

4. Towards a conceptual framework for the resilience of firms

4.1 Conceptualising resilience

Management studies about the resilience of firms are growing in popularity, as demonstrated

by the increasing number of publications. Nonetheless, our literature search and analysis

confirms that the conceptualisation of resilience at the firm level within management

disciplines (e.g. disaster management, organisational studies, strategy, entrepreneurship) is

still fragmented (Bhamra, Dani, and Burnard 2011; Linnenluecke 2017). The term is used

interchangeably in different disciplines, but without specific definition for each field.

Therefore, there is no univocally accepted definition of resilience, instead, definitions from

others research fields, especially economics and engineering, are adopted by referencing to

the most cited writings, especially relying on the engineering and the ecological school.

Overall, management scholars have paid little attention on how to define resilience and

overcome this issue by adopting definitions from other authors. This has raised serious

implications with respect to the level of analysis. The definitions adopted often come from

the conceptualisation of resilience at the level of individuals, cities, regions or nations. In

order to overcome the above-described weaknesses, we propose the following working

definition of the resilience of firm:

Resilience is a dynamic attribute of the firm characterised by a) a proactive phase at

time (t-1); an absorptive/adaptive phase at time t, and b) a reactive phase at time (t+1).

Our definition emphasises the temporal dimension of resilience being a dynamic process in

17
time, characterised by the interplay of a set of abilities such that:

1) resilience proactive abilities owned at time (t-1), i.e. before an event, are the antecedents

of the absorptive and adaptive abilities deployed at time (t), when the event occurs;

2) resilience absorptive and adaptive abilities deployed at time (t), contribute to the

development of resilience reactive abilities needed at time (t+1), after the event has occurred.

Departing from the definition of resilience, we advance a conceptual framework (see Figure

3) and a set of Propositions to be tested by future research. Our conceptual framework

identifies two distinctive dynamic “resilience paths” - the absorptive and the adaptive -

evolving along three temporal phases: time (t-1); t, and (t+1).

*** Figure 3 about here***

Our dynamic perspective on resilience is consistent with Hollnagel (2011, xxxvi)

who defines engineering resilience in safety research as “an intrinsic ability of a system

to adjust its functioning prior to, during, or following changes and disturbances” .

Nonetheless we add a significant contribution to such conceptualisation by: i) making

explicit the temporal dimension of resilience within management studies and ii)

underlining two distinctive paths that describe resilience within the context of firms, viz.

the absorptive and the adaptive. Furthermore, our framework distinguishes two types of

“resilience responses”: according to the two paths, firms can be resilient by either

absorbing or adapting to the shock (or both).

A firm could follow either one or both paths to successfully achieve a positive

adjustment in consequence of a shock. Furthermore, the two paths, adaptive and

absorptive, are equally effective in achieving a positive adjustment, but vary according

to the abilities that are developed during each temporal phase (see section 4.2).

18
Proposition 1: The resilience of firms is characterised by two dynamic paths: the

absorptive and the adaptive that are both equally effective for the achievement of a

positive adjustment after a shock.

4.2 Core abilities for being resilient

Figure 1 details the core abilities to build resilience during each phase of the dynamic

path. The conceptualisation of resilience as a dynamic cycle implies a continuous

adjustment and implementation of such abilities.

Redundancy, agility and robustness are the essential abilities that characterise the

absorptive path of a firm when facing disturbance. The ability of accumulating resources

(redundancy) is needed before the shock, in turn, robustness is needed to resist the shock

and to reduce the vulnerabilities of the firm. Building resilience through redundancy and

robustness must balance the cost of multiple stocks and reservoirs with the generation of

long term benefits (Pal, Torstensson, and Mattila 2014). Redundant and robust firms need

then to quickly and actively respond to the shock through an agile response - agility

(Ismail, Poolton, and Sharifi 2011). In the absorptive path of resilience, the accumulation

of resources is essential for a resilient response and needs to be planned at (t-1). It

should be a proactive strategy, not a ‘just in time’ or ‘just in case’ responsive solution

developed at time t (Sheffi and Rice Jr 2005).

Resourcefulness, adaptability, and flexibility are the essential abilities that

characterise the adaptive path of a firm when facing disturbance. The availability or

different and heterogeneous resources (resourcefulness) is essential to bolster resilience

and sustaining the competitiveness of the firm in a resilient adaptive path. In particular,

the adaptation of routines and strategies to a shock at time t, through the reconfiguration

of extant resources available at (t-1) - combined with new resources - leads to a quick

change of strategy (t+1) i.e. flexibility. According to the mainstream perspective about

19
adaptive resilience, the dynamic adaptation trough actions such as adjusting, the

recombination of resources, self-renovation, and continuous reconstruction, implies a

‘flexible response’ and a positive adjustment. By developing an adaptive ability at t,

firms are able to withstand the shock and respond to unexpected situations. In turn, a

flexible response may depend on creativity, innovative capacities of the firms, and

entrepreneurial capabilities (Simmie and Martin 2010). In smaller firms, entrepreneurial

capabilities refer to the ability to initiate and to sustain entrepreneurial dynamism

throughout the organisation and to stimulate the learning process (Zucchella and Magnani

2018). Such capabilities are often linked to particular individuals, i.e. entrepreneur/s. In larger

or established companies, these capabilities could be referred to routines and processes

combined and managed by individuals and groups within the firm (ibid).

The following propositions highlight the key relationships among the variables and

phases of the dynamic cycle of resilience proposed in our framework:

Proposition 2a: There is a positive relationship between the accumulation of resources

(redundancy) at time (t-1) and the ability of a firm to resist to change (robustness) at

time t.

Proposition 2b: There is a positive relationship between the ability of a firm to resist to

change (robustness) at time t and the ability to provide an agile response (agility) at

time (t+1).

Proposition 3a: There is a positive relationship between the availability of different

resources (resourcefulness) at time (t-1) and the ability of a firm to adapt to change

(adaptability) at time t.

20
Proposition 3b: There is a positive relationship between the ability of a firm to adapt to

change at time t and the ability of a firm to provide a flexible response (flexibility) at

time (t+1).

5. Conclusions and future research directions

Recently, increasing attention has been posed to the resilience of firms but management

studies still miss a solid conceptualisation of the term. For instance, many studies often

employ a definition of resilience borrowed from different contextual settings or levels of

analysis, driven by a priori assumptions and overlapping resilience-related concepts.

The present systematic review has aimed to address this gap by advancing a

conceptual framework for the resilience of firms that could represent the basis for further

theoretical and empirical developments in the field. The relevant and original contribution to

the ongoing debate on resilience in the management literature consists in having proposed a

dynamic perspective on the resilience of firms by taking into due account its temporal

dimension. Hereafter we advance a set of avenues for future research that we believe can help

developing a more solid understanding of the resilience of firms.

5.1 Take time into due account

First, from both a theoretical and methodological point of view, we believe that the temporal

dimension has always to be considered in the design of future studies. Researchers will have

to design their research questions according to the time frame they wish to investigate. For

instance, studies that aims to explore resilience at time (t-1) will explain the accumulation

(and the types) of resources/capabilities that are deployed at (t-1) by a firm to build a resilient

response in consequence to an event alters their equilibrium. Studies exploring the resilience

of firms at time t, will explore the absorptive and adaptive features in terms of robustness and

21
adaptability of firms withstanding a shock and their relationship with an agile/flexible

response at time (t+1).

Future studies might explore how, and the extent to which, knowledge and

competences accumulated by the firm after recovering from a shock can contribute to the

implementation of novel abilities useful for preparing to potential new critical events.

Future longitudinal studies on resilience might explore how the abilities related to

each of the three temporal dimensions of resilience interweave in the process of building

resilience (see section 5.2). In addition, future process studies will have to explore the

temporal linkages between the different phases of the resilience paths, collecting data through

multiple approaches such as for instance in-depth observations, single and multiple case

studies, archival analysis, surveys. In all the above-mentioned research opportunities,

retrospective and real-time data will need to be coherently triangulated.

5.2 Explore the abilities to be a resilient firm

First, future studies based on qualitative and quantitative design could explore more in depth

the distinction between the adaptive and the absorptive path, by gaining more insights about

how the core abilities can be measured and tested, and especially how they are developed and

deployed by firms to achieve resilience in each temporal phase along each path. Furthermore,

research questions might be raised on how those abilities contribute to sustain the competitive

advantage of firms during each phase of the resilience paths.

In particular, empirical studies investigating the absorptive path of resilience might

collect qualitative and quantitative data - according to each temporal phase - about the

abilities needed by firms to attain stability, control, optimisation and resistance to shocks,

while scholars focusing on the adaptive path of resilience might analysed abilities as

reorganisation, flexibility, knowledge production capacity and learning, the ability to cope

with and manage uncertainty. The latter is a particularly relevant issue since in the literature

22
it is not clear whether in order to build resilience firms will also need to implement specific

“strategic postures”. This issue needs further in-depth investigation. We foresee an intriguing

opportunity of integrating the body knowledge about the resilience of firms with that

developed in entrepreneurship, organisation studies, and strategy literature to better

understand the linkages and potential interconnections between developing resilience and

strategizing under conditions of uncertainty. This opens up opportunities to address the

following research questions: are resilience paths complementary to strategic decision

making under conditions of uncertainty? Do the resilience and uncertainty-coping feed each

other? Under which circumstances and through which specific mechanisms?

Second, at current, there have been few insights about how cognitive, entrepreneurial,

innovative (although the three are sometimes mentioned in the literature as connected with

the resilience of firms) abilities are related to resilience and how their combinations may lead

to a more effective resilience response. Such abilities and their impact on the resilience of

firms might be explored and tested, integrating findings, theories and insights from other

disciplines, particularly entrepreneurship, behavioural studies and innovation management.

5.3 Explore the outcomes of being resilient

First, a more throughout analysis and systematisation of the different types of outcomes,

stemming from the firm’s resilience building paths, needs to be developed. This entails the

collection of primary, longitudinal data from sets of firms belonging to different industries,

offering different products/services, and with different business models.

At current, papers have often and almost interchangeably used outcomes stemming from

resilience referring for instance to sustainability or competitiveness. Future empirical studies

might test which resilience path - absorptive or adaptive - is more suitable to sustain firm

competitiveness during critical crises. In general, external variables as the geographical

23
context and the industry impact on the resilience paths and needs to be taken into account

when investigating the outcomes of being resilient (e.g. competitiveness).

Second, we need to understand whether resilient firms are, in turn, more performant

than “non-resilient” firms. This can be done building longitudinal databases to then compare

resilient firms (or, better, firms that were previously identified as acting in a resilient way)

with non-resilient firms. This step involves monitoring firms for long spans of times and

identifying critical shocks. This set of research might be then able to provide a more

practical-oriented protocol to identify “resilient firms” and “non-resilient firms” in a context-

specific manner.

6. References
Acquaah, M., K. Amoako-Gyampah, and J. Jayaram. 2011. “Resilience in Family and
Nonfamily Firms: An Examination of the Relationships between Manufacturing
Strategy, Competitive Strategy and Firm Performance.” International Journal of
Production Research 49 (18): 5527–5544. doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.563834.
Ahmed, M. U., M. M. Kristal, and M. Pagell. 2014. “Impact of Operational and Marketing
Capabilities on Firm Performance: Evidence from Economic Growth and
Downturns.” International Journal of Production Economics 154 (Journal Article):
59–71. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.03.025.
Akgün, A. E., and H. Keskin. 2014. “Organisational Resilience Capacity and Firm Product
Innovativeness and Performance.” International Journal of Production Research 52
(23): 6918–6937. doi:10.1080/00207543.2014.910624.
Amann, B., and J. Jaussaud. 2012. “Family and Non-Family Business Resilience in an
Economic Downturn.” Asia Pacific Business Review 18 (2): 203–223.
doi:10.1080/13602381.2010.537057.
Ambulkar, S., J. Blackhurst, and S. Grawe. 2015. “Firm’s Resilience to Supply Chain
Disruptions: Scale Development and Empirical Examination.” Journal of Operations
Management 33–34 (January): 111–122. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.11.002.
Andres, L., and J. Round. 2015. “The Creative Economy in a Context of Transition: A
Review of the Mechanisms of Micro-Resilience.” Cities 45 (June): 1–6.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.02.003.
Ates, A., and U. Bititci. 2011. “Change Process: A Key Enabler for Building Resilient
SMEs.” International Journal of Production Research 49 (18): 5601–5618.
doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.563825.
Baggio, J. A., K. Brown, and D. Hellebrandt. 2015. “Boundary Object or Bridging Concept?
A Citation Network Analysis of Resilience.” Ecology and Society 20 (2): 2.
Bengtsson, M.. 2016. “How to Plan and Perform a Qualitative Study Using Content
Analysis.” NursingPlus Open 2: 8–14.
Bergström, J., R. van Winsen, and E. Henriqson. 2015. “On the Rationale of Resilience in the
Domain of Safety: A Literature Review.” Reliability Engineering & System Safety,

24
 Special Issue on Resilience Engineering, 141 (September): 131–141.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.03.008.
Bhamra, R., S. Dani, and K. Burnard. 2011. “Resilience: The Concept, a Literature Review
and Future Directions.” International Journal of Production Research 49 (18): 5375–
5393.
Biggs, D., C. M. Hall, and N. Stoeckl. 2012. “The Resilience of Formal and Informal
Tourism Enterprises to Disasters: Reef Tourism in Phuket, Thailand.” Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, May.
[Link]
1.630080.
Blanco, J.M.M., and J. Montes-Botella. 2017. “Exploring Nurtured Company Resilience
through Human Capital and Human Resource Development: Findings from Spanish
Manufacturing Companies.” International Journal of Manpower 38 (5): 661–674.
doi:10.1108/IJM-11-2015-0196.
Bogodistov, Y., and V. Wohlgemuth. 2017. “Enterprise Risk Management: A Capability-
Based Perspective.” The Journal of Risk Finance 18 (3).
Brandon-Jones, E., B. Squire, C. Autry, and K. J. Petersen. 2014. “A Contingent Resource-
Based Perspective of Supply Chain Resilience and Robustness.” Journal of Supply
Chain Management 50 (3): 55–73. doi:10.1111/jscm.12050.
Brewton, K. E, S. M Danes, K. Stafford, and G. W Haynes. 2010. “Determinants of Rural
and Urban Family Firm Resilience.” Journal of Family Business Strategy 1 (3): 155–
166.
Burnard, K., and R. Bhamra. 2011. “Organisational Resilience: Development of a Conceptual
Framework for Organisational Responses.” International Journal of Production
Research 49 (18): 5581–5599. doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.563827.
Carmeli, A., and G. D. Markman. 2011. “Capture, Governance, and Resilience: Strategy
Implications from the History of Rome.” Strategic Management Journal 32 (3): 322–
341.
Chrisman, J. J., J. H. Chua, and L. P. Steier. 2011. “Resilience of Family Firms: An
Introduction.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35 (6): 1107–1119.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00493.x.
Conz, E. (2016). The resilience of firms: a conceptualization through inductive content
analysis. In Thriving in turbulent times. Newcastle: British Academy of Management
(BAM).
Dahles, H., and T. P. Susilowati. 2015. “Business Resilience in Times of Growth and Crisis.”
Annals of Tourism Research 51 (Journal Article): 34–50.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.01.002.
Dai, L., L. Eden, and P. W. Beamish. 2017. “Caught in the Crossfire: Dimensions of
Vulnerability and Foreign Multinationals’ Exit from War-Afflicted Countries.”
Strategic Management Journal 38 (7): 1478–1498. doi:10.1002/smj.2599.
Danes, S. M., J. Lee, S. Amarapurkar, K. Stafford, G. Haynes, and K. E. Brewton. 2009.
“Determinants of Family Business Resilience after a Natural Disaster by Gender of
Business Owner.” Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 14 (04): 333–354.
Demmer, W. A., S. K. Vickery, and R. Calantone. 2011. “Engendering Resilience in Small-
and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs): A Case Study of Demmer Corporation.”
International Journal of Production Research 49 (18): 5395–5413.
Dorn, S., B. Schweiger, and S. Albers. 2016. “Levels, Phases and Themes of Coopetition: A
Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda.” European Management Journal
34 (5): 484–500. doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.02.009.

25
Duarte Alonso, A., and A. Bressan. 2015. “Resilience in the Context of Italian Micro and
Small Wineries: An Empirical Study.” International Journal of Wine Business
Research 27 (1): 40–60.
Dumitrascu, V., and R. A. Dumitrascu. 2016. “The Use of Fuzzy Sets and Elements of the
Information Theory for Assessing the Resilience Level of Business Organizations.”
Calitatea 17 (S3): 69.
Edgeman, R. 2015. “Strategic Resistance for Sustaining Enterprise Relevance: A Paradigm
for Sustainable Enterprise Excellence, Resilience and Robustness.” International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 64 (3): 318–333.
doi:10.1108/IJPPM-10-2014-0155.
Edgeman, R., and J. A. Williams. 2014. “Enterprise Self-Assessment Analytics for
Sustainability, Resilience and Robustness.” TQM Journal 26 (4): 368–381.
doi:10.1108/TQM-01-2014-0012.
Edgeman, R., and Z. Wu. 2016. “Supply Chain Criticality in Sustainable and Resilient
Enterprises.” Journal of Modelling in Management 11 (4): 869–888.
doi:10.1108/JM2-10-2014-0078.
Elo, S., and H. Kyngäs. 2008. “The Qualitative Content Analysis Process.” Journal of
Advanced Nursing 62 (1): 107–115.
Ferreira, P., and G. Saridakis. 2017. “Firm Shutdown During the Financial and the Sovereign
Debt Crises: Empirical Evidence from Portugal.” International Journal of the
Economics of Business 24 (2): 153–179. doi:10.1080/13571516.2017.1309105.
Folke, C., S. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, C. S. Holling, and B. Walker. 2002.
“Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of
Transformations.” AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 31 (5): 437–440.
doi:10.1579/0044-7447-31.5.437.
Gilly, J.P., M. Kechidi, and D. Talbot. 2014. “Resilience of Organisations and Territories:
The Role of Pivot Firms.” European Management Journal 32 (4): 596–602.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.09.004.
Gray, D., and K. Fiona Jones. 2016. “Using Organisational Development and Learning
Methods to Develop Resilience for Sustainable Futures with SMEs and Micro
Businesses: The Case of the ‘Business Alliance.’” Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development 23 (2): 474–494. doi:10.1108/JSBED-03-2015-0031.
Gunasekaran, A., B. K. Rai, and M. Griffin. 2011. “Resilience and Competitiveness of Small
and Medium Size Enterprises: An Empirical Research.” International Journal of
Production Research 49 (18): 5489–5509. doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.563831.
Gunderson, L. H., and C. S. Holling. 2001. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in
Human and Natural Systems. Washington: Island Press.
Hamel, G, and L Välikangas. 2003. “The Quest for Resilience.” Harvard Business Review 81
(9): 52–63, 131.
Herbane, B. 2013. “Exploring Crisis Management in Uk Small- and Medium-Sized
Enterprises.” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 21 (2): 82–95.
doi:10.1111/1468-5973.12006.
Herbane, B. 2015. “Threat Orientation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises:
Understanding Differences toward Acute Interruptions.” Disaster Prevention and
Management 24 (5): 583–595. doi:10.1108/DPM-12-2014-0272.
Holling, C. S. 2001. “Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social
Systems.” Ecosystems 4 (5): 390–405.
Hollnagel, E. 2011. “Prologue: The Scope of Resilience Engineering.” Resilience
Engineering in Practice: A Guidebook, xxviiii–xxxix.

26
.Hsieh, H.F., and S. E. Shannon. 2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.”
Qualitative Health Research 15 (9): 1277–1288.
Huggins, R., D. Prokop, R. Steffenson, A. Johnston, and N. Clifton. 2014. “The Engagement
of Entrepreneurial Firms with Universities: Network Formation, Innovation and
Resilience.” Journal of General Management 40 (1): 23–51.
Ismail, H. S., J. Poolton, and H. Sharifi. 2011. “The Role of Agile Strategic Capabilities in
Achieving Resilience in Manufacturing-Based Small Companies.” International
Journal of Production Research 49 (18): 5469–5487.
doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.563833.
Jaaron, A., and C. J. Backhouse. 2014. “Building Antifragility in Service Organisations:
Going beyond Resilience.” International Journal of Services and Operations
Management 19 (4): 491–513. doi:10.1504/IJSOM.2014.065671.
Lalonde, C. 2007. “The Potential Contribution of the Field of Organizational Development to
Crisis Management.” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 15 (2): 95–
104. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5973.2007.00508.x.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., and T. E. Beck. 2005. “Adaptive Fit Versus Robust Transformation:
How Organizations Respond to Environmental Change.” Journal of Management 31
(5): 738–757. doi:10.1177/0149206305279367.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., T. E. Beck, and M. L. Lengnick-Hall. 2011. “Developing a Capacity
for Organizational Resilience through Strategic Human Resource Management.”
Human Resource Management Review 21 (3): 243–255.
Li, C., G. Coates, N. Johnson, and M. McGuinness. 2015. “Designing an Agent-Based Model
of SMEs to Assess Flood Response Strategies and Resilience.” World Academy of
Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Social, Behavioral,
Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering 9 (1): 7–12.
Linnenluecke, M. K., and A. Griffiths. 2010. “Beyond Adaptation: Resilience for Business in
Light of Climate Change and Weather Extremes.” Business & Society 49 (3): 477–
511. doi:10.1177/0007650310368814.
Linnenluecke, M. K. 2017. “Resilience in Business and Management Research: A Review of
Influential Publications and a Research Agenda.” International Journal of
Management Reviews 19 (1): 4–30.
Linnenluecke, M. K., A. Griffiths, and M. Winn. 2012. “Extreme Weather Events and the
Critical Importance of Anticipatory Adaptation and Organizational Resilience in
Responding to Impacts.” Business Strategy and the Environment 21 (1): 17–32.
doi:10.1002/bse.708.
Mamouni Limnios, E. A., T. Mazzarol, A. Ghadouani, and S. G. M. Schilizzi. 2014. “The
Resilience Architecture Framework: Four Organizational Archetypes.” European
Management Journal 32 (1): 104–116. doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.11.007.
Marwa, S. M., and C. D. Milner. 2013. “Underwriting Corporate Resilience via Creativity:
The Pliability Model.” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 24 (7–8):
835–846. doi:10.1080/14783363.2013.791110.
McPhee, W. 2014. “A New Sustainability Model: Engaging the Entire Firm.” Journal of
Business Strategy 35 (2): 4–12. doi:10.1108/JBS-11-2013-0106.
McGlade, J., Murray, R., Baldwin, J., Ridgway, K., & Winder, B. (2006). Industrial
resilience and decline: A co-evolutionary framework. Complexity and Co-Evolution:
Continuity and Change in Socio-Economic Systems, 147–176.
Moore, S. B., and S. L. Manring. 2009. “Strategy Development in Small and Medium Sized
Enterprises for Sustainability and Increased Value Creation.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 17 (2): 276–282. doi:10.1016/[Link].2008.06.004.

27
Morais-Storz, M. and N. Nguyen. 2017. “The Role of Unlearning in Metamorphosis and
Strategic Resilience.” The Learning Organization 24 (2): 93–106. doi:10.1108/TLO-
12-2016-0091.
Norris, F. H., S. P. Stevens, B. Pfefferbaum, K. F. Wyche, and R. L. Pfefferbaum. 2007.
“Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for
Disaster Readiness.” American Journal of Community Psychology 41 (1–2): 127–150.
doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6.
Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., and P. Bansal. 2016. “The Long-Term Benefits of Organizational
Resilience through Sustainable Business Practices.” Strategic Management Journal
37 (8): 1615–1631. doi:10.1002/smj.2410.
Pal, R., H. Torstensson, and H. Mattila. 2014. “Antecedents of Organizational Resilience in
Economic Crises - An Empirical Study of Swedish Textile and Clothing SMEs.”
International Journal of Production Economics 147 (PART B): 410–428.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.02.031.
Pal, R., R. Westerlind, and H. Torstensson. 2013. “Exploring the Resilience Development
Process by Implementing the Crisis Strategic Planning Framework: A Swedish
Textile SME Perspective.” International Journal of Decision Sciences, Risk and
Management 5 (1): 1–34. doi:10.1504/IJDSRM.2013.057529.
Penadés, M. C., A. G. Núñez, and J. H. Canós. 2017. “From Planning to Resilience: The Role
(and Value) of the Emergency Plan.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change
121: 17–30.
Pettit, T. J, J. Fiksel, and K. L. Croxton. 2010. “Ensuring Supply Chain Resilience:
Development of a Conceptual Framework.” Journal of Business Logistics 31 (1): 1–
21.
Reinmoeller, P., and N. van Baardwijk. 2005. “The Link Between Diversity and Resilience.”
MIT Sloan Management Review 46 (4): 60–65.
Rice, J. B., and Y. Sheffi. 2005. “A Supply Chain View of the Resilient Enterprise.” MIT
Sloan Management Review 47 (1): 41–48.
Richtnér, A., and H. Löfsten. 2014. “Managing in Turbulence: How the Capacity for
Resilience Influences Creativity.” R and D Management 44 (2): 137–151.
doi:10.1111/radm.12050.
Seuring, S., and M. Müller. 2008. “From a Literature Review to a Conceptual Framework for
Sustainable Supply Chain Management.” Journal of Cleaner Production,
Sustainability and Supply Chain Management, 16 (15): 1699–1710.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2008.04.020.
Sheffi, Y., and J. B. Rice Jr. 2005. “The Resilient Enterprise.” MIT Sloan Management
Review 47 (1).
Simmie, J., and R. Martin. 2010. “The Economic Resilience of Regions: Towards an
Evolutionary Approach.” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 3 (1):
27–43. doi:10.1093/cjres/rsp029.
Sin, M., A. Musa, and K. Y. Ngee. 2017. “Building Business Resilience through Incident
Management Body of Knowledge (IMBOKTM): The Amalgamated Framework for
Total Resilient Capability.” Global Business and Finance Review 22: 38–50.
Skrzek-Lubasińska, M., and J. M. Szaban. 2018. “Nomenclature and Harmonised Criteria for
the Self-Employment Categorisation. An Approach Pursuant to a Systematic Review
of the Literature.” European Management Journal, November.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2018.11.001.
Smallbone, D., D. Deakins, M. Battisti, and J. Kitching. 2012. “Small Business Responses to
a Major Economic Downturn: Empirical Perspectives from New Zealand and the

28
 United Kingdom.” International Small Business Journal 30 (7): 754–777.
doi:10.1177/0266242612448077.
Starr, R., J. Newfrock, and M. Delurey. 2003. “Enterprise Resilience: Managing Risk in the
Networked Economy.” Strategy and Business 30: 70–79.
Su, H.C., and K. Linderman. 2016. “An Empirical Investigation in Sustaining High‐Quality
Performance.” Decision Sciences 47 (5): 787–819.
Su, H.C., K. Linderman, R. G. Schroeder, and A. H. Van de Ven. 2014. “A Comparative
Case Study of Sustaining Quality as a Competitive Advantage.” Special Issue on
Implementing Operations Strategy for Competitive Advantage 32 (7–8): 429–445.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.09.003.
Sullivan-Taylor, B., and L. Branicki. 2011. “Creating Resilient SMEs: Why One Size Might
Not Fit All.” International Journal of Production Research 49 (18): 5565–5579.
doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.563837.
Teixeira, E. de Oliveira, and W. B. Werther. 2013. “Resilience: Continuous Renewal of
Competitive Advantages.” Business Horizons 56 (3): 333–342.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.01.009.
Tognazzo, A., P. Gubitta, and S. Dave Favaron. 2016. “Does Slack Always Affect
Resilience? A Study of Quasi-Medium-Sized Italian Firms.” Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development 28 (9–10): 768–790.
Tracey, N., and E. French. 2017. “Influence Your Firm’s Resilience Through Its Reputation:
Results Won’t Happen Overnight but They Will Happen!” Corporate Reputation
Review 20 (1): 57–75. doi:10.1057/s41299-017-0014-7.
Trim, P. R.J., and Y.I. Lee. 2008. “A Strategic Marketing Intelligence and
Multi‐organisational Resilience Framework.” European Journal of Marketing 42
(7/8): 731–745. doi:10.1108/03090560810877123.
van Essen, M., V. M. Strike, M. Carney, and S. Sapp. 2015. “The Resilient Family Firm:
Stakeholder Outcomes and Institutional Effects.” Corporate Governance (Oxford) 23
(3): 167–183. doi:10.1111/corg.12087.
Vargo, J., and E. Seville. 2011. “Crisis Strategic Planning for SMEs: Finding the Silver
Lining.” International Journal of Production Research 49 (18): 5619–5635.
doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.563902.
Scalera, G. V., D. Mukherjee, A. Perri, and R. Mudambi. 2014. “A Longitudinal Study of
MNE Innovation: The Case of Goodyear.” Multinational Business Review 22 (3):
270–293. doi:10.1108/MBR-06-2014-0021.
Vogus, T. J., and K. M. Sutcliffe. 2007. “Organizational Resilience: Towards a Theory and
Research Agenda.” In Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2007. ISIC. IEEE International
Conference On, 3418–3422. IEEE.
Walker, B., Cs Holling, S. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004. “Resilience, Adaptability and
Transformability in Social--Ecological Systems.” Ecology and Society 9 (2).
Watanabe, C., M. Kishioka, and A. Nagamatsu. 2004. “Resilience as a Source of Survival
Stategy for High-Technology Firms Experiencing Megacompetition.” Technovation
24 (2): 139–152. doi:10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00048-2.
Wedawatta, G., and B. Ingirige. 2012. “Resilience and Adaptation of Small and Medium-
Sized Enterprises to Flood Risk.” Disaster Prevention and Management 21 (4): 474–
488. doi:10.1108/09653561211256170.
Woods, D. D. 2015. “Four Concepts for Resilience and the Implications for the Future of
Resilience Engineering.” Reliability Engineering & System Safety 141: 5–9.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.03.018.
Zucchella, A., and G. Magnani. 2018. International Entrepreneurship: Theoretical
Foundations and Practices; Second Edition. Palgrave Macmillan-| IBS. Accessed

29
October 10. [Link]
practices-libro-inglese-antonella-zucchella-giovanna-magnani/e/9781137520012.

30
7. Tables and Figures
IDENTIFICATION

Potentially relevant articles

identified:
478 (Scopus) + 297 (WoK) = 775 SCREENING

Studies excluded based on

titles/abstracts:
595
ELIGIBILITY

Articles retrieved for more

detailed evaluation:
121 (Scopus) + 59 (WoK): 180

Duplicates removal:
33
INCLUDED

Articles excluded (do not match

the inclusion criteria):
90

Manual addition:
9

Studies included in the review:

66

Figure 1. Systematic review flow diagram. (WoK: Web of Knowledge).

31
Reference Definition of resilience Temporal dimension Sub-categories Main-category
Capability to be ready in time of crisis and to
Pal et al. (2014) t-1 Readiness Proactive attribute
sustain superior organisational performance.
Ability of a firm to persist in the face of
substantial changes in the business and Persistence
Acquaah et al. (2011) t Absorptive attribute
economic environment and/or the ability to Withstanding
withstand disruptions and catastrophic events.
McPhee (2014) Capacity to survive to disruptions t+1 Surviving Reactive attribute
The capability of a firm to be alert to, adapt to, t-1 Alertness Proactive attribute
Ambulkar et al. (2015) and quickly respond to changes brought by a t Adaptation Adaptive attribute
supply chain disruption. t+1 Response Reactive attribute

Table 1. An example of the inductive content analysis.

32
 Year

12

11

8 8

6
5

3
2
2
2
1 1
1
0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure 2. Publication trend across the period 2000-2017.

33
Category Authors Year Definition

Family firm resilience capacity refers to a “stock” or “a

reservoir” of individual and family resources that
t-1 Danes S.M. et al. 2009 cushions the family firm against disruptions and is
characterized by individual and collective creativity
used to solve problems and get work done.
Family firm resilience conceptually refers to the
reservoir of individual and family resources that
t-1 Brewton K.E. et al. 2010 cushions the family firm against disruptions and is
characterized by individual and collective creativity
used to solve problems and get work done.

Pal R., Torstensson Capability to be ready in time of crisis and to sustain

t-1 2014
H., and Mattila H. superior organizational performance.

Starr, R., Newfrock, Ability and capacity to withstand systematic

t 2003
J., and Delurey, M. discontinuities and adapt to new risk environments.
Resilience capacity is defined as a unique blend of
cognitive, behavioural, and contextual
Lengnick-Hall C.A.,
t 2005 properties that increase a firm’s ability to understand its
Beck T.E.
current situation and to develop customized responses
that reflect that understanding.

Moore, S. B. and Capacity of an enterprise to survive, adapt, and grow in

t 2009
Manring, S. L. face of turbulent change.

Ability of a firm to persist in the face of substantial

Acquaah M., Amoako-
changes in the business and economic environment
t Gyampah K. and 2011
and/or the ability to withstand disruptions and
Jayaram J.
catastrophic events.

Capacity/Ability of an organization to change

t Ates A. and Bititci U. 2011 concerning the future development, to survive, adapt
and sustain the business in the face of turbulent change.

Burnard K. and Ability to withstand systematic discontinuities and

t 2011
Bhamra R. capability to adapt to new risk environments.

Ismail, H. S., Poolton, Maintenance of positive adjustment under challenging

t 2011
J., and Sharifi, H. conditions.

Firm’s ability to take situation-specific, robust and

Amann B. and transformative actions when it confronts unexpected
t 2012
Jaussaud J. and powerful events that have the potential to
jeopardize its long-term survival.
Wedawatta G. and
t 2012 Adaptation to risk.
Ingirige B.

34
Category Authors Year Definition
Ability of a system to maintain and adapt its essential
Biggs D., Hall C.M.
t 2012 structure and function in the face of disturbance while
and Stoeckl N.
maintaining its identity.

Ahmed M.U., Kristal

t 2014 Ability to adapt to diversity.
M.M. and Pagell M.

Capacity to compose specific cognitive abilities,

Akgün A.E. and
t 2014 behavioural characteristics and contextual conditions-
Keskin H.
related variables in the product innovation context.

Double capacity of resistance and adaptation opening

the way for new pathways. These pathways indicate the
Gilly J.-P., Kechidi
t 2014 capacity of an organisation to find novel responses to
M., and Talbot D.
new questions and not simply to reproduce previously-
used organisational responses.

Jaaron A. and Ability to sense and absorb variability, surprises, and

t 2014
Backhouse C.J. disruptions of the environment.

t Huggins R. et al. 2014 Capability of organizations to adapt to systemic shocks.

Richtnér A. and Capacity that allows individuals, groups, and

t 2014
Löfsten H. companies to thrive in a dynamic environment.

Firm-specific characteristic in the face of a turbulent

t Scalera V.G. et al. 2014
environment
Cope with and adapt to external shocks, such as the
Andres L. and Round current economic downturn. Micro resilience can be
t 2015
J. taken to mean the nimble taking advantage of
opportunities.
As a measure of competitive level of firms, a capacity
Duarte-Alonso A. and
t 2015 to adapt. As a way to cope with the constantly changing
Bressan A.
business environment.

Dahles H., Susilowati Capacity for an enterprise to survive, adapt, and grow
t 2015
T.P. in the face of turbulent change.

Ability to configure firm resources in novel ways to

t Li, C. et al. 2015
address the exigencies of the flood event.

Resilience is the capacity of the organization to absorb

Dumitraşcu V. and
t 2016 shocks and serious impacts without losing the ability to
Dumitraşcu R.A.
accomplish a specific mission (Bell, 2012)
A resilient enterprise is one that is able to remain in a
Bogodistov Y. and
t 2017 stable state, maintaining or growing its income and
Wohlgemuth V.
employee numbers despite disturbance.

35
Category Authors Year Definition

Dai L., Eden L. and

t 2017 Ability to withstand stressors related to the war
Beamish P.W.

Characteristic of organizations defined by four

Penadés M.C., Núñez
t 2017 characteristics: diversity, efficiency, adaptability and
A.G. and Canós J.H.
cohesion.

Enterprise’s strategic capability to maintain positive

Sin I.S.M., Musa N.A.
t 2017 causatum under challenging conditions in today’s
and Ng K.Y.N.
uncertain and complex business environment.

Watanabe C.,
Capability of strained body to recover from or adjust
t+1 Kishioka M. and 2004
smoothly to external changes, shocks or crises.
Nagamatsu A.

Organizational survival when encountering unexpected,

Linnenluecke M. and adverse conditions that result either from large-scale
t+1 2010
Griffiths A. disturbances or the accumulation of several minor
disruptions.
Bhamra, R., Dani, S. Capability and ability of an element to return to a stable
t+1 2011
and Burnard, K. state after disruption.

Carmeli, A. and Capacity of an organization to sustain and bounce-back

t+1 2011
Markman, G. D. from a setback.

Linnenluecke M.K., Organizational capacity to absorb the impact and

t+1 Griffiths A. and Winn 2012 recover from the actual occurrence of an extreme
M. weather event.

Firm ability to respond to changes in the external

t+1 Smallbone, D. et al. 2012
environment in order to retain competitive advantage.

t+1 Pal et al. 2013 Response to a time of crisis.

t+1 McPhee 2014 Capacity to survive to disruptions.

Edgeman R. and Enterprise capacity to recover or rebound from shocks

t+1 2014
Williams J.A. or extreme challenges to its ecosystem (Contu, 2002).

t+1 Herbane B. 2015 rebuild quickly and bouncing-back

Su H.-C. and
t+1 2016 Ability to cope with and respond to such changes
Linderman K.

Enhanced ability to adapt when faced with external

Tracey N. and French
t+1 2017 difficulties as well as allowing the firm to rebound
E.
following a performance decline.

36
Category Authors Year Definition

Double capacity of resistance and adaptation opening

the way for new pathways. These pathways indicate the
Hamel, G. and
Process 2003 capacity of an organisation to find novel responses to
Välikangas, L.
new questions and not simply to reproduce previously-
used organisational responses.

Maintenance of positive adjustment under challenging

Vogus, T. J. and
Process 2003 conditions such that the organization emerges from
Sutcliffe K. M.
those conditions strengthened and more resourceful.

Reinmoeller, P. and Process capability to overcome barriers to change and

Process 2005
van Baardwijk, N. develop multiple sources of competitive advantage.

Process that induces positive outcomes like skills to

Process Lalonde C. 2007
bounce back and capacities for recovery

Trim P.R.J. and Lee Maintenance of positive adjustment under challenging

Process 2008
Y.-I. conditions.

Ability of an organization to avoid, absorb, respond to,

Chrisman, J. J., Chua,
Process 2011 and recover from situations that could threaten their
J. H., & Steier, L. P.
existence.

Gunasekaran A., Rai Adaptability, responsiveness, sustainability and

Process 2011
B.K. and Griffin M. competitiveness in evolving markets.

Ability to effectively absorb, develop situation-specific

Lengnick-Hall C.A.,
responses to, and ultimately engage in transformative
Process Beck T.E., Lengnick- 2011
activities to capitalize on disruptive surprises that
Hall M.L.
potentially threaten organization survival.

Demmer W.A., Ability to continually evolve and thrive over time in the
Process Vickery S.K. and 2011 face of adverse, and sometimes hostile, circumstances
Calantone R. which naturally arise in dynamic environments.

Sullivan-Taylor B. and Capability that enables an organisation to prepare for,

Process 2011
Branicki L. and respond to, extreme events.

Ability of an organisation to not only survive but to

Process Vargo J. and Seville E. 2011
thrive, both in good times and in the face of adversity.

Capacity of organizations to build resilience against

internally and externally derived threats to their
Process Herbane B. 2013
activities so that they are able to absorb the pressures of
the crisis and recover to their pre-crisis state.
Continuously anticipating and adjusting to deep secular
Marwa S.M. and trends that can permanently impair the earning power
Process 2013
Milner C.D. of a core business. It is having the capability to change
before the case for change becomes painfully clear.

Superior resource configuration capability displayed by

Teixeira E.D.O. and
Process 2013 firms which enables the development and sustainability
Werther W.B.
of competitive advantages.

37
Category Authors Year Definition

Capability to adapt and recover from quality

Process Su et al. 2014
disruptions when they do occur.

Firm's capacity to perceive, avoid, absorb, adapt to, and

recover from environmental conditions that could
Process van Essen et al. 2015
threaten their survival, is subject to similar contentions
(Lengnick-Hall & Beck, 2005).
Enterprise ability to self-renew through innovation,
changing and reinventing itself by adapting its
Process Edgeman R. 2015
responses to political, social, economic and other
competitive shocks or challenges.
Ambulkar, S.; Capability of the firm to be alert to, adapt to, and
Process Blackhurst, J. and 2015 quickly respond to changes brought by a supply chain
Grawe, S. disruption.

Organization’s capacity to adjust to challenging

Tognazzo A., Gubitta
Process 2016 conditions like environmental shocks and emerge from
P. and Favaron S.D.
them strengthened and more resourceful.

Resilience is an enterprise’s capacity to self-renew

Edgeman R. and Wu
Process 2016 through innovation and to adapt its responses over time
Z.
to negative shocks or extreme challenges.

Gray, D. and Jones, K. Ability to adapt/survive and flourish, or learn lessons

Process 2016
F. and start again.

Ability of organizations to anticipate, avoid, and adjust

Ortiz-de-Mandojana to shocks in their environment. Resiliency is a latent,
Process 2016
N. and Bansal P. path-dependent capability that cannot be measured
directly, so its benefits take a long time to manifest.

Blanco J.M.M. and Ability to recover quickly, to withstand shocks, to

Process 2017
Montes-Botella J.L. avoid shocks.

Ferreira P. and Capability to cope with challenging and prolonged

Process 2017
Saridakis G. environmental shocks.

Ability to dynamically reinvent business models and

strategies as circumstances change, to
Morais-Storz M. and
Process 2017 continuously anticipate and adjust to changes that
Nguyen N.
threaten their core earning power - and to change
before the need becomes desperately obvious.

Table 2. Categories of resilience, selected references and definitions.

38
 Absorptive resilience path

Redundancy + Robustness + Agility

Proactive Absorptive and Reactive

phase adaptive phases phase
(t-1) (t) (t+1)

+ + Flexibility
Resourcefulness Adaptability

Adaptive resilience path

Figure 3. The resilience of firms. A conceptual framework.

39