South Africa is the most developed country in Africa engaging in 3PL services (Karrapan et al. 2017:3). The logistics industry in South Africa is a significant contributor to the economy and supports the country in achieving a global competitive advantage (Havenga, De Bod & Simpson 2016:6). The South African 3PL industry is also highly competitive, as an increasing number of firms are outsourcing their logistical functions (Waugh & Luke 2011:377). A 3PL performs various logistical activities for shippers or distributors and customers (Grant et al. 2014:214). These logistical activities include: warehousing, inbound and outbound transportation and value-added services, such as repackaging and logistics network design (Coyle et al. 2013:118). The 3PLs operate in various industry verticals, which include the FMCG industry, the automotive industry, the manufacturing industry, and the retail industry (Foulds 2013:32). The role of 3PLs in developing countries such as South Africa is changing, as they can now be viewed as value-adding orchestrators within supply chains (Niemann et al. 2018:1743). The 3PLs are more focused on new ways of interaction with their clients and the type of value-added services offered (Niemann et al. 2018:1743). Furthermore, developing countries are more at risk to experience SCDs than developed countries (Tukamuhabwa, Stevenson & Busby 2017:487). The South African logistics industry is particularly vulnerable to SCDs, as found in a recent study by Nel et al. (2018:1–12). These SCDs include, but are not limited to, labour unrest, border delays, cargo theft and political instability.

Firms are vulnerable to various risks, ranging from operational risks and financial risks to reputational risks (Porterfield, Macdonald & Griffis 2012:400–401; Verbano & Venturini 2013:189). A SCD can be described as an unanticipated or unforeseen event that results in an interruption in the ordinary flow of goods and materials within a supply chain network (Craighead, Blackhurst, Rungtusanatham & Handfield 2007:132; Porterfield et al. 2012:402). The effects of SCDs propagate throughout the entire supply chain network and can have detrimental effects on each network member (Heckmann, Comes & Nickel 2015:121). Supply chain disruptions are inevitable. It is no longer a matter of whether SCDs will occur, but rather when they will occur (Glendon & Bird 2013:4). In order to limit the effect of SCDs on firm performance and corporate reputation, firms have to identify, respond and retaliate to SCDs in a timely and effective manner (Chang, Ellinger & Blackhurst 2015:643; Markova et al. 2018:26). This illustrates the importance of implementing appropriate supply chain disruption management (SCDM) processes (Behdani et al. 2012:7–8; Revilla & Saenz 2017:7).

Both proactive and reactive approaches exist to analyse SCDs. These approaches can respectively be referred to as supply chain risk management and SCDM (Dani & Deep 2010:396). Traditional risk management practices involve the process of detecting potential sources of risks and the implementation of appropriate strategies to reduce the probability of an SCD from occurring (Behdani 2013; Jüttner, Peck & Christopher 2003:200). The disruption management cycle is only implemented once traditional risk management practices fail to prevent the SCD from occurring (Behdani 2013). Despite the vast amount of planning and research in the field of risk management, SCDs still occur (Behdani et al. 2012). The SCDM can be defined as a systematic and ongoing process of managing and analysing the impact of SCDs throughout their entire disruption lifecycle (Behdani et al. 2012:8). The disruption management cycle comprises four actions, namely disruption detection, disruption reaction, disruption recovery and disruption learning (Ahmad, Hafeez, Rodriguez & Dawood 2016:80–93; Behdani 2013).

The first step in the disruption management cycle is to ensure that a disruption can be detected as fast as possible (DuHadway et al. 2019:190). In this step, the characteristics and expected repercussions of the SCD are outlined (Sheffi 2015:36). After the SCD has occurred, it is of vital importance to react in a timely and efficient manner. The goal of the disruption reaction step is to return the operations of the affected firm back to a normal state of functioning (Ivanov & Dolgui 2020:2907). This step can be conducted through implementing a pre-determined plan, which can result in timesaving during the reaction period and could potentially limit the impact of the SCD on the firm’s performance (Scholten, Sharkey Scott & Fynes 2014:222). If this step fails to bring the operations back to a normal state of functioning, the following steps should be deployed.

In the disruption recovery step, the SCD is continuously monitored whilst information pertaining to the SCD is collected (Holzhauer 2016:34). Collaboration during this stage is crucial, as it is too late to implement preventative measures and it is known that parties can recover more successfully when working together (Scholten et al. 2014:219). The SCDR is not only the third step of the SCDM process, but it also forms an integral part of the supply chain resilience (SCRES) (Adobor & McMullen 2018:1452; Hohenstein, Feisel & Hartmann 2015:99). The basic premise of SCRES is to restore a firm’s operations back to a normal state of functioning after an SCD has occurred (Ambulkar, Blackhurst & Grawe 2015:112). The SCRES also builds the ability and capability to recover from SCDs and to adapt to new risk environments (Bukowski & Feliks 2012:3). The main elements of SCRES include: readiness, response, recovery and growth (Hohenstein et al. 2015:99–101). Recovery is viewed as a central element to SCRES by many researchers (Blackhurst, Kaitlin & Craighead 2011:383; Wu et al. 2013:678). The recovery element focuses on the spontaneous response to SCDs, as pre-determined plans failed to suffice (Holzahuer 2016:34). A part of the SCDR process is to restore damaged reputations between supply chain network partners, as a damaged reputation is a direct consequence of an SCD (Paul, Sarker & Essam 2018:2; Porterfield et al. 2012:417).

The final step in the SCDM cycle refers to the evaluation of the implemented measures during the lifetime of the SCD (Behdani 2013). In this step, the lessons learnt will be documented in order to prepare for future SCDs.

A corporate reputation is the derived impression of who and what a firm represents. This impression can be acquired through either observing the way that a firm manages its assets or through individual experiences (Lloyd 2011:109; Reese & Kossovsky 2011:24). Individuals can use various approaches to develop their impressions of a firm. These include personal experiences, the media, interaction with the firm’s employees and their history of conducting business with a firm (Lemke & Petersen 2013:414). A corporate reputation can further be referred to as a collection or accumulation of these individual perceptions and can be both positive and negative (Kim, Youn & Lee 2019:683).

A corporate reputation has a high probability of being shifted from one network member to another (Horn et al. 2015:193). The supply chain network consists of both ‘reputational owners’ and ‘reputational borrowers’. The reputational owners can be viewed as the firms that readily develop their corporate reputation by means of their market offering, communication with its customers and their participation in the community in which they operate. The reputation borrowers are the other firms in the supply chain network, such as the upstream suppliers and downstream customers, which gain corporate reputation from the reputation owners by means of association (Hoejmose, Roehrich & Grosvold 2014:80; Petersen & Lemke 2015:418). The transference of corporate reputation from one network member to another illustrates the ripple effect that corporate reputation has (Morgan 2018:1). A good corporate reputation can serve as a foundation to competitive advantage (Flatt & Kowalczyk 2011:4), it can reduce the negative impact of an SCD on a firm (Vanhamme & Grobben 2009:275) and ultimately it can increase the interest of potential clients (Soppe et al. 2011:310). Consequently, a good corporate reputation is regarded as a valuable and scarce resource and should be managed accordingly (Iwu-Egwuonwu 2011:198; Szwajca 2018:165).

Reputational risk can be defined as the risk of failure to fulfil customer expectations with regard to performance and behaviour (Fitzsimmons & Atkins 2017:39; Roehrich et al. 2014:698). The expectations of customers can be compromised through events that stem from both external and internal events. External events refer to the location of the supplier, the industry environment in which the firm operates and uncontrollable events, such as natural disasters. Internal events refer to firm-specific issues and managerial decision making (Hoejmose et al. 2014:80). There are various sources of reputational risks that can occur as a result of firm activities or the actions of their network partners (Roehrich et al. 2014:698). Gaudenzi et al. (2015:248–260) categorised the sources of reputational risk as macro-environmental risk drivers, operations risk drivers, finance risk drivers and supply chain risk drivers. Consequently, it is known that no firm is immune to reputational risk originating from negligible practices in their supply chain network. This calls for the effective management of reputational risk.

This study used a generic qualitative research design to explore a phenomenon in its natural environment and to gain a deeper understanding thereof (Creswell & Poth 2017:7). In this case, the researchers explored reputational risk management during the SCDR process. The study employed primary data that were collected through semi-structured interviews with various participants.

The units of analysis for this study were the triadic relationships between 3PLs, their upstream suppliers and downstream customers, operating in South Africa. Fifteen individuals from different firms participated in this study, of which five were upstream suppliers, five were 3PLs and five were downstream customers. This allowed for the successful interviewing of five logistics triads. Through implementing purposive sampling, the researchers were able to select and recruit applicable logistics triads and the most suitable individuals who could make a valuable contribution to the phenomenon under investigation (Creswell 2012:206; Gentles et al. 2015:1778).

Snowball and homogenous sampling were used as the specific purposive sampling methods. Snowball sampling requires researchers to request referrals from participants who form part of the inclusion criteria. Therefore, snowball sampling was the most appropriate method, as the study required the perspective of triadic relationships between 3PLs, upstream suppliers and downstream customers. Another sampling method used was homogenous sampling, which is used to recruit participants who possess similar characteristics (Creswell 2012:208). Homogenous sampling is particularly useful when a deeper comprehension about the phenomenon under investigation is required, as it decreases the variability in the sample (Isaacs 2014:320; Polit & Beck 2012:518). In this study, the 3PL firms were sampled first and then the respective upstream suppliers and downstream customers, all of which met the set inclusion criteria.

The first level of sampling included the recruitment of the 3PL firms and the firms of their respective upstream suppliers and downstream customers and was conducted as follows: First, as the study required a triadic perspective, firms who did not form part of a direct relationship with the 3PL were excluded from the study. Second, the relationship between the firms had to be established for a minimum duration of 1 to 2 years, as an established relationship would be of strategic nature and not merely transactional. In addition, all participating firms had to operate in South Africa. Finally, the participating firms had to experience a mutual SCD, that is, within their supply chain network, as SCDR forms part of the context of the study.

The second level of sampling included the recruitment of the individual participants. The individual participants were selected based on the following inclusion criteria. First, the individuals had to be in either mid- or senior-level management, as this ensured that the participant had experience in his or her field. Second, the individual had to be working at the firm in question for at least 12 months and should have had frequent interaction with the rest of the firms in the logistics triad. This ensured that the direct link between the firms could be investigated. Finally, the participant must have experienced an SCD with the other firms in the logistics triad, as this enabled the participants to provide valuable insights concerning the SCDR process. Table 1 outlines the details of the participants interviewed.

Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under investigation (Creswell 2012:218; Patton 2015:14). The interviews were guided by a discussion guide; however, the interviews were not limited to these questions and questions were added spontaneously in order to gather more information (Cachia & Millward 2011:268). The discussion guide was pre-tested with a participant who met the inclusion criteria. Interviews were conducted online using a webcam-enabled device. The interviews were conducted within a 45-min time frame and the average interview was 36 min long. Permission to audio≈record the conversation was obtained before the commencement of the interview. The informed consent form was also discussed and requested to be signed before the commencement of the interview.

Thematic data analysis was used to analyse the data collected in this study. Transcriptions were extensively analysed and thereafter codes were identified. Certain extracts that related to the study’s research questions were assigned tags, which made up the codes of the transcriptions. Thereafter, repetitive and overlapping codes were grouped together to prevent redundancy. Finally, sense-making of the data took place, where sub-themes and themes were identified (Braun & Clarke 2012:57).

The study applied Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) trustworthiness criteria, in order to demonstrate the credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability of the study (Polit & Beck 2012:584). Credibility requires the alignment of the participants’ perspectives and the true state of the phenomenon under investigation (Polit & Beck 2012:585; Shenton 2004:64). Before the interviews commenced, the participants’ anonymity and confidentiality were communicated to ensure that the participants provided their full and honest account of events throughout the interviews. Dependability or auditability refers to the potential of a study’s findings to be consistently replicated when applied to a comparable context with comparable participants (Polit & Beck 2012:585) and to comply with the dependability criteria (Lincoln & Guba 1985:43). The study includes an audit trail, which outlines the methodology applied (Lietz & Zayas 2010:196). Confirmability indicates whether the findings of the study are a true reflection of the participants’ accounts and are presented in an objective manner that is not influenced by the researcher’s own preferences or biases (Polit & Beck 2012:585). The study developed broad open-ended interview questions so that participants could provide an unbiased account of events. The researchers also transcribed the interviews in great detail to ensure the accuracy of the data collected (Milne & Oberle 2005:415). Transferability is the ability of a study’s findings to be applied to a similar context or situation (Polit & Beck 2012:585; Liamputtong 2013:26). The researchers provided sufficient detail on the study’s context for future researchers. This will allow the future researchers to determine whether the study can be applied to a new context or not (Shenton 2004:70).

Before the commencement of the interviews, each participant read and signed the informed consent form where they voluntarily agreed to participate in this study. The anonymity and confidentiality of the participant’s names and responses were also discussed before the commencement of the interviews. Furthermore, the confidentiality and anonymity of the participants were ensured by assigning and using pseudonyms throughout the study.

The first theme corresponds with research question one, as it refers to the specific approaches that logistics triads follow to manage reputational risk during SCDR. The study identified 13 reputational risk management approaches used during SCDR. Subsequently, the approaches were categorised according to their uses, namely formal and informal approaches. Table 3 provides an outline of theme one with extracts from the data to support the findings.

The second theme relates back to research question two as it addresses the influence that reputational risk has on the SCDR process. The study identified four different impacts that reputational risk has on the SCDR process. Thereafter, the impacts were divided according to whether they enabled the process or hindered the process. Table 4 provides a summary of theme two and includes data extracts that support the findings.

The aim of this study was to (1) identify the various approaches that members of a logistics triad use to manage reputational risk during SCDR, and (2) to determine the influence that reputational risk has on the SCDR process.

The first research question addressed the approaches that members of a logistics triad use to manage reputational risk during SCDR. The study identified 11 approaches, which were categorised as formal approaches and informal approaches. The study confirmed various approaches existent in literature. These include the use of social media (Altunbas & Diker 2015:45), traditional approaches, such as customer engagement and communication (McCorkindale & DiStaso 2015:503–504), contractual obligations (Bernstein 2015:563; Petersen & Lemke 2015:508) and partnering programmes or collaborative efforts (Jakob 2012:259). Furthermore, the study identified approaches not evident in literature. These approaches relate to the use of control centres, global corporate policies and key account manager involvement.

The second research question addressed the influence that reputational risk has on the SCDR process. The study found that the reputational risk can have both an enabling and a damaging impact on the SCDR process. However, the findings of this study contradict the findings of Galuchi et al. (2019:158) and Morgan (2018:1), as it was found that reputational risk may have a positive impact on the SCDR process and is only found to be occasionally less damaging to a firm and its SCDR processes. In fact, reputational risk serves as a motivator for firms to recover quicker from an SCD and also to perform at a higher service level during SCDR.

This study presents various managerial recommendations. First, the findings aid in creating awareness for the importance of managing reputational risk during SCDR, as it can provide various benefits if managed effectively and can potentially result in permanent damage if not managed at all. Managers can subsequently develop proactive strategies to manage the reputational risk should it occur. This will allow managers to be more prepared in managing reputational risk in future SCDs. Second, the findings provide managers with various approaches that can be used to manage reputational risk during SCDR. These approaches are applicable to all managers, irrespective of their position in the supply chain network. Managers can decide which approach is more fitting for their specific firm and potentially implement it to help manage reputational risk during SCDR.

This study only obtained the opinions of the participants with regard to the approaches in managing reputational risk. The study fails to measure to what extent these approaches are practically feasible. Future investigations should consider a quantitative research methodology to consider the nature and extent of the relationships under investigation. In addition, future studies may investigate the enablers and barriers to a good corporate reputation during SCDR. Furthermore, this study was only conducted in a South African developing country context. This limited the study’s findings to perspectives of a single country, which complicates the generalisability of the study’s findings. Future studies can consider replicating the study in a developed country setting, to ensure consistency and transferability of the findings.