The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) is currently putting high pressure on most countries' critical infrastructures (not only health care), creating huge uncertainties in supply and demand, and disrupting global supply chains. The global crisis will demonstrate the extent to which different parties (countries, public authorities, private companies etc.) can work together and take holistic decisions in such situations. A core question in supply chain management asks how independent decision-makers at many levels can work together and how this joint work can be governed. Supply chain risk management (SCRM), however, has focused mostly on how focal private companies apply SCRM processes to identify, analyse and mitigate risk related to upstream and downstream flows in their supply networks. At the same time, interorganisational collaboration to handle diverse risks is always needed. A risk that hits one organisation often affects other, interconnected organisations. This study aims to develop the term supply chain risk governance with an associated conceptual framework that embraces various types of supply chains and actors. In a cross-disciplinary literature study, we dissect, compare and combine risk governance with interorganisational aspects of SCRM and find that the mechanisms suggested in the risk governance literature coincide with many of those in SCRM. We suggest a combination of these to govern risk processes at an inter-organisational level, regardless of the type of organisation included in the supply chain. This would be suitable for critical infrastructures that often contain a mixture of private and public actors. The scope of the literature employed is limited, and some articles have played a larger role in the framework development. The paper explores new territory through this cross-disciplinary study, extends existing multi-level frameworks with inter-organisational governance mechanisms and proposes new governance mechanisms to the field. This study could support the understanding of how critical infrastructures in our society are governed so as to increase their resilience to both smaller and larger disruptions.

PurposeThis paper links supply chain risk management to medicine supply chains to explore the role of policymakers in employing supply chain risk management strategies (SCRMS) to reduce generic medicine shortages.Design/methodology/approachUsing secondary data supplemented with primary data, the authors map and compare seven countries' SCRMS for handling shortage risks in their paracetamol supply chains before and during the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.FindingsConsistent with recent research, the study finds that policymakers had implemented few SCRMS specifically for responding to disruptions caused by COVID-19. However, shortages were largely avoided since multiple strategies for coping with business-as-usual disruptions had been implemented prior to the pandemic. The authors did find that SCRMS implemented during COVID-19 were not always aligned with those implemented pre-pandemic. The authors also found that policymakers played both direct and indirect roles.Research limitations/implicationsCombining longitudinal secondary data with interviews sheds light on how, regardless of the level of preparedness during normal times, SCRMS can be leveraged to avert shortages in abnormal times. However, the problem is highly complex, which warrants further research.Practical implicationsSupply chain professionals and policymakers in the healthcare sector can use the findings when developing preparedness and response plans.Social implicationsThe insights developed can help policymakers improve the availability of high-volume generic medicines in (ab)normal times.Originality/valueThe authors contribute to prior SCRM research in two ways. First, the authors operationalize SCRMS in the medicine supply chain context in (ab)normal times, thereby opening avenues for future research on SCRM in this context. Second, the authors develop insights on the role policymakers play and how they directly implement and indirectly influence the adoption of SCRMS. Based on the study findings, the authors develop a framework that captures the diverse roles of policymakers in SCRM.

European infrastructure managers (IMs) create annual timetables for trains that will run during a year. Freight trains in Sweden often deviate from this by being added, canceled, delayed or early, resulting in increased costs for IMs and railway undertakings (RUs). We investigate the frequency of and causes for these deviations, using one year of operational data for 48,000 trains, and 15 stakeholder interviews. We find that about 20% of freight trains are added once the timetable has been created, and that cancelations occur for about 35% of freight trains, mostly at the RUs' initiative. Delays are common: some 40% of departures, 30% of runtimes, and 20% of dwell times are delayed. Running early is even more common: 80% are ready to depart early, and 60% do so, while 40% of runtimes and 75% of dwell times are shorter than scheduled. We find links and feedback loops between the root causes for these deviations and suggest that IMs reserve more of the capacity that is needed for freight trains and instead distribute it throughout the year. This could lead to more appropriate, attractive, and reliable timetables for freight trains, whilst greatly reducing the amount of planning effort.INDEX TERMS Freight transportation, rail transportation, rail transportation reliability.