Technological Forecasting & Social Change 178 (2022) 121603

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

The impact of intellectual capital on supply chain agility and collaborative

knowledge creation in responding to unprecedented pandemic crises
Khaled Saleh Al-Omoush a, *, Daniel Palacios-Marqués b, Klaus Ulrich c
a
Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan, Amman Jordan
b
Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain
c
ESIC Business & Marketing School, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study explores the relationships between intellectual capital, supply chain agility, collaborative knowledge
Intellectual capital creation, and corporate sustainability during unprecedented crises such as the COVID-19 epidemic. Data were
Supply chain agility collected from food and beverages firms and analyzed using Smart-Partial Least Squares (Smart-PLS) structural
Collaborative knowledge creation
equation modeling software. The sample consisted of 289 managers, directors, and heads of department. The
Corporate sustainability
COVID-19
results reveal that intellectual capital significantly impacts supply chain agility, collaborative knowledge crea­
tion, and corporate sustainability. Furthermore, the findings confirm that collaborative knowledge creation and
supply chain agility significantly impact corporate sustainability during the COVID-19 crises. This study con­
tributes to the literature on intellectual capital, dynamic capabilities, supply chain management, and knowledge
management, and the role of these capabilities in preserving corporate sustainability during unprecedented
crises.

1. Introduction (Guan et al., 2020; Sarkis, 2020). According to Mubarik et al. (2021),
intellectual capital assets—meaning the sum of knowledge rooted in
Covid-19 was like a worldwide earthquake that inflicted severe employees, structures, and the relationship with partners—have pro­
damage, direct and indirect, on many aspects of human and organiza­ vided valuable support to supply chain resiliency during the epidemic
tional life. The frequent closures of borders and lockdown measures crisis.
exposed local and global supply chains to massive disturbance and Intellectual capital plays a pivotal role in improving dynamic orga­
disruption, threatening the survivability and sustainability of large nizational capabilities (Shou et al., 2018; Tooranloo et al., 2018). Supply
numbers of firms (Guan et al., 2020; Sarkis, 2020). The pandemic has chain agility is considered a valuable dynamic capability that reflects
forced organizations to act as much more adaptive systems than before, adaptive intelligence through sensing and responding quickly to
looking to their basic need for survival (Lo et al., 2021) Starik and Rands disruptive events. Organizations with an agile supply chain have dis­
(1995). describe sustainability as the adaptive entity’s ability to exist played the ability to bounce back from the disastrous effects of
and grow, emphasizing long-term continuity. COVID-19 (Ivanov, 2020; Do et al., 2021). Supply chain agility describes
Research has been conducted for over twenty years on what firms organizations’ ability to adjust their supply chain strategies and pro­
need to support the sustainability of their supply chains. Intellectual cesses swiftly in response to a turbulent, volatile environment (Naugh­
capital theory has offered us valuable insights into various issues of ton et al., 2020). The impact of the COVID-19 shock on the business
supply chain management. In recent decades, constant irregular changes environment has provided a new impetus to the value of supply chain
in economic, political, social, and technological structures have forced agility in dealing with crises that bring unprecedented risks and
business organizations to develop their intangible dynamic capabilities, uncertainty.
including investment in knowledge resources. Intellectual capital is Intellectual capital represents a warehouse of learning and innova­
considered a pivotal determinant of active supply chain management tion that constantly creates new knowledge for dealing with emergen­
(Tooranloo et al., 2018; Dabić et al., 2021). Firms with more resilient cies and crises. Collaboration is the jugular vein of survival for firms and
supply chains were in a much better position during the COVID-19 crisis their supply chains when crises strike. In crises, firms need to move

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: k.alomoush@zuj.edu.jo (K.S. Al-Omoush).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121603
Received 9 October 2021; Received in revised form 22 February 2022; Accepted 2 March 2022
Available online 7 March 2022
0040-1625/© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
K.S. Al-Omoush et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 178 (2022) 121603

quickly to collaborate with their supply chain members and coordinate collective capabilities and intelligence of the organization’s members. It
their collective capabilities, learning from each other, to create new is an organization’s ‘thinking asset’ and includes education, experience,
knowledge in responding to unpredictable changes in market supply and skills, judgment, and the application of leadership skills to make the best
demand (Pinto, 2020). Collaborative knowledge creation has become use of all its individuals’ knowledge (Bontis et al., 2001). Structural
urgently needed to deal with the unfolding effects of the epidemic. In­ capital represents the codified knowledge accumulated in databases,
tellectual capital management is a primary determinant of the spirit of files, manuals, information systems, structures, procedures, routines,
creating knowledge from the collaboration with business partners, trademarks, and organizational culture. It gives a firm’s human capital
increasing the cohesion and integrity of the supply chain. the capacity to learn and innovate (Bontis et al., al.,1999). Social capital
The literature review yields no exploration of the link between in­ is relational: it describes the knowledge rooted in relationships and
tellectual capital and supply chain agility during unprecedented crises. networks of organizations, including internal and external stakeholders
Despite their close relationship, a review of prior research also reveals (Han and Li, 2015). It is one of the main sources of information and
no work associating intellectual capital with collaborative knowledge knowledge gathering for innovation and learning (Hsu and Sabherwal,
creation. An analysis of the COVID-19 research reveals that no prior 2012). Supply chain agility is the ability to sense and respond to tur­
studies have explored the impact of supply chain agility on corporate bulence fluctuations, dynamic requirements, and unpredictable changes
sustainability in responding to the pandemic crisis. Discussions sur­ in the market environment, reactively or proactively, adjusting func­
rounding COVID-19 have not paid sufficient attention to the role of this tions and operations flexibly and rapidly (Al Humdan et al., 2020). A
dynamic capability in sensing, seizing, and responding to the con­ wide range of studies has identified and analyzed the drivers, critical
sumer’s needs and satisfying the market demand. The literature also success factors and enablers of supply chain agility, attempting to un­
lacks empirical studies exploring, in a unified research model, the causal derstand what makes a supply chain agile. Authors have investigated the
relationships between intellectual capital, supply chain agility, collab­ impact of continuous learning, top management support, operational
orative knowledge creation, and corporate sustainability. capabilities, and process integration on supply chain agility (Al-Shboul,
This study aims to deploy the framework of intellectual capital to 2017; Irfan et al., 2019). Considerable attention (e.g., Yang, 2014; Um,
examine empirically the determinants of supply chain agility, collabo­ 2017; Haq et al., 2020) has been paid to the role of collaborative re­
rative knowledge creation, and corporate sustainability, taking into lationships between partners in forming supply chain agility. Studies
consideration the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic. It explores the have also focused on the role of logistics and distribution capabilities
impact of supply chain agility and collaborative knowledge creation on (Gligor and Holcomb, 2014; Shi et al., 2017). Information Technology
corporate sustainability. The findings contribute to the development of (IT) and its role in embracing supply chain agility have gained consid­
supply chain management and knowledge management in the context of erable attention (Ngai et al., 2011; Alzoubi and Yanamandra, 2020).
shocking global crises. However, despite the steady momentum of the growing importance of
intellectual capital in today’s organizations, little consideration has
2. Theoretical framework been given to its impact on supply chain agility during an unprecedented
crisis.
2.1. Literature review Dynamic capabilities theory implies that a firm needs to constantly
renew or create new knowledge if it is to keep pace with the changes it
The COVID-19 outbreak caused uncertainties of various kinds and at faces and to manage uncertainties effectively. Creating new knowledge
various levels for citizens, businesses, societies, and governments requires exploring external resources and learning in collaboration with
worldwide. In today’s dynamic, turbulent business environment, it has business partners and other actors in the firm’s environment Nonaka
become very challenging to maintain simple survival, let alone superi­ (1994). described this collaboration as the pivotal point of organiza­
ority. Intellectual capital, the repository of intangible knowledge, has tional knowledge creation. Intellectual capital development—renewing
always been closely connected with uncertain environments, where or creating new knowledge—is essential for collaborative knowledge
organizational knowledge assets are turned into innovative and agile creation. Despite its logical role in creating new knowledge, the litera­
responses to opportunities and threats (Raymond et al., 2015; Mubarik ture contains little work on the impact of intellectual capital on
et al., 2021). The literature reveals that financial assets have been su­ collaborative knowledge creation. Moreover, although a consensus has
perseded by less tangible capital forms as the main drivers of organi­ grown on the impact of collaborative knowledge creation on supply
zational success and value creation (Khan, 2014; Han and Li, 2015; chain management and performance (e.g., Chen et al., 2016; Tuan,
Tooranloo et al., 2018) Raymond et al. (2015). emphasize that growing 2016; Alzoubi and Yanamandra, 2020), its impact on supply chain
the company’s intangible resources and capabilities is one of the best agility has given little attention.
business strategies for survival and sustainable development. As with other organizational capabilities, scholars have recognized
The evolution of the field of intellectual capital has coincided with that a broad understanding of dynamic capabilities requires an exami­
the rise of the knowledge-based economy (Namvar and Khalilzadeh, nation of expected outcomes and performance measurement. COVID-19
2013; Yaseen et al., 2016). This intangible capital captures the tacit and has posed unprecedented survival challenges for organizations. Corpo­
explicit knowledge embedded in humans, in organizations, and in re­ rate sustainability is about how organizations can sustain themselves in
lationships with business partners (Mubarik et al., 2021). Organizational their society (Lo et al., 2021). Special attention (e.g., Forcadell et al.,
knowledge improves performance, entrepreneurial orientation, inno­ 2020; Hernández et al., 2020; Kraus et al., 2020; Barchiesi and Colla­
vation, learning, customer satisfaction, and competitiveness; it can also don, 2021) has been paid recently to the role of corporate social re­
be directed to improving supply chain management (Tuan, 2016; Shir­ sponsibility in the maintenance of corporate sustainability. The
anifar et al., 2019). Prior research emphasizes that intangible knowledge literature (e.g., Gligor and Holcomb, 2014; Fritz et al., 2021; Siltori
resources have become a vital source of effective supply chain man­ et al., 2021) is unanimous on the importance of firms’ ability to change
agement (Inkinen, 2015; Tooranloo et al., 2018; Pinto, 2020). However, and to adapt to change on their survival and sustainability. Despite this,
the literature indicates that prior research in this field has focused on no work has studied the role of intellectual capital, supply chain agility,
predicting organizational performance, competitive advantage, stock and collaborative knowledge creation in corporate sustainability in
values, or economic trends to improve investments profitability, but not unprecedented crises and environments threatening its survival.
predicting sustainability, particularly during unprecedented crises. In summary, the COVID-19 shock confirms the importance of re-
There is a broad consensus in the literature that intellectual capital investigating many concepts, practices, and strategies that have al­
comprises human capital, structural capital, and social capital (e.g., ways been studied under normal conditions. Despite the growing in­
Bontis et al., 1999; Han and Li, 2015). Human capital represents the terest in studying business sustainability in light of the pandemic crisis, a

2
K.S. Al-Omoush et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 178 (2022) 121603

review of COVID-19 literature indicates a lack of empirical research on 2.1.2. Intellectual capital and supply chain agility
the relationships between intellectual capital, supply chain agility, Any firm’s attempts to be agile must support its intellectual capital
collaborative knowledge creation, and corporate sustainability during (Nissen and von Rennenkampff, 2017; Tooranloo et al., 2018). In highly
novel crises. Therefore, the current study examines the impact of intel­ turbulent environments, intellectual capital critical enables organiza­
lectual capital on supply chain agility, collaborative knowledge crea­ tions to draw rapidly upon prior knowledge and to learn, create new
tion, and corporate sustainability during pandemic crises. It also knowledge, and innovate novel solutions (Gligor et al., 2013; Pinto,
examines the role played by collaborative knowledge creation and 2020). According to Dabić et al. (2021), agility is the ability to sense
supply chain agility in corporate sustainability. business environments and respond rapidly. Other scholars have argued
that agility incorporates scanning and employing intellectual capital
2.1. Research model and hypotheses effectively in responding to environmental uncertainties (Nissen and
von Rennenkampff, 2017). Many scholars (e.g., Weber and Tarba, 2014;
This study proposes that intellectual capital significantly impacts Dabić et al., 2021) have also argued that intellectual agility is a primary
collaborative knowledge creation, supply chain agility, and corporate ingredient of intellectual capital. Intellectual agility makes people and
sustainability during unprecedented pandemic crises. The research organizations ready to adjust their structures and activities and to think
model also suggests that collaborative knowledge creation significantly innovatively in response to unpredictable environmental changes. Dabić
impacts supply chain agility and corporate sustainability, and that et al. (2021) regard intellectual agility as a dynamic aspect of intellec­
supply chain agility significantly impacts corporate sustainability. These tual capital, often seen as a synonym for the broader notion of organi­
relationships and related hypotheses are discussed below. zational agility.
Active sharing of intellectual assets with members of the supply
2.1.1. Intellectual capital and collaborative knowledge creation chain improves its agility significantly (Tooranloo et al., 2018). Supply
Intellectual capital includes three components that complement and chain agility is demonstrated by an organization’s use of its intellectual
support each other (Bontis et al., 1999; Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005; assets, swiftly detecting fluctuations, opportunities, and threats (Gligor
Hsu and Sabherwal, 2012). Hence, insufficiency in one of the compo­ et al., 2013). Today’s businesses need the behavioral and mental agility
nents leads to an ineffective intellectual capital asset as a whole (Shou of human capital to sense, respond, and perform work quickly and
et al., 2018). According to Mubarik et al. (2021), organizations with correctly (Tooranloo et al., 2018). A higher level of human capital helps
more intellectual capital not only have better human capital and struc­ an organization respond to unpredictable changes quickly and adapt and
tural capital, but also have excellent social capital, which enables them renew its organizational strategies and values more flexibly (Sub­
to collaborate and learn from their business partners. Likewise, Shou ramaniam and Youndt, 2005). Structural capital also facilitates the flow
et al. (2018) assert that firms with more intellectual capital are better of knowledge across the supply chain, thereby enabling members to
able to conduct collaborative activities with supply chain partners. make agile decisions to deal with the effects of disruptions (Mubarik
Organizations with higher levels of outstanding intellectual capital et al., 2021) Bontis et al. (2001). found that this organizational capital,
have better knowledge management, including its creation and acqui­ which provides flexible communication and collaboration with supply
sition (Nickerson and Zenger, 2004; Shiranifar et al., 2019). The struc­ chain members, helps the firm manage material procurement, produc­
turing of intellectual capital plays a pivotal role in developing the tion schedules, and manufacturing issues effectively and efficiently,
knowledge of individual members into explicit organizational knowl­ leading to an agile supply chain and customer responsiveness. The or­
edge. Structural capital also represents the processes and systems that ganization’s agility is also facilitated by social capital, which supports
accumulate internal knowledge via promoting learning and acquiring the incorporation and integration of internal and external knowledge,
external knowledge from supply chain partners (Hsu and Sabherwal, helping the organization to develop its response quickly (Weber and
2012). Employees with higher levels of education, creativity, experi­ Tarba, 2014; Tooranloo et al., 2018). The internal and external collab­
ence, and skills are more eager to communicate and collaborate with oration through an organization’s social networks in dynamically
supply chain members to create new knowledge (e.g., Mandal, 2018; complex domains optimize the collective awareness and fast response to
Yusoff et al., 2019). Social capital pools different networks and resources turbulent and uncertain markets via supply chain agility. Accordingly,
that enhance novel knowledge creation (Weber and Tarba, 2014; Faccin this study proposes:
and Balestrin, 2018).
Inter-firm collaborative arrangements are pivotal mechanisms by H2: Intellectual capital significantly impacts supply chain agility
which the supply chain members can create collaborative knowledge during unprecedented pandemic crises.
across the firm’s boundaries. Rather than relying on internal knowledge
assets, a firm needs to access external knowledge resources through 2.1.3. Intellectual capital and corporate sustainability
inter-organizational collaboration with supply chain members (Shir­ Firms’ sustainability in the current unstable knowledge economy
anifar et al., 2019). Intellectual capital is the primary intangible asset depends increasingly on knowledge resources (Raymond et al., 2015).
providing the framework of collaboration-based strategies. It creates the With the increasing pressures caused by uncertainty and disruption of
foundations for firms to communicate with their supply chain members. the business environment, intangible assets make a central contribution
The knowledge and experience held by each company help to create new to the fate and performance of firms. This pivotal role has inspired ac­
knowledge through internal and external collaboration (Tooranloo ademics and practitioners to focus more on developing and exploiting
et al., 2018). The repository of internal knowledge is the basis for these assets to generate renewal values in terms of long-term sustain­
managing collaboration with supply chain partners, and this external ability. Bontis et al. (1999) claim that intellectual capital is the most
collaboration, in return, updates and enriches existing knowledge (Shou essential and most intangible of a firm’s resources Wasiluk (2013).
et al., 2018). Organizations with large reserves of intellectual capital are emphasized the consistency between intellectual capital and sustain­
more likely to search, integrate, and support the flow of novel knowl­ ability as both emphasize the organization’s need to develop its un­
edge throughout the supply chain parties (Cegarra-Navarro and Marte­ derstanding and knowledge of how to generate and improve its
lo-Landroguez, 2020). According to Mubarik et al. (2021), intellectual nonfinancial resources. The resource-based view (RBV) implies that
capital capabilities increase integrity and cohesion among supply chain intellectual capital, including knowledge, experience, judgment, IT, in­
members by generating the spirit of knowledge creation. This back­ telligence, and relationships with business partners, can preserve sus­
ground leads to hypothesis 1: tainability during environmental uncertainty (Tseng et al., 2019; Lo and
H1: Intellectual capital significantly impacts collaborative knowl­ Liao, 2021). Firms’ long-term sustainable development and growth,
edge creation during unprecedented pandemic crises. particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), need robust

3
K.S. Al-Omoush et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 178 (2022) 121603

intellectual capital (Gölgeci and Kuivalainen, 2020; Srikalimah et al., H4: Collaborative knowledge creation significantly impacts supply
2020). According to Shou et al. (2018), intellectual capital has become chain agility during unprecedented pandemic crises.
an essential source of sustainable economic growth.
Mubarik et al. (2021) claimed that firms with excellent social capital, 2.1.5. Collaborative knowledge creation and corporate sustainability
well-integrated structural capital, and knowledgeable human capital are Knowledge creation has been broadly considered the main prereq­
more likely to mitigate the negative impacts of the massive disruption uisite for organizations remaining competitive, surviving, and growing
caused by COVID-19. Social capital is widely acknowledged as one of the in increasingly volatile environments Dabić et al. (2021). claimed that
strategic corporate assets for achieving superior sustainable perfor­ knowledge creation distinguishes successful from unsuccessful firms.
mance (Shakina and Barajas, 2014) Gölgeci and Kuivalainen (2020). Knowledge creation is considered a major driving force behind enter­
claimed that social capital empowers businesses to survive during crises prises’ continuous growth (Tuan, 2016; Zhao et al., 2019). Creating and
and economic instability Lo et al. (2021). and Lo and Liao (2021) have applying knowledge facilitates not only survival but also, potentially,
explained how human capital plays a significant role in obtaining the prosperity in an unpredictable and dynamic environment (Nafei, 2016).
sustainability of competitive advantage. Furthermore, achieving a high According to Pinto (2020), knowledge creation is fundamental for sup­
level of structural capital—with codified knowledge and developed ply chain management and has become an essential process for the
processes, routines, IT, and database—is fundamental for keeping the survival of firms.
business alive in complex and uncertain environments (Bontis et al., The knowledge-based view (KBV) holds that organizations exist to
1999; Hsu and Sabherwal, 2012; Mubarik et al., 2021). Against this create knowledge and transform it into a sustainable competitive
background, this study hypothesizes: advantage (Sangari and Razmi, 2015). This view underlines the value of
knowledge creation capabilities as fundamental sources of improving
H3: Intellectual capital significantly impacts corporate sustainability performance and long-term success, i.e., survival (Gligor and Holcomb,
during unprecedented pandemic crises. 2014; Lo et al., 2021). Knowledge also represents the essence of inno­
vation. Continuous innovation is a function of constantly creating new
2.1.4. Collaborative knowledge creation and supply chain agility knowledge. Innovation is considered crucial for business survival and
In high-velocity and unpredictable markets, dynamic capabilities competitiveness, particularly in complex environments. Recent studies
rely on the organization’s readiness to work with supply chain members on COVID-19 (e.g., Sarkis, 2020; Nandi et al., 2021) confirm the role of
as a single entity in order to create new knowledge rapidly (Baah et al., innovative solutions in responding rapidly and working on novel stra­
2021) Shiranifar et al. (2019). found that the appropriate integration of tegies to alleviate the pandemic effects on supply chains.
internal and external knowledge resources and processes is a prerequi­ Nowadays, a business’s success relies on its strategic ability to sus­
site of organizational agility. The dynamic capability view posits that a tain inter-organizational knowledge creation (Tuan, 2016; Zhao et al.,
firm can gain the essential internal and external competencies and 2019). Leveraging inter-firm knowledge creation is related with the role
perform better if it can create and integrate new knowledge, capitalizing of collaboration between supply chain members in gaining sustained
on its partners’ resources and capabilities through effective collabora­ competitive advantage (Baah et al., 2021). Collaborative knowledge
tion (Wu et al., 2017). According to this view, acquiring new knowledge creation among firms has become increasingly common during crises as
and assimilating it into a firm’s functions and processes is crucial to its a survival strategy for all business partners at risk in uncertain envi­
ability to strengthen its agility and capitalize on market trends. ronments. Collaborative and collective knowledge creation allows the
The firm’s flexibility and ability to adapt to uncertainties rely mainly emergence of a great chain of ideas and solutions to survival threats
on new knowledge creation (Nafei, 2016; Irfan et al., 2019). Agility can during pandemic crises, such as COVID-19 (Pinto, 2020). Accordingly,
be regarded as the organization’s ability to redeploy existing knowledge this study proposes:
or create new knowledge and translate it into quick action and early
responses to business disturbances and unpredictable market changes H5: Collaborative knowledge creation significantly impacts corpo­
(Nafei, 2016). Collaborative learning that builds on current knowledge rate sustainability during unprecedented pandemic crises.
to create new knowledge reinforces a firm’s ability to sense business
irregularities and achieve continuous alignment with its environment 2.1.6. Supply chain agility and corporate sustainability
(Shiranifa et al., 2019). Collaborative knowledge creation means those The absolute need for sustainability forces a firm to be highly sen­
dynamic social and organizational activities and practices that help sitive and to think quickly, respond dynamically, and recreate itself vis-
firms create and acquire the requisite knowledge from diverse fields in a-vis the current and expected future state of its environment. Organi­
order to resolve complicated and unique problems or exploit new op­ zation agility is a source of superior performance and a winning strategy
portunities. It is embodied in continuous sensing, learning, and adapting for surviving in environments with high levels of uncertainty, where
to swift fluctuations in market demand (Faccin and Balestrin, 2018). firms can realign strategies and re-engineer their processes to absorb
Supply chain agility results from the successful implementation of threats and exploit opportunities (Sambamurthy et al., 2003; Wu et al.,
the competition rules of the entire supply chain, including speed, flex­ 2017; Siltori et al., 2021). According to Gunasekaran (1999), organi­
ibility, and innovation through the integration of resources and collab­ zational agility represents the ability to survive and grow through rapid
orative restructuring of best practices in a rich knowledge environment. responses to changing needs and customer demand in changing markets
Supply chain collaborative activities resulting in mutual knowledge and turbulent environments.
creation facilitate supply chain integrity, speed, and flexibility. Ac­ In today’s constantly changing markets, agility is a survival
cording to this view, acquiring and assimilating new knowledge of a requirement: under the pressures of COVID-19, it enables entire supply
firm’s functions and processes is crucial to capitalizing on market trends chains to deliver production inputs, finished goods, and services. Supply
and enhancing supply chain agility Alzoubi and Yanamandra (2020). chain agility is perceived as a fast acclimatization capability that reduces
emphasize that a critical dimension of supply chain agility is the pivotal the pressures caused by unpredicted and accelerated environmental
impact of collaborative knowledge management on the firm’s alertness changes. Naughton et al. (2020) describe acclimatization as a funda­
to fluctuations and business environmental changes. Chen et al. (2016) mental mechanism by which organizational resources and behaviors are
concluded that there is a significant association between supply chain adjusted efficiently, promptly, and beneficially to fast-changing envi­
flexibility and collaborative creation of knowledge in highly uncertain ronments, preserving the firm’s survival.
market environments. This background leads to hypothesis 4: The sustainable enhancement of supply chain performance is vital
for corporate survivability and growth (Shou et al., 2018; Tooranloo
et al., 2018; Fritz et al., 2021). Supply chain agility is one of the most

4
K.S. Al-Omoush et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 178 (2022) 121603

effective strategies in highly uncertain environments for managing and Table 1

mitigating supply chain disruption risks threatening firms’ survival and The source of measures.
sustainability (Braunscheidel and Suresh, 2009; Shiranifa et al., 2019; Research constructs No. of References
Kraus et al., 2020). Supply chain agility is an essential ingredient for items
helping firms and supply chain members to survive in turbulent and Intellectual capital 9 Shou et al., 2018; Tooranloo et al., 2018;
changing situations (Ngai et al., 2011; Alzoubi and Yanamandra, 2020). Mubarik et al., 2021.
Rapid, active actions or reactions are essential, but also the ability to Collaborative 8 Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Al-Omoush
think and move rapidly and intelligently. Building supply chain agility knowledge creation et al., 2020; Rusland et al., 2020.
Supply chain agility 6 Blome et al., 2013; Gligor et al., 2015;
ensures that the chain can speedily recover from disruptive situations Naughton et al., 2020.
(Mubarik et al., 2021). In the context of the COVID-19 crisis, Sarkis Corporate sustainability 9 Tseng et al., 2019; Arianpoor and Salehi,
(2020) confirms that a firm with an agile supply chain has previously 2020; Lo et al., 2021.
exhibited a readiness to recover faster from disastrous consequences.
According to this background, this study hypothesizes:
3.2. Sampling and data collection
H6: Supply chain agility significantly impacts corporate sustain­
COVID-19 impacted in most industries forcing to reduce their ac­
ability during unprecedented pandemic crises.
tivity, following government restrictions to combat the spread of the
pandemic. One of the most important sectors that had to keep working is
Fig. 1 summarizes the proposed relationships as discussed in the
the food and beverages industry. As in other industries, food and
earlier subsections.
beverage firms have faced enormous uncertainties and risks, particularly
in unprecedented supply chain disruption and having to deal with highly
3. Methodology
uncertain market demand. Lockdown policy has shocked supply chain
partners in the food and beverage industry, making them deploy their
3.1. Development of the measurement instrument
knowledge and dynamic capabilities to continue to operate and thus
ensure their survival. This makes the food and beverages industry an
An electronic questionnaire was developed for the empirical side of
attractive one for this study.
the study, to measure the research constructs. In the face of the un­
The sample was obtained from Jordanian food manufacturing firms.
precedented situations caused by COVID-19 and the preventive mea­
The food manufactured in Jordan meets about 60% of the country’s total
sures enacted against it, particularly the restrictions on movement and
needs, contributing significantly to food security. This sector represents
access to companies, the electronic questionnaire was an appropriate
23% of Jordan’s total industrial output. The industry’s adherence to
choice for collecting data. Items of measurement have been derived from
global standards and specifications, and its implementation of the in­
studies (Table 1) on intellectual capital, collaborative knowledge crea­
ternational frameworks for food safety, led to a 9% growth in Jordanian
tion, supply chain agility, and corporate sustainability.
exports in 2020, doubling its exports to reach more than 70 countries
To provide preliminary validation of the items measuring research
(Al-Jitan, 2021).
constructs in the survey instrument, two experts in knowledge man­
The distribution of the questionnaire took more than a month, from 5
agement and three in supply chain management gave feedback on their
March 2021 to 11 April 2021 Table 2. displays the characteristics of
logical consistency, context relevance, and clarity. Drawing on the
firms and participants.
feedback, the items were refined to ensure that the instrument was
The sampling approach assumed that respondents are actively
understandable and suitably validated. The questionnaire has 30 items
engaged in, or well-informed about, the operations of the upstream and
(Appendix 1). The items were measured on a five-point Likert scale from
downstream supply chains. The sample included people in the roles of
“strongly disagree = 1′′ to “strongly agree = 5”.
president, vice president, chief officer, manager, director, and head of

Fig. 1. Research model.

5
K.S. Al-Omoush et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 178 (2022) 121603

Table 2 Table 4
Characteristics of firms and participants. Discriminant Validity.
Firms No % Participants No % No. Constructs 1 2 3 4

Ownership Experience 1 Intellectual capital 0.811

Public limited 3 0.12 >10 years 46 0.16 2 Collaborative knowledge creation 0.637 0.789
Joint venture 6 0.23 10–15 years 138 0.48 3 Supply chain agility 0.570 0.665 0.800
Private 14 0.54 16–20 years 72 0.25 4 Corporate sustainability 0.699 0.649 0.614 0.812
Foreign funded 3 0.12 <20 33 0.11
Firm age Education
>10 9 0.35 Diploma or less 63 0.22 confirming an acceptable discrimination validity (Fornell and Larcker,
10–20 11 0.42 Bachelor 179 0.62 1981).
<20 6 0.23 Postgraduate 47 0.16
Firm size Position
>500 employees 13 0.50 Top management 54 0.19 3.3.2. The structural model
500–1000 employees 9 0.35 Middle management 149 0.52 The outcome of the PLS path analysis is summarized in Fig. 2. The
<1000 employees 4 0.15 Operational management 86 0.30 results indicate that intellectual capital and collaborative knowledge
Total 26 100 Total 289 100
creation account for 47.8% of the variances of supply chain agility. The
model also shows that intellectual capital accounts for 40.6% of the
department. Titles varied from one firm to another, but the sample variances of collaborative knowledge creation. Finally, PLS path anal­
included participants from units and departments of supply chain and ysis indicates that intellectual capital, collaborative knowledge creation,
logistics, procurement and purchasing, Research and Development and supply chain agility account for 58.3% of the variances of corporate
(R&D), sales and marketing, IT, quality, manufacturing, and production. sustainability.
The questionnaire was typically distributed by e-mail, through firms’ However, the results (Table 5) reveal that intellectual capital
managements, or sent directly to respondents, using the respondents’ significantly impacts collaborative knowledge creation (H1), supply
information on the firms’ websites. The authors also distributed paper- chain agility (H2), and corporate sustainability (H3).
based questionnaires as much as was possible under the preventive The findings indicate that collaborative knowledge creation signifi­
measures against the pandemic. After one month of distribution and cantly impacts supply chain agility (H4) and corporate sustainability
communications work, 289 usable responses were received. (H5). Furthermore, the findings show a significant impact of supply
chain agility on corporate sustainability (H6).

3.3. Data analysis 4. Discussion

Smart PLS software was employed to analyze the collected data. PLS This study confirms that intellectual capital significantly impacts
is a powerful tool for examining and studying new causal models that collaborative knowledge creation. These results support prior studies’
include multiple variables and measurements. It can assess the mea­ view (e.g., Nickerson and Zenger, 2004; Shiranifar et al., 2019) that
surement and the structural model in the same transaction. According to organizations with higher levels of outstanding intellectual capital have
Garson (2016), along with its robustness, PLS’ ability to handle small better knowledge management, including the ability to create and ac­
samples is another reason why it is sometimes preferred over structural quire it, than those with lower levels of intellectual capital. Previous
equation modeling approaches. PLS can be computed even for very studies (e.g., Mandal, 2018; Yusoff et al., 2019) had also confirmed that
small samples, including even when there are fewer cases than the employees with a high level of education, creativity, experience, and
number of indicator variables Fornell and Larcker (1981). also asserted skills are more eager to contribute to communication and collaboration
that the PLS method does not need a large sample or normally distrib­ with supply chain members to create new knowledge. Firms that hire
uted multivariate data. experts and highly skilled employees and have more social and struc­
tural capital are more likely to encourage knowledge-sharing, best
3.3.1. The measurement models practices, and the creation of new knowledge, ideas, and solutions in
Factor loading estimation was implemented to improve the instru­ collaboration with supply chain partners. Such firms have multiple
ment and refine its measures Hair et al. (2014). confirmed that a factor transmission channels for transferring and exchanging knowledge and
loading of > 0.70 indicates a distinct factor structure. Therefore, 0.70 constantly collaborate with supply chain partners to capture, integrate,
was considered a cutoff value; the results show that the factor loading of and classify new knowledge.
most items is more than 0.70. One item from intellectual capital (IC3) The results show that intellectual capital significantly impacts supply
and two from corporate sustainability (VCC3, VCC8) were removed from chain agility. Such results are compatible with prior studies (e.g.,
the scale. Tooranloo et al., 2018; Dabić et al., 2021), confirming the pivotal role of
Table 3 reveals that Cronbach’s α is greater than 0.80 for all con­ intellectual capital in organizational agility. They also agree with earlier
structs. Composite Reliability (CR) and rho_A also is greater than 0.80, findings that supply chain agility is demonstrated through an organi­
indicating good scale reliability. The results also show that the average zation’s intellectual assets, which enable it to detect fluctuations, op­
variance extracted (AVE) for all constructs is more than 0.5, confirming portunities, and threats swiftly (Gligor et al., 2013; Pinto, 2020). The
adequate convergence validity. findings reveal that intellectual capital contributes significantly to the
Table 4 shows that the square roots of the AVE of the four constructs speed of making and implementing decisions in response to sudden
are higher than the squared correlation values of the latent constructs, market changes, particularly responding more quickly than competitors
to changes in product availability and demand during unique global
Table 3 crises. A high level of intellectual capital enhances supply chain agility
Validity and reliability. by enabling rapid reconfiguration of supply chain resources during un­
certainties in market supply and demand and excluding
Constructs Cronbach’s α CR rho_A AVE
non-value-added activities. It also enhances the adaptability of supply
Intellectual capital 0.835 0.839 0.872 0.558
chain processes to shorter manufacturing lead times and delivery cycle
Collaborative knowledge creation 0.917 0.917 0.909 0.623
Supply chain agility 0.891 0.914 0.910 0.640 times.
Corporate sustainability 0.822 0.831 0.854 0.599 The findings show that intellectual capital significantly impacts

6
K.S. Al-Omoush et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 178 (2022) 121603

Fig. 2. The results of path analysis.

such as global pandemics. It enables a firm to respond to changes in the

Table 5
market and adapt its supply chain operations and capabilities to short­
Testing hypotheses.
ened manufacturing and delivery cycle times. Collaborative innovation
H Path β T value P value Results also plays a central role in developing a firm’s supply chain agility in
1 IC → CKC 0.637 14.748 0.000 Supported response to short-term and unpredictable events through improving its
2 IC → SCA 0.247 3.130 0.002 Supported tactics and operations, and excluding non-value-added activities, more
3 IC → CS 0.428 4.823 0.000 Supported
quickly than competitors and without shortages or overstocking.
4 CKC → SCA 0.508 5.846 0.000 Supported
5 CKC → CS 0.233 2.388 0.017 Supported
This study supports the significant impact of collaborative knowl­
6 SCA → CS 0.215 2.505 0.013 Supported edge creation on corporate sustainability in the current epidemic crisis.
The results accord with studies (e.g., Nafei, 2016; Baah et al., 2021) that
showed that developing collective knowledge, creating new knowledge,
corporate sustainability during unprecedented crises. They accord with and using it competently when required are essential for an organiza­
those of previous studies (e.g., Tooranloo et al., 2018; Srikalimah et al., tion’s sustainability. The literature (Gligor and Holcomb, 2014; Lo et al.,
2020; Mubarik et al., 2021), confirming that the continued survival and 2021) has emphasized the value of knowledge creation capabilities as
success of today’s firms depends mainly on their intellectual capital fundamental requisites of improved performance and long-term suc­
capabilities. The literature also emphasizes that the sustainable devel­ cesses, and thus survival. These findings confirm collaborative knowl­
opment and growth of firms require robust intellectual capital (Alvino edge creation as a main driving force behind the survival of firms in
et al., 2020; Srikalimah et al., 2020). Firms with outstanding social unpredictable and dynamic environments. It enables supply chain
capital, well-integrated structural capital, and knowledgeable human partners to know how to utilize the emerging IT tools both for
capital can legitimize their social acceptance and existence through communication and collaboration and doing business in dealing with
effective responsiveness to customers’ emerging needs and build the COVID-19 pandemic. Collaborative knowledge creation is essential
long-term relationships with supply chain members. These intangible for maintaining customer satisfaction through effective responsiveness
assets play a central role in gaining sustainable competitive advantage to their emerging needs and wants. It enables firms to respond rapidly
through promoting firms’ social responsibility in protecting the health and mitigate pandemic effects on supply chains, enhancing social
and safety of employees, customers, and society during pandemic crises. cohesion, and thus preserving their survival and sustainability. This
The current findings provide support for a significant role for study underlines the value of collaborative knowledge creation as one of
collaborative knowledge creation in developing supply chain agility. the primary sources of improving profits and achieving sustainable
They are compatible with studies (e.g., Nafei, 2016; Shiranifa et al., competitive advantage as long as there is renewed collaboration in
2019) that described agility as the organization’s ability to redeploy its creating new knowledge.
existing knowledge or create new knowledge and translate it into quick The results also show that supply chain agility significantly impacts
action and early response to business disturbances and inconstant corporate sustainability in the COVID-19 crisis, agreeing with Gunase­
market changes. They also fit with the dynamic capability view that karan (1999), who characterized organizational agility as the ability to
acquiring new knowledge and assimilating it into a firm’s functions and survive and grow through rapid responses to the changing needs and
processes are crucial to its ability to capitalize on market trends and desires of customers in changing markets and turbulent environments.
empower agility capabilities (Wu et al., 2017). Collaborative knowledge These results also agree with prior studies that recognized supply chain
creation is an agility mechanism in responding to unprecedented crises, agility as an effective strategy in high-risk environments for managing

7
K.S. Al-Omoush et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 178 (2022) 121603

and mitigating risks and, in particular, supply chain disruption risks that agility. The research model provides managers with a paradigm of how
threaten firms’ survival and sustainability (Gligor and Holcomb, 2014; to attain co-value creation in exceptionally turbulent environments. It
Shiranifa et al., 2019). This is consistent with the idea that agility is a thus offers guidance for firms on how to employ their intellectual capital
primary reason for firms’ survival and sustainability through rapid re­ in collaboratively creating new knowledge and the supply chain agility
sponses to customers’ changing needs in changing markets and turbu­ required to manage unprecedented crises. The research model can be
lent environments. The necessity of corporate sustainability forces a firm viewed as a paradigm that explains how to preserve corporate sustain­
to be highly sensitive and to think quickly and make and implement ability in a turbulent environment. It provides valuable guidance for
decisions faster than competitors in response to sudden market changes. managers on employing e-supply chain collaboration in generating
Supply chain agility allows the rapid reconfiguration of supply chain novel innovations and developing the improved supply chain agility
resources and capabilities in response to risky short-term changes and needed.
market uncertainties. Under pressure from unprecedented crises,
corporate sustainability requires firms to increase their supply chain 4.3. Limitations and future research direction
agility in order to re-organize the streamlining of their supply chain
processes, modify the tactics and operations of partners, and thus co­ Notwithstanding its academic and practical contributions, this study
ordinate and adjust their resources and behaviors to the fast-changing has some limitations, mostly connected with new horizons for future
environment. research. This study was focused on local manufacturing food firms in
one country. Therefore, if the results are to be generalizable, the
4.1. Theoretical contributions and implications research model must be applied in other places in the world, in different
industries and supply chains. The study did not account for the size of
This study provides many important contributions. The worldwide firms, especially SMEs, and size might be a critical factor in firms’ re­
spread of COVID-19 has brought real risks, threatening the survival and actions and survival chances during unprecedented crises. Future
sustainability of firms and their local and global supply chains. These research is suggested to focus more on studying intellectual capital,
threats call for new studies re-examining the supply chain environments collaborative knowledge creation, and supply chain agility in SMEs’ use
and their resilience factors that enable business partners to sustain the of these dynamic capabilities to preserve their sustainability during
flow of procurement processes and logistics, manufacturing, production, unprecedented crises. Also, since the study explores the dynamic capa­
and product delivery. Before the current paper, no empirical studies had bilities of firms and their supply chains, future research may focus on the
examined the causal relationships between intellectual capital, collab­ status and development of these capabilities in relation to the charac­
orative knowledge creation, supply chain agility, and corporate sus­ teristics of the crisis itself: its beginning, severity, ending, recovery steps
tainability during global pandemic crises. There were no empirical taken, and aftermath. Thus, longitudinal research could provide valu­
studies about the impact of collaborative knowledge creation or able understanding of how to develop the dynamic capabilities that can
knowledge management on supply chain agility in the COVID-19 liter­ preserve corporate sustainability in future crises.
ature. This study has examined how intellectual capital and supply chain
collaboration help to maintain corporate sustainability during unprec­ 5. Conclusions
edented global crises. It provides valuable insights into the causal re­
lationships between intellectual capital, collaborative knowledge The unprecedented crisis of the COVID-19 has highlighted the
creation, supply chain agility, and corporate sustainability. The findings importance of supply chains for firms continuing ability to produce and
enrich the supply chain management literature by examining the role distribute what the market needs in such a challenging period. With the
intellectual capital and collaborative knowledge creation play in supply frequent closings of borders and lockdown measures, local and global
chain agility and the impact of such agility on maintaining corporate supply chains came under increasing pressure, threatening the sustain­
sustainability. It also enriches the literature on knowledge management ability of these chains and the survival of all their members. Accord­
by investigating the relationship between intellectual capital and ingly, this study aimed to explore the associations between intellectual
collaborative knowledge creation and the contribution of this new capital, collaborative knowledge creation, supply chain agility, and
knowledge to preserving corporate sustainability. corporate sustainability.
The pandemic has provided further evidence that intellectual capital
4.2. Implications for practice is an essential driver of critical organizational dynamic capabilities such
as collaborative knowledge creation and supply chain agility. This study
This study has some significant contributions for practitioners. It also confirms that the continued survival and success of firms in such
provides firms with powerful mechanisms for responding to such crises crises depends primarily on intellectual capital assets. Supply chain
in the future and ensuring their survival and sustainability. It contrib­ agility is also a lifeline for companies to continue producing and
utes to improved management of supply chains, highlighting valuable distributing what the market needs in such a challenging period. Finally,
opportunities to survive and recover from the COVID-19 crisis quicker for supply chain agility and organization sustainability, inter-
than competitors. Firms need to invest in intellectual capital, collabo­ organizational collaboration in new knowledge creation and learning
rative knowledge creation, and supply chain agility to preserve their how to use it more cleverly when required are essential.
sustainability. In food and other essential industries, it is necessary to
collaborate and integrate the intellectual capitals of supply chain Declaration of Competing Interest
members to support the collaborative knowledge creation that enables
them to address threats of chain disruption. Focusing on the significance The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
of intangible assets for supply chains induces members to collaborate interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
and coordinate their intellectual capitals to promote better supply chain the work reported in this paper.

Appendix 1. Questionnaire items

8
K.S. Al-Omoush et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 178 (2022) 121603

Constructs Code Measures

Intellectual capital Human capital

IC1 My firm hires highly experienced employees.
IC2 Employees in my firm are specialists in their jobs.
IC3 The firm is keen to employ well-educated and clever people.
Social capital
IC4 Our firm has long-term relationships with supply chain members.
IC5 Communication and collaboration between our firm’s departments and employees run smoothly and openly.
IC6 Our firm encourages sharing knowledge and collaborating with others.
Structural capital
IC7 We have active documented policies, instructions, standard procedures, and rules to support business operations.
IC8 Much of our information and knowledge is embedded in the firm’s structure, manuals, archives, and databases.
IC9 Our firm provides all the necessary tools, technologies, and facilities to support access to existing documents and information.
Collaborative knowledge creation CKC1 Our firm constantly gets novel ideas and solutions from its collaboration with supply chain partners.
CKC2 Our top management believes that collaboration with partners enables the creation of new knowledge.
CKC3 Our firm constantly launches and discusses creative ideas and disruptive thoughts with supply chain members.
CKC4 Our firm encourages sharing knowledge and best practice with supply chain members.
CKC5 Our firm constantly collaborates with supply chain partners in capturing, integrating, and classifying new information and knowledge.
CKC6 My firm has accessible databases and resources of best practice and experience, self-learning, and lessons learned.
CKC7 Our firm has multiple transmission channels for transferring and exchanging knowledge with business partners.
CKC8 My firm collaborates with supply chain members to share and use newly learned knowledge.
Supply chain agility In responding to COVID-19, our firm was able to:
SCA1 Respond quicker than competitors to changes in product availability and orders.
SCA2 Quickly make and implement decisions in response to sudden market changes.
SCA3 Rapidly reconfigure supply chain resources in responding to uncertainties in market supply and demand.
SCA4 Exclude non-value-added operations.
SCA5 Constantly adapt supply chain operations to decrease manufacturing and delivery cycle time.
SCA6 Modify quicker than competitors its tactics and operations supply chain in responding to short-term changes in market demand.
Corporate sustainability To what degree do you agree that the firm was able to conduct the following during the COVID-19:
CS1 Enhance the investment in new emerging technologies.
CS2 Lengthen a firm’s lifetime and enhance social acceptance.
CS3 Enhance the firm’s image.
CS4 Reinforce customer satisfaction through effective responsiveness to their emerging needs and wants.
CS5 Empower long-term relationships with business partners.
CS6 Promote the firm’s social responsibility through protecting the health and safety of employees, customers, and society.
CS7 Achieve competitive advantage.
CS8 Increase productivity.
CS9 Improve profits.

References Braunscheidel, M.J., Suresh, N.C., 2009. The organizational antecedents of a firm’s
supply chain agility for risk mitigation and response. J. Oper. Manage. 27 (2),
119–140.
Al Humdan, E., Shi, Y., Behnia, M, 2020. Supply chain agility: a systematic review of
Cegarra-Navarro, J.G., Martelo-Landroguez, S., 2020. The effect of organizational
definitions, enablers and performance implications. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist.
memory on organizational agility: testing the role of counter-knowledge and
Manag. 50 (2), 287–312.
knowledge application. J. Intellect. Cap. 21 (3), 459–479.
Al-Jitan, M.W. 2021. Jordan’s food industry sector is able to cover market’s needs, says
Chen, W., Jiao, H., Zeng, Q., & Wu, J. (2016, June). Ios-enabled collaborative knowledge
official. https://petra.gov.jo/Include/InnerPage.jsp?ID=37122&lang=ar&name
creation and supply chain flexibility: the moderate role of market uncertainty. In
=en_news.
PACIS (p. 37).
Al-Omoush, K.S., Simón-Moya, V., Sendra-García, J., 2020. The impact of social capital
Dabić, M., Stojčić, N., Simić, M., Potocan, V., Slavković, M., Nedelko, Z., 2021.
and collaborative knowledge creation on e-business proactiveness and
Intellectual agility and innovation in micro and small businesses: the mediating role
organizational agility in responding to the COVID-19 crisis. J. Innov. Knowl. 5 (4),
of entrepreneurial leadership. J. Bus. Res. 123, 683–695.
279–288.
Do, Q., Mishra, N., Wulandhari, N.B.I., Ramudhin, A., Sivarajah, U., Milligan, G., 2021.
Al-Shboul, M.D.A., 2017. Infrastructure framework and manufacturing supply chain
Supply chain agility for coping with unprecedented changes: empirical evidence
agility: the role of delivery dependability and time to market. Supply Chain Manag.:
from the UK food supply chain during COVID-19 crisis. Supply Chain Manag. 26 (6),
Int. J. 22 (2), 172–185.
737–752.
Alvino, F., Di Vaio, A., Hassan, R., Palladino, R., 2020. Intellectual capital and
Faccin, K., Balestrin, A., 2018. The dynamics of collaborative practices for knowledge
sustainable development: a systematic literature review. J. Intellect. Cap. 22 (1),
creation in joint R&D projects. J. Eng. Tech. Manage. 48, 28–43.
76–94.
Forcadell, F.J., Úbeda, F., Aracil, E., 2021. Effects of environmental corporate social
Alzoubi, H., Yanamandra, R., 2020. Investigating the mediating role of information
responsibility on innovativeness of Spanish industrial SMEs. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
sharing strategy on agile supply chain. Uncertain Supply Chain Management 8 (2),
Change 162, 120355.
273–284.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
Arianpoor, A., Salehi, M., 2020. A framework for business sustainability performance
variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
using meta-synthesis. Manag. Environ. Qual.: Int. J. 32 (2), 172–175.
Fritz, M., Ruel, S., Kallmuenzer, A., Harms, R., 2021. Sustainability management in
Baah, C., Acquah, I.S.K., & Ofori, D. 2021. Exploring the influence of supply chain
supply chains: the role of familiness. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 173, 121078.
collaboration on supply chain visibility, stakeholder trust, environmental and
Gligor, D.M., Holcomb, M., 2014. The road to supply chain agility: an RBV perspective on
financial performances: a partial least square approach. Benchmark.: Int. J. DOI
the role of logistics capabilities. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 17 (4), 438–453.
10.1108/BIJ-10-2020-0519, 1–22.
Gligor, D.M., Esmark, C.L., Holcomb, M.C., 2015. Performance outcomes of supply chain
Barchiesi, M.A., Colladon, A.F., 2021. Corporate core values and social responsibility:
agility: when should you be agile? J. Oper. Manage. 33 (3), 71–82.
what really matters to whom. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 170, 120907.
Gligor, D.M., Holcomb, M.C., Stank, T.P., 2013. A multidisciplinary approach to supply
Blome, C., Schoenherr, T., Rexhausen, D., 2013. Antecedents and enablers of supply
chain agility: conceptualization and scale development. J. Bus. Logist. 34 (2),
chain agility and its effect on performance: a dynamic capabilities perspective. Int. J.
94–108.
Prod. Res. 51 (4), 1295–1318.
Gölgeci, I., Kuivalainen, O., 2020. Does social capital matter for supply chain resilience?
Bontis, N., Nikitopoulos, D., 2001. Thought leadership on intellectual capital. J. Intellect.
The role of absorptive capacity and marketing-supply chain management alignment.
Cap. 2 (3), 183–191.
Ind. Mark. Manag. 84, 63–74.
Bontis, N., Dragonetti, N.C., Jacobsen, K., Roos, G., 1999. The knowledge toolbox:: A
Guan, D., Wang, D., Hallegatte, S., Davis, S.J., Huo, J., Li, S., Gong, P., 2020. Global
review of the tools available to measure and manage intangible resources. Eur.
supply-chain effects of COVID-19 control measures. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4 (6),
Manag. J. 17 (4), 391–402.
577–587.

9
K.S. Al-Omoush et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 178 (2022) 121603

Gunasekaran, A., 1999. Agile manufacturing: a framework for research and Shakina, E., Barajas, A., 2014. The dynamics of intellectual resources during the
development. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 62 (1–2), 87–105. economic crisis. Economic Research-Ekonomska istraživanja 27 (1), 861–881.
Hair Jr, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., Kuppelwieser, V.G, 2014. Partial least squares Shi, Y., Arthanari, T., Wood, L., 2017. Developing third-party purchase (3PP) services:
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research. Eur. new Zealand third-party logistics providers’ perspectives. Supply Chain
Bus. Rev. 26 (2), 106–121. Management. Int. J. 22 (1), 40–57.
Han, Y., Li, D., 2015. Effects of intellectual capital on innovative performance: the role of Shiranifar, A., Rahmati, M., Jafari, F., 2019. Linking IT to supply chain agility: does
knowledge-based dynamic capability. Manag. Decis. 53 (1), 40–56. knowledge management make a difference in SMEs? Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 34
Haq, M.A., Hameed, I., Raheem, A., 2020. An empirical analysis of behavioral flexibility, (1), 123–138.
relationship integration and strategic flexibility in supply chain agility: insights from Shou, Y., Prester, J., Li, Y., 2018. The impact of intellectual capital on supply chain
SMEs sector of Pakistan. South Asian J. Bus. Manag. 14 (1), 104–121. collaboration and business performance. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 67 (1), 92–104.
Hernández, J.P.S.I., Yañez-Araque, B., Moreno-García, J., 2020. Moderating effect of firm Siltori, P.F., Anholon, R., Rampasso, I.S., Quelhas, O.L., Santa-Eulalia, L.A., Leal
size on the influence of corporate social responsibility in the economic performance Filho, W., 2021. Industry 4.0 and corporate sustainability: an exploratory analysis of
of micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 151, possible impacts in the Brazilian context. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 167,
119774. 120741.
Hsu, I.C., Sabherwal, R., 2012. Relationship between intellectual capital and knowledge Srikalimah, Wardana, L.W., Ambarwati, D., Sholihin, U., Shobirin, R.A., Fajariah, N.,
management: an empirical investigation. Decis. Sci. 43 (3), 489–524. Wibowo, A., 2020. Do creativity and intellectual capital matter for SMEs
Inkinen, H., 2015. Review of empirical research on intellectual capital and firm sustainability? The role of competitive advantage. J. Asian Finance Econ. Bus. 7 (12),
performance. J. Intellect. Cap. 16 (3), 518–565. 397–408.
Irfan, M., Wang, M., Akhtar, N., 2019. Impact of IT capabilities on supply chain Starik, M., Rands, G.P., 1995. Weaving an integrated web: multilevel and multisystem
capabilities and organizational agility: a dynamic capability view. Oper. Manag. Res. perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Acad. Manage. Rev. 20 (4),
12 (3), 113–128. 908–935.
Ivanov, D. 2020. Viable supply chain model: integrating agility, resilience and Subramaniam, M., Youndt, M.A., 2005. The influence of intellectual capital on the types
sustainability perspectives—Lessons from and thinking beyond the COVID-19 of innovative capabilities. Acad. Manag. J. 48 (3), 450–463.
pandemic. Ann. Oper. Res. 10.1007/s10479-021-04181-2, 1–21. Tooranloo, H.S., Alavi, M., Saghafi, S., 2018. Evaluating indicators of the agility of the
Khan, M., 2014. A critical review of empirical studies in intellectual capital literature. green supply chain. Competitiveness Rev.: Int. Bus. J. 28 (5), 541–563.
Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 4 (11), 159–176. Tseng, M.L., Wu, K.J., Ma, L., Kuo, T.C., Sai, F., 2019. A hierarchical framework for
Kraus, S., Rehman, S.U., García, F.J.S., 2020. Corporate social responsibility and assessing corporate sustainability performance using a hybrid fuzzy synthetic
environmental performance: the mediating role of environmental strategy and green method-DEMATEL. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 144, 524–533.
innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 160, 120262. Tuan, L.T., 2016. Organisational ambidexterity and supply chain agility: the mediating
Lo, F.Y., Liao, P.C., 2021. Rethinking financial performance and corporate sustainability: role of external knowledge sharing and moderating role of competitive intelligence.
perspectives on resources and strategies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 162, Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 19 (6), 583–603.
120346. Um, J., 2017. Improving supply chain flexibility and agility through variety
Lo, F.Y., Wong, W.K., Geovani, J., 2021. Optimal combinations of factors influencing the management. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 28 (2), 464–487.
sustainability of Taiwanese firms. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 16 (5), 909–928. Wasiluk, K.L., 2013. Beyond eco-efficiency: understanding CS through the IC practice
Mandal, S., 2018. Influence of human capital on healthcare agility and healthcare supply lens. J. Intellect. Cap. 14 (1), 102–126.
chain performance. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 33 (7), 1012–1026. Weber, Y., Tarba, S.Y., 2014. Strategic agility: a state of the art introduction to the special
Mubarik, M.S., Bontis, N., Mubarik, M., & Mahmood, T. 2021. Intellectual capital and section on strategic agility. Calif. Manage. Rev. 56 (3), 5–12.
supply chain resilience. J. Intellect. Cap. DOI 10.1108/JIC-06-2020-0206, 1–26. Wu, K.J., Tseng, M.L., Chiu, A.S., Lim, M.K., 2017. Achieving competitive advantage
Nafei, W., 2016. The role of organizational agility in reinforcing job engagement: a study through supply chain agility under uncertainty: a novel multi-criteria decision-
on industrial companies in Egypt. Int. Bus. Res. 9 (2), 153–167. making structure. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 190, 96–107.
Namvar, M., Khalilzadeh, P., 2013. Exploring the role of intellectual capital in the Yang, J., 2014. Supply chain agility: securing performance for Chinese manufacturers.
development of e-business models: evidence from the Iranian carpet industry. Int. J. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 150, 104–113.
Commerce Manag. 23 (2), 97–112. Yaseen, S.G., Dajani, D., Hasan, Y., 2016. The impact of intellectual capital on the
Nandi, S., Sarkis, J., Hervani, A.A., Helms, M.M., 2021. Redesigning supply chains using competitive advantage: applied study in Jordanian telecommunication companies.
blockchain-enabled circular economy and COVID-19 experiences. Sustain. Prod. Comput. Human Behav. 62, 168–175.
Consum. 27, 10–22. Yusoff, Y.M., Omar, M.K., Zaman, M.D.K., Samad, S., 2019. Do all elements of green
Naughton, S., Golgeci, I., Arslan, A., 2020. Supply chain agility as an acclimatisation intellectual capital contribute toward business sustainability? Evidence from the
process to environmental uncertainty and organisational vulnerabilities: insights Malaysian context using the Partial Least Squares method. J. Clean. Prod. 234,
from British SMEs. Prod. Plan. Control. 31 (14), 1164–1177. 626–637.
Ngai, E.W., Chau, D.C., Chan, T.L.A., 2011. Information technology, operational, and Zhao, L., Zhang, H., Wu, W., 2019. Cooperative knowledge creation in an uncertain
management competencies for supply chain agility: findings from case studies. network environment based on a dynamic knowledge supernetwork. Scientometrics
J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 20 (3), 232–249. 119 (2), 657–685.
Nickerson, J.A., Zenger, T.R., 2004. A knowledge-based theory of the firm—The
problem-solving perspective. Organ. Sci. 15 (6), 617–632.
Khaled Saleh Al Omoush is a professor of Management Information Systems at the
Nissen, V., & von Rennenkampff, A. 2017. Measuring the agility of the IT application
Faculty of business, Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan. Al Omoush’s research interests lie
systems landscape. In Proceedings Der 13. Internationalen Tagung
in the areas of Web-based collaborative systems, social networking sites, and e-business
Wirtschaftsinformatik, St Gallen, Switzerland.
entrepreneurship. He has published many articles in different journals, such as Computers
Nonaka, I., 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ. Sci. 5
in Human Behavior, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Telematics and Informatics,
(1), 14–37.
Journal of Business Research, Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, Information Systems
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., 1995. The Knowledge-Creating company: How Japanese
and e-Business Management, Information Systems Frontiers, and Journal of Organiza­
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford university press.
tional and End User Computing.
Pinto, C.A.S., 2020. Knowledge management as a support for supply chain logistics
planning in pandemic cases. Braz. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 17 (3), 1–11.
Raymond L., Bergeron F., Croteau A.M., St-Pierre J. 2015. Entrepreneurial orientation Daniel Palacios-Marqués is the director of the Master in Direction and Management of
and e-business capabilities of manufacturing SMEs: an absorptive capacity lens. In Digital Businesses. He is a professor of the Department of Business Organization at the
the Proceedings of System Sciences (HICSS), 2015, 48th Hawaii international Polytechnic University of Valencia. Editor-in-Chief of the International Entrepreneurship
Conference On IEEE, 3740–3749. and Management Journal (Springer Publishing) and the International Journal of Service
Rusland, S.L., Jaafar, N.I., Sumintono, B., 2020. Evaluating knowledge creation processes Operations and Informatics (Inderscience Publishing). He has written more than 100 ar­
in the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) fleet: personnel conceptualization, participation ticles on digital business and has published several books on the application of the digital
and differences. Cogent Bus. Manag. 7 (1), 1785106. world to business in national and international publishers.
Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., Grover, V., 2003. Shaping agility through digital
options: reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary
Klaus Ulrich is a Ph.D. candidate, professor, and researcher at ESIC Business & Marketing
firms. MIS Q. 27 (2), 237–263.
School. He has a degree in Business Administration and Management from the University
Sangari, M.S., Razmi, J., 2015. Business intelligence competence, agile capabilities, and
of Valencia and a Master in Financial Management from the Foundation for Stock Market
agile performance in supply chain: an empirical study. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 26 (2),
and Financial Studies & CEU- Cardenal Herrera. He has worked in companies in the
356–380.
financial sector, Marketing, Investor Relations, and Risk Analysis departments. He has also
Sarkis, J., 2020. Supply chain sustainability: learning from the COVID-19 pandemic. Int.
started his own financial brokerage business. Currently, he is dedicated to teaching and
J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 41 (1), 63–73.
research in digital marketing, entrepreneurship, and alternative financing.

10