Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
The Swedish School of Textiles, University of Bors, Bryggaregatan 17, SE-50190, Bors, Sweden
Department of Material Science, Tampere University of Technology, P.O. Box 589, FIN-33101, Tampere, Finland
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 22 May 2012
Accepted 27 February 2013
Available online 15 March 2013
Economic recessions have created challenges for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and
contributed to disruptions requiring them to be resilient. At times of economic crises, SMEs face major
threats to their nancial performance and ultimately to their survival. The average number of Swedish
textile and clothing (T&C) rms that went bankrupt during the recent crisis (200709) escalated twofold
compared to the average over 200010. Following the 1990s economic crisis nearly 12 per cent of the
T&C companies went bankrupt in 199495. The structural industrial statistics also plummeted in these
crisis years, aggravating many internal problems in SMEs as a ripple effect.
This study concentrates on the constraints faced by Swedish textile-related SMEs, primarily during
the economic crises of the past two decades (199093 and end 200709), and identifying the
antecedents and their different degrees of inuence on economic resilience. It also deepens the
understanding of the underlying patterns in the antecedents, observed in SMEs, favouring or inhibiting
resilience due to their signicance or decit, respectively.
The paper adopts an exploratory research conducted in two phases, rst through a survey and
followed by a series of interviews, responded by eight Swedish T&C SMEs. Annual reports provide a
detailed account of the nancial performances of these rms. A conceptual resilience framework was
developed earlier, based on a review of extant literature.
Findings provide insight on how the responding rms considered resourcefulness, viz. cash ow and
investment nance, relational networks and material assets, along with dynamic competitiveness
through strategic and operational exibility to be key enablers of resilience and nancial performance,
mostly through generation of protability, cash ow/liquidity and sales turnover. Responses also
highlighted the indirect inuence of the soft learning and cultural aspects like attentive leadership
and collectiveness on economic resilience, considered tacit and ingrained in small or medium-sized
family businesses. Additional process initiatives, in particular growth and continuity strategies, were also
emergent patterns to properly utilize and direct the antecedents for resilience development. These are
benecial for rms to understand the key areas, in which to invest for developing resilient business
models.
& 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Resilience
Crisis
Small and medium-sized enterprise
SME
Textile and clothing
Sweden
1. Introduction
The recent economic recessions and global trade conditions
have created challenges for many Western economies and their
embedded industries, particularly to the small and medium-sized
enterprises3 (SMEs). According to Acs et al. (1990), SMEs are
n
Corresponding author at: The Swedish School of Textiles, University of Bors,
Bryggaregatan 17, SE-50190, Bors, Sweden. Tel.: 46 704 294 791;
fax: 46 33 435 40 09.
E-mail addresses: rudrajeet.pal@hb.se (R. Pal),
hakan.torstensson@hb.se (H. Torstensson), heikki.r.mattila@tut. (H. Mattila).
1
Fax: 46 33 435 4009.
2
Fax: 358 3 3115 2955.
3
The European Commission (2011) denition of SMEs is used as enterprises
with headcount lesser than 250 or turnover 50 million or balance sheet total
0925-5273/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.02.031
(footnote continued)
43 million (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-gures-analysis/smedenition/index_en.htm, 14.02.2012).
411
412
413
414
3. Methodology
3.1. Case selection and data collection
Case selection was via theoretical sampling (Flick, 2009; Glaser
and Strauss, 1967). Earlier in the project, annual reports (mainly
income statements and balance sheets) of 20 Swedish rms
(selected via theoretical sampling) were studied for twenty-one
years (19892010) to make their Z-score transition proles for
characterizing economic resilience in terms of business health
(cf. (Pal et al., 2011) for details). Data collection, in this study, was
done in two phases. In phase 1 a survey was conducted between
November 2011 and January 2012, where eight rms were
respondents among these twenty, qualifying them for next phase
of interview to get more in-depth knowledge on the issue. All the
rms were Swedish textile-related SMEs and family-owned
through most of the time in their history.
The survey questionnaire in phase 1 was based on a deductive
theoretical framework, as shown in Fig. 2. It was categorized into
four sections aimed at nding out the major challenges faced
during crises and to what extent the responding rms regarded
the inuence of the three major resilience antecedents (cf. Fig. 2)
to affect their economic resilience. The predominant nature of the
question was how do you relate the signicance or lack [] to the
economic transition prole []? The questionnaire was translated
from English to Swedish and then mailed to the companies for
higher comprehensibility. All the respondents were ownermanaging director of the rms. The survey was customized in a
way, as each of the companies was provided with a project
description and brief analysis and an explanation of its 20-year
Z-score transition prole. Following the survey, an acknowledgment and research ndings synopsis were e-mailed/mailed to
each of the respondents, and they were asked to participate in a
short face-to-face interview.
Each interview, of phase 2, lasted between 45 and 90 min and
with a combination of both focused and semi-structured form of
questions (Flick, 2009). The aim of the interview was to have a
clear understanding of the survey responses made in phase 1. For
this purpose all the companies were emailed a scanned copy of
their survey responses. Some of the interview questions were
aimed at identifying directly the reasons (emerged out of the
survey results) behind their Z-score transition prole and its
contributing ratios (focussed), while some were more open in
nature (semi-standardized). All the interviews were conducted in
English and at the respondents' premises.
3.2. Data analysis method
The data analysis followed thematic coding, as the procedure
was derived from the research question, and thus a dened
deductive framework (Flick, 2009). First, the survey results were
analyzed using descriptive statistical techniques suited to the
research objective (cf. Table 2). The closed nature of the survey
415
Table 1
Case companiesBusiness description, business health and economic resilience.
Case* Business type
Manufacturer of
safety and
occupational
footwear
Sewer of air-bag
fabrics
Women-wear
brand marketer
Designer and
200709
U
1.432.58 (unhealthy) between 198995, due to low liquidity
ratio, retained earnings and poor EBIT
Mostly H
No
3.033.06 (healthy) between 200708, due to
increasing solvency ratio
2.212.39 (unhealthy) between 200910, mainly due
to declining EBIT
Mostly H
Average 2.98 (healthy most years) between 199095 due
to consistent turnover and other Z-score components
Partly H
Healthy range of 2.983.42, except 2008 (2.08) due
to falling liquidity ratio and poor EBIT
Yes
Partly
Mostly H
Over 3 (healthy) due to increasing solvency ratio
(Most of the Z-score components were good)
No
Yes
manufacturer of
shirts and jackets
Textile
Manufacturer of
leather jackets
Weaver of
upholstery
fabrics
Manufacturer of
women
underwear
1990 2007
93
09
Mostly H
Healthy range since 2003 (2.933.57), due to high No
capital-turnover and solvency, except 2009 (2.65)
due to lowered turnover and protability ratios and
reduced liquidity ratio
Mostly U
1.892.39 (unhealthy) between 200709 due to poor No
protability ratio and negative liquidity ratio
Mostly H
0.871.61(unhealthy/catastrophic) between 200710 No
due to negative EBIT, declining sales-turnover and
leverage ratio (retained earnings)
Fully U
2.142.63 (unhealthy and declining) between 2007 No
liquidity ratio and poor protability (Infact all the Z-score
10 due to poor EBIT, declining net sales (hence
components were poor)
turnover ratio) and declining solvency ratio
Recovery in 1993 (3.17) due to high net sales
upholstery
fabrics
machinery
Clothing labels
and transfers
Printing
solutions
Weaver of
Economic
resilience
Mostly H
2.913.55 (healthy) between 200710 due to good
with poor protability and leverage ratios (except '92, '94)
solvency and turnover ratios
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
All cases are Swedish SMEs and family-owned for substantial time in their long history. All numbers denoted are Z-score values.
questionnaire allowed the respondents to answer either signicantly, moderately or poorly to each question. The scoring
system used in Table 2 along the three categories of resilience
antecedents was obtained by counting the frequency of response
options. The most frequent option is also marked with a (n) while
the last column indicates the frequency of total responses among
all the responding rms (cf. Table 2). This was followed by a short
description of each case in terms of their economic resilience
expressed by Altman's Z-score6 (cf. Table 1; for more details about
6
Altman's Z-score is generally used to predict bankruptcy potential by
categorizing business as safe, unsafe or distress to measure nancial success.
(footnote continued)
It includes criteria of economic viability based on protability, solvency, liquidity,
leverage and activity. Thus it considers factors like working capital, total assets,
retained earnings, protability, net worth or shareholder's equity, total liabilities
and total sales.
416
Table 2
Case-based aggregate scoring.
Firms
responses
Case 1
Resourcefulness factors
200709
Signicantly
9*
a 4, b 2, c 2,
Moderately
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5
Case 6
Case 7
Case 8
8*
6*
11*
46*
a 3, b 2, c 2,
a 2, b 2, c 1,
a 1, b 1, c 1,
b 2, d 1, e 1
a 3, b 3, c 2, d 2,
a 2, b 1, c 1
2a 2
11*
40
a 5, b 2, c 1, d 2,
b 3, d 2
e1
d1
e1
e1
8*
7*
a 2, c 1, d 2
a 4, b 1, c 1,
a 5, c 2
a 2, d 1
e1
d2
Poorly
199093
Signicantly
e1
a 1, b 1
a 4, b 1, e 1
a 3, b 1
a 2, b 1
a 2, b 1, d 1
a2
7*
b 2, e 1
a 3, c 2
b 2, e 1
a 1, b 2, c 1,
a 1, d 1
a 2, b 1, c 2, d 1,
8*
7*
7*
9*
a 5, c 2, d 1
b1
a 4, c 1, d 2
a 4, c 1, d 2
a 4, b 2, c 2,
8*
a 2, b 1
a 4, b 2, d 1,
a 3, b 1, c 1
a 2, b 1
25
14*
58*
a 4, b 1, d 1
a 7, b 3, c 2, d 1,
a 2, b 3, d 1
9*
a 2, b 1, d 1
a 1, b 1
d1
a 5, c 2, d 1,
e1
e1
Poorly
e1
e1
35
e1
32
a 7, c 2, d 1, e 1
e1
Moderately
11*
8*
f 3, h 1, i 4
f 2, i 1
f3
f3
f 5, i 3
f 2, h 1, i 3
38
33
i2
Moderately
6*
8*
f 2, g 2, i 2
f1
f 2, g 1, i 2
f 1, g 1, h 1,
h 1, i 3
g1 i1
f 3, g 3, i 2
h1
6*
7*
13*
i2
f 1, g 3, h 0,
f 1, g 2, h 1,
f 1, g 2, i 2
f 2, g 3, i 2
g 2, h 1, i 1
i1
i2
1f 1
6
3f 3
6*
4f 3,
3
8*f 5,
2
f 2, g 1, i 3
f 1, g 1, h 1,
h 1, i 2
i3
Poorly
199093
Signicantly
Moderately
0
11*
7*f 2,
2
f 4, g 3, i 4
f2
h 1, i 4
i1
i3
41*
f 5, g 3, i 5
0
14*
0
6
23
50*
g 1, i 1
f 5, g 3, h 1, i 5
f 5, h 1
8*
i3
Poorly
7*
7*
f 1, h 1, i 1
f 1, g 3, i 1
f 2, g 2, h 1,
f 1, g 2, i 2
f 2, g 3, i 2
g 2, h 1, i 1
39
g 3, i 5
i2
Moderately
Poorly
199093
Signicantly
Moderately
Poorly
7*
9*
6*
8*
6*
j 2, k 3, l 2
j 5, k 3, l 1
j 3, k 2, l 1
k 1, l 1
j 4, k 2, l 2
j 3, k 2, l 1
4*
j 2, k 2
j3
l1
j 2, k 1, l 1
j 2, k 1, l 1
j 1, k 1
j 1, k 1, l 1
7*
6*
j 3, k 1, l 1
j 2, k 3, l 2
k 2, l 1
j 3, k 2, l 1
5*
6*
j 3, k 1, l 1
j2
j 4, k , l 1
j 2, k 1
j1
j1
*j 3, k 1
44*
0
0
j1
21
8*
6*
k1
j 4, k 2, l 2
j 3, k 2, l 1
5*
j 2, k 1, l 1
j 2, k 1, l 2
j 1, k 1
j 1, k 1, l 1
j1
4
j 3, k 1
10
*j 5, k 3, l 2
15
33*
28
*
j1
j 4, k 3, l 2
19
a Material/systems assets, b Financial assets, c Social assets, d Network assets, e Intangible assets, f Flexibility, g Redundancy, h Robustness, i Networking,
j collectiveness and sense-making, k employee wellbeing, l leadership and top-management decision-making.
n
417
5. Findings
The results of survey questions, how the rms considered the
signicance or lack of resourcefulness, dynamic competitiveness
and learning and culture to be important in inuencing their
economic performances during crises are described below.
5.1. Resourcefulness factors and economic resilience
The responding rms considered reliable information support
along with innovative operations and technologies to be the most
essential factors among material/systems resources, affecting their
economic resilience prole during the recent credit crunch. Back
in 1990s crisis, innovation was considered to be an essential
precursor for yielding better economic performance, hence, resilience. The other material assets had moderate inuence in
effecting performance during the crises. However, nancial
resources, mainly in the form of cash ow and liquidity, along
with proper budgetary control and strong nancial reserves were
considered to be the most signicant factors to keep rms buoyant
amidst the recent global crisis, while proving to be moderately
inuential in the 1990s crisis. Brand reputation and goodwill with
the customers, suppliers and bankers were also considered inevitable factors inuencing sound business health in such periods.
Social resources (as employees) and relational networks and
partnerships with suppliers and other members in the value chain
The second antecedent of resilience is dynamic competitiveness categorized into long-term exibility (operational and strategic), redundancy, robust responses and networks along the value
chain. The responding rms considered these dynamic competitiveness aspects to be less inuential in affecting their economic
resilience during the two crises periods, except operational and
strategic exibilities, deemed to bear high degree of correlation for
bolstering resilience.
Flexible internal processes, and in particular exible decisionmaking and customer-centricity were adjudged to be strong
enablers of positive economic performance, hence, resilience in
the recent credit crunch. During the 1990s crisis, the responding
rms still considered market intelligence and customer centricity
to be strong enablers of resilient performances. However, redundancy in terms of parallel processes, multi-channel distributions
and alternate suppliers and strategies were deemed to be poorly
inuencing rms to combat economic disruptions (in both the
crises) and so were value chain networking and investments into
other supply chain members. Intra-organizational collaboration in
decision-making was, however, deemed to be moderately important in handling performance measures.
Inter-rm responses showed that most of the companies
exhibited poor to moderate relationships for redundancy and
robustness to foster economic resilience. Particularly case companies 3-5 and 8 considered dynamic competitiveness to be poor in
inuencing their economic resilience in both crises. However,
418
moderate correlation in the 1990s crisis. Dynamic competitiveness of rms exhibited a moderate to poor correlation with the
Z-score transition prole, thus proving to offer a lesser degree of
causation in bolstering economic resilience. Learning and cultural
factors exhibited a signicantly strong correlation with the Zscore transition prole of the studied rms amid the economic
crisis of 200709 but a moderate degree of correlation in the
1990s crisis.
Table 3 is an outcome of the analyses of Table 2, asserting the
differential degree of inuence by the antecedents the rms
considered in bolstering their economic resilience, and Table 1,
identifying the business health of the rms in terms of their
Z-score transition proles during the crises.
For example, case rm 1 considered all its antecedents to have
signicant correlation in affecting its poor economic resilience
amidst the recent crisis (200709), thus, suggesting lack of these
antecedents. While in the 1990s crisis, the rm's lack of economic
resilience could be attributed moderately to the lack of these
antecedents, signifying the effect of other factors as well. While for
case rm 6, its poor economic resilience amidst both the crises
was signicantly correlated to all the antecedents, thus signifying
considerable lack of these factors. The case-wise relationship that
emerged out in the study was as follows:
To have a deepened understanding of these antecedents
favouring or inhibiting resilience development in Swedish
textile-related SMEs, rst a case-wise and then a cross-case
analysis was made of the interviews. Results of the interviews
are reported in appendices 1 and 2 and favor understanding of the
antecedents, the signicance or lack of which subsequently
bolstered or inhibited economic resilience.
Table 3
Identifying the degree of relation between economic resilience and its enablers.
Resourcefulness (R)
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5
Case 6
Case 7
Case 8
200709
199093
200709
199093
200709
199093
()
R-Res
()
R-~Res
()
R- Res
(-)
R- Res
(-)
R-Res
()
R-Res
(-)
R-Res
()
R- Res
(-)
R-Res
(-)
R- Res
(-)
R-Res
(-)
R-Res
(-)
R-Res
()
R-Res
(-)
R-Res
()
R-Res
()
LC-Res
()
LC-~Res
()
LC- Res
()
LC- Res
(-)
LC-Res
()
LC-Res
()
LC-Res
()
LC- Res
(-)
LC-Res
()
LC- Res
(-)
LC-Res
()
LC-Res
(-)
LC-Res
()
LC-Res
()
LC-Res
()
LC-Res
()
DC-Res
()
DC-~Res
()
DC- Res
(-)
DC- Res
()
DC-Res
()
DC-Res
()
DC-Res
()
DC- Res
(-)
DC-Res
()
DC- Res
()
DC-Res
()
DC-Res
()
DC-Res
()
DC-Res
(-)
DC-Res
()
DC-Res
(mainly poor protability and sales-turnover ratios) were considerably because of similar reasons as prominent in the 1990s viz. lack
of nance and cash ow, lack of relational networks and lack of
exibility at all levels. Lack of fast decision-making for adjusting to
the recessionary trends along with the ability to reduce stocks
resulted in huge losses during the crisis. These rms also lacked a
proper product portfolio development and growth strategy
initiatives.
Table 4
Pattern recognition from case study observations.
Resilience
Firms
Inference/Reasons*
Resourcefulness (R)
200709
,
199093
,
24
1, 6
8
5, 7
17 except 2
8
2
Considerable cash ow, investment nance, relational networks and asset management
Lack of cash ow and investment nance, workforce lay-off
Insignicant contribution (except good bank relationships)
Moderate inuence of lack of relational networks with suppliers and nancing
Lack of cash ow and investment nance
Insignicant contribution (except lack of nancial reserve)
Other predominant antecedents
24
8
1, 57
17 except 2
2
8
2, 4
1, 67
3, 8
5
1, 67
35, 8
2
Relation
199093
,
419
420
421
422
Table A1
Emergent pattern in the key antecedents during 1990s crisis.
Antecedents
Case 1
Lacked economic
resilience
Case 2
Showed some economic
resilience through
W-shaped recovery
Inhibitors
Resource and asset problems
Escalation of foreign currency loan
amount incurred for infrastructural
and capacity development due to
SEK devaluationa
Heavy loss incurred in the potential
recovery years following crisis (due
to investments in a sister concern)c
Facilitators
Resource and asset
Stable nancial situation of the
family owing to considerable
retained earningsa
Competitiveness
Flexible production and logistics
with near-by manufacturing in
Sweden, Finland and Portugalg
Flexible decision-making related to
the need to change the business
model and organizational designf
Exogenous factors
SEK devaluationo
Inhibitors
Resource and asset problems
Reduced nancial leverage due to
volume and margin ramp-downb
Reduced number of suppliersd
Learning and culture problems
Lack of cross-functional structure,
hence exible manufacturingg,j,k
Lack of long-term shared vision of
the employees instigating more
self-centred silo structure and
mentalityk
Competitiveness problems
Challenging strategic decisionmaking owing to both volume and
margin related problemsf
Case 4
Lacked economic
resilience
Inhibitors
Heavy investment incurred in
developing new product (in 199192) reducing cash owc
Bankruptcy of the packaging
division of one of the group's
subsidiaryc
Fairly new acquisition of business
subsidiaries increasing liabilities
without reaping prots initiallyc
Case 5
Lacked economic
resilience
Inhibitors
Resource and asset problems
Constrained cash liquidity due to
too much borrowing of foreign
exchangea
Diminishing number of yarn
suppliers in the European marketd
Lack of bank supportd
Learning and culture problems
Lack of experienced and attentive
leadership in the crisis time
considering the change into new
ownership since 1990i
Lack of cross-functional training for
developing working teams and
employeesj,k
423
Table A1 (continued )
Antecedents
Exogenous factors
Competitiveness problems
Lack of contingency plansf
Case 6
Lacked economic
resilience
Inhibitors
Resource and asset problems
Relational problems with banks for
nancingd
Losing order volumeb
High raw material stockse
Lack of partnerships and supplier
problemsd
Competitiveness problems
Problems in dealing with raw
material stocks due to lack of
exibility in operationg
Customers order-volume
depreciation affecting salesturnoverb
Declining number of customers and
suppliersd
Case 7
Lacked economic
resilience
Inhibitors
Resource and asset problems
Losing order volumeb
Loss of big customers in the home
textile sector due to low-price
competitiond
Lack of high-design prole in the
organizatione
Learning and culture problems
Lack of formal production related
educationj,k
Case 8
Lacked economic
resilience
Inhibitors
Resource and asset problems
High overhead and xed cost of
productiona
Competitiveness problems
Lack of production exibility due to
own manufacturing and increasing
cost structureg
Lack of alternate crisis strategiesf
ii)
Low-price competitionm
m
n
o
Thus certain future research directions are left open. This can be
related to either understanding the process of utilizing the available
antecedents along a process of generating rms' crisis response
repertoire, following pattern identication along the strategic and
operational modes executed by rms, or it can be quantitative works
related to investigation of combined effects of the antecedents in
enabling resilience, or a comparative evaluation of resilience antecedents and their different effects for large corporations and SMEs.
Appendix A
See Table A1.
Appendix B
See Table B1.
424
Table B1
Emergent pattern in the key antecedents during 200709 crisis.
Antecedents
Case 1
Lacked economic
resilience
Inhibitors
Resource and asset problems
Cash ow problema with lesser bank
nancingd
Increased nished stock for capacity
running and wage payment forcing to
compromise through workforce lay-offe
Occasional raw material supply
uctuationse
Competitiveness problems
Lack of operational exibility owing to
delocalized production and high FGI
stockg
Case 2
Facilitators
Resource and asset
Showed some
economic
Good nancial reservea
resilience through
No problem in nancing initial project
V-shaped recovery
start-ups through bank loansa,d
Increased nished stock for capacitye
Competitiveness
Continuous improvements (CI) in
production efciency with more efcient
small batch manufacturingh
Long-term decision-makingf
Exogenous factors
ii)
Case 4
Showed good
economic
resilience
through
V-shaped
recovery
Facilitators
Resource and asset
No cash ow problemsa
Good relation with bank to pay invoices
on-timea,d
Development of unied brand image
with 80% under own labele
Learning and culture
Closer relationship with employeesk
Higher responsibility of employees in
decision making, higher education and
knowledge level and some job trainingj,k
Role of Chairman in decision-making
during crisisi
Competitiveness
Work close to the customer for getting
more order volume with deeper
relationshipd
Facilitators
Financial reserve generated through sale
of few owned subsidiaries augmenting
equity and also using retained earningsa
Good earnings generated by labels and
printing businessesa
Launch of innovative products for new
marketse
Learning and culture
Entrepreneurial leadership with
administrative top management
supporti
Fairly autonomous functioning and
decision-making of the subsidiariesf,i
Rolling plansf
Resource and asset Competitiveness
Operational exibility in all business
divisions through efcient logistics and
multiple distribution centersg
Inhibitors
Resource and asset problems
Restricted customer base (80% sales to
one big automotive customer)d
Lesser exibility in supplier selection
process due to costly and longer
validation processd
Case 3
Showed
signicant
economic
resilience
iv)
425
Table B1 (continued )
Antecedents
Exogenous factors
Case 6
Lacked economic
resilience
Inhibitors
Resource and asset problems
Inexibility at the supplier side due to
lack of alternate suppliers (only one for
yarn dyeing)d
Reduced slack resources aimed at
creating a more tighter, cost-effective
organizatione
Declining customer order volume since
2000s IT crisis and change in their
buying strategyd
Learning and culture problems
Lack of formal leadership-related
education for top managementi
Retrenchment of 4 peoplee,j
Competitiveness problems
Lack of contingency plansf
Inhibitors
Resource and asset problems
Hard to work with banks related to cash
issuesd
Supplier terms of payment problems
related to dealing invoiced
Depreciation of the internal raw material
stock value to match the reduced
turnovera,e
Cash ow problem due to sudden shift
in supplier's credit to cash payment
scheme affecting retained earningsa
Low-price competitionm
Competitiveness problems
Lack of exibility to reduce stockg
Lack of rapid decision-making and
contingency planningf
Case 7
Lacked economic
resilience
Inhibitors
Resource and asset problems
Decrease in order volume and margin
due to increasing raw material costs and
loss of couple of big customers outside
Swedenb
Rapid ramping down of current assets
like raw material stockse
Loss in investment.
Market problems.
Facilitators
Resource and asset
Consolidated internal restructuring to
reduce overhead and xed costs (by
outsourcing production capacity)e
Good bank loan agreementa,d
Competitiveness
Agility through reduced delivery leadtimeg
Inhibitors
Low-price competitionm
Shrinking customer base due to their shift
from private label to own labelsm
426
m
o
References
Acquaah, M., Amoako-Gyampah, K., Jayaram, J., 2011. Resilience in family and
nonfamily rms: an examination of the relationships between manufacturing
strategy, competitive strategy and rm performance. International Journal of
Production Research 49, 55275544.
Acs, Z., Audretsch, B., Carlsson, B., 1990. Flexibility, plant size and restructuring. In:
Acs, Z., Audretsch, B., Carlsson, B. (Eds.), The Economics of Small rms: A
European Challenge. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 141154.
Adler, P.S., Kwon, S., 2002. Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Academy of
Management Review 27, 1740.
Ansoff, H.I., 1957. Strategies for diversication. Harvard Business Review 35,
113124.
Appelbaum, S.H., Gallagher, J., 2000. The competitive advantage of organizational
learning. Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today 12,
4056.
Ates, A., Bititci, U., 2011. Change process: a key enabler for building resilient SMEs.
International Journal of Production Research 49, 56015618.
Bandura, A., 1998. Self-efcacy: The Exercise of Control, 2nd ed. W.H. Freeman, New
York.
Barton, M., Christianson, M., 2006. Organizational resilience: a social mechanisms
perspective. Annual Academy of Management Meeting. Atlanta, G.A.
Beer, M., Nohria, N., 2000. Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review
78, 133141.
Bhamra, R., Dani, S., 2011. Creating resilient SMEs. International Journal of
Production Research 49, 53735374.
Boisot, M., Child, J., 1999. Organizations as adaptive systems in complex environments: the case of China. Organization Science 10, 237252.
Bourgeois, L., Eisenhardt, K., 1988. Strategic decision processes in high velocity
environments: four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management Science
34, 816835.
Bunderson, J.S., Sutcliffe, K.M., 2002. Why some teams emphasize learning more
than other: evidence from business unit management teams. In: Neal, M.,
Mannix, E., Sondak, H. (Eds.), Research on Managing Groups and Teams.
Elsevier Science, New York, pp. 4984.
Burnard, K., Bhamra, R., 2011. Organisational resilience: development of a conceptual framework for organisational responses. International Journal of
Production Research 49, 55815599.
Chakravarthy, B.S., 1982. Adaptation: a promising metaphor for strategic management. Academy of Management Review 7, 3544.
Christopher, M., Rutherford, C., 2004. Creating supply chain resilience through agile
six sigma. Critical Eye, 2428.
Coutu, D.L., 2002. How resilience works. Harvard Business Review 80, 4652.
Dangayach, G.S., Deshmukh, S.G., 2001. Practice of manufacturing strategy: evidences from select Indian automobile companies. International Journal of
Production Research 39, 23532393.
Davidsson, P., Achtenhagen, L., Naldi, L., 2007. What do we know about small rm
growth? The Life Cycle of Entrepreneurial Ventures: International Handbook
Series on Entrepreneurship, 361398.
Dean, D., 2010. A CEO's guide for reenergizing the senior team. McKinsey Quarterly.
Demmer, W.A., Vickery, S.K., Calantone, R., 2011. Engendering resilience in smalland medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): a case study of Demmer Corporation.
International Journal of Production Research 49, 53955413.
Edmondson, A.C., 1999. Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly 44, 350383.
Edmondson, A.C., Moingeon, B., 1998. From organizational learning to the learning
organization. Management Learning 29, 520.
Eisenhardt, K.M., Martin, J.A., 2000. Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic
Management Journal 21, 11051121.
Fassoulsa, E.D., 2006. Transforming the supply chain. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management 17, 848860.
Flick, U., 2009. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Sage, London.
Freeman, S.F., 2004. Beyond traditional systems thinking: resilience as a strategy for
security and sustainability, 3rd International Conference on Systems Thinking
in Management Session on Sustainability, Philadelphia.
Ghobadian, A., Gallear, D., 1997. TQM and organisation size. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management 17, 121163.
Gittell, J.H., Cameron, K., Lim, S., Rivas, V., 2006. Relationships, layoffs and
organizational resilience: airline responses to the crisis of september 11th.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 42, 300329.
Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research. Aldine, New York.
Grant, R.M., 1991a. Contemporary Strategic Analysis. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Grant, R.M., 1991b. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy. California Management Review 22, 114135.
Gray, C., 2002. Entrepreneurship, resistance to change and growth in small rms.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 9, 6172.
Gunasekaran, A., Rai, B.K., Grifn, M., 2011. Resilience and competitiveness of small
and medium size enterprises: an empirical research. International Journal of
Production Research 49, 54895509.
Hale, A., Heijer, T., 2006. Dening resilience. In: Hollnagel, E., Woods, D.D., Leveson,
N. (Eds.), Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK.
Hatum, A., Pettigrew, A., 2006. Determinants of organizational exibility: a study in
an emerging economy. British Journal of Management 17, 115137.
Herbane, B., 2010. Small business research: time for a crisis-based view. International Small Business Journal 28, 4364.
Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., Vaidyanath, D., 2002. Alliance management as a source of
competitive advantage. Journal of Management 28, 413446.
Ismail, H., Snowden, S., Poolton, J., Reid, I., Arokiam, I., 2006. Agile manufacturing
framework and practice. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management 1, 1128.
Ismail, H.S., Poolton, J., Shari, H., 2011. The role of agile strategic capabilities in
achieving resilience in manufacturing-based small companies. International
Journal of Production Research 49, 54695487.
Jones, O., 2003. The persistence of autocratic management in small rms: TCS and
organizational change. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and
Research 9, 245267.
Jones, O., Crompton, H., 2009. Enterprise logic and small rms: a model of
authentic entrepreneurial leadership. Journal of Strategy and Management 2,
329351.
Keay, J., 2012. Non-Eurozone EU: The Years Ahead, Global Finance. Global Finance
Media Inc., New York, p. 26.
Keller, S., Price, C., 2011. Beyond Performance: How Great Organizations
Build Ultimate Competitive Advantage. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken,
New Jersey.
Kumar, M., Antony, J., Tiwari, M.K., 2011. Six sigma implementation framework for
SMEsa roadmap to manage and sustain the change. International Journal of
Production Research 49, 54495467.
427
Leiblein, M.J., 2011. What do resources- and capability- based theories propose?
Journal of Management 37, 909932.
Lengnick-Hall, C.A., Beck, T.E., 2005. Adaptive t versus robust transformations:
how organizations respond to environmental change. Journal of Management
31, 738757.
Lengnick-Hall, C.A., Beck, T.E., 2009. Resilience capacity and strategic agility:
prerequisites for thriving in a dynamic environment. In: Nemeth, C., Hollnagel,
E., Dekker, S. (Eds.), Resilience Engineering perspectives, 2nd ed. Ashgate,
Aldershot, UK.
Levy, M., Loebbecke, C., Powell, P., 2003. SMEs, co-opetition and knowledge
sharing: the role of information systems. European Journal of Information
System 12, 317.
Li, H.-H.J.K., Tan, K.H., Hida, A., 2011. Sustaining growth in electronic manufacturing
sector: lessons from Japanese mid-size EMS providers. International Journal of
Production Research 49, 54155430.
Linnenluecke, M., Grifths, A., 2010. Beyond adaptation: resilience for business in
light of climate change and weather extremes. Business and Society 49,
477511.
Lippman, S.A., Rumelt, R.P., 2003. A bargaining perspective on resource advantage.
Strategic Management Journal 24, 10691086.
Mangan, J., Lalwani, C., Butcher, T., 2008. Global Logistics and Supply Chain
Management. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.
McElroy, W., 1996. Implementing strategic change through projects. International
Journal of Project Management 14, 325329.
McManus, S., Seville, E., Vargo, J., Brunsdon, D., 2008. Facilitated process for
improving organizational resilience. Natural Hazards Review 9, 8190.
Mitroff, I., Pearson, C., Pauchant, T.C., 1992. Crisis management and strategic
management: similarities, differences, and challenges. Advance in Strategic
Management 8, 235260.
Pal, R., Torstensson, H., Mattila, H., 2011. Organisational resilience and health of
business systems. International Journal of Business Continuity and Risk
Management 2, 372398.
Peck, H., 2006. Reconciling supply chain vulnerability, risk and supply chain
management. International Journal of Logistics 9, 127142.
Penrose, E.T., 1959. The theory of the growth of the rm. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Penrose, J.M., 2000. The role of perception in crisis planning. Public Relations
Review 26, 155171.
Perrow, C., 1984. Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. Basic
Books, New York.
Prahalad, C.K., Hamel, G., 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard
Business Review May, 7991.
Rainnie, A., 1989. Industrial Relations in Small Firms: Small isnt Beautiful.
Routledge, London.
Reinmoeller, P., Baardwijk, N.V., 2005. The link between diversity and resilience.
MIT Sloan Management Review 46, 6165.
Rice, J.B.J., Caniato, F., 2003. Supply Chain Response to Terrorism: Creating Resilient
and Secure Supply Chains, Supply Chain Response to Terrorism Project: Interim
Report of Progress and Learnings. MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics
(CTL) and Politecnico di Milano for the Supply Chain.
Salavou, H., Baltas, G., Lioukas, S., 2004. Organizational innovation in SMEs: the
importance of strategic orientation and competitive structure. European
Journal of Marketing 38, 10911112.
Schulman, P.R., 1993. The negotiated order of organizational reliability. Administration and Society 25, 353372.
Senge, P.M., 1990. The Fifth DisciplineThe Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization. Currency Doubleday, New York.
Seville, E., Brunsdon, D., Dantas, A., Le Masurier, J., Wilkinson, S., Vargo, J., 2006.
Building Organisational Resilience: A summary of Key Research Findings.
Shef, Y., 2007. The Resilient Enterprise: Overcoming Vulnerability for Competitive
Advantage, 1st ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Shef, Y., Rice, J.B., 2005. A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise. Sloan
Management Review 47, 4148.
Starr, R., Newfrock, J., Delurey, M., 2003. Enterprise resilience: managing risks in
the networked economy. Strategy Business Magazine 30, 110.
Strauss, A.L., 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Sullivan-Taylor, B., Branicki, L., 2011. Creating resilient SMEs: why one size might
not t all. International Journal of Production Research 49, 55655579.
Sutcliffe, K.M., Vogus, T., 2003. Organizing for resilience. In: Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.
E., Quinn, R.E. (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New
Discipline. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, pp. 94110.
Tang, C., 2006. Robust strategies for mitigating supply chin disruption. International
Journal of Logistics Research and Application 9, 3345.
Thun, J.-H., Drke, M., Hoenig, D., 2011. Managing uncertaintyan empirical
analysis of supply chain risk management in small and medium-sized enterprises. International Journal of Production Research 49, 55115525.
Van Gils, A., 2005. Management and governance in Dutch SMEs. European
Management Journal 23, 583589.
Vargo, J., Seville, E., 2011. Crisis strategic planning for SMEs: nding the silver
lining. International Journal of Production Research 49, 56195635.
Weick, K.E., 1993. The collapse of sense making in organizations: the Mann Gulch
disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly 38, 628652.
Weick, K.E., 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks,CA.
Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., 2007. Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance
in an Age of Uncertainty. Wiley and Sons, San Francisco, CA.
428
Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., Obstfeld, D., 1999. Organizing for high reliability:
processes of collective mindfulness. In: Sutton, R., Staw, B. (Eds.), Research in
Organizational Behaviour. JAI, Greenwich, CT, pp. 81124.
Wesson, T., De Figueiredo, J.N., 2001. The importance of focus to market entrants: a
study of microbrewery performance. Journal of Business Venturing 16, 377403.
Westrum, R., 2006. A typology of resilience situations. In: Hollnagel, E., Woods, D.
D., Leveson, N. (Eds.), Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts. Ashgate,
Aldershot, UK.
Woods, D.D., 2006. Essential characteristics of resilience. In: Hollnagel, E., Woods, D.D.,
Leveson, N. (Eds.), Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK.
Vossen, R.W., 1998. Relative strengths and weaknesses of small rms in innovation.
International Small Business Journal 16, 8894.
Yin, R.K., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed.. Sage,
London.