Developing and analyzing framework to manage resources in humanitarian logistics

The management of humanitarian operations is more focused toward the field of operations management due to its uncertain nature (Gunasekaran et al., 2018). The difference between rapid response logistics (RRL) and usual logistics management is getting serious attention among academics and practitioners (Oloruntoba et al., 2018). In humanitarian operations, it is mandatory for the hastily formed teams to deal with uncertainties through coordination of supplies in order to provide aid and relief to the victims (Gunasekaran et al., 2018). Many operational stages in humanitarian logistics integrate the planning and policies to allow the execution of effective response. Coordination is the essential driver for every humanitarian supply chain administration. The main objective of coordination in such networks is to understand and respond to the operational activities efficiently. But due to the lack of coordination and commitment under the uncertain situation, humanitarian organizations find it difficult to achieve the desired outcomes (Moshtari, 2016). Besides, collaboration can be enhanced through the sharing of information, mobilization of resources, transportation and, most important, combined procurement of materials within a humanitarian supply chain (Dubey, Luo, Gunasekaran, Akter, Hazen and Douglas, 2018). Coordination is the essence of every humanitarian supply chain administration. Communication with right information sharing (IS) helps to improve the performance of humanitarian operations (Villa et al., 2017). Balcik et al. (2010) defined the term coordination as “the relationships and interactions among unlike actors operating within the relief environment.” To lead the chain, there should be a coordinator who actually has to act as a compound and leader to ensure the real coordination, flexibility, productivity and alignment of the partner organizations.

As suggested by Akhtar et al. (2012), effectiveness and efficiencies require each link of the supply chain to share information and to take it, as its actions have an impact on other stages. In the context of humanitarian logistics, temporary networks are often the norm in emergency relief operations, whereby several individual logisticians from a variety of organizations have to work together. The relief and readiness are performed before the uncertainty to improve security and decrease the potential effect on individuals and foundation (Altay et al., 2018). Moreover, among the various types of temporary networks, groups in humanitarian logistics operations are better classified as Hastily Formed Networks (HFNs) or emergent response groups (Majchrzak et al., 2007) that are responsible for RRL. Swift trust (ST) is a form of trust occurring in temporary organizational structures, which is assumed by group members initially and is later verified and adjusted (Lu et al., 2018). The coordination among the partners will groom strongly if the element of trust among them is established, which is usually very unlikely to develop. Trust in supply chain networks is built gradually, but in the humanitarian supply chain network, there is always a shortfall of time to develop proper trust among partners (Lu et al., 2018) ST among partners is not as efficient as it should be. Trust is a critical factor for effective coordination in supply network management (Golicic et al., 2003). Management of relief operations plays an important role from the start to end. However, disasters sometimes occur all of a sudden and leave an everlasting influence on the human nature. Relief operations after the disaster sometimes lose their effectiveness among the survivors due to their poor administration (Dubey, Altay and Blome, 2017; Dubey, Gunasekaran, Papadopoulos, Childe, Shibin and Wamba, 2017). Similarly, most of the time, it is seen that the relief operations fail when they reach the affected areas (Altay et al., 2018). In the context of humanitarian logistics, temporary networks are often the norm in emergency relief operations, whereby several individual logisticians from a variety of organizations have to work together. Moreover, among the various types of temporary networks, groups in humanitarian logistics operations are better classified as HFNs or emergent response groups (Majchrzak et al., 2007), which are responsible for RRL. ST is a form of trust occurring in temporary organizational structures, which is assumed by group members initially and is later verified and adjusted (Dubey, Altay and Blome, 2017; Dubey, Gunasekaran, Papadopoulos, Childe, Shibin and Wamba, 2017; Lu et al., 2018; Meyerson et al., 1996). High level of trust among the participants of the supply network, either commercial or humanitarian, can take the coordination among the partners to an effective level (Fawcett et al., 2008).

Efficiency with effectiveness has always been important in any operation; similarly, in the humanitarian supply chain, efficiency of any disaster relief operation can be improved by efficient and effective coordination of partners involved in the operations as in commercial supply chain. The coordination among the partners will groom strongly if the element of trust among them is established, which is usually very unlikely to develop. Trust in supply chain networks is built gradually, but in the humanitarian supply chain network, there is always a shortfall of time to develop proper trust among partners. ST among partners is not as efficient as it should be. Trust is a critical factor for effective coordination in supply network management (Golicic et al., 2003). Management of relief operations plays an important role from the start to end. When a plethora of efforts are made to manage an event, there is a chance of duplication of energies, which is usually caused by wrong management and lack of coordination among the partners of the humanitarian network, resulting in wastage of resources (Chong et al., 2019; Dolinskaya et al., 2018).

Moreover, humanitarian organizations normally do not have sufficient resources available to immediately cater any disaster and hence require coordination with other organizations for support (Balcik et al., 2010; Moshtari, 2016; Sigala and Wakolbinger, 2019). However, little is known about what characteristics are required for effective and efficient management of coordination, particularly, in HRCs (Akhtar et al., 2012). In such situation IS among humanitarian organizations plays a vital role. However, the reliability of the information shared depends upon the quality of data and their source. Thus, in case of emergencies, the first-hand information has its significance as the respondent or the partner who has to act will act only upon that information. The correctness of the information will eventually bring better coordination and resource management (RM) (Bealt and Mansouri, 2018). On the contrary, incomplete or over-processed information also incorporates confusions and sometimes the partners cannot act according to the requirement. Management of resources is best explained as the optimum utilization of available resources within the given period. As per the economics’ fundamentals, the resources are always scarce, and in Pakistan, usually the resources provided are not well managed, which eventually results in the wastage of those aid supplies. In such a scenario, the government’s capacity to both anticipate and respond has been systematically weakened.

Pakistan has been affected by very frequent earthquakes, which are commonly severe (particularly in north and west), and modest flooding of the Indus River after substantial rains (during the Summer). A part of the country is established on the active plates that cause high vibrations and earthquake happenings in the area. When these plates strike each other, they create vibrations in the land. Lands like Himalaya, Hindu Kush and Karakoram are just above those plates (Molnar and Tapponnier, 1975; Eshagh et al., 2016; Rehman et al., 2017). Landslides are very usual in the North Mountains. Therefore, highlighting the humanitarian supply chain concerning Pakistan is of significant importance, where emergency relief actions such as ambulance services, blood donations and other humanitarian relief operations are not handled by qualified persons, thus hindering the growth of the sector.

Therefore, the objective of the study is to find out the impact of ST on coordination among the actors of the humanitarian supply chain and the power of strong commitment that helps in managing the resources efficiently and effectively. Keeping ST as a central idea, this research posits the following research questions:

The rest of the study is organized in a way that Section 2 comprises of the theoretical background of the study, development of hypotheses and research model. Section 3 explains the operationalization of the study, whereas Section 4 and Section 5 include analysis of data, conclusion and recommendations, respectively.

To study the humanitarian supply chain, using different theories from different disciplines is recommended (Tabaklar et al., 2015; Dubey, Altay and Blome, 2017; Dubey, Gunasekaran, Papadopoulos, Childe, Shibin and Wamba, 2017). The commitment–trust theory (CTT) and ST theory have been used in this paper. In the perspective of commitment–trust theory (CTT), trust and commitment are the key variables for gaining cooperative relationships (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Trust is defined as willingness shown by the one party to rely upon the exchange partner (Moorman et al., 1993), whereas commitment is an enduring desire shown by one party to maintain the valued relationship with other parties (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999). Therefore, both of them verify the successful relationship among the participants of organizations by increasing productivity, efficiency and effectiveness (Morgan and Hunt, 1994).

For investigating the relationship among firms, globally, many researchers used CTT in their studies (Hüttinger et al., 2012; Goo and Huang, 2008; Hashim and Tan, 2015). For coordination of humanitarian activities, Kabra and Ramesh (2015) identified different factors such as the commitment of partners, usage of information technology, the interaction between partners, developing a trusted environment, etc. Commitment followed by trust generates a stronger relationship that leads to success (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). For commercial relationship, commitment and trust are the key factors for defining the different nature of participants in the context of motivation level (Wang et al., 2016). Similarly, CTT highlighted the relationship of participants by controlling the attitude of end-users toward business operations. As relationship becomes stronger, it motivates the participants for sharing their knowledge of operations among all members (Uzunoğlu and Kip, 2014). This sharing behavior is also called the willingness of participants to share and receive information because without the combined efforts, the knowledge sharing cannot be possible (Hashim and Tan, 2015). Similarly, in the context of RRL, the coordination and relationship between the participants of the chain, the development of trust and commitment of partners and the use of information technology can form valuable outcomes (Kabra and Ramesh, 2015).

ST is a kind of trust that can be used for temporary teams (Meyerson et al., 1996). Usually, ST has been used for achieving goals having greater importance but in a limited time frame (Mishra, 1996). The actors of humanitarian relief supply chains (HRSCs) like local government, armed forces and private sectors have different interests, but for relief operation demands, they rapidly build trust at the same time and the same place (Tatham and Kovács, 2010). Similarly, Capaldo and Giannoccaro (2015) stated that trust in the market place also enhances the intention to engage within the market place. Trust is an important factor for successful supply chain relationships (Moshtari, 2016), and it also involves the risk and social uncertainty. Likewise, trust can build confidence and motivation to engage participants in a new behavior required by the environment.

Furthermore, many studies highlighted that organizational commitment is very valuable and it provides a positive impact on the performance of the firm’s operation. However, trust improves the credibility of the organization’s operation and also helps in forming transparent communication because trust illustrates every situation in organizations.

The exchange of data between the two parties is known as IS. To achieve the proper outcomes and desired results, the proper collection of information, its sharing and processing are necessary (Loch and Terwiesch, 2005). Akhtar et al. (2012) and Arshinder et al. (2008) identified that for effective and efficient coordination, every link in the supply chain requires to share information. Many researchers argue that the lack of information among humanitarian partners arises due to information asymmetry (Altay and Pal, 2014; Tatham and Kovács, 2010). Furthermore, due to the lack of complete information, the behavioral uncertainty takes place among the supply chain partners, as sharing the information among all the partners of a supply chain is very necessary and essential for planning, development and monitoring (Mentzer et al., 2001) and better performance (Cao et al., 2010; Prasanna and Haavisto, 2018). In humanitarian operations, the flow of information is associated with information collection, its processing and sharing (Altay and Pal, 2014). However, few research works (Wakolbinger et al., 2011; Bharosa et al., 2010; Kabra and Ramesh, 2015) identified that few organizations do not share information, which creates the barriers in creating effective response. Day et al. (2009) revealed that unwillingness to share information restricts the information flow. Therefore, openness with other partners of the operation team is very necessary such as strategies and planning which support reducing the insecurity among the relief partners. Moreover, this will also increase the performance of individuals within the humanitarian supply network (Salcedo and Grackin 2000) and will improve diffusion among them (Altay and Pal, 2014). Therefore, the sharing of information among supply chain partners reduces the behavioral uncertainty in humanitarian organizations. Therefore, based on the above discussion, the following has been hypothesized:

ST is used to establish a trusted environment among the teams (Berthold, 2015). ST is the temporary or initial trust developed among the organizations (Meyerson et al., 1996). In different research works, ST is recognized as an important tool for the success of humanitarian operations (Lu et al., 2018; Stephenson, 2005). IS can create transparency in operational activities among partners (Ahmed and Omar, 2019)). ST is characterized among the partners of the supply chain wherein they reduce the uncertainty for achieving the recognized goals (Germain, 2011). Altay and Pal (2014) examined weaknesses in the process of information floating among the participants of the supply chain. The IS among the partners is based on their trusted relationship (Thompson, 1991). The IS among the humanitarian partners will help the partners to understand their responsibilities, bridge cultural differences and improve the relationship transparency (Dubey, Altay and Blome, 2017; Dubey, Gunasekaran, Papadopoulos, Childe, Shibin and Wamba, 2017). Therefore, Ibrahim and Allen (2012) suggested that trust can be developed through better IS. Honesty and openness are important in developing and improving trust (Norman et al., 2010; Dubey, Altay and Blome, 2017; Dubey, Gunasekaran, Papadopoulos, Childe, Shibin and Wamba, 2017), which will further improve the reliability of relationships among partners (Hoyt and Huq, 2000; Xu et al., 2007), because in humanitarian supply chain networks, the participants share their information about strength, weaknesses and their available resources, which helps every partner to understand its respective role. On the contrary, it is also taken into consideration that trust can be a significant factor in sharing information among the supply chain partners (Altay and Pal, 2014). Similarly, without building trust among supply chain partners, the availability of information will be missing (Hung et al., 2004). Altay and Pal (2014) showed how the leading organization of a group behaves as a central unit of information that is necessary for information processing as compared to the other participants of the group. When there is a willingness to share the information, it improves the relations and establishes ST, as the necessary information is shared with all the participants, and helps in maintaining better coordination for effective response. Therefore, in this study, the following has been hypothesized:

When the level of information shared does not fulfill the purpose, behavioral uncertainty increases among the partners. Behavioral uncertainty is an inability to predict one’s collaboration partners (Joshi and Stump, 1999). Moreover, it arises when one partner is unable to monitor the performance of other partners (Williamson, 1985). It is very commonly known that uncertainty in the behavior of the partners working in a humanitarian supply network and RRL may shrink the level of trust among them (Kwon and Suh, 2004). However, humanitarian supply partners can build trust among them through a reduction in behavioral uncertainty (Horst and De Langen, 2008). Many researchers suggested that the uncertainty shall not be raised at any level because it highly affects the partners (Sutcliffe and Zaheer, 1998), creates problems in performance evaluation (Kwon and Suh, 2004) and subsequently creates adaption problems (Kwon and Suh, 2005). Many researchers have shown that there is a strong link between behavioral uncertainty and trust (Dyer and Chu 2003; Kwon and Suh, 2004, 2005). The quicker one partner knows about their collaboration partner, the faster they develop trust among themselves (Dubey, Altay and Blome, 2017; Dubey, Gunasekaran, Papadopoulos, Childe, Shibin and Wamba, 2017). Also, behavioral uncertainty among the humanitarian supply parents can increase the ST. Therefore, from the arguments built from the previous research works, the following has been hypothesized:

Coordination is defined as the extent of interactions among the humanitarian partners during the relief operations (Balcik et al., 2010). Coordination occurs at different levels within a humanitarian supply chain such as IS, need assessment, capacity analysis, resource mobilization (Moshtari, 2016), etc. Disasters are complex; thus, to deal with the growing number of problems (Wassenhove, 2006) and to deal with the more powerful operations of humanitarian supply networks, the growing need has to be catered (Daim et al., 2012); to perform effectively, participants are motivated to coordinate with each other. Coordination in the HRSC has been taken into consideration in the recent years (Altay and Pal, 2014; Jahre and Jensen, 2010; Dubey, Altay and Blome, 2017; Dubey, Gunasekaran, Papadopoulos, Childe, Shibin and Wamba, 2017; Prasanna and Haavisto, 2018). Among humanitarian partners, coordination is the critical factor that decides the overall success of relief operations (Akhtar et al., 2012), and for coordination, trust is an important facilitator (Rampersad et al., 2010; Lu et al., 2018). When the organizations are well prepared to cater to the operations in any disaster or humanitarian operation, they may become less effective when they perform individually within a large-scale operation (Wassenhove, 2006). However, the urgent nature of relief operations requires a high level of trust among partners for effective coordination (Stephenson, 2005). Therefore, coordination is a very important factor in any supply chain network, either commercial or humanitarian; the participants of the supply network have to interact with each other to bring the required results. Coordination is such an important factor that if it is lacking, then the misery of the affected inhabitants may be extended. Therefore, the following hypothesis has been formulated:

Commitment is defined as a willingness to continue an action or activity (Hocutt, 1998). When the partners working together have experienced many situations, hard times and have confidence in each other that both of them will be ready to help one another in case of any disaster situation, then there exists trust among them (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Trust and commitment are the two important factors for developing coordination among partners (Conway and Swift, 2000). Trust has been identified as the building block in relationships (Wilson, 1995). It is suggested that when the outcome of the collaboration is low, trust and commitment are important for selecting partners (Shah and Swaminathan, 2008), because trust and commitment have a very strong strategic alliance, as mistrust raises the same action and it would also decrease the morale of actors working in a relief operation, making relief activities suffer (Scotter et al., 2012; Stephenson and Schnitzer, 2006). Thus, the commitment to achieve a particular goal within a specific timeline would not be met (Li et al., 2017). Therefore, it has been argued that for enhancing commitment, trust is the precondition (Miettila and Moller, 1990) that improves commitment (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Furthermore, at a certain stage, a leader may start getting complaints from external parties as a communication procedure; hence, communication needs to be more effective. HAP International (2013) provides an overview that to maintain the effectiveness of supply network, humanitarian organizations are required to provide enough information to the stakeholders and they should be given information about the organization and its activities. These practices gratify humanitarian supply organization to create process, systems and controls that enable better communication and a higher level of commitment by stakeholders (Cavill and Sohail, 2007). Therefore, in this study, the following hypothesis is formulated:

It is expressed as a point of interaction experienced by the participants in a humanitarian supply network during any relief operation or condition. It is especially noted in the cases of resources that are scarce and are available for a very short period to make the necessary arrangement. In humanitarian operations, where the organization faces competition for scarce resources, mutual trust encourages partners to share resources (Moshtari, 2016). ST might improve the situation and, thus, the result. It is very important that both the factors, that is trust and commitment, must be there to push the RM toward success (Morgan and Hunt, 1994).

Lu et al. (2016) argued that trust is an element that captures the intentions of partners; it enhances and smoothens the transactions and engagement with the market place. In most of the dealings, either business or charity, the transaction has a central aspect that revolves around the word “Trust.” It also reduces the uncertainty and risks involved in the social environment. Hence, it is hypothesized as follows:

When the multiple natured organizations come into contact and develop a relationship to achieve any goal within the disaster management operation, it is termed as inter-organization coordination wherein they share their resources (Moshtari, 2016). There are two types of coordination: vertical and horizontal. Horizontal coordination is the degree to which an organization coordinates with its working partner within the chain at the same level (Dubey, Altay and Blome, 2017; Dubey, Gunasekaran, Papadopoulos, Childe, Shibin and Wamba, 2017). When non-governmental organizations (NGOs) coordinate with the law-enforcement agencies or with transporters, each has different objectives; a better coordination will help in achieving the goal more easily (Akhtar et al., 2012; Balcik et al., 2010). In the humanitarian supply chain, there are limited human and capital resources (Tomasini and Van Wassenhove, 2009), which leads to the uncertainties regarding the coordination (Hellmann et al., 2016). Therefore, the duplication of resources and services should be avoided by synchronizing the common objectives. The coordination allows for negotiating and deciding on the resources allocation to achieve the desired goals (Moshtari, 2016; Gulati et al., 2012).

The efforts that are made to provide relief to the affected population become duplicated when there is a lack of coordination among the participants and a poorly managed supply chain wastes resources and the process of distribution of aid becomes slow and unjustified. As the resources are scarce, no firm can respond immediately, as they normally do not keep stock of aid items. The RM between the partners is essential to satisfy the relief operations and disaster victims (Rodríguez-Espíndola et al., 2018). Coordination creates visibility, which helps in creating agility to respond (Ahmed et al., 2019). To manage the major disasters, an organized response is required to quickly cater to the need of the situation, which can be obtained by coordination of partners (Balcik et al., 2010; Moshtari, 2016). Therefore, the following has been hypothesized:

Another important factor in relief operation is commitment. The organizations that show commitment to their relationships tend to provide adequate resources for maintaining their relationship (Sarkar et al., 2001). The partners continuously dedicate resources to reach the objectives (Moshtari, 2016). Sometimes, when the management is looking to create a workaholic environment in the organization, it also encourages the resources to bring their knowledge into the light and also develops the value of strong commitment toward the organizational goals by assessing the value for the benefit of the resource (Thompson and Heron, 2005). As many researchers believed that the strength of organizations depends upon their people, through proper RM, humanitarian supply partners can effectively facilitate their organizations to obtain organizational and personal goals. Stakeholders’ commitment not only keeps their high degree of engagement in RRL but also helps in effective use of resources available to them in that scenario. It is to be noted that through commitment, the organizations can facilitate collaborative practices (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). We, thus, propose the following hypothesis:

The conceptual framework (model) is shown in Figure 1.

This research is conducted in the sector of the humanitarian supply chain in the Pakistan region. Therefore, to meet the objective of the study, a quantitative approach with survey methodology was used. A survey questionnaire was made based on the adapted scales from the literature (refer Table I), whereas scales were measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 – strongly disagree to 5 – strongly agree).

As the target audience of the present study is professionals engaged in humanitarian assistance within Pakistan, so for data collection, the convenience sampling techniques were used. Convenience sampling is considered to be adequate if the primary objective of the study is to test the theoretical relationships (Hulland et al., 2018). Therefore, keeping in mind the ten times rules, as discussed by Hair et al. (2017), and for approaching the relevant respondents, paper-based questionnaires were distributed among the junior-level workers, the senior-level administrators affiliated with leading NGOs, hospital trusts and relief operation coordinators of political and non-political organizations. The survey was conducted during the first quarter of 2018. Out of 500 questionnaires that were distributed, only 117 were returned. After screening, the final sample comprised of 82 respondents whose demographics profiles are summarized in Table II. A thorough research methodology has been developed to attain research objectives. The applied research methodology is illustrated in Figure 2.

Podsakoff et al. (2012) argued the presence of CMV whenever there are self-reported data and/or data are collected through a single research instrument. Therefore, while designing the questionnaire, procedural remedies for minimizing CMV as discussed by Podsakoff et al. (2012) were followed, where it was suggested to have a temporal gap between predictors and criterion variables. Later, it was also statistically examined after data collection by using Harman’s (1967) single-factor approach as discussed by Dubey, Altay and Blome (2017), Dubey, Gunasekaran, Papadopoulos, Childe, Shibin and Wamba (2017) and Dubey et al. (2019). By applying un-rotated factor analysis, it was found that factors emerged having an eigenvalue greater than 1, which explains 66.52 percent of the variation, of which the first factor explains 36.6 percent variation. Second, it was evaluated by the values of inter-construct correlations, which indicates the presence of the method bias if they are greater than 0.9 (Ali et al., 2016; Najmi and Ahmed, 2018). As shown in Table IV, the highest value is 0.711, hence supporting the absence of the method variance in the present study.

In addition to this, Guide and Ketokivi (2015) highlighted the issue of causality that needs to be examined before testing the hypothesized relationships. For this purpose, Dubey, Luo, Gunasekaran, Akter, Hazen and Douglas (2018) and Dubey et al. (2019) reported and examined the nonlinear bivariate causality direction ratio (NLBCDR) for evaluating the issue of causality. Following the recommendations of Kock (2018), the NLBCDR index was calculated, which was found to be 1 (acceptable if>0.7). Therefore, endogeneity is not found to be an issue in the present study.

Before conducting the statistical analysis for the proposed model, data screening is conducted through SPSS, eliminating the impurities from collected data (Hair et al., 2010). Partial least squares–structural equation modeling (PLS–SEM) through Smart PLS 3.2.4 (Bastian and Zentes, 2013) is used to statistically validate the instrument and analyze the relationships among variables. The data were evaluated through outer and inner measurements and then hypothesis testing was done.

The reliability and construct validity are evaluated in the outer model measurement. The internal consistency of measures was tested through reliability, whereas convergent and discriminant validity were also measured.

It is important to measure the reliability of constructs, as it provides the idea of internal consistency of the measures (Neuman, 2007). Reliability was measured by composite reliability (CR). Hair et al. (2011) mentioned the criterion for CR, that is >0.7, and Table III shows that for all variables, the CR is above 0.7.

The convergent validity shows the degree of correlation between the items of the construct (Neuman, 2007). It is measured by the average variance extracted (AVE) (Hair et al., 2011). The criterion for the AVE is 0.5 or greater (Hair et al., 2014). Besides, convergent validity is also measured by factor loadings and it should be above 0.7 (Hair et al., 2014); other studies reported that factor loadings should be greater than 0.5 for better results (Truong and McColl, 2011; Hulland, 1999). Table III shows the AVE and loading of the items that satisfy the mentioned criteria.

Discriminant validity is used to find out the strength between constructs and their indicators (items). The difference between the two constructs is measured through discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2014). Fornell and Larcker criterion and crossing-loading are few methods used for measuring the discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2014; Henseler et al., 2015). According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), the variance between the two items of the same variable should be more as compared to other variables. The threshold for Fornell and Larcker is that in the inner construct correlation, the values in the diagonal, that is square root of AVE, should be greater in their respective columns and rows (Hair et al., 2011). Table IV shows the Fornell and Larcker correlation matrix.

Furthermore, the cross-loading of items is checked to ensure the discriminant validity. The outer constructs and differences between loading on the respective construct and the cross-loading were higher than 0.1 (Gefen and Straub, 2005). The cross-loadings of all variables are shown in Table V.

After the evaluation of the outer model measurement, the data are put through the hypothesis testing (Henseler et al., 2009; Hair et al., 2011). Hypothesis testing is done using the PLS–SEM technique.

The quality of the inner model depends upon the ability of a model to predict the dependent variables (Hair et al., 2014). The coefficient of determination (R²) and cross-validated redundancy (Q²) are the two methods used for assessment of inner model measurement (Hair et al., 2011; Hair et al., 2014; Henseler et al., 2009). R² measures how accurately the independent variable can predict the dependent variable (Hair et al., 2014). If R² is greater than 0.6, then it is considered high, R² is moderate if the value is within 0.3–0.6, whereas it is low if the R² value is below 0.3 (Sanchez, 2013). However, cross-validated redundancy (Q²) is also used to check the accuracy of the model. According to Hair et al. (2014), the Q² value should be greater than 0. Table VI shows both R² and Q² values, thus approving the model fitness.

Through structural equation modeling, the proposed hypotheses were tested. Table VII shows the result of hypothesis testing (Figure 3).

Table VII shows that BUR (β=0.451, p<0.10) has a significant positive impact on ST, which is consistent with the findings of Dubey, Altay and Blome (2017) and Dubey, Gunasekaran, Papadopoulos, Childe, Shibin and Wamba (2017) and also with the findings of Kwon and Suh (2004) where behavioral uncertainty has a negative significant impact on trust. IS (β=0.553, p<0.10) has a highly significant impact on BUR, which shows BUR will reduce if the information is properly shared with partners, thus endorsing the outcomes of Kwon and Suh (2004) and Dubey, Altay and Blome (2017) and Dubey, Gunasekaran, Papadopoulos, Childe, Shibin and Wamba (2017). IS (β=0.248, p<0.10) has a significant relationship with ST. ST has a significant impact on commitment (β=0.429, p<0.10) while ST also has a significant impact on coordination (β=0.504, p<0.10). Lu et al. (2018) and Tatham and Kovács (2010) supported the argument that ST within humanitarian logistics improves coordination and commitment among the stakeholders, whereas ST (β=0.036, p>0.10) has an insignificant impact on RM. Commitment (COM) (β=0.296, p<0.10) and coordination (COR) (β=0.493, p<0.10) have a positive and significant impact on RM, and these results extend in line with Bhattacharya et al. (2014), Battini et al. (2014), Chandes and Paché (2010) and Moore et al. (2003).

This study was aimed to understand the phenomenon of ST among the rapidly formed logistics partners and the management of resources under such situations. Therefore, the research framework was developed for empirical testing and hence offers an interesting dimension to investigate RM under HFN and RRL scenario. This research endorses the phenomenon that IS is key to reduce behavioral uncertainties. The study also reveals that when partners in HFNs become more informed and aware of the situation, it will not only reduce uncertainty but also help in promoting ST among the partners, which is one of the most important factors to engage the RRL partners effectively. Trust encourages RRL partners to increase their commitment and coordination with better resource utilization to get the relief work done, which is the ultimate goal of any RRL.

There are three theoretical contributions extended through this study. First, the results of this research are found to be consistent with the past studies executed to explain or explore hastily formed humanitarian logistics in different contexts and having different research models (Kwon and Suh, 2004; Dubey, Altay and Blome, 2017; Dubey, Gunasekaran, Papadopoulos, Childe, Shibin and Wamba, 2017; Lu et al., 2018; Tatham and Kovács, 2010; Bhattacharya et al., 2014; Battini et al., 2014; Chandes and Paché, 2010; Moore et al., 2003). This consistency in results helps to improve rigor in the use of ST theory in HFNs. Second, studies prior to this limit the outcome of ST theory to resources coordination and commitment (Dubey, Altay and Blome, 2017; Dubey, Gunasekaran, Papadopoulos, Childe, Shibin and Wamba, 2017), Lu et al. (2018), but this study extended the research model to further analyze and understand the impact of ST on RM under rapid response logistical activities. Third, this research provides a framework for explaining the contributors of ST and then its impact on effective RM. This may be helpful to academicians and researchers to further extend their research on similar lines.

This study is very well timed in the global context of developing nations due to various uncertain and disastrous events now and then. In Pakistan, there are various NGOs and volunteer organizations working parallel along with government agencies to deal with any disastrous circumstances. In a major disaster situation, governmental agencies take the major lead to manage and coordinate the relief response activities in HFNs. But in other situations, all other stakeholders act on their own to handle the relief operation without any coordination with other stakeholders. Such circumstances lead to resource mismatch to what was required. This study provides the framework for the RRL strategy makers to effectively and efficiently deal with the situation and posits various recommendations. First, it is recommended to the lead response team to develop a mechanism for distributing information, as it reduces behavioral uncertainty and creates ST among the partners involved in the operations (Dubey, Altay and Blome, 2017; Dubey, Gunasekaran, Papadopoulos, Childe, Shibin and Wamba, 2017). They need to quickly assess the available communication channel in the affected area and develop a guideline for IS among the RRL partners. Information should be relevant to the infrastructure available, resources needed for relief, barriers, obstacles and difficulties that are going to be faced by the relief works, etc. Second, this study advices the relief operators to reduce uncertain behavior by an enhanced exchange of information, which will then promote ST among partners. Trust not only improves the speed of work but also reduces the cost. Third, this study explains to the managers that ST alone does not ensure effective RM. This study reveals an insignificant direct relationship between ST and RM. ST accelerates the confidence among the partners, which is required to create commitment among the RRL partners. This, in turn, leads to better utilization of RM for successful operation. Finally, coordination and commitment are required to synchronize the efforts. Logistics managers working in relief activities may improve coordination by creating ST among the partners.

This research also summed up the fact that training and coordination are required for all stakeholders to improve their skills to deal with such events. Sharing learning from past cases can make RRL more planned and organized. RM in such a rapid response situation in which networks are hastily formed is a challenging task. This research could serve as an empirical guideline for the supervisors to bring the best outcome. If there is a hint of ineffective and inefficient use of resources, then they may see to improve coordination and commitment. For improving coordination and commitment, stakeholders are needed to focus on promoting ST among themselves. Finally, for creating ST, sharing of the timely and right information is the key. Although RRL is considered to be different from the normal logistics, most of the basics are similar in both of them.

This research is done in the context of relief operations activity in a developing country where the responsibilities of stakeholders are often not well defined due to an unforeseen situation. Furthermore, the lack of smooth coordination makes it more difficult to manage resources than in a supply chain in normal circumstances. Such relief operation is usually treated as RRL. In Pakistan, due to lack of sophisticated logistical infrastructure and diversified nature of uncertain events, it becomes more challenging for HFNs to lead and manage relief activities. RRL is generally filled with uncertain behaviors from partner, which then leads to deficiency in the trust among partners. When trust among partners improves, it enhances both coordination and commitment. All these ingredients are required for effective and efficient RM, especially in humanitarian logistics.

Research of this kind is rarely conducted in this part of the world that is more prone to unexpected events. It is necessary to have more exploratory and explanatory research works on humanitarian logistics and operations. Future researchers may also add variables like collaboration, effective communication, responsiveness and use of technology for investigating the direct impact. Such empirical studies may provide more in-depth insight regarding RM. Moreover, researchers may include factors like sensitivity or riskiness and magnitude of the event as a moderator.