Authors : Jean Bosco Bimenyimana; Akumuntu Joseph

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 7 - July

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/4caaxuxx

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/5n72f3ex

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26jul011

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : In this study, we examine the examine the role of supply chain risk management practices on performance of private companies in Rwanda. Despite Sulfo Rwanda's numerous attempts to enhance its supply chain risk management practices, its performance level occasionally remains woefully low. The following were the four specific objectives of the study: to assess the role of supply chain risk identification on the performance of Sulfo Rwanda Industries, to analyze the role of supply chain risk assessment on the performance of Sulfo Rwanda Industries, to examine the role of supply chain risk mitigation and strategy on the performance of Sulfo Rwanda Industries, as well as to determine the role of supply chain monitoring and reviewing on the performance of Sulfo Rwanda Industries. The study is guided by the supply network theory as well as resource-based view. Data was collected from 234 employees of Sulfo Rwanda Industries and they were all chosen by using the census sampling technique. Questionnaires, interview guides, and documentation were used as tools for data collection. The data was analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics by presenting the findings of respondents. Findings indicated that all four variables have positive coefficients, meaning they all contribute to better company performance. Supply chain risk assessment and mitigation and strategies share the highest impact, both with a coefficient of .611. This means that for every unit improvement in these areas, performance is predicted to rise by 0.611 units. Risk identification follows with a coefficient of .417, while monitoring and review has the smallest individual impact at .222. To determine if these results are statistically reliable, we examine the Sig. (P-value) column. All four variables are considered statistically significant because their Sig. values are below the common 0.05 threshold. Risk assessment is the most highly significant at .002, followed by risk identification at .004 and mitigation at .007. Even monitoring and review, which has the lowest coefficient, is still significant with a P-value of .048. From the above findings, the study concluded that supply chain risk management strategies are essential for the operational success and sustainability of private manufacturing firms in Rwanda, including Sulfo Rwanda Industries. It recommended that Sulfo Rwanda Industries implement a formal risk assessment process with a clear scoring system to reduce production delays and supplier disruptions.

Keywords : Supply Chain, Risk Management Practices, Performance, Private Companies, Sulfo Rwanda Industries.

References :

1. Andriantomanga, Z., Bolhuis, M. A., & Hakobyan, S. (2023). Global supply chain disruptions: Challenges for inflation and monetary policy in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Monetary Fund.
2. AuditBoard (2024): Supply Chain Risk Management: Best Practices.
3. Awa, H. O., Etim, W., & Ogbonda, E. (2024). Stakeholders, stakeholder theory and corporate social responsibility (CSR). International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 9(1), 11.
4. Azadegan, A., Mellat Parast, M., Lucianetti, L., Nishant, R., & Blackhurst, J. (2020). Supply chain disruptions and business continuity: An empirical assessment. Decision Sciences, 51(1), 38-73.
5. Baldwin, R., & Freeman, R. (2022). Risks and global supply chains: What we know and what we need to know. Annual Review of Economics, 14(1), 153-180.
6. Balicevac Al Ismail, V., Gölgeci, I., Pokharel, S., Safari, A., & Parast, M. (2026). Alternative paths to supply chain resilience: a contextualised processual analysis of SMEs and large enterprises facing external shocks and geopolitical tensions. Production Planning & Control, 1-23.
7. Ballaschk, D., & Paulick, J. (2021). The public, the private and the secret: Thoughts on privacy in central bank digital currencies. Journal of Payments Strategy & Systems, 15(3), 277-286.
8. Bandono, A., & Nugroho, S. H. (2023). The Assessment of Company Performance Target Using Balanced Scorecard Methods. International Journal of Professional Business Review: Int. J. Prof. Bus. Rev., 8(5), 93.
9. Barnes Dennig (2025): Why Supply Chain Risk Management in Manufacturing is No Longer Optional.
10. Ben Bouheni, F., Tewari, M., Salamon, A., Johnston, P., & Hopkins, K. (2025). Credit Sales and Risk Scoring: A FinTech Innovation. FinTech, 4(3), 31.
11. Blessing, H., & Sakouvogui, G. (2023). Impact of liquidity and solvency ratios on financial performance: a comprehensive analysis. Indonesia Auditing Research Journal, 12(3), 102-115.
12. Bolivia, S. D. S. N., & Andersen, L. E. (2024). East Africa–Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda: Reorienting.
13. Boonlua, S., Supachaiwat, J., Thongchua, K., & Mohamad, B. (2023). Linking Supply Chain Resilience Strategies for Surviving Major Disruptions. International Journal of Construction Supply Chain Management, 13(1), 154-172.
14. Byberg, C., & Nylander, M. (2023). Managing Demand Fluctuations: Distribution Strategies as Risk Mitigation Tools An analysis of a case company’s current risk mitigation strategies and two logistics postponement strategies.
15. Can Saglam, Y., Yildiz Çankaya, S., & Sezen, B. (2021). Proactive risk mitigation strategies and supply chain risk management performance: an empirical analysis for manufacturing firms in Turkey. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 32(6), 1224-1244.
16. Carnovale, S., DuHadway, S., Patrucco, A. S., & Yeniyurt, S. (2025). Balancing risk and resilience: how network structures and firm strategies mitigate supply chain disruptions. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management.
17. Chopra, S., Sodhi, M., & Lücker, F. (2021). Achieving supply chain efficiency and resilience by using multi‐level commons. Decision Sciences, 52(4), 817-832.
18. Choudhary, N. A., Singh, S., Schoenherr, T., & Ramkumar, M. (2023). Risk assessment in supply chains: a state-of-the-art review of methodologies and their applications. Annals of Operations Research, 322(2), 565-607.
19. Christopher, M., & Holweg, M. (2022). Supply Chain Strategy in the Post-Pandemic Era. International Journal of Logistics Management.
20. Dellana, S., Kros, J. F., Falasca, M., & Rowe, W. J. (2020). Risk management integration and supply chain performance in ISO 9001-certified and non-certified firms. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 69(6), 1205-1225.
21. Duong, A. T. B., Hoang, T. H., Nguyen, T. T. B., Akbari, M., Hoang, T. G., & Truong, H. Q. (2023). Supply chain risk assessment in disruptive times: opportunities and challenges. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 36(5), 1372-1401.
22. Etemadi, N., Borbon-Galvez, Y., Strozzi, F., & Etemadi, T. (2021). Supply chain disruption risk management with blockchain: A dynamic literature review. Information, 12(2), 70.
23. Fadare, O. A. (2023). Conflict, livestock assets, nutrition and health in Nigeria (Doctoral dissertation, University of Reading).
24. Fallahieh, A., et al. (2025). Information risks and supply chain resilience: A global bibliometric review. Knowledge Words Publications, 15(9).
25. Fontoura, P., & Coelho, A. (2022). More cooperative... more competitive? Improving competitiveness by sharing value through the supply chain. Management Decision, 60(3), 758-783.