Next Article in Journal
AI-Driven Energy Optimization in Urban Logistics: Implications for Smart SCM in Dubai
Previous Article in Journal
How Can Digital Transformation Drive a Green Future?—Intermediary Mechanisms for Supply Chain Innovation: Evidence from Chinese A-Share Listed Companies
Previous Article in Special Issue
Compressing and Decompressing Activities in Multi-Project Scheduling Under Uncertainty and Resource Flexibility
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 18
10.3390/su17188299
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Interaction of Diversification Strategies, Resilience, and Digital Capabilities in Driving Supply Chain Sustainability in Saudi Arabia

by
Sami Mohammed Alhaderi
School of Business Administration in Yanbu, Taibah University, Madinah 42353, Saudi Arabia
Sustainability 2025, 17(18), 8299; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188299
Submission received: 20 August 2025 / Revised: 4 September 2025 / Accepted: 12 September 2025 / Published: 16 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Achieving Sustainability in New Product Development and Supply Chain)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

This study explores the impact of supply chain diversification strategies (SCDS) on supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP), with focus on the mediating role of supply chain resilience (SCR) and the moderating effect of digital supply chain capabilities (DSC). The research objectives are (1) to assess whether SCR enables diversified supply bases to deliver sustainability outcomes and (2) to examine whether DSC strengthens the effectiveness of diversification in achieving environmental, social, and economic performance. A quantitative, cross-sectional survey was administered to 329 supply chain managers from medium-to-large manufacturing and retail firms in Saudi Arabia. Data were collected using multi-item 5-point Likert scale. Validity and reliability were ensured through EFA, Cronbach’s alpha, and composite reliability. Mediation and moderation effects were tested using PROCESS Macro in SPSS version 27. Findings revealed that 52% of the variance in supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP) was explained. (SCDS) had a strong positive effect on (SCR) (B = 0.612, p < 0.001), which in turn significantly predicted SCSP (B = 0.431, p < 0.001). The total effect of SCDS on SCSP was significant (B = 0.572, p < 0.001), while the direct effect remained strong (B = 0.308, p < 0.001). The indirect effect (a × b = 0.264, 95% CI [0.194, 0.343]) confirmed that SCR partially mediates the relationship, showing that diversification enhances sustainability both directly and indirectly through resilience. Theoretically, this study extends RBV and DC theory, while practically offering managers actionable insights on integrating diversification, resilience, and digitalization to balance supply continuity with long-term sustainability goals.

1. Introduction

Within an environment of mounting supply chain uncertainty, environmental disruptions, and technological transformation, the pursuit of sustainable and resilient supply chain systems has become a strategic imperative for organizations worldwide. Particularly in emerging economies such as Saudi Arabia, supply chain leaders are being challenged to reconfigure traditional models in favor of strategies that ensure both continuity and sustainability [1,2]. Also, Saudi Arabia is undergoing an economic transition from oil dependence to diversification under Vision 2030. This makes it an ideal setting to study supply chain diversification strategies (SCDS), because firms are actively reconfiguring their sourcing, logistics, and operational networks in response to systemic reforms, global trade shifts, and localization policies. Unlike more mature economies, the Saudi context represents a nascent yet rapidly evolving supply chain landscape, where diversification and resilience are not legacy practices but newly developing strategic imperatives [3]. Among the most prominent approaches is the supply chain diversification strategy (SCDS), which refers to the deliberate design and implementation of multi-sourcing, geographical dispersion, and flexible network configurations to mitigate risks and enhance adaptability [4,5]. While the existing literature acknowledges the role of SCDS in enhancing operational performance, its relationship with long-term supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP) remains underexplored, especially through the lens of supply chain resilience (SCR) as an underlying mechanism [6,7].
Situated within the framework of the Resource-Based View (RBV), Saudi firms are rapidly building digital and operational capabilities from the ground up, a dynamic not typically present in more mature economies, offering a distinctive opportunity to examine how newly acquired resources translate into resilience and sustainability [8]. Under Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT), the Vision 2030-driven economic transformation compels supply chains to adapt swiftly to evolving regulatory, technological, and environmental demands, making the Saudi context especially suited for exploring organizational agility [9].
From the standpoint of Stakeholder Theory, Vision 2030 has intensified pressures from government, investors, and society for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) compliance, creating a rare setting where stakeholder expectations are directly reshaping sustainability outcomes [10]. Moreover, Saudi Arabia’s western region, with cities like Jeddah, Makkah, and Medina, functions as a strategic logistics hub linking Asia, Africa, and Europe. Studying this region offers valuable insights into how supply chains in emerging economies leverage diversification, resilience, and sustainability strategies in response to institutional upheaval and geographic centrality [11]. These contextual and theoretical considerations collectively position Saudi Arabia as a novel and compelling setting for testing the interplay of organizational resources, adaptive capabilities, and stakeholder-driven sustainability in supply chain research.
Although the integration of resilience and digitalization has been explored in other region such as Asia and Europe this study’s Saudi context offers distinctly valuable insights. For instance, recent research in China has shown how digital transformation enhances supply chain resilience [7], while a European-oriented study demonstrates the combined effect of resilience strategies and digitalization in advancing sustainability [12]. However, Saudi Arabia presents a uniquely compelling setting. The nation’s Vision 2030 initiative is driving systemic transformation, rather than only incremental evolution, across diversification, resilience-building, and digitalization simultaneously. The western region (Jeddah, Makkah, and Medina) further amplifies theoretical interest: it is a strategic logistics hub bridging Asia, Africa, and Europe, offering a real-world laboratory to observe how emerging economy supply chains adapt global theories through institutional upheaval and geographic centrality. By situating the resilience–digitalization nexus in Saudi Arabia under Vision 2030, this study extends global supply chain theory in ways that mature economies cannot, turning regional transformation into a source of theoretical and practical novelty.
Despite growing academic attention on resilient and sustainable supply chains, there exists a significant theoretical gap in understanding how diversification strategies translate into sustainability outcomes through resilience-building capabilities [13]. Current studies often treat resilience and sustainability as separate constructs, failing to explore their interdependent dynamics [14,15]. Furthermore, the moderating role of digital supply chain capabilities (DSC), encompassing technologies such as AI, IoT, block-chain, and predictive analytics, has received limited empirical scrutiny, despite being a critical enabler of visibility, agility, and decision-making in contemporary supply chains. The interaction between diversification strategies, digital capabilities, and resilience mechanisms, and how they collectively influence sustainability outcomes, remains inadequately theorized and empirically tested [16,17].
From a practical standpoint, organizations in Saudi Arabia’s western region are undergoing rapid transformation under the auspices of Vision 2030, which emphasizes sustainable economic development, technological innovation, and supply chain localization. However, many firms continue to struggle with integrating digital tools and resilience practices into their diversification strategies in ways that support sustainability [2,18]. This highlights a practical gap in both knowledge and execution, particularly in how firms operationalize diversification and digital strategies to achieve long-term sustainability performance amidst systemic disruptions.
This study seeks to address these gaps by developing and testing a moderated mediation model that examines the direct effect of SCDS on SCSP, the mediating role of SCR, and the moderating role of DSC. The research is grounded in an integrated theoretical framework drawing on the Resource-Based View (RBV), Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT), and Stakeholder Theory (ST), enabling a holistic examination of how internal resources, adaptive capabilities, and stakeholder-driven performance expectations interact. This study is original in its context-specific focus on Saudi firms, its empirical modeling of complex interrelationships among strategic, digital, and sustainability variables, and its theoretical integration of capability-based and stakeholder-centric perspectives. The findings aim to contribute both theoretically to the supply chain literature and practically to decision-making in digitally transforming sustainability-oriented organizations in emerging markets.

2. Research Objectives

  • To examine the direct relationship between supply chain diversification strategic (SCDS) and supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP).
  • To investigate the influence of SCDS on the development of supply chain resilience (SCR).
  • To assess the mediating role of SCR in the relationship between SCDS and SCSP.
  • To analyze whether digital supply chain capabilities (DSC) moderate the relationship between SCDS and SCSP.

3. Research Hypotheses

H1. 
There is relation between supply chain diversification strategic and supply chain sustainability performance.
H2. 
There is relation between supply chain diversification strategic and supply chain resilience.
H3. 
Supply chain resilience mediates the relationship between diversification and supply chain sustainability performance.
H4. 
Digital supply chain capabilities moderate the relationship between diversification strategy and supply chain sustainability performance.

4. Literature Review

4.1. Supply Chain Sustainability Performance

Supply chain sustainability has been broadly conceptualized as the simultaneous pursuit of environmental, social, and economic objectives, ensuring that operational efficiency aligns with the long-term well-being of both the planet and society [13]. This perspective emphasizes that sustainability is not merely an add-on to traditional supply chain practices but a strategic imperative embedded throughout operations. In this context, sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) is defined as the integration of environmental, social, and financial considerations into operational processes, leading to enhanced performance and improved sustainability outcomes [19]. By embedding sustainability principles into sourcing, production, logistics, and distribution, SSCM provides a systematic pathway for firms to achieve balanced triple bottom line (TBL) results.
Building on this foundation, recent scholarship has offered refined definitions of supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP). Ref. [20] highlight the growing strategic importance of environmental stewardship and ethical collaboration, defining SCSP as “the collective outcome of environmental stewardship, ethical practices, and collaborative partnerships across the supply chain that enhance social and ecological value creation”. Similarly, ref. [21] frame SCSP as the holistic performance of supply chains in meeting sustainability goals through sustainable supply management, process efficiency, and stakeholder engagement. Ref. [22] emphasized the measurable outcomes of applying sustainable supply chain management practices that simultaneously improve economic viability, reduce environmental harm, and promote social responsibility. In line with these perspectives, ref. [23] defined SCSP as the extent to which firms embed environmental responsibility, ethical sourcing, transparent reporting, circularity, and collaborative practices across operations, thereby delivering balanced ecological, social, and economic outcomes. Collectively, these definitions underscore that SCSP is a multidimensional construct requiring integrated strategies, stakeholder cooperation, and long-term commitment to sustainability principles.

4.2. Supply Chain Resilience

Supply chain resilience (SCR) is widely recognized as a vital capability for mitigating disruptions and sustaining performance in dynamic environments. It is defined as the adaptive capacity of a supply chain to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from disruptive events while safeguarding long-term viability [24]. SCR has been conceptualized as a multidimensional capability involving shock absorption, adaptive processes, and structural reconfiguration to restore or enhance performance. It further encompasses proactive risk management, redundancy, flexibility, and collaboration across supply chain partners [6]. From a dynamic capabilities perspective, resilience reflects the ability to continuously sense risks, adapt, and transform operations in order to maintain competitiveness [25]. Collectively, these perspectives position SCR as a strategic, proactive process that integrates adaptability, learning, and flexibility to support long-term supply chain sustainability.
Despite this consensus, important debates remain unresolved. Some scholars caution that resilience does not always align seamlessly with sustainability goals. For example, diversification and redundancy practices that improve recovery capacity may simultaneously increase operational complexity, cost, and even environmental burden [26]. Others note that in disruption contexts, firms may prioritize continuity of supply over sustainability commitments, potentially sourcing from less sustainable partners or relaxing ethical and environmental standards [13]. Moreover, the multidimensionality of resilience raises questions about measurement and trade-offs: while flexibility and redundancy enhance recovery speed, they may conflict with efficiency-driven sustainability practices such as lean or low-carbon operations. This tension indicates that resilience is not universally beneficial but requires governance mechanisms to ensure its alignment with long-term economic, environmental, and social objectives.

4.3. Supply Chain Diversification Strategic

Recent scholarship and industry insights increasingly position supply chain diversification strategy (SCDS) as a critical enabler of resilience in global and regional supply networks. According to Ref. [27], SCDS embodies a forward-looking approach that allocates sourcing activities across multiple channels to minimize reliance on any single supply point, thereby reducing vulnerability to external disturbances. Complementing this perspective, ref. [28] conceptualizes diversification as the integration of various structural dimensions such as multi-sourcing, multi-shoring, diversification of logistics modes, and transport alternatives into the supply chain architecture to foster agility, sustainability, and resilience. Similarly, ref. [29] frames SCDS as the strategic shift from dependence on a single supplier or location toward collaboration with multiple suppliers across different geographical regions, enabling firms to adapt swiftly and maintain continuity in the face of disruption.
Besides that, supply chain diversification is the strategic allocation of sourcing and production across multiple suppliers, regions, or channels to create redundancy, thereby reducing vulnerability to disruptions and ensuring the continuity of operational performance [4]. Academic contributions also reinforce the view of SCDS as an essential resilience-building mechanism, with Ref. [30] describing it as a purposeful distribution of procurement and production activities across a diverse set of suppliers and regions to safeguard against operational interruptions. Extending these perspectives, this study defines supply chain diversification strategy as the intentional and systematic design of supply networks that incorporate multiple suppliers, varied geographic footprints, and diversified logistical routes. This configuration seeks not only to diminish single-source dependency and mitigate disruption-related risks but also to strengthen the adaptive capabilities necessary for achieving long-term economic viability, environmental stewardship, and social responsibility within supply chain operations.
Furthermore, supply chain diversification strategy (SCDS) is increasingly recognized as a foundational driver of supply chain resilience (SCR), as it mitigates the vulnerabilities associated with concentrated sourcing and geographically localized production [31]. By strategically spreading procurement, production, and logistics activities across multiple suppliers, regions, and transportation channels, firms create operational redundancy that enables them to absorb shocks and recover more swiftly from disruptions [5,32]. Diversification enhances visibility and flexibility within the supply network, facilitating proactive risk identification and rapid reconfiguration of supply flows in response to unforeseen events such as natural disasters, geopolitical tensions, or supplier failures [33].
From a dynamic capabilities perspective, diversification strengthens a supply chain’s adaptive capacity by enabling the rapid redeployment of resources, alternative sourcing activation, and the maintenance of service continuity during crises [13,25]. Empirical studies further indicated that diversified supply chains are better positioned to maintain performance stability, as they can leverage multiple contingency pathways and supplier relationships to reduce lead time variability and cost escalation during volatile market conditions [4,34]. Thus, SCDS functions as a resilience-enabling strategy that transforms structural complexity into a competitive advantage under uncertainty [35].
Beyond resilience, SCDS plays a significant role in advancing supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP) by enabling firms to integrate environmental, social, and economic objectives into their operational architecture [6,36]. Diversification facilitates the selection of suppliers that align with ethical sourcing standards, low-carbon logistics, and responsible production practices, thereby embedding sustainability principles into the network structure [37,38]. Multi-sourcing and geographic dispersion create opportunities for collaboration with suppliers in regions that enforce higher environmental and labor standards, supporting broader corporate social responsibility commitments [20,39,40].
Furthermore, diversification reduces the risk of sustainability performance deterioration during disruptions, as alternative sources can be activated to ensure that eco-friendly materials, compliant labor practices, and circular economy initiatives are not abandoned under operational stress [41]. Strategically, a well-diversified supply chain also allows for localized production and distribution, which can lower transportation emissions and foster community engagement, thereby strengthening the social and environmental dimensions of the triple bottom line [13]. Consequently, SCDS not only safeguards sustainability programs during crises but also amplifies their long-term impact by structurally embedding flexibility, ethical compliance, and environmental stewardship within the supply chain [41].

4.4. Digital Supply Chain Capabilities

Digital supply chain capabilities have been defined as the technology-enabled integration of organizational processes, utilizing advanced tools such as the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, cloud platforms, and digital twin simulations to improve real-time visibility, enhance inter-organizational coordination, and support data-driven decision-making across end-to-end supply chain operations [42]. Also, digital supply chain capabilities refer to the digitally facilitated combination of information sharing, cross-functional coordination, and adaptive responsiveness that collectively strengthen a supply chain’s capacity to synchronize operational activities and respond effectively to external disruptions [43].
Besides that, digital supply chain capabilities are rooted in an organization’s absorptive capacity and commitment to continuous learning, enabling the acquisition, assimilation, and application of knowledge, while fostering digital alignment with supply chain partners to drive intelligent, technology-enabled transformations [44]. Digital supply chain capabilities refer to strategically cultivated, technology-enabled competencies that integrate advanced tools such as IoT, AI, block-chain, cloud computing, and predictive analytics into supply chain processes to improve real-time visibility, coordination, and agile, data-driven decision-making. These capabilities go beyond mere technology adoption by embedding organizational digital alignment, knowledge absorption, and adaptive learning, enabling firms to anticipate, respond to, and recover from disruptions while advancing long-term sustainability goals.
While supply chain diversification strategy reduces dependency risks and enhances operational flexibility through multi-sourcing, geographic dispersion, and varied logistics channels, its effectiveness in delivering sustainability outcomes can be significantly amplified when supported by advanced digital technologies [45]. Capabilities such as IoT-enabled tracking, blockchain-based transparency, and AI-driven analytics improve end-to-end visibility, allowing firms to monitor sustainability compliance across diversified supplier bases in real time [46]. This enhanced visibility not only ensures adherence to environmental and ethical standards but also enables proactive intervention when deviations occur, safeguarding the continuity of sustainability programs during disruptions [2]. In this way, DSC acts as a strategic amplifier, converting the structural redundancy of diversification into a coordinated, measurable, and sustainability-oriented performance advantage.
From a dynamic capabilities standpoint, DSC serves as a moderating lever that strengthens the effectiveness of SCDS in achieving sustainable performance by facilitating rapid adaptation, real-time decision-making, and collaborative value creation across the network [12]. Diversified supply chains often face challenges in maintaining cohesive sustainability practices due to dispersed operations and heterogeneous regulatory environments. DSC mitigates these challenges by enabling seamless data integration, predictive risk assessment, and adaptive resource allocation, ensuring that sustainability initiatives remain embedded in operational decision-making even under volatility [47]. Moreover, digital tools such as digital twins and cloud-based collaboration platforms enhance stakeholder engagement, supporting joint sustainability projects with geographically diverse partners. By embedding agility, transparency, and coordination into diversified networks, DSC transforms the potential complexity of SCDS into a source of competitive and sustainable advantage, ensuring that environmental, social, and economic objectives are met consistently across the supply chain [48].

5. Theory

This study integrated the Resource-Based View (RBV), Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT), and Stakeholder Theory (ST) to examine how supply chain diversification strategic (SCDS) influence supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP) through the mediating role of supply chain resilience (SCR) and the moderating role of digital supply chain capabilities (DSC). RBV positions SCDS and DSC as strategic resources that provide firms with a competitive edge by enhancing flexibility and information visibility. DCT extends this by emphasizing SCR as a dynamic capability that enables firms to sense, respond to, and recover from disruptions, transforming static resources into adaptive operational advantages. ST complements these internal mechanisms by framing SCPS as an outcome driven by the need to meet stakeholder expectations related to environmental, social, and ethical performance. Together, these theories explain how the strategic deployment and dynamic configuration of internal capabilities contribute to sustainable supply chain outcomes in response to both environmental uncertainty and stakeholder demands.

6. Framework

As shown in Figure 1 proposed framework which illustrated the conceptual framework of this study, highlighting the hypothesized relationships among four key constructs: Supply Chain Diversification Strategy (SCDS), Supply Chain Resilience (SCR), Supply Chain Sustainability Performance (SCSP), and Digital Supply Chain Capabilities (DSC).

7. Methodology

This study adopts a quantitative, cross-sectional survey design to examine the relationship between supply chain diversification strategy (SCDS) and supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP), with supply chain resilience (SCR) as a mediator and digital supply chain capabilities (DSC) as a moderator, in the context of Saudi firms. Data were collected from 329 supply chain professionals including managers, senior supervisors, and operational decision-makers, working in medium-to-large manufacturing and retail firms. A stratified sampling approach was employed to ensure that respondents possessed direct responsibility or significant involvement in supply chain strategy, sourcing decisions, and sustainability initiatives. A stratified sampling approach was employed to ensure representation across organizational levels and firm sizes. The strata were defined as (1) job role (supply chain managers, senior supervisors, operational staff with decision-making responsibilities), and (2) industry sector (manufacturing vs. retail). Within each stratum, participants were randomly selected to ensure that perspectives from both strategic and operational levels, as well as from different sectors, were proportionally represented. This approach increased the generalizability of findings by avoiding overrepresentation of a single role or sector and ensuring that all groups directly involved in supply chain strategy, sourcing, and sustainability initiatives were included. The research instrument consisted of a structured questionnaire with validated multi-item constructs measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree).
The constructs were operationalized using established scales: SCDS (seven items) adapted from Refs. [6,17,36] (which includes the following: we strategically source critical materials from suppliers in multiple geographic regions, we use multiple suppliers for each key input to reduce dependency risks, our supply chain network is strategically restructured to adapt to global disruptions, and we maintain alternative sourcing plans for critical materials or components, our organization holds strategic inventory to manage supply uncertainty, we conduct regular risk assessments across the supply chain to ensure readiness and our supply chain strategy balances efficiency with flexibility to adapt to uncertainty); and SCR (seven items) from Refs. [49,50,51] (which includes the following: our supply chain can recover quickly from unexpected disruptions, we have backup suppliers to maintain continuity during crises, our operations adapt quickly to changes in supply or demand conditions, we monitor risks proactively across our supplier tiers, we maintain flexible contracts and partnerships to respond to change, we simulate risk scenarios to evaluate our supply chain’s readiness and our teams coordinate effectively to restore operations during disruptions).
The following scales were also used: DSC (seven items) based on Refs. [51,52,53,54] (which includes the following: we use real-time tracking tools (e.g., IoT, GPS) for logistics visibility, our systems integrate data from suppliers, logistics, and inventory, AI or predictive analytics is used to forecast supply and demand risks, we use digital dashboards to monitor the entire supply chain in real-time, Blockchain or similar technologies help us trace product origins and compliance, our organization uses digital twins or simulations to improve supply chain planning, and our employees are trained to use digital tools for agile supply chain decision-making); and SCSP (seven items) adapted from Refs. [55,56,57,58] (which includes the following: our supply chain practices reduce carbon emissions and environmental impact, we work only with suppliers that follow ethical labor and environmental practices, sustainability goals are integrated into our procurement and sourcing strategies, we track and report sustainability performance across supply chain operations, we actively engage in circular practices like reuse, recycling, or upcycling, we evaluate suppliers for sustainability performance regularly, and our organization collaborates with partners to improve overall sustainability outcomes).
Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Shapiro–Wilk tests for normality, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for construct validity, and reliability assessment via Cronbach’s alpha. Hypothesized relationships were tested using multiple regression analysis and PROCESS Macro (Model 4 for mediation, Model 1 for moderation) in SPSS version 27. This methodological approach is grounded in Resource-Based View (RBV) and Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT), offering a theoretically informed framework for understanding how structural and digital capabilities foster resilience and sustainability in Saudi supply chains.
In this study, Hayes’ PROCESS Macro for SPSS was employed to test mediation and moderation effects. Model 4 was used to assess mediation, where supply chain diversification strategy (SCDS) influences supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP) both directly and indirectly through supply chain resilience (SCR) as a mediating variable. This model allows the estimation of total, direct, and indirect effects using bootstrapping procedures to confirm mediation paths. Model 1 was applied to test moderation, where digital supply chain capabilities (DSC) were specified as a moderator of the relationship between SCDS and SCSP. This model estimates the interaction effect (SCDS × DSC) on SCSP, clarifying whether the strength of the SCDS–SCSP link varies across different levels of DSC. Together, these models provide a robust framework for evaluating both conditional indirect effects and moderating influences within the hypothesized relationships.

8. Data Analysis and Result

In Table 1, the descriptive statistics indicate that participants generally reported positive perceptions across all four supply chain constructs. Supply chain resilience (SCR) had the highest mean score (M = 3.94, SD = 0.65), reflecting a moderate-to-high degree of strategic flexibility and disruption recovery capabilities among respondents. This was followed closely by supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP), which had the mean score (M = 3.87, SD = 0.68), suggesting strong engagement in sustainable practices such as environmental responsibility and circular operations. Supply chain diversification strategic (SCDS) (M = 3.87, SD = 0.68) and digital supply chain capabilities (DSC) had the lowest mean (M = 3.85, SD = 0.70), though still above the scale midpoint, indicating a developing yet meaningful use of digital technologies such as GPS, IoT, AI, and data integration. All constructs displayed reasonable variability (SDs ranging from 0.65 to 0.70), and the full range of the Likert scale (1 to 5) was observed, confirming appropriate response dispersion and scale utilization.
As shown in Table 2, the Shapiro–Wilk test was conducted to assess the normality of each construct’s distribution. Results indicate that all four constructs exhibited p-values greater than the 0.05 threshold (p = 0.065, 0.072, 0.058, and 0.061, respectively). This means the null hypothesis of normal distribution cannot be rejected for any variable, suggesting that the data for each construct is approximately normally distributed. The findings support the suitability of applying parametric statistical analyses, such as regression and PROCESS Macro, in subsequent hypothesis testing.
As seen in Table 3, the reliability analysis revealed that all four constructs exhibited strong internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from 0.84 to 0.88, exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.70. Composite reliability (CR) values for all constructs were above 0.85, indicating high construct reliability and suggesting that the items consistently measure their intended latent variables. Furthermore, average variance extracted (AVE) values range from 0.53 to 0.56, surpassing the minimum acceptable level of 0.50, thereby confirming adequate convergent validity. These results collectively indicate that the measurement model was both reliable and valid, providing a robust foundation for subsequent hypothesis testing.
As seen in Table 4, the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) revealed a clear and well-structured four-factor solution, with all items loading strongly (≥0.68) on their respective constructs. The five items measuring supply chain diversification strategy (SCDS) loaded between 0.68 and 0.74, indicating strong internal consistency in capturing strategic sourcing and flexibility practices. Similarly, the supply chain resilience (SCR) items exhibited loadings from 0.69 to 0.74, reflecting robust measurement of disruption recovery and adaptability. Digital supply chain capabilities (DSC) items showed loadings between 0.68 and 0.72, supporting their representation of technological integration such as GPS, AI, IoT, and data systems. Lastly, the supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP) construct displayed consistently high loadings (0.70 to 0.74), confirming the coherence of items assessing environmental responsibility and ethical practices. The absence of cross-loadings and uniformly high loading values indicated strong convergent validity and a reliable measurement model.
As seen in Table 5, Harman’s single-factor test indicated that the first un-rotated factor accounted for 32.7% of the total variance, well below the 50% threshold commonly used to indicate serious common method bias [59]. This suggests that common method variance is unlikely to threaten the validity of the findings, and the four-factor solution (SCDS, SCR, DSC, and SCSP) is robust.
As seen in Table 6, the correlation matrix demonstrates that all study variables were positively and moderately to strongly related, supporting the theoretical assumptions of interconnectedness among diversification, resilience, digital capabilities, and sustainability performance. Supply chain diversification strategy (SCDS) showed a substantial positive correlation with supply chain resilience (SCR) (r = 0.61), digital supply chain capabilities (DSC) (r = 0.58), and supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP) (r = 0.64), suggesting that diversification strategy enhances both resilience and digital integration, which in turn contributes to sustainability outcomes. SCR is strongly correlated with SCSP (r = 0.67), indicating that resilient supply chains were better positioned to achieve sustainability goals. Similarly, DSC is strongly linked to SCSP (r = 0.65), highlighting the role of digital capabilities in driving sustainable performance.
As seen in Table 7, the multiple regression analysis revealed that supply chain diversification strategy (SCDS), supply chain resilience (SCR), and digital supply chain capabilities (DSC) were all significant positive predictors of supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP). Specifically, SCDS (β = 0.324, p < 0.001) demonstrated a substantial contribution, indicating that diversified sourcing and structural redundancy significantly enhance sustainability outcomes. SCR (β = 0.356, p < 0.001) had the strongest standardized effect, highlighting the critical role of adaptive recovery and continuity capabilities in sustaining environmental, social, and economic performance. DSC (β = 0.342, p < 0.001) also showed a significant influence, suggested that digital integration strengthens the sustainability impact of diversification and resilience strategies. The model explained 52% of the variance in SCSP.
As seen in Table 8, the model summary indicates a strong positive relationship between the predictors (SCDS, SCR, and DSC) and SCSP, with an R2 of 0.520, indicating that approximately 52% of the variance in sustainability performance is explained by these three variables. The model is statistically significant (F = 117.36, p < 0.001), confirming that the combination of diversification strategy, resilience, and digital capabilities were a robust predictor of sustainable supply chain performance. Empirical comparisons across organizational contexts are scarce, but several recent studies shed light on similar dynamics such as that done by (Atieh Ali et al. 2024) [12], which found positive links between SCR, DSC, and sustainability, using structural equation modeling in a sample of 300 managers. While they did not report R2 directly, their robust model highlighted how digital capabilities fortify resilience-driven sustainability. Also, in the Chinese construction sector, ref. [7] reported strong direct effects of SCR on sustainable performance, aligning with these findings that resilience is a key predictor. Besides that, ref. [4] demonstrated that supply chain digitization and diversification jointly improve resilience in emerging markets, echoing these combined effects, though without quantifying the explained variance.
As seen in Table 9, the mediation analysis using PROCESS Macro Model 4 revealed that supply chain diversification strategy (SCDS) had a strong and significant positive effect on supply chain resilience (SCR) (a path: B = 0.612, p < 0.001) and that SCR significantly predicts supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP) (b path: B = 0.431, p < 0.001). The total effect of SCDS on SCSP (c path) was significant (B = 0.572, p < 0.001), and the direct effect (c′ path) remains significant after controlling for SCR (B = 0.308, p < 0.001), suggesting partial mediation. The indirect effect through SCR (a × b = 0.264) was also significant, with a 95% bootstrap confidence interval [0.194, 0.343] that does not include zero, confirming that SCR partially mediated the SCDS–SCSP relationship. These findings imply that SCDS enhances SCSP both directly and indirectly by strengthening resilience, which acted as a key mechanism through which diversification strategies translated into sustainability outcomes.
As seen in Table 10, the moderation analysis revealed that both supply chain diversification strategy (SCDS) (B = 0.415, p < 0.001) and digital supply chain capabilities (DSC) (B = 0.367, p < 0.001) had significant and positive main effects on supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP). Importantly, the interaction term SCDS-to-DSC was also positive and statistically significant (B = 0.128, p = 0.001), with a confidence interval (0.055, 0.201) that did not include zero, confirming a moderating effect.

9. Discussion

The findings of this study confirmed that supply chain diversification strategy (SCDS) has a significant and positive relationship with supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP), thereby supporting the first hypothesis. The results indicate that organizations that strategically source critical materials from suppliers in multiple geographic regions, use multiple suppliers for each key input, and maintain alternative sourcing plans are better able to sustain environmental, social, and economic performance [6,60,61]. These practices reduce dependency risks, enhance adaptability to global disruptions, and enable firms to safeguard sustainability programs during operational uncertainty [62,63]. Furthermore, strategic inventory holdings and regular risk assessments ensure supply continuity without compromising sustainability goals such as reducing carbon emissions, enforcing ethical labor standards, and engaging in circular economy practices [63,64]. The statistical evidence from this study demonstrates that diversification, when combined with integrated sustainability criteria in procurement and regular performance tracking, serves as a structural enabler of long-term SCSP [12].
However, while the positive relationship found here aligns with much of the existing literature, some critical perspectives caution against assuming a universal benefit. Diversification can increase transportation emissions when sourcing from multiple distant regions, create additional complexity in monitoring sustainability compliance, and in some cases shift the focus of risk assessments from sustainability to purely operational continuity [65,66]. In contexts of urgent disruption, firms may prioritize securing alternative supply sources over maintaining strict sustainability standards, potentially undermining long-term objectives [67,68]. Despite these concerns, the empirical results in this study suggest that, at least within the surveyed organizations, the benefits of SCDS in sustaining and advancing environmental, social, and economic outcomes outweigh the potential drawbacks. This reinforces the strategic value of embedding sustainability objectives directly into diversification policies, ensuring that resilience and sustainability are pursued in parallel rather than in competition.
The empirical results of this study indicated a positive and statistically significant relationship between SCDS and SCR, supporting H2. Diversification through multi-sourcing, geographic dispersion, and the use of alternative logistics channels provides organizations with the structural redundancy and flexibility necessary to recover quickly from unexpected disruptions [31,32]. For example, firms that strategically maintain backup suppliers, flexible contracts, and alternative sourcing plans are better positioned to sustain operations during crises [69]. Similarly, proactive practices such as risk monitoring across supplier tiers, scenario simulation, and cross-functional coordination strengthen the ability to adapt to shifts in supply or demand, enabling faster restoration of normal operations. This aligns with resilience theory, which emphasizes adaptive capacity, redundancy, and rapid recovery as core resilience dimensions [5,70].
However, from an opposing perspective, some scholars caution that diversification does not automatically translate into higher resilience. Increased supplier and geographic spread can introduce greater operational complexity, making coordination during crises more difficult and potentially slowing recovery. In some cases, managing a wide network of suppliers may dilute relationship quality and trust, which are critical for coordinated crisis response [66,71]. Furthermore, excessive diversification may lead to inefficiencies, higher costs, and challenges in aligning risk management protocols across diverse partners. These potential drawbacks suggest that diversification must be strategically managed and paired with robust communication, governance, and performance monitoring systems to fully realize its resilience benefits [5,72].
Besides that, the results of this study provide robust empirical evidence that supply chain resilience (SCR) significantly mediates the positive relationship between supply chain diversification strategy (SCDS) and supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP), which supports H3. Organizations that strategically source critical materials from suppliers in multiple geographic regions, engage multiple suppliers for each key input, and maintain alternative sourcing plans for critical components demonstrate enhanced capacity to withstand and recover from disruptions [73,74]. By holding strategic inventory, conducting regular supply chain risk assessments, and balancing efficiency with flexibility, these firms establish redundancy and adaptive capability, two core resilience dimensions emphasized in Resilience Theory [32,75].
The finding of partial mediation indicates that supply chain diversification strategy (SCDS) directly enhances sustainability performance (SCSP), while also being significantly amplified through supply chain resilience (SCR). From the Resource-Based View (RBV), diversification provides structural resources such as multiple suppliers, geographic dispersion, and inventory buffers, which serve as valuable, rare, and inimitable firm assets [76]. However, these static resources alone do not guarantee sustainability outcomes. The Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT) frames resilience as the essential dynamic process that transforms these resources into adaptive recovery and sustained performance [77]. At the same time, Stakeholder Theory explains how diversification also directly supports sustainability by enabling firms to engage with environmentally and socially responsible suppliers, meeting stakeholder expectations in ESG performance [78]. Crucially, the fact that resilience only partially mediates this relationship underscores that diversification can independently drive sustainable outcomes. However, without deliberately built resilience through practices like scenario simulations, proactive risk monitoring, and collaborative sustainability initiatives, the sustainability impact of diversification may be uneven. Hence, resilience must be strategically cultivated alongside diversification to ensure consistent translation into long-term ecological, social, and economic performance. Also, from the lens of Resource-Based View (RBV) and Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT), diversification provides the structural assets, while resilience provides the dynamic processes needed to transform these assets into sustainable performance outcomes.
In practice, this means that diversified supply chains are more capable of rapid operational recovery, supported by backup suppliers, flexible contracts, scenario simulation exercises, and cross-functional coordination mechanisms [73,79]. Such resilience mechanisms, when aligned with sustainability imperatives such as reducing carbon emissions, partnering exclusively with suppliers that follow ethical labor and environmental practices, and integrating circular economy initiatives into procurement enable firms to maintain environmental, social, and economic performance even under volatility [13,80].
However, while diversification enhances resilience and sustainability in some cases, it does not guarantee these outcomes. Overly dispersed supply networks can create complexity, hinder decision-making, and complicate sustainability monitoring across diverse regulatory environments [40]. In crisis situations, firms may prioritize supply continuity over environmental or ethical commitments, risking long-term goals such as carbon reduction and responsible sourcing, instead targeting securing backup suppliers or accelerating shipments from less sustainable sources to protect short-term operations [81,82]. Thus, the mediating role of supply chain resilience depends on embedding proactive practices like risk monitoring, scenario simulations, and collaborative sustainability projects into diversification strategies to ensure that resilience and sustainability advance together [83].
Furthermore, this study’s results confirm that digital supply chain capabilities (DSC) significantly moderate the relationship between supply chain diversification strategies (SCDS) and supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP), which supports H4. From the standpoint of Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT) and the Resource-Based View (RBV), digital supply chain capabilities strengthen the effectiveness of diversification strategies in achieving sustainability outcomes [2,45,83]. Diversification initiatives such as strategically sourcing critical materials from suppliers in multiple regions, engaging multiple suppliers for each input, maintaining alternative sourcing plans, and holding strategic inventory provide redundancy and flexibility to reduce dependency risks [5]. However, without adequate visibility, coordination, and data-driven decision-making, these practices may not fully translate into sustainability gains [84].
Digital technologies bridge this gap by embedding real-time monitoring and predictive intelligence into diversified networks [85]. Tools such as GPS and IoT-enabled tracking enhance logistics visibility, while integrated supplier logistics inventory systems allow seamless data flows across tiers. Blockchain technologies safeguard ethical and environmental compliance by tracing product origins, and AI-driven predictive analytics improve the ability to anticipate disruptions while balancing sustainability criteria [86]. Moreover, digital twins and simulation models optimize planning by testing scenarios without creating real-world waste. Collectively, these capabilities transform the structural complexity of diversification into adaptive capacity, ensuring that firms not only safeguard supply continuity but also sustain environmental and social performance (reducing carbon emissions, enforcing ethical sourcing, and adopting circular economy practices) [87].
Although digital supply chain capabilities (DSC) can strengthen the link between supply chain diversification strategies (SCDS) and sustainability performance (SCSP), the literature warns that their benefits are not automatic. High infrastructure and training costs may prevent some firms from effectively implementing advanced tools such as blockchain, predictive analytics, or digital twins [88]. Furthermore, overly digitized and geographically dispersed networks risk creating information overload and integration challenges, which may slow decision-making in volatile conditions. Excessive reliance on digital dashboards and predictive systems can also reduce human judgment and cross-functional collaboration, undermining resilience [89].
Moreover, supplier heterogeneity in digital maturity complicates sustainability monitoring across tiers, potentially shifting the focus toward short-term continuity rather than carbon reduction or ethical practices. Overall, while this study confirms DSC’s moderating role in enhancing the SCDS–SCSP relationship, its effectiveness depends on aligning digital adoption with governance, supplier capability-building, and sustainability tracking to ensure digitalization mitigates rather than amplifies complexity [90].
This study resolves prior gaps by showing that supply chain diversification strategies (SCDS) do not directly enhance sustainability performance alone, but through the mediating role of resilience and the moderating effect of digital capabilities. Unlike earlier research that examined resilience and sustainability separately, these findings demonstrate their interdependence and the necessity of aligning structural redundancy with adaptive capacity. Digital capabilities further strengthen this link by embedding visibility and intelligence into diversified networks. Situated in Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 context, the study advances RBV and DCT by clarifying how resources and capabilities jointly generate sustainability outcomes, while offering practical guidance for emerging economies seeking to build resilient and sustainable supply chains.

10. Conclusions

This study provides empirical evidence on how supply chain diversification strategy (SCDS) contributes to supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP) through the mediating role of supply chain resilience (SCR) and the moderating effect of digital supply chain capabilities (DSC). Grounded in the Resource-Based View, Dynamic Capabilities Theory, and Stakeholder Theory, the findings highlight that diversification strategies, when effectively supported by resilience-building mechanisms and enhanced by digital capabilities, can significantly improve sustainability outcomes in supply chains [83] The results underscore the importance of integrating structural risk mitigation strategies with adaptive capabilities and advanced digital tools to ensure long-term operational, environmental, and social performance, particularly in the context of emerging economies such as Saudi Arabia. Beyond its theoretical contributions, this research offers practical insights for supply chain managers seeking to strengthen resilience and sustainability under conditions of volatility and disruption. By strategically combining diversification, resilience, and digitalization, organizations can not only withstand shocks but also leverage sustainability as a source of competitive advantage.

11. Theoretical Contribution

This study advances the Resource-Based View (RBV) by demonstrating that supply chain diversification strategies (SCDS) represent valuable structural resources, but their impact on sustainability performance is contingent upon complementary dynamic processes. Specifically, the mediation of supply chain resilience (SCR) shows that diversification alone does not guarantee outcomes; rather, resilience acts as the mechanism that transforms structural redundancy into sustainable performance advantages. This extends RBV from a static resource perspective to a dynamic understanding of resource activation.
From the perspective of the Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT), the findings clarify that resilience is more than disruption recovery; it embodies the capacity to reconfigure, adapt, and sustain supply chain operations in volatile environments. The study further advances DCT by showing how digital supply chain capabilities (DSC) moderate the diversification–sustainability link, illustrating that technology-enabled sensing, learning, and reconfiguration amplify the adaptive use of diversification strategies. This contribution enriches prior work that has often overlooked the digital dimension of resilience.
Finally, incorporating the Stakeholder Theory (ST) highlights that the interaction between diversification, resilience, and digital capabilities is shaped by external pressures for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) compliance. By situating these dynamics within the Saudi Vision 2030 context, the study shows how institutional transformations and stakeholder demands directly influence the pathways through which diversification strategies generate sustainability performance. Collectively, the findings deepen RBV, DCT, and ST by illustrating that resilience and digitalization are not peripheral supports but essential mechanisms for converting diversification strategies into long-term sustainability advantages.

12. Practical Contribution

From a managerial perspective, this research provides actionable guidance for firms, particularly in emerging markets such as Saudi Arabia, on how to translate supply chain diversification strategies (SCDS) into tangible sustainability outcomes. The findings demonstrate that diversification on its own is insufficient; it must be complemented by resilience-building mechanisms and strengthened through digital supply chain capabilities.
For supply chain leaders, the study offers a framework to design multi-sourcing networks, optimize geographical dispersion, and integrate resilience practices such as strategic inventory holding and proactive risk assessment. At the same time, it emphasizes the importance of adopting advanced digital tools GPS, IoT, AI, blockchain, predictive analytics, and digital twins that enable real-time visibility, compliance monitoring, and adaptive decision-making.
These insights are especially relevant for organizations in Saudi Arabia’s western region, where Vision 2030 is driving both supply chain localization and global competitiveness. However, the implications extend beyond Saudi Arabia: multinational firms and policy-makers in other emerging economies can draw lessons on how structural redundancy, resilience mechanisms, and digital integration can collectively enhance sustainability in volatile environments. In advanced economies, the findings provide evidence that even mature supply networks must balance efficiency with redundancy and digital innovation to withstand global crises. By strategically combining diversification, resilience, and digitalization, managers worldwide can safeguard supply continuity while simultaneously advancing environmental responsibility, ethical practices, and long-term economic viability.

13. Originality of the Study

The originality of this study lies in its context-specific application of a moderated mediation model linking SCDS, SCR, DSC, and SCSP within Saudi Arabia’s dynamic and rapidly transforming business environment. Empirically, it contributes novel evidence on how diversification strategies translate into sustainability performance through resilience, while revealing the amplifying role of digital capabilities. Theoretically, it is among the first studies to synthesize RBV, DCT, and ST into a single explanatory framework that captures the interplay between strategic resource allocation, adaptive capability development, and stakeholder engagement in sustainable supply chain design. This dual contribution positions the study at the intersection of strategic supply chain management, digital transformation, and sustainability scholarship.

14. Research Limitations and Implications

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the reliance on self-reported survey data, while common in supply chain research, raises the possibility of common method bias. Although reliability and validity tests were conducted, future research could explicitly test and control for this bias, for example, through Harman’s single-factor test or multi-source data collection. Second, the cross-sectional design restricts the ability to infer causal relationships. Longitudinal studies or panel data would allow researchers to capture how diversification, resilience, and digital transformation evolve over time, particularly under recurring disruptions. Third, the geographic focus on Saudi Arabia’s western region, while offering valuable context under Vision 2030 reforms, limits the generalizability of findings to other institutional or economic environments. Comparative studies across regions and countries could provide deeper insights into contextual contingencies.
In terms of research extensions, future work could employ multi-level analyses at the firm, network, and industry levels to examine how resilience and digital capabilities operate not only within organizations but also across supply chain ecosystems. Additionally, incorporating complementary variables such as supply chain agility, green innovation, environmental regulatory pressure, and risk management practices would broaden the explanatory framework. Mixed-method approaches combining large-scale surveys with in-depth case studies could further unpack the mechanisms by which diversification strategies, resilience-building, and digitalization interact to drive long-term sustainability and competitive advantage.

Funding

This research was carried out without the support of any external funding, sponsorship, or institutional financial assistance. All aspects of the study, from theoretical development and data collection to analysis and manuscript preparation, were undertaken independently by the authors.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Research Ethics Committee at the College of Business Administration, Taibah University (Approval Code CBA-14461572745-04, Approval Date 4 February 2025).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study, with participants voluntarily agreeing to participate after being informed of the research purpose and scope.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset generated along with the current study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest financial, academic, or personal—in relation to this study. The research was conducted with complete academic autonomy and integrity, free from any external influence or bias.

References

  1. Alshahrani, M.A.; Salam, M.A. The Role of supply chain resilience on SMEs’ performance: The case of an emerging economy. Logistics 2022, 6, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alquraish, M. Digital Transformation, Supply Chain Resilience, and Sustainability: A Comprehensive Review with Implications for Saudi Arabian Manufacturing. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ezmigna, I.; Alghizzawi, M.; Alqsass, M.; Abu-AlSondos, I.A.; Abualfalayeh, G.; Abdeldayem, M.M. The Role of Vision 2030 in Transforming Saudi Arabia’s Logistics Sector: A Qualitative Approach. In Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Applications (DASA), Manama, Bahrain, 11–12 December 2024; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Yin, W.; Ran, W. Supply chain diversification, digital transformation, and supply chain resilience: Configuration analysis based on fsqca. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Nibbrig, M.H.; Azadeh, S.S.; Maknoon, M.Y. Adaptive resilience strategies for supply chain networks against disruptions. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2025, 200, 104172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wang, X.; Wu, H.; Shen, Y.; Wang, T. Towards Sustainable Supply Chains: Evaluating the Role of Supply Chain Diversification in Enhancing Corporate ESG Performance. Systems 2025, 13, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, P.; Chen, Y.; Guo, X. Digital transformation and supply chain resilience. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2025, 99, 104033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bajaher, M.; Asiri, M. The impact of digital transformation on ESG outcomes in the Saudi stock market. Discov. Sustain. 2025, 6, 752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Shams Eldin, A.Y.; Elnour, A.; Hassan, R.O.A.; Awad, A. The role of technological and environmental factors in creating business value from social media dynamic capabilities for SMEs in Saudi Arabia. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2025, 12, 1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ali, N.B.M.; Ali Hussin, H.A.A.; Mohammed, H.M.F.; Mohmmed, K.A.A.H.; Almutiri, A.A.S.; Ali, M.A. The Effect of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Disclosure on the Profitability of Saudi-Listed Firms: Insights from Saudi Vision 2030. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. DMR. Dimension Market Research Report Code: RC-1266. Published Date December 2024. Available online: https://dimensionmarketresearch.com/report/kingdom-of-saudi-arabia-supply-chain-market/ (accessed on 1 August 2025).
  12. Atieh Ali, A.A.; Sharabati, A.A.A.; Allahham, M.; Nasereddin, A.Y. The relationship between supply chain resilience and digital supply chain and the impact on sustainability: Supply chain dynamism as a moderator. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Setyadi, A.; Pawirosumarto, S.; Damaris, A. Toward a Resilient and Sustainable Supply Chain: Operational Responses to Global Disruptions in the Post-COVID-19 Era. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Doetsch, S.; Huchzermeier, A. The intersection of supply chain resilience and sustainability from a theoretical and practical perspective: An integrated framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 484, 144306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Attia, E.A.; Uddin, M.S. Hybrid assessment for strengthening supply chain resilience and sustainability: A comprehensive analysis. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lemoun, A.A.A.; Dellagi, H.; Mohammad, S.I.S.; Al Oraini, B.; Vasudevan, A.; Hunitie, M.F.A. The Impact of Digital Supply Chain on Sustainable Performance: The Moderating Role of Big Data Analytics Capabilities. J. Post Humanism 2025, 5, 1119–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wu, L.; Zhang, Z.; Huang, J.; Su, I.; Tian, S. Digital technologies and supply chain resilience: A resource-action-performance perspective. Inf. Syst. Front. 2025, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Alasmari, T. Artificial Intelligence and M-Learning in Arabic Countries: Innovations, Trends, and Regional Perspectives. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. 2025, 19, 170–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kumar, A.; Shrivastav, S.K.; Shrivastava, A.K.; Panigrahi, R.R.; Mardani, A.; Cavallaro, F. Sustainable supply chain management, performance measurement, and management: A review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Singh, R.K.; Mishra, R.; He, Q. Sustainable Supply Chain and Environmental Collaboration in the Supply Chain Management: Agenda for Future Research and Implications. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2025, 34, 5487–5513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Li, X.; Li, Y.; Li, G.; Xu, J. Sustainable supply chain management practices and performance: The moderating effect of stakeholder pressure. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2025, 12, 336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mishra, P.; Prasad, L.; Paliwal, M.; Hadalgekar, S.; Patil, K.; Dongre, R. Sustainability in Supply Chain Considering the Triple Bottom Line to Determine Business Development. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2024, 19, 3995–4002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nogueira, E.; Gomes, S.; Lopes, J.M. Unveiling triple bottom line’s influence on business performance. Discov. Sustain. 2025, 6, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Huo, B.; Li, D.; Gu, M. The impact of supply chain resilience on customer satisfaction and financial performance: A combination of contingency and configuration approaches. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. 2024, 9, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kaneberg, E.; Piotrowicz, W.D.; Jensen, L.M.; Hertz, S.; Kedziora, D. Supply chain resilience and critical dynamic capabilities: A balanced scorecard approach. Prod. Manuf. Res. 2025, 13, 2523957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Faggioni, F.; Rossi, M.V.; Sestino, A. Conceptualizing supply chain resilience in exogenous crisis times: Toward a holistic definition. J. Knowl. Econ. 2024, 15, 17308–17332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. PrISM. PrISM Sustainability Directory. 2025. Available online: https://prism.sustainability-directory.com/term/supply-chain-diversification/?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 3 August 2025).
  28. DHL. DHL, Present Trend Report on Supply Chain Diversification. 11 July 2024. Available online: https://dhl-freight-connections.com/en/trends/dhl-presents-trend-report-on-supply-chain-diversification/?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 3 August 2025).
  29. Maersk. Maersk Insights, 5 Reasons to Implement Supply Chain Diversification. 4 June 2024. Available online: https://www.maersk.com/insights/resilience/2024/06/04/five-reasons-to-diversify-your-supply-chain?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 3 August 2025).
  30. Kembro, J.; Eriksson, E.; Norrman, A. Sorting out the sorting in omnichannel retailing. J. Bus. Logist. 2022, 43, 593–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ahn, J.; Tan, B. Supply Chain Diversification and Resilience; International Monetary Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Guo, Y.; Liu, F.; Song, J.S.; Wang, S. Supply chain resilience: A review from the inventory management perspective. Fundam. Res. 2025, 5, 450–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Niu, Y.; Werle, N.; Cohen, M.; Cui, S.; Deshpande, V.; Ernst, R.; Wu, J. Restructuring Global Supply Chains: Navigating Challenges of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2025, 27, 993–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Adhiambo, R.M.; Osoro, A. Supply chain scalability and performance of large food and beverage processors in Nairobi City County, Kenya. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Manag. Entrep. 2024, 8, 175–188. [Google Scholar]
  35. Abudu, R.; Thompson, E.A.; Dzawu, F.S.; Roa-Henriquez, A. A meta-analysis assessment of adaptive and transformative approaches to supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Anal. 2025, 10, 100124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lin, Y.; Li, S. Supply chain resilience, ESG performance, and corporate growth. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2025, 97, 103763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Becerra, P.; Diaz, J. Supplier Selection Model Considering Sustainable and Resilience Aspects for Mining Industry. Systems 2025, 13, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wieland, A.; Creutzig, F. Taking academic ownership of the supply chain emissions discourse. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2025, 61, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cha, J.; Wiedmer, R.; Kistler, J.T.; Paraskevas, J.P.; Tate, W.L. A Review of Network Evolution: Cross-Disciplinary Views, Frameworks, Methodologies, and an Agenda for Future Supply Chain Research. J. Bus. Logist. 2025, 46, e12404. [Google Scholar]
  40. Chae, S.; Filatotchev, I.; Kim, S.; Son, B.G. Small worlds within global supply chains: Implications for multinational enterprises’ environmental, social, and governance controversies. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2025, 56, 807–818. [Google Scholar]
  41. Bamia, A.; Bamia, F. SCRGD: Supply Chain Resilience in the Face of Global Disruptions. Int. Bus. Res. 2025, 18, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ricárdez-Estrada, J.; Garay-Rondero, C.L.; Romero, D.; Wuest, T.; Pinto, R. Identifying digital supply chain capabilities. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2024, 232, 1182–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ning, L.; Yao, D. The impact of digital transformation on supply chain capabilities and supply chain competitive performance. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ngo, V.M.; Nguyen, H.H.; Pham, H.C.; Nguyen, H.M.; Truong, P.V.D. Digital supply chain transformation: Effect of firm’s knowledge creation capabilities under COVID-19 supply chain disruption risk. Oper. Manag. Res. 2023, 16, 1003–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Feng, D.; Wang, H.; Zhao, L. Digital Technologies for Sustainable Supply Chain Performance: Source-Push and Value Chain-Pull Mechanisms. Sustainability 2025, 17, 5524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Aditya, K.; Chakraborty, S.; Dahire, A.; Kumari, A.; Milanova, M. Integrating Blockchain, IoT, and AI in Supply Chain Management. In Blockchain, IoT, and AI Technologies for Supply Chain Management: Apply Emerging Technologies to Address and Improve Supply Chain Management; Apress: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2024; pp. 237–264. [Google Scholar]
  47. Yu, Y.; Xu, L.; Wen, X. The Impact of Digital Transformation on Supply Chain Resilience in Manufacturing: The Mediating Role of Supply Chain Integration. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Guo, D.; Mantravadi, S. The role of digital twins in lean supply chain management: Review and research directions. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2025, 63, 1851–1872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cheng, J.; Shan, P. Configuring Supply Chain Resilience under Natural Disaster Risk. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pellegrino, R.; Gaudenzi, B. Supply chain resilience as a viable way to cope with disruptions: An empirical analysis of Italian firms. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2025, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Padovano, A.; Ivanov, D. Towards resilient and viable supply chains: A multidimensional model and empirical analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2025, 63, 6252–6290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Roman, E.A.; Stere, A.S.; Roșca, E.; Radu, A.V.; Codroiu, D.; Anamaria, I. State of the Art of Digital Twins in Improving Supply Chain Resilience. Logistics 2025, 9, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zheng, G.; Brintrup, A. An Analytics-Driven Approach to Enhancing Supply Chain Visibility with Graph Neural Networks and Federated Learning. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2503.07231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wasi, A.T.; Anik, M.A.; Rahman, A.; Hoque, M.I.; Islam, M.D.; Ahsan, M.M. A Theoretical Framework for Graph-based Digital Twins for Supply Chain Management and Optimization. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2504.03692. [Google Scholar]
  55. Hasan, M.D. AI-Enhanced Decision-Making for Sustainable Supply Chains: Reducing Carbon Footprints in the USA. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2501.10364. [Google Scholar]
  56. Esan, O.; Ajayi, F.A.; Olawale, O. Supply chain integrating sustainability and ethics: Strategies for modern supply chain management. World J. Adv. Res. Rev. 2024, 22, 1930–1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Onukwulu, E.C.; Dienagha, I.N.; Digitemie, W.N.; Egbumokei, P.I.; Oladipo, O.T. Integrating sustainability into procurement and supply chain processes in the energy sector. Gulf J. Adv. Bus. Res. 2025, 3, 76–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Almelhem, M.; Buics, L.; Süle, E. Comparison of sustainability and circularity indicators: Downstream vs. upstream supply chain strategies. Discov. Sustain. 2025, 6, 302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Podsakoff, P.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Shan, X.; Xiong, S.; Zhang, C. Mitigating supply disruption risks by diversifying competing suppliers and using sales effort. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2023, 255, 108637. [Google Scholar]
  61. Zosu, S.; Amaghionyeodiwe, C.; Oyetunji, E.; Yussouf, A. Last-Mile delivery optimization: Balancing cost efficiency and environmental sustainability. Int. J. 2024, 12, 153–166. [Google Scholar]
  62. Lyu, F.; Zhang, J.; Liu, F.; Chu, H. Decision Optimization of Manufacturing Supply Chain Based on Resilience. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wang, J.; Liu, Y.; Li, J. Supply Chain Capability and Performance Under Environmental Uncertainty: The Mediating Role of Multidimensional Resilience. Systems 2025, 13, 618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Aiello, G.; Muriana, C.; Quaranta, S.; Abusohyon, I.A.S. A sustainable inventory management model for closed loop supply chain involving waste reduction and treatment. Clean. Logist. Supply Chain. 2025, 16, 100244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Silva, B.P.D.; Cassel, R.A.; Wachs, P.; Saurin, T.A. The influence of sustainability on the complexity of food supply chains. Prod. Manuf. Res. 2023, 11, 2217439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Namdar, J.; Modi, S.; Blackhurst, J. Diversify or Concentrate? Supply chain responses to policy uncertainty. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2025, 61, 62–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pu, G.; Li, S.; Bai, J. Effect of supply chain resilience on firm’s sustainable competitive advantage: A dynamic capability perspective. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 4881–4898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Amico, A.; Verginer, L.; Casiraghi, G.; Vaccario, G.; Schweitzer, F. Adapting to Disruptions: Flexibility as a Pillar of Supply Chain Resilience. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2304.05290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hosseinzadeh, A.; Taghipour, S. Strategic framework for resilient manufacturing: Concurrent product design and supplier selection. Int. J. Syst. Sci. Oper. Logist. 2025, 12, 2490595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Taghizadeh, E.; Venkatachalam, S.; Chinnam, R.B. A dynamic resilience management framework for deep-tier supply networks. Clean. Logist. Supply Chain 2024, 13, 100174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kancs, D.A. Uncertainty of supply chains: Risk and ambiguity. World Econ. 2024, 47, 2009–2033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Titton, A. Risk Propagation in Endogenous Supply Chains. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2403.16632. [Google Scholar]
  73. Banomyong, R.; Bhusiri, N.; Julagasigorn, P.; Varadejsatitwong, P. Assessing Supply Chain Resilience to Mitigate Disruption: The Focus on Cross-Border Suppliers. Logistics 2024, 9, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wu, H.; Li, G.; Zheng, H. How does digital intelligence technology enhance supply chain resilience? Sustainable framework and agenda. Ann. Oper. Res. 2024, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Thakur-Weigold, B.; Miroudot, S. Promoting Resilience and Preparedness in Supply Chains (No. 286); OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  76. Singh, K.; Kurian, G.; Napier, R. The Dynamic Capabilities View: Supply Chain and Operations Management Perspectives. J. Supply Chain. Oper. Manag. 2018, 16, 155–175. [Google Scholar]
  77. Stadtfeld, G.M.; Gruchmann, T. Dynamic capabilities for supply chain resilience: A meta-review. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2023, 35, 623–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Siems, E.; Seuring, S.; Schilling, L. Stakeholder roles in sustainable supply chain management: A literature review. J. Bus. Econ. 2023, 93, 747–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sassaoui, I.; El Alami, J.; Hlyal, M. Resilient Emergency Procurement Strategies and Quantitative Metrics: A Review. Eng. Proc. 2025, 97, 15. [Google Scholar]
  80. Lei, J. Efficient strategies on supply chain network optimization for industrial carbon emission reduction. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2404.16863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Truant, E.; Borlatto, E.; Crocco, E.; Sahore, N. Environmental, social and governance issues in supply chains. A systematic review for strategic performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 434, 140024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ahmed, H.F.; Hosseinian-Far, A.; Sarwar, D.; Khandan, R. Supply chain complexity and its impact on knowledge transfer: Incorporating sustainable supply chain practices in food supply chain networks. Logistics 2024, 8, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Letunovska, N.; Owusu-Mensah, M.M.; Bonsu, D.O.; Offei, F.A. The Boundary Conditions of Information Sharing and Sustainability: The Mediating Role of Supply Chain Resilience. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Tiwari, M.; Bryde, D.J.; Stavropoulou, F.; Dubey, R.; Kumari, S.; Foropon, C. Modelling supply chain Visibility, digital Technologies, environmental dynamism and healthcare supply chain Resilience: An organization information processing theory perspective. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2024, 188, 103613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Hossain, M.I.; Talapatra, S.; Saha, P.; Belal, H.M. From theory to practice: Leveraging digital twin technologies and supply chain disruption mitigation strategies for enhanced supply chain resilience with strategic fit in focus. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 2025, 26, 87–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kumar, N.; Kumar, K.; Aeron, A.; Verre, F. Blockchain technology in supply chain management: Innovations, applications, and challenges. Telemat. Inform. Rep. 2025, 18, 100204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ali, Z.A.; Zain, M.; Hasan, R.; Pathan, M.S.; AlSalman, H.; Almisned, F.A. Digital twins: Cornerstone to circular economy and sustainability goals. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2025, 12, 2428249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Nozari, H.; Sadeghi, M.E.; Najafi, S.E. Quantitative Analysis of Implementation Challenges of IoT-Based Digital Supply Chain (Supply Chain 0/4). arXiv 2022, arXiv:2206.12277. [Google Scholar]
  89. Lara, C.L.; Wassick, J. Future of Supply Chain: Challenges, Trends, and Prospects. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2301.13174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Li, Y.; Sukhotu, V. Enhanced Digital Capabilities for Building Resilient Supply Chains: Exploring Visibility, Collaboration, and Resilience in China’s Electric Vehicle Industry. World Electr. Veh. J. 2025, 16, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 08299 g001
Figure 1. Proposed framework.
Figure 1. Proposed framework.
Sustainability 17 08299 g001
Table 1. The descriptive statistics.
Table 1. The descriptive statistics.
ConstructNMeanStd. DeviationMinimumMaximum
SCDS3293.870.6815
SCR3293.940.6515
DSC3293.850.7015
SCSP3293.910.6615
Table 2. Shapiro–Wilk Normality Test Results.
Table 2. Shapiro–Wilk Normality Test Results.
ConstructStatisticdfSig. (p)
SCDS0.9873290.065
SCR0.9843290.072
DSC0.9813290.058
SCSP0.9863290.061
Table 3. The reliability analysis.
Table 3. The reliability analysis.
ConstructNo. of ItemsCronbach’s αComposite Reliability (CR)Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
SCDS50.840.850.54
SCR60.860.870.55
DSC60.850.860.53
SCSP70.880.890.56
Table 4. The exploratory factor analysis (EFA).
Table 4. The exploratory factor analysis (EFA).
ItemFactor 1 (SCDS)Factor 2 (SCR)Factor 3 (DSC)Factor 4 (SCSP)
SCDS20.74
SCDS40.73
SCDS50.7
SCDS60.68
SCDS70.69
SCR1 0.69
SCR3 0.72
SCR4 0.74
SCR5 0.71
SCR6 0.69
SCR7 0.7
DSC1 0.68
DSC2 0.7
DSC4 0.72
DSC5 0.69
DSC6 0.68
DSC7 0.7
SCSP1 0.7
SCSP2 0.71
SCSP3 0.72
SCSP4 0.74
SCSP5 0.73
SCSP6 0.7
SCSP7 0.71
Table 5. Harman’s single-factor test (unrotated factor solution).
Table 5. Harman’s single-factor test (unrotated factor solution).
FactorEigenvalue% of VarianceCumulative %
19.8232.732.7
24.1513.846.5
33.4211.457.9
42.969.867.7
Extraction Method: principal axis factoring; unrotated solution.
Table 6. The correlation matrix.
Table 6. The correlation matrix.
SCSDSCRDSCSCSP
SCDS10.610.580.64
SCR0.6110.60.67
DSC0.580.610.65
SCSP0.640.670.651
Table 7. Regression coefficients table.
Table 7. Regression coefficients table.
Model (Dependent Variable: SCSP)Unstandardized Coefficients BStd. ErrorStandardized Coefficients BetatSig.
Constant0.8420.115—7.320.001
SCDS (Diversification)0.2980.0520.3245.730.001
SCR (Resilience)0.3470.0560.3566.200.001
DSC (Digital Capabilities)0.3150.0530.3425.940.001
Dependent variable = supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP).
Table 8. Model summary.
Table 8. Model summary.
ModelRR2Adjusted R2Std. Error of the EstimateFdfSig. (p)
10.7210.5200.5160.412117.36(3, 325)0.000
Table 9. The mediation analysis using PROCESS Macro Model 4.
Table 9. The mediation analysis using PROCESS Macro Model 4.
Effect TypePathCoeff. (B)SEt/zp95% CI (Boot)
a pathSCDS → SCR0.6120.04513.600.000 [0.523, 0.699]Yes
b pathSCR → SCSP0.4310.0488.980.000 [0.337, 0.524]Yes
c path (total)SCDS → SCSP0.3080.0516.040.000 [0.208, 0.407]Yes
c′ path (direct)SCDS → SCSP (controlling SCR)0.5720.04612.430.000 [0.481, 0.663]Yes
Indirect effect (a × b)SCDS → SCR → SCSP0.2640.037——[0.194, 0.343]Yes
Table 10. The moderation analysis table: (PROCESS Macro Model 1).
Table 10. The moderation analysis table: (PROCESS Macro Model 1).
PredictorBSEtp95% CI (Lower–Upper)
Constant2.1450.14215.110.000 [1.865, 2.425]
SCDS0.4150.0537.830.000 [0.311, 0.519]
DSC0.3670.0497.490.000 [0.271, 0.463]
SCDS × DSC (Interaction)0.1280.0373.460.001 [0.055, 0.201]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alhaderi, S.M. The Interaction of Diversification Strategies, Resilience, and Digital Capabilities in Driving Supply Chain Sustainability in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 2025, 17, 8299. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188299

AMA Style

Alhaderi SM. The Interaction of Diversification Strategies, Resilience, and Digital Capabilities in Driving Supply Chain Sustainability in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability. 2025; 17(18):8299. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188299

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alhaderi, Sami Mohammed. 2025. "The Interaction of Diversification Strategies, Resilience, and Digital Capabilities in Driving Supply Chain Sustainability in Saudi Arabia" Sustainability 17, no. 18: 8299. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188299

APA Style

Alhaderi, S. M. (2025). The Interaction of Diversification Strategies, Resilience, and Digital Capabilities in Driving Supply Chain Sustainability in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability, 17(18), 8299. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188299

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop