Table 1 A comparison between traditional... | Emerald Publishing

Table 1

A comparison between traditional SC risks and SC cyber risks

Aspect	Traditional SC risks	SC cyber risks	References
Interdependencies	Low; a firm-based view is prevalent in tackling traditional SC risks	High; a SC-based view is necessary to tackle SC cyber risks	Friday et al. (2024), Melnyk et al. (2022), Pandey et al. (2020)
Dynamism	Somewhat predictable types of threats. Experience and proactive measures are critical for mitigation	Rapidly-changing threats that can be tweaked in real time, making them extremely difficult to manage	Colicchia et al. (2019), Ghadge et al. (2020), Sawik (2022)
Anonymity	The sources and impacts of risks are often quickly recognized	The sources and impacts of risks may not be recognized until several days/weeks after the attack, if ever	Herburger and Omar (2021), Moschovitis (2018), Renaud et al. (2018)
IT department involvement (in addition to the SC department)	Peripheral and mainly involves providing the IT tools and infrastructure to exchange relevant information	Critical with real-time roles involved for monitoring systems and helping respond to the attacks	Colicchia et al. (2019), Creazza et al. (2022), Herburger and Omar (2021)
Ripple effects	Low due to increased physical layers and distance between SC tiers	High due to reduced physical layers and distance in the cyberspace	Friday et al. (2024), Ghadge et al. (2020), Herburger and Omar (2021)
Intention	Mostly non-intentional and caused by natural events or unforeseen errors	Mostly intentional and caused by intruders’ ill-will and deliberate planning	Kumar and Mallipeddi (2022), Pandey et al. (2020), Wieland et al. (2023)
Targeted assets	Targeted assets are primarily physical	Targeted assets are both physical and soft (i.e. information-based)	Ghadge et al. (2020), Pandey et al. (2020), Wieland et al. (2023)

Aspect	Traditional SC risks	SC cyber risks	References
Interdependencies	Low; a firm-based view is prevalent in tackling traditional SC risks	High; a SC-based view is necessary to tackle SC cyber risks	Friday et al. (2024), Melnyk et al. (2022), Pandey et al. (2020)
Dynamism	Somewhat predictable types of threats. Experience and proactive measures are critical for mitigation	Rapidly-changing threats that can be tweaked in real time, making them extremely difficult to manage	Colicchia et al. (2019), Ghadge et al. (2020), Sawik (2022)
Anonymity	The sources and impacts of risks are often quickly recognized	The sources and impacts of risks may not be recognized until several days/weeks after the attack, if ever	Herburger and Omar (2021), Moschovitis (2018), Renaud et al. (2018)
IT department involvement (in addition to the SC department)	Peripheral and mainly involves providing the IT tools and infrastructure to exchange relevant information	Critical with real-time roles involved for monitoring systems and helping respond to the attacks	Colicchia et al. (2019), Creazza et al. (2022), Herburger and Omar (2021)
Ripple effects	Low due to increased physical layers and distance between SC tiers	High due to reduced physical layers and distance in the cyberspace	Friday et al. (2024), Ghadge et al. (2020), Herburger and Omar (2021)
Intention	Mostly non-intentional and caused by natural events or unforeseen errors	Mostly intentional and caused by intruders’ ill-will and deliberate planning	Kumar and Mallipeddi (2022), Pandey et al. (2020), Wieland et al. (2023)
Targeted assets	Targeted assets are primarily physical	Targeted assets are both physical and soft (i.e. information-based)	Ghadge et al. (2020), Pandey et al. (2020), Wieland et al. (2023)

Source(s): Created by authors