Global supply chains are increasingly exposed to geopolitical risk, trade-policy uncertainty, armed conflict, sanctions, maritime insecurity and strategic competition between states. Geopolitical risk is not only a political phenomenon; it has direct operational implications for transport reliability, cargo availability, inventory planning, freight-rate volatility and supply chain continuity. Caldara and Iacoviello (2022) conceptualise geopolitical risk as a measurable source of economic uncertainty that affects investment, trade and operational decision-making. In logistics and maritime transport, this uncertainty becomes operational when it disrupts shipping routes, reduces schedule reliability, increases insurance costs or forces carriers to reroute vessels through longer and more expensive corridors.

Maritime chokepoints are particularly vulnerable because they concentrate large volumes of trade and energy flows within narrow geographic passages. The Strait of Hormuz, Bab el-Mandeb and the Suez Canal are central to global energy, containerised trade and interregional connectivity. Their strategic importance creates a systemic vulnerability: disruption in one corridor can affect not only the immediate route but also freight markets, port calls, inland distribution, inventory cycles and production continuity across distant supply chains. Stopford (2009) and Rodrigue (2020) emphasise that maritime transport networks depend on route concentration, port hierarchy and corridor efficiency. These features generate strong economic advantages under normal conditions, but they can also intensify disruption when critical nodes or corridors are exposed to geopolitical tension.

Recent maritime disruptions have demonstrated that corridor vulnerability is not a marginal issue. When vessels are delayed, rerouted or exposed to security threats, the consequences extend across logistics networks through higher transport costs, longer transit times and reduced reliability. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2023, 2024) highlights that maritime transport remains essential to global trade but is increasingly affected by geopolitical fragmentation, climate-related disruption, congestion and security shocks. Notteboom et al. (2021) similarly show that disruptions in ports and shipping systems generate spatial and temporal effects across wider logistics networks. Therefore, geopolitical instability should be treated as a supply chain risk driver that becomes visible through maritime logistics disruption.

This study builds on this logic by focusing on how geopolitical instability affects maritime logistics disruptions in a region where several critical corridors intersect. The Middle East is not only a location of geopolitical tension; it is also a core logistics space connecting Asia, Europe and Africa. Therefore, the relationship between geopolitical instability and maritime logistics disruption is central to understanding supply chain vulnerability in this context.

Supply chain disruption occurs when an unexpected event interrupts the normal flow of materials, information, services or financial resources across a supply network. Disruptions can originate from natural hazards, operational failures, cyber incidents, pandemics, geopolitical events or transport-system breakdowns. In logistics-intensive supply chains, disruption is rarely contained at the point of origin. Instead, it can spread through supplier dependencies, transport delays, inventory shortages, production rescheduling and customer-service failures.

The ripple-effect literature explains how localised disruptions propagate across supply chain networks. Dolgui et al. (2018) argue that disruption effects travel through connected supply chains because firms depend on interrelated suppliers, carriers, ports, warehouses and information systems. Ivanov (2022) further explains that supply chain viability depends on the ability of a network to maintain essential functions under severe external shocks. In maritime logistics, the ripple effect is especially important because a delay or rerouting decision at one chokepoint can affect vessel schedules, port congestion, inland transport capacity and downstream inventory availability.

Maritime chokepoints are critical because they combine high strategic value with limited routing flexibility. The Strait of Hormuz supports major energy flows from the Gulf region. Bab el-Mandeb connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. The Suez Canal links Asia–Europe maritime trade and reduces the need for longer routes around the Cape of Good Hope. Disruption in these corridors can increase voyage distance, raise fuel and insurance costs, delay cargo arrivals and reduce schedule reliability. These operational effects subsequently increase supply chain risk exposure by affecting lead-time predictability, inventory availability, procurement continuity and service performance.

Supply chain resilience research provides the theoretical foundation for understanding how organisations and networks respond to such shocks. Christopher and Peck (2004) define resilience as the ability of a supply chain to return to its original or desired state after disruption. Sheffi (2005) emphasises redundancy, flexibility, collaboration and preparedness as core resilience mechanisms. Pettit, Fiksel and Croxton (2010) conceptualise resilience as the balance between vulnerabilities and capabilities, while Ponomarov and Holcomb (2009) highlight adaptive capability, recovery capacity and continuity. Wieland and Wallenburg (2013) add that resilience depends not only on flexibility and redundancy but also on relational competence across supply chain actors. Hosseini, Ivanov and Dolgui (2019) further show that supply chain resilience can be examined through multiple analytical lenses, including absorptive, adaptive and restorative capacity.

These studies suggest that resilience is not only a firm-level property. It is also shaped by logistics infrastructure, transport alternatives, institutional coordination and network design. A firm may have strong internal risk-management practices but remain vulnerable if it depends on a single maritime corridor or lacks credible alternative transport options. This is particularly relevant for supply chains that depend on energy flows, food imports, healthcare goods, manufacturing inputs and containerised trade. In such contexts, resilience requires more than inventory buffers or supplier diversification. It also requires transport-system redundancy, multimodal connectivity, digital visibility and corridor-level coordination.

Accordingly, this study treats supply chain risk exposure as the mechanism through which maritime logistics disruptions affect global supply chain stability. Maritime disruption increases uncertainty in lead times, cargo availability, freight cost and route reliability. This increases supply chain risk exposure, which can reduce stability across procurement, production, distribution and service continuity. The study therefore links geopolitical risk, maritime disruption and supply chain stability through a disruption-propagation logic grounded in supply chain resilience theory.

Hub theory provides an important foundation for understanding how logistics systems create connectivity and coordination advantages. Early hub-location research explains how hubs concentrate flows, reduce network complexity and improve the efficiency of transport systems. O’Kelly (1986) conceptualises hubs as central nodes that consolidate and redistribute flows within spatial networks. Campbell (1994) develops the hub-location problem by showing how hub placement influences transport cost, routing efficiency and network structure.

Fleming and Hayuth (1994) further distinguish between centrality and intermediacy, arguing that transport hubs derive value not only from their local market but also from their position between major flows.

In maritime and port studies, hub theory has been extended through the concepts of port hierarchy, port regionalisation and hinterland integration. Notteboom and Rodrigue (2005) argue that ports increasingly develop beyond the seaport terminal through inland corridors, dry ports, logistics zones and intermodal systems. This regionalisation process shifts the role of ports from isolated maritime gateways to integrated logistics platforms. Rodrigue (2020) similarly emphasises that modern logistics hubs connect maritime, road, rail, warehousing and distribution functions across wider freight systems. Monios and Wilmsmeier (2012) show that inland terminals and intermodal corridors can reshape port competition and logistics integration. Ducruet and Notteboom (2012) also demonstrate that maritime networks are shaped by port centrality, connectivity and the interaction between global shipping routes and regional logistics systems.

Traditional hub theory focuses mainly on efficiency, consolidation, accessibility and trade facilitation. However, recent disruption conditions require a broader interpretation. Under geopolitical instability, a logistics hub is valuable not only because it reduces transport cost or improves cargo throughput, but also because it can stabilise flows when normal corridors are disrupted. This requires a shift from viewing hubs as efficiency infrastructure to viewing them as resilience infrastructure.

A logistics stabilisation hub can therefore be defined as a national or regional infrastructure system that maintains cargo, energy and information flows during disruption by combining alternative routing, multimodal transfer, cargo visibility and institutional coordination. This stabilisation function depends on three interrelated capabilities. Firstly, logistics infrastructure quality provides the physical basis for rerouting and cargo absorption through ports, roads, rail links, dry ports, bonded zones and logistics parks. Secondly, energy logistics capacity supports continuity in energy-related flows through pipelines, industrial ports, export terminals and energy-distribution systems. Thirdly, digital logistics integration enables cargo visibility, data sharing, platform coordination and faster decision-making during disruption. These capabilities are consistent with resilience theory because they strengthen absorptive and adaptive capacity at the network level.

The concept of the logistics stabilisation hub therefore extends existing hub theory. It does not reject the traditional role of hubs in consolidation, intermediation and trade facilitation. Rather, it adds a disruption-oriented function.

Under geopolitical risk, the value of a hub lies in its ability to preserve system continuity, provide credible routing alternatives and reduce the destabilising effect of maritime disruption on supply chains.

Recent Saudi and Middle East and North Africa (MENA) logistics studies further support the relevance of digital, organisational and sustainability-oriented logistics capabilities. El-Nakib and Elzarka (2026a) show that green logistics performance in MENA requires integrated measurement of logistics efficiency and environmental performance. El-Nakib, Elzarka and Gouhar (2026) demonstrate that fossil-fuel-dependent logistics systems face interdependent human, technological and organisational constraints that affect sustainability transition. El-Nakib and Elzarka (2026b) further show that artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled and interoperable logistics architectures can strengthen coordination and resilience in Saudi supply chain systems. El-Nakib and Elzarka (2026c) additionally show that digital twin adoption readiness in Egypt’s emerging logistics sector is strengthened by perceived operational benefits, workforce digital skills and managerial support, while investment uncertainty remains a significant barrier. These studies are not used as primary evidence for the present hypotheses, but they support the contextual argument that logistics capability in Saudi Arabia and MENA should be analysed as a multidimensional system involving infrastructure, digital integration and organisational readiness.

Saudi Arabia provides a strategically relevant context for studying logistics stabilisation under geopolitical disruption. The country is positioned between the Red Sea and the Gulf and connects maritime flows linking Asia, Europe and Africa. This position gives Saudi Arabia a distinctive logistics profile because it is not limited to one coastline or one maritime corridor. Its logistics system includes Red Sea gateways, Gulf ports, inland corridors, road and rail networks, logistics zones, energy logistics assets and digital logistics initiatives. This study uses the neutral term ‘the Gulf’ to avoid terminological controversy while preserving the study’s focus on logistics corridors, ports and regional supply chain connectivity.

The Red Sea side includes major gateways such as Jeddah Islamic Port, King Abdullah Port and Yanbu Port, which connect Saudi Arabia to Asia, Europe and Africa. The Gulf side includes ports such as King Abdulaziz Port in Dammam and Jubail Industrial Port, which support regional trade, industrial logistics and energy-related flows. Inland logistics corridors and dry-port functions around Riyadh connect these maritime systems and support cargo movement between eastern and western gateways. This dual-coast geography is important because it creates the possibility of rerouting cargo and energy-related flows when a maritime chokepoint becomes unreliable.

Saudi Arabia’s logistics transformation is also embedded in national policy. Vision 2030 and the National Transport and Logistics Strategy position logistics as a central pillar of economic diversification, trade integration and regional connectivity (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 2016; Ministry of Transport and Logistic Services 2021). These strategies emphasise transport-mode integration, logistics-zone development, port capacity, aviation and maritime connectivity, infrastructure governance and digital services. The National Industrial Development and Logistics Programme also reinforces the role of logistics in linking industrial growth, energy systems, mining, trade and supply chain development (National Industrial Development and Logistics Program 2021).

In this context, Saudi Arabia’s logistics corridors can be interpreted as strategic stabilisation infrastructure. Inland connections between Gulf ports, Riyadh logistics facilities and Red Sea gateways can provide alternative pathways when maritime routes face instability, congestion or security concerns. These corridors combine road, rail, port, dry-port, pipeline and logistics-zone assets to support cargo redistribution across national and regional trade routes. From a resilience perspective, such multimodal integration can reduce dependence on a single chokepoint and increase the number of feasible routing options available to logistics operators during disruption.

Cross-border logistics corridors further extend this stabilisation role. Land-based freight routes connecting Saudi Arabia with neighbouring Gulf, Levant and Red Sea markets can complement maritime flows and support regional supply chain continuity. These corridors are particularly relevant when maritime transport is delayed, congested or exposed to security threats. By integrating maritime gateways, inland logistics nodes and cross-border transport routes, Saudi Arabia can contribute to a multilayered logistics system that supports both national trade connectivity and regional supply chain resilience.

For this study, the Saudi context matters for theoretical as well as practical reasons. Theoretically, Saudi Arabia provides a case where hub capability can be examined as a system-level stabilisation construct rather than as a single-port performance measure. Practically, the country’s location near major maritime chokepoints makes the stabilisation role of logistics infrastructure especially relevant. If geopolitical instability affects the Strait of Hormuz, Bab el-Mandeb or the Suez Canal, logistics actors require credible alternatives that combine ports, inland corridors, energy logistics and digital visibility.

However, it is important not to overstate the argument. This study does not claim that geopolitical instability automatically strengthens Saudi logistics hub capability. Rather, it argues that geopolitical instability can increase maritime disruption, and that logistics stabilisation hub capability can reduce the negative consequences of such disruption when the required infrastructure, energy-logistics and digital capabilities are present. This distinction is important because hub capability is not a direct outcome of instability; it is a preparedness and response capability that becomes strategically valuable under disruption.

The existing literature has generated important insights into geopolitical risk, maritime chokepoints, supply chain disruption, resilience and logistics hub development. However, these streams remain insufficiently integrated. Geopolitical risk studies often focus on macroeconomic uncertainty, trade volatility or energy-market consequences. Maritime transport studies examine port performance, route concentration, chokepoint vulnerability and network connectivity. Supply chain resilience studies explain disruption propagation, adaptive capability and recovery. Hub theory and port regionalisation research focus mainly on efficiency, connectivity and hinterland integration.

Despite these contributions, limited attention has been given to how national logistics systems can act as stabilisation hubs during geopolitical disruption. In particular, the literature has not sufficiently explained how inland corridors, multimodal infrastructure, energy logistics and digital logistics integration can reduce the destabilising effect of maritime disruption on supply chains. This gap is especially important in regions where geopolitical instability intersects with highly concentrated maritime corridors.

Saudi Arabia offers a strong context for addressing this gap because its logistics system combines dual-coast maritime access, inland corridor development, energy logistics assets, logistics-zone expansion and national policy support for logistics transformation. This context enables the study to move beyond conventional port-efficiency analysis and examine logistics hub capability as a resilience-oriented stabilisation mechanism.

Accordingly, this study contributes to the literature in three ways. Firstly, it links geopolitical instability to maritime logistics disruption and supply chain risk exposure through a disruption-propagation logic. Secondly, it extends hub theory by conceptualising logistics stabilisation hub capability as a network-level resilience capability rather than only an efficiency or connectivity construct. Thirdly, it situates Saudi Arabia’s logistics transformation within a broader theoretical discussion of regional supply chain resilience under geopolitical uncertainty.

The first relationship concerns the effect of geopolitical instability on maritime logistics disruptions. Geopolitical instability can increase the probability of route disruption, vessel delay, port-security restrictions, insurance-cost escalation and rerouting. Maritime corridors that carry high volumes of energy and containerised trade are particularly sensitive to political and security shocks because alternative routes may involve longer distances, higher costs and weaker schedule reliability. Therefore, geopolitical instability is expected to increase maritime logistics disruptions:

The second relationship links maritime logistics disruptions to supply chain risk exposure. When maritime routes are disrupted, firms face uncertainty in cargo arrival, lead times, freight costs, inventory availability and customer-service reliability. These conditions increase exposure to operational, financial and service risks. In line with ripple-effect theory, disruption in the maritime transport layer can propagate into procurement, production and distribution decisions:

The third relationship links supply chain risk exposure to global supply chain stability. Higher risk exposure reduces the ability of supply chains to maintain predictable flows, service continuity and operational reliability. When firms face uncertain delivery times, unstable costs and weaker cargo visibility, global supply chain stability declines. This relationship is consistent with resilience theory, which argues that vulnerability increases when exposure is high and adaptive capability is insufficient:

The fourth hypothesis concerns the moderating role of logistics stabilisation hub capability. Strong hub capability can weaken the negative effect of maritime disruption on supply chain stability by offering alternative routing, multimodal coordination, cargo visibility and energy-logistics continuity. This means that maritime disruption should have a less damaging effect on supply chain stability when logistics stabilisation hub capability is high:

To test H4, an interaction term between maritime logistics disruptions and logistics stabilisation hub capability was created after mean-centring the relevant construct scores. The interaction term was then entered into the structural model to assess whether logistics stabilisation hub capability weakened the negative disruption–stability relationship.

The fifth hypothesis concerns the direct contribution of logistics stabilisation hub capability to regional supply chain resilience. A hub that connects ports, inland corridors, energy assets and digital logistics systems can support the continuity of regional flows during disruption. Such capability strengthens the ability of supply chains to absorb shocks, adapt routing decisions and sustain critical flows:

The sixth hypothesis concerns logistics infrastructure quality as an antecedent of logistics stabilisation hub capability. Ports, roads, rail links, inland logistics zones and dry ports provide the physical foundation for routing alternatives and cargo redistribution. Without strong infrastructure quality, a logistics hub cannot credibly perform a stabilisation role:

The seventh hypothesis concerns energy logistics capacity. In the Saudi and wider Middle Eastern context, energy logistics is central to regional and global supply chain continuity. Pipelines, industrial ports, export terminals and related energy-logistics systems can support continuity when maritime energy routes are exposed to disruption. Energy logistics capacity is therefore expected to contribute positively to logistics stabilisation hub capability:

The eighth hypothesis concerns digital logistics integration. Digital platforms, cargo tracking, data sharing, customs integration and real-time visibility improve coordination during disruption. These capabilities reduce information uncertainty and support faster rerouting and decision-making. Therefore, digital logistics integration is expected to strengthen logistics stabilisation hub capability:

Together, these hypotheses develop a disruption-to-stabilisation model. Geopolitical instability is expected to increase maritime logistics disruptions; maritime disruptions are expected to increase supply chain risk exposure; and risk exposure is expected to reduce global supply chain stability. Logistics stabilisation hub capability is expected to buffer the disruption–stability relationship and support regional supply chain resilience. Its stabilisation role is enabled by logistics infrastructure quality, energy logistics capacity and digital logistics integration.

Table 1 synthesises the main literature streams supporting the conceptual framework. The study draws on geopolitical risk, maritime chokepoint vulnerability, ripple-effect theory, supply chain resilience, hub theory, port regionalisation and digital logistics integration. This theoretical synthesis is important because geopolitical maritime disruption is a multidimensional phenomenon involving political risk, transport-system vulnerability, supply chain exposure and infrastructure-based resilience.

The table shows that the proposed model draws on multiple literature streams rather than relying on a single theoretical lens. This is important because geopolitical maritime disruption is a multidimensional phenomenon involving political risk, transport-system vulnerability, supply chain exposure and infrastructure-based resilience.

Table 2 summarises the Saudi logistics components that support the stabilisation-hub argument. These components show that Saudi Arabia’s relevance is not based only on geographic location, but on the interaction between maritime access, inland corridors, energy logistics assets and digital logistics integration.

This table clarifies why Saudi Arabia is a theoretically relevant setting for examining logistics stabilisation hub capability. The country’s significance is not based only on geography, but on the interaction between maritime access, inland corridors, energy logistics and digital logistics integration.

Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework visually after the hypotheses. The figure shows geopolitical instability influencing maritime logistics disruptions, maritime logistics disruptions increasing supply chain risk exposure, and supply chain risk exposure reducing global supply chain stability. Logistics stabilisation hub capability appears as a moderator between maritime logistics disruptions and global supply chain stability. Logistics infrastructure quality, energy logistics capacity and digital logistics integration appear as antecedents of logistics stabilisation hub capability. Finally, logistics stabilisation hub capability directly influences regional supply chain resilience.

The figure visually summarises the proposed disruption-to-stabilisation model. It positions logistics stabilisation hub capability as both a direct resilience-enhancing capability and a buffering mechanism that reduces the negative effect of maritime disruption on supply chain stability.

The target population comprised logistics professionals with experience in maritime transport, port operations, freight forwarding, energy logistics, transport planning, logistics infrastructure, supply chain risk management or logistics policy. Respondents were eligible if they had at least 5 years of relevant professional experience and were familiar with logistics operations connected to Middle Eastern trade corridors. Participants were recruited through professional networks, logistics associations, company contacts, LinkedIn and direct email invitations.

Data were collected between March and May 2026. A total of 342 responses were received. After removing 42 incomplete responses, straight-line responses and responses that failed the screening criteria, 300 usable responses were retained for analysis. Participation was voluntary and anonymous.

Based on the conceptual framework developed in the ‘Literature review and conceptual framework’ section, the empirical model tested eight hypotheses linking geopolitical instability, maritime logistics disruptions, supply chain risk exposure, logistics stabilisation hub capability, global supply chain stability and regional supply chain resilience. The model also tested logistics infrastructure quality, energy logistics capacity and digital logistics integration as antecedents of logistics stabilisation hub capability.

The measurement model was operationalised using reflective survey indicators adapted from prior literature and adjusted to the context of maritime disruption, logistics corridors and regional supply chain resilience. All items were measured using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from strong disagreement to strong agreement. Table 3 summarises the main constructs, abbreviations and survey-style measurement indicators used in the empirical model.

Table 3 converts the measurement indicators into perception-based survey items rather than objective infrastructure statistics. This revision is important because the empirical analysis is based on respondent perceptions collected through a structured survey rather than direct measurement of port throughput, pipeline capacity or real-time tracking-system data.

The final sample of 300 usable responses satisfies recommended thresholds for partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) analysis (Hair et al. 2019). The empirical analysis was conducted using SmartPLS 4 to evaluate the direct and moderating relationships within the proposed model.

The analysis followed the PLS SEM procedure because the study examined prediction-oriented relationships among multiple latent constructs and included an interaction effect. The measurement model was assessed using indicator loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability and average variance extracted. Discriminant validity was evaluated using the heterotrait-monotrait ratio. The structural model was assessed using path coefficients, bootstrapped significance levels, variance inflation factors, coefficient of determination values, effect sizes and the interaction effect for the moderation hypothesis. A bootstrapping procedure with 5000 resamples was used to assess statistical significance.

To test the proposed conceptual relationships, this study specifies a structural model linking geopolitical instability, maritime logistics disruptions, supply chain risk exposure, logistics stabilisation hub capability, global supply chain stability and regional supply chain resilience. The structural relationships can be expressed as follows, in Equation 1, Equation 2, Equation 3, Equation 4 and Equation 5:

where GI represents geopolitical instability, MLD represents maritime logistics disruptions, SCRE represents supply chain risk exposure, LSHC represents logistics stabilisation hub capability, GSCS represents global supply chain stability, RSCR represents regional supply chain resilience, LIQ represents logistics infrastructure quality, ELC represents energy logistics capacity, and DLI represents digital logistics integration. The interaction term MLD × LSHC captures the moderating role of logistics stabilisation hub capability in weakening the negative effect of maritime logistics disruptions on global supply chain stability.

Because the study relied on single-source survey data, common method bias was assessed before interpreting the structural model. Firstly, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted to examine whether one factor accounted for most of the variance. The first unrotated factor explained 31.74% of the total variance, which was below the recommended 50% threshold. Secondly, full collinearity was assessed using variance inflation factors. The VIF values ranged from 1.24 to 2.89, remaining below the conservative threshold of 3.3. These results suggest that common method bias is unlikely to be a serious threat to the interpretation of the findings.

The study was conducted in accordance with institutional research ethics principles. Formal ethical approval was not required, and a waiver to conduct this study was obtained from the Effat University Ethics Committee because the research used an anonymous, voluntary survey of professional respondents, did not collect personally identifiable information, and reported only aggregated results.

The empirical analysis begins with descriptive statistics and correlation analysis for the variables included in the conceptual model. These statistics provide an overview of construct distribution and allow an initial assessment of the relationships among the main variables before structural model estimation.

Table 4 reports the mean values, standard deviations and correlation coefficients for the main variables included in the study. The correlation matrix provides preliminary support for the proposed theoretical logic by showing a positive association between geopolitical instability and maritime logistics disruptions, a positive association between maritime logistics disruptions and supply chain risk exposure and a negative association between supply chain risk exposure and global supply chain stability.

The correlation matrix also shows that geopolitical instability has a weak negative correlation with logistics stabilisation hub capability (r = −0.12). This indicates that respondents did not perceive hub capability as a direct outcome of geopolitical instability. Instead, they appeared to treat geopolitical instability as an external corridor-risk condition and logistics stabilisation hub capability as an internal infrastructure and coordination capability.

This supports the study’s moderation logic: Hub capability buffers the effects of disruption, but it is not automatically created by geopolitical instability.

The results indicate moderate variation across the constructs. Geopolitical instability is positively associated with maritime logistics disruptions, while maritime logistics disruptions are positively associated with supply chain risk exposure. Logistics stabilisation hub capability shows a positive association with global supply chain stability and regional supply chain resilience. This pattern suggests that respondents perceive hub capability as a distinct stabilising capability associated with lower disruption exposure and stronger resilience outcomes. None of the correlation coefficients exceeds commonly accepted multicollinearity thresholds, indicating that the variables can be safely included in the structural model.

Prior to testing the structural relationships, the reliability and validity of the measurement constructs were evaluated. The analysis assessed internal consistency reliability and convergent validity following established PLS-SEM procedures (Hair et al. 2019). Cronbach’s alpha values above 0.70 indicate acceptable internal consistency, composite reliability values above 0.70 indicate satisfactory construct reliability, and average variance extracted values above 0.50 indicate convergent validity.

As shown in Table 5, the reliability and convergent validity results indicate that all constructs meet the recommended thresholds. Cronbach’s alpha values range from 0.84 to 0.91, composite reliability values range from 0.88 to 0.93 and AVE values range from 0.59 to 0.67. These results indicate that the measurement indicators adequately capture their respective latent constructs and provide a reliable basis for structural model assessment.

Discriminant validity was assessed using the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations. The heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) values ranged from 0.397 to 0.741 and remained below the conservative threshold of 0.85 and the more liberal threshold of 0.90, supporting discriminant validity. Full HTMT ratios are provided as Online Appendix 1.

After establishing measurement reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity, the structural model was assessed using SmartPLS 4. The assessment considered approximate model fit, collinearity diagnostics, explanatory power, path significance and the moderating effect of logistics stabilisation hub capability. The model demonstrated acceptable fit (standardised root mean square residual [SRMR] = 0.061; normed fit index [NFI] = 0.912), no severe collinearity (variance Inflation Factor [VIF] range = 1.24–2.89), moderate to substantial explained variance and predictive relevance. Full HTMT ratios, model-fit diagnostics, effect-size statistics, predictive relevance values and the complete survey instrument are provided as Online Appendix 1.

Table 6 shows that all hypothesised relationships are supported. The strongest coefficient is observed for the relationship between geopolitical instability and maritime logistics disruptions, confirming that geopolitical conditions are an important driver of disruption in strategic maritime corridors. The moderating effect is positive and significant, indicating that logistics stabilisation hub capability weakens the negative disruption effect on global supply chain stability.

The empirical results highlight the strategic importance of logistics infrastructure systems capable of supporting cargo rerouting during disruption events. Countries positioned along critical trade corridors can enhance supply chain stability by investing in multimodal logistics infrastructure linking maritime gateways with inland transport corridors, energy logistics assets and digital coordination platforms.

Saudi Arabia’s logistics infrastructure development, including port modernisation, logistics zones, inland transport corridors and digital logistics initiatives, illustrates how national logistics systems can function as stabilisation hubs within global supply networks. By connecting ports on the Gulf with Red Sea maritime gateways, these infrastructure systems provide alternative trade routes capable of maintaining cargo flows during geopolitical disruptions.

The findings also indicate that stabilisation capability is not generated by geography alone. Rather, it depends on the combined effect of physical infrastructure, energy logistics capacity and digital logistics integration. This means that logistics hub strategies should move beyond throughput expansion and incorporate resilience-oriented planning, multimodal coordination, real-time visibility and cross-border cargo redistribution capability.

The findings should be interpreted in relation to three established streams of research. Firstly, supply chain resilience studies show that disruption exposure is not limited to single firms but propagates through interdependent logistics, inventory and information systems. Secondly, maritime transport research shows that ports, corridors and shipping networks are spatially interdependent, so disruption in one chokepoint can create wider network effects. Thirdly, hub theory explains how transport hubs generate value through connectivity, consolidation and coordination. The present study extends this logic by arguing that, under geopolitical disruption, logistics hubs can also perform a stabilisation function when they combine multimodal redundancy, cargo visibility and energy-logistics continuity.

The results provide empirical support for the theoretical relations positioned within the conceptual model. The results validate that the level of geopolitical instability in a region meaningfully increases the chance of maritime logistics disruptions, which in turn cause higher supply chain risk exposure and lower global supply chain stability. These findings align with recent research on supply chain disruptions showing the propagation of geopolitical shocks through interdependent logistic networks via key transport corridors impacting global trade performance (Ivanov 2022; Ivanov & Dolgui 2021). The positive relationship between geopolitical instability and maritime logistics disruptions confirms that political and security risks become operationally significant when they affect strategic maritime chokepoints. In corridors such as the Strait of Hormuz, Bab el-Mandeb and the Suez Canal, even limited disruption can affect shipping reliability, transport costs and cargo availability across wider logistics systems (Notteboom et al. 2021; Stopford 2009).

The findings also support the ripple-effect mechanism discussed in supply chain disruption literature. Maritime transport disruptions increase supply chain risk exposure, which subsequently reduces global supply chain stability. This cascading process shows how disruption at strategic logistics nodes or corridors can move through connected supply networks, affecting production systems, inventory flows and distribution processes. A major finding of the study is that logistics stabilisation hub capability moderates this disruption effect. Logistics systems with strong multimodal infrastructure, energy logistics capacity and digital integration are better positioned to sustain cargo flows during disruption events. These results support the argument that investment in logistics infrastructure can enhance supply chain resilience and reduce the exposure of global trade systems to geopolitical shocks.

One unexpected result is the weak negative correlation between geopolitical instability and logistics stabilisation hub capability. This suggests that respondents did not perceive Saudi logistics hub capability as a simple direct response to geopolitical instability. Instead, they appeared to treat geopolitical instability and hub capability as analytically distinct constructs: Geopolitical instability reflects external corridor risk, while logistics stabilisation hub capability reflects internal infrastructure, multimodal redundancy, energy-logistics capacity and digital visibility. This weak correlation is important because it limits any claim that geopolitical instability automatically produces stronger hub capability. Rather, the results support a more conditional interpretation. Hub capability becomes relevant when maritime disruption affects supply chain stability, but it is not merely a direct by-product of geopolitical instability.

Saudi Arabia’s expanding logistics infrastructure provides an illustrative case of this stabilising mechanism. Ports like Jeddah Islamic Port, King Abdullah Port and King Abdulaziz Port connect with inland logistics corridors and multimodal transport systems to provide alternative routes for cargo between the Gulf and Red Sea. These logistics corridors help cargo be redirected during or after maritime disruptions and make regional trading networks more resilient.

Thus, the results underscore the strategic importance of integrated logistics infrastructure in stabilising supply chains during geopolitical disruptions. Countries positioned along key global trade corridors have an opportunity to strengthen supply chain resilience by investing in multimodal logistics systems capable of supporting cargo rerouting and sustaining trade connectivity under disruption scenarios.

This study makes three theoretical contributions. Firstly, it extends the ripple-effect perspective by positioning geopolitical instability as an upstream driver of maritime logistics disruption. While prior studies have examined operational disruptions, demand shocks and pandemic-related interruptions, fewer empirical studies have examined how geopolitical instability affects maritime logistics networks and supply chain stability. Secondly, the study develops the concept of logistics stabilisation hub capability as a network-level resilience construct. This extends hub theory beyond efficiency, consolidation and trade facilitation by showing how hubs can also perform a stabilising role during disruption. Thirdly, the study identifies logistics infrastructure quality, energy logistics capacity and digital logistics integration as antecedents of stabilisation capability. This clarifies how physical, energy-related and digital capabilities jointly support logistics resilience under geopolitical uncertainty.

This study has important implications for logistics managers and public policy makers responsible for managing supply chain disruptions. For logistics managers, the findings underscore the need to devise supply chain strategies that account for alternative transport corridors and multimodal logistics infrastructure. Companies operating in global supply chains should assess their logistics networks not just on how cost-effective they are, but also how robust they will be against geopolitical upheavals. Supply chain stability during disruptive events can be greatly improved through diversification of transport routes and reinforcement of logistics visibility using digital platforms. For policymakers, the findings highlight the need to strengthen integrated logistics infrastructure that can continue functioning during geopolitical disruptions. The development of multimodal corridors linking ports, logistics hubs and inland transport networks must prioritise national logistics strategies. These infrastructure investments will serve to enhance not only individual but also global economic resilience and mobility. Saudi Arabia centres its Vision 2030 strategy around logistics development, with several large-scale infrastructure projects turning the country into a regional trade hub. Inland logistics corridors connecting the Gulf to Red Sea maritime gateways provide additional cargo routes that lessen reliance on vulnerable maritime chokepoints. These infrastructure initiatives are an example of how logistics systems can serve as stabilisation mechanisms in global supply chains.

This study has several limitations. Firstly, the empirical analysis is based on perceptions of logistics professionals from available survey data rather than actual operational logistics performance data. Future research may leverage network-level shipping traffic data or large-scale automatic identification system (AIS) vessel movement datasets to investigate the propagation of disruptions through maritime corridors. Secondly, the study focuses on Saudi Arabia, although broader regional logistics networks may also influence supply chain resilience. Future research could examine logistics stabilisation mechanisms across multiple regional logistics hubs in the Middle East.

A further limitation concerns the dual role of logistics hubs under geopolitical tension. While highly capable hubs can buffer maritime disruption by providing alternative routing and coordination capacity, they may also become strategically visible assets and therefore potential targets of geopolitical pressure, cyber disruption, sanctions exposure or security threats. Future research should therefore examine not only how logistics hubs stabilise supply chains, but also how hub centrality may create new vulnerabilities.