Erasmus University Thesis: Post-COVID-19 EU Supply Chains Comparison

This Bachelor Thesis from Erasmus University Rotterdam, focuses on the post-COVID-19 EU supply chains, comparing agile and continuous flow models. The study investigates the pandemic's impact on EU supply chains, particularly within the automotive, aviation, and food and drinks industries, highlighting disruptions and the need for strategic changes. It explores the differences between agile and continuous flow supply chains, emphasizing the importance of visibility, efficiency, and resilience. The research also provides recommendations for EU-based companies to restructure their supply chains to meet the demands of the post-COVID-19 business environment, including factors for selecting the right transformation strategy. The literature review covers the automotive and aviation industries along with electric vehicles and battery supply chains. The thesis aims to guide business practitioners, researchers, and company leaders in making informed decisions to optimize supply chain functioning in the post-COVID-19 business environment, identifying key trends and strategic restructuring options. The study findings also have relevant practical implications to business practice in the sense of identifying and interpreting numerous supply chain trends related to supply chain models and strategic restructuring.

1
ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM
Erasmus School of Economics
Bachelor Thesis (International Bachelor Economics &
Business Economics / Urban, Port and Transport Economics)
Post-COVID-19 EU Supply Chains:
A Comparison between Two Types of Supply Chains
Student: Musa Mustafa-zada
Student ID: 339950mm
Supervisor: Dr. Wouter Jacobs
Second Assessor: Dr. Bart Kuipers
Date final version: 26/07/2021

2
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background
The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the functioning of companies from different
sectors around the world. As soon as the pandemic started, numerous problems emerged for
individuals and organizations alike. The global supply chain network has been significantly
impacted, which resulted in major disruptions and irregularities for various small and global
companies (Enderwick & Buckley, 2020). Returning to the pre-COVID-19 business state
appears challenging to many organizations. This is because companies need to rethink, refine,
and modify their strategic options to help them improve their performance in the post-
COVID-19 business environment (Barbieri et al., 2020). In other words, they may need
greater experimentation with different strategies and models pertaining to the structure and
functioning of supply chains.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, China was a crucial marketplace for global
organizations to purchase and sell a wide range of goods and services. Upon imposing
lockdowns due to the pandemic, the movement of global supplies was substantially disrupted,
as both retailers and consumers were affected (Francis, 2020). Yet, in the post-COVID-19
world, EU companies have considered the importance of implementing significant changes in
the context of supply chain models and supply chain functioning. Some of the priorities
emphasized by these companies refer to increased supply chain visibility, efficiency,
transparency, and resilience (Ishida, 2020). Cost-optimization will always remain the focus in
supply chain restructuring in the EU business context.
A significant shift has already been observed from linear supply chains to more
properly integrated networks involving various business players. Technology plays a crucial
role in enabling a similar change, which is further strengthened by the necessity to reskill
employees in the post-COVID-19 business world (Notteboom et al., 2021). Many companies
in the United Kingdom and other European countries have expressed their strong willingness
to encourage employees to use digital technologies in optimal ways as well as to adapt to
persistently changing corporate strategies and business models (Perez-Batres & Trevino,
2020). The new ways of working have resulted in more substantial virtual collaboration and
greater creativity in making well-informed business decisions.
The COVID-19 pandemic has forced global companies to refocus their sustainability
objectives since they needed to think how to address the financial and social challenges
created by the pandemic. Nevertheless, sustainable supply chain practices are still important;

3
therefore, in restructuring their supply chains, EU based companies should not disregard their
sustainable orientation even though this might a lengthy and challenging process (Perez-
Batres & Trevino, 2020). It has been noted that the future of supply chains is digital, as the
process of digital transformation has already started (van Hoek, 2020). This means the
COVID-19 pandemic has facilitated certain pre-existing trends and practices pertaining to the
digitalization of different business processes and supply chains.
It appears that the simple use of diverse digital technologies is not associated with the
establishment of autonomous and smoothly performing supply chains in the post-COVID-19
business environment. It has been emphasized that supply chain technologies adapted for this
environment should be extensively connected to help EU companies achieve their long-term
strategic goals (Perez-Batres & Trevino, 2020). Such connections are expected to be observed
in the areas of strategic planning, procurement, and manufacturing. As a result, companies
will be better able to respond to changes in consumer demands in different sectors of the EU
economy (Wang & Sun, 2021).
The focus of this study is to demonstrate certain aspects and strategies related to the
functioning of two types of supply chains, respectively agile and continuous flow models.
The results from the study can guide business practitioners, researchers, and company leaders
to make well-informed decisions to help EU based companies optimize the functioning of
their supply chains in the post-COVID-19 business environment (Perez-Batres & Trevino,
2020). The study findings also have relevant practical implications to business practice in the
sense of identifying and interpreting numerous supply chain trends related to supply chain
models and strategic restructuring.
1.2 Research Questions
There are several research questions posed in this study. They are used to guide the
research process and obtain relevant information about the research problem:
Research Question 1: How has the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the development of EU
supply chains?
Research Question 2: What are the differences between agile and continuous flow types of
supply chains in the EU business context?
Research Question 3: How can EU based companies restructure their supply chains to meet
the demands of the post-COVID-19 business world?
Research Question 4: What are the key factors contributing to the selection of the right
supply chain transformation strategy?

4
1.3 Research Objectives
The research objectives outlined in this study are described below:
• To critically investigate the specific ways in which the supply chains of EU based
companies are developing in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
• To review available supply chain strategies and compare between two types of supply
chains, particularly the agile and continuous flow model.
• To provide viable recommendations to EU based companies to restructure their
supply chains in response to the unique demands emerging in the post-COVID-19
business world.
The next chapter provides a literature review of studies related to the research problem
identified in this study.

5
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This section contains information obtained from a systematic literature review on the
development of post-COVID-19 EU supply chains. The emphasis is upon the strategic
options available to EU based companies for restructuring their supply chains. At the same
time, the results from the literature review raise the issue of the most appropriate strategic
path EU based companies can take in selecting a viable supply chain transformation strategy.
2.1 The Impact of COVID-19 on the Supply Chains of EU Based Companies
2.1.1 The automotive industry
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused severe economic shocks in several countries. As
a result of lockdowns in the EU, companies within the region have been harshly affected.
Interruptions in numerous supply chains across industries occurred, particularly at the onset
of the crisis and mostly within internationalized and complex value chains (Perez-Batres &
Trevino, 2020). De Vet et al. (2021) asserted that the automotive industry is one of the
sectors that has been hardest hit by the pandemic. At the onset of the first wave of the
pandemic, the supply chain of the EU automotive sectors was unsettled by the closure of 30
Chinese factories (Kufelová & Raková, 2020). Even more harsh was the shutdown of
European companies in the first phase of the pandemic. Across Europe, automotive
companies were closed for about thirty days.
The sale of new passenger vehicles in the United Kingdom almost halted in April
2020 because of the pandemic. It dropped by about 97% to approximately 4,000 vehicles
when compared to the previous year that recorded 161,000. Therefore, it reached its lowest
since 1946 (Kufelová & Raková, 2020). At the same period, automotive companies in the EU
recorded 3.6 million production losses of vehicles. By the close of the second half of the year
(September 2020), the losses had increased to 4 million vehicles, representing twenty percent
of the EU’s entire manufacturing in 2020. At this time, the demand for vehicles had reduced
by 28.8% when compared to 2019. More than 1.1 million jobs were directly affected by the
pandemic because of the closure of factories in the first half of 2020 (Perez-Batres &
Trevino, 2020). Furthermore, the amount of people actively working in manufacturing plants
significantly declined as a result of compliance to distance, hygiene, and security measures.

6
2.1.1.1 Electric Vehicles and battery supply chain
Despite automotive industry suffering colossal losses due to pandemic, EV sector of
the industry displayed outstanding growth of around 33% YoY in 2020 globally, and more
than doubled in Europe due to increasing demand for environmentally friendly transportation
(Harrison & Ludwig, 2021). Report by Automotive Logistics suggests 21% CAGR over the
next decade and that by 2030 53% of all new vehicles globally will be fully electric or
hybridised. In this context, it is interesting to note that this puts enormous demand on battery
supply chain, as it will need to grow at an even higher speeds to match the demand, due to
expected increase in battery capacity by 3% YoY. Report suggests that battery production
will need to grow from 475 GWh in 2020 to 2,854 GWh in 2030 (Harrison & Ludwig, 2021).
With around 30% of the EV vehicle cost coming from the battery, the consequence of such
high demand is a “arms race” by various countries and companies to take share of the battery
supply chain. Due to high weight and strict transportation regulations for batteries, it is
expected that supply chain will be regionalized. EU has already declared that by 2024, key
parts of battery production must be sourced locally, and by 2027 100% of production should
be from Europe, to make supply chains resilient from foreign interventions. With support
from EU and UK governments, companies like Arkema, Northvolt, BMW, Tesla, and
Volkswagen have announced plans for massive production facilities, called “Gigafactories”
in Europe and UK (Harrison & Ludwig, 2021). And while currently 93% of battery cell
production is controlled by Asian companies (with 44% by Chinese companies, such as
CATL), by 2030 it is expected that Europe will account for around 33% of global battery cell
production thanks to massive investments from companies and governments and 33 new
Gigafactories already under construction or announced. Some companies, like Tesla, are even
attempting to take control of the upstream production, including mining of Lithium and
Cobalt, which are crucial for Li-ion battery production (Harrison & Ludwig, 2021).
2.1.2 The aviation industry
In the aviation industry, the outbreak of COVID-19 in Europe prompted an
unexpected drop in demand for civil aviation. A good example is the daily trend that occurred
in March 2020, when air traffic declined by 86% in comparison to 2019 (De Vet et al., 2021).
In April the same year, the number dropped further by 92.8% following restrictions on
transport and movement that were applied by various countries in the EU. In the first half of
the pandemic in 2020, the number of airplanes that were grounded in Europe increased to
80% when compared to 2019, representing the worst global trend within that period (De Vet

7
et al., 2021). However, from the start of the summer in 2020, stabilization and lifting of travel
restrictions within the EU prompted a period of moderate recovery. It is essential to note that
the rapid decline in demand for aircraft production, together with interruptions in the supply
of raw materials, caused delays in the supply chain that led to reduced production.
Eventually, it caused serious cash flow problems for several companies in all phases of the
aerospace supply chain, especially for the second and third tier suppliers or small-and
medium enterprises (SMEs).
During the second wave of the pandemic, rates of infection spiked, and the
government re-introduced restriction measures across the EU resulting in reduced traffic
between September and December in 2020. The EU’s demand for aircraft manufacturing
reduced generally by 43% in 2020, primarily as a result of Airbus order deferrals (De Vet et
al., 2021). As for the travel sector, airline companies have struggled since the start of the
pandemic. Several companies became bankrupt or resorted to business reorganization causing
forced costs and asset reductions, and eventually loss of jobs. With a total of $60 billion of
net losses for airline companies, navigation and airport service providers, national markets in
the EU dropped by 60% when compared to 2019, with reduced flights ranging from 61% in
Europe and 40% in the rest of Europe.
2.1.3 Food and drinks industries
While assessing the impact of COVID-19 on the EU food companies, it is essential to
distinguish between various subsectors because the impacts are diverse (Public Health
England, 2020). For instance, while hotels, restaurants and cafés were hit the hardest, as food
retailers witnessed better sales as a result of a radical change in the behavior of consumers
from eating outdoors to eating food at home. Retailers of packaged and frozen foods
witnessed a steep rise in sales. For instance, at the onset of the pandemic in the United
Kingdom, Public Health England (2020) reports that the volume sales peaked to March 22
prior to the announcement of a lockdown in March 23. The week that ended on 22 March
recorded the highest ever sales by Kantar FMCG (43%) and surpassed the peak that occurs at
every Christmas (De Vet et al., 2021). In the succeeding week that ended on 29 March, the
volume sales fell significantly reflecting the amount of stockpiling that occurred in the
previous few weeks.
After the first weeks of stockpiling and shoppers adjusting to the lockdown measures,
the volume sales increased and remained above similar time periods in 2019. In general,
Public Health England (2020) reports that the volume sales throughout 2020 remained 11%

8
higher than the equivalent period in 2019. The supply chain of food companies remained
relatively resilient. However, some challenges were also experienced in the supply chain as a
result of closed borders, which disrupted the supply for inputs, transport of goods, and labor
shortages. Another issue in the supply chain occurred at the onset of the pandemic, especially
because of stockpiling (De Vet et al., 2021). Although the behavior changed, the supply
chains were backed by green lane measures, and employees were treated as essential service
providers. As a result, the supply chains quickly stabilized and stayed resilient.
2.2 The Impact of the Pandemic on the Agile Supply Chain Model in the United
Kingdom
Disruption of the supply chain is not something new. Previous events such as
explosions, earthquakes, and the 2018 shortage of oxygen all caused disruptions to the
normal flow of goods and services. The COVID-19 has shown that companies with an agile
or resilient supply chain can easily adapt and remain competitive (Do et al., 2021). Therefore,
as the impact of COVID-19 continues, companies have been forced to add contingency and
agility into their supply chain operations. The concept of supply chain agility (SCA) has
changed over the years into four fundamental aspects: pathways, criteria, scope, and
objectives (Tarafdar & Qrunfleh, 2017).
Early proponents refer to SCA in a customer responsive manner, restricting it to a
responsive ability of providing fast responses to sudden changes in demand, to attain a
competitive edge. However, subsequent conceptual adaptations have immensely broadened
SCA’s limit to incorporate both physical and cognitive ability to pay attention, anticipate and
identify opportunities and disruptions (Tarafdar & Qrunfleh, 2017). However, speed is not
the only standard for measuring reactions to change; flexibility is also essential. The SCA
addresses all kinds of unexpected disruptions in the supply chain, either external or internal,
which is not necessarily restricted to the demand side. Changes within the scope of SCA are
mostly immediate, sudden, uncertain, temporary, abrupt, and unexpected, rather than long-
term and evolutionary. It also makes agility more relevant in the unpredictable and fast
changing conditions shaped by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Therefore, concerning the comprehensive objective, Do et al. (2021) state that SCA
has the prominent quality of allowing companies to achieve a competitive advantage and,
therefore, improve such competitive metrics as operational performance indicators (such as
product innovation, service quality, lead time reduction), strategic performance indicators
(such as competitiveness, marketing, and financial performance) or sustained outcomes (view

9
Figure 1). Another important objective of SCA is disruption and risk management, referring
to the ability to respond to sudden disruption and adapting fast to persistently changing
market conditions (Tarafdar & Qrunfleh, 2017). Perhaps, the objective of SCA has become
extensive beyond attaining competitive advantages. Proponents incorporate SCA in business
continuity and embrace opportunity seeking in turbulent times, which become the risk-
mitigation initiatives.
Figure 1: Supply Chain Agility
Tesco is a relevant example of a company restructuring its supply chain in a fast-
changing crisis. A few days to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Tesco’s seven-weeks’
worth of products sold out in one week. The giant retailer realized it had to react fast in such
turbulent times. It resorted to working closely with its suppliers to simplify the collection of
products it offered such as reducing the variety of toilet rolls in their collection from thirty-
three to ten types (Jones & Comfort, 2020). At the same time, the company made several
purchase promotions so that suppliers could focus on meeting the surging demand. In the end,
the retailer boosted its online deliveries to the most vulnerable consumers. The shift led the
company to hire several staff to fulfil the demand (Stewart, 2021).
As the pandemic started, Tesco’s online capacity increased from approximately
600,000 weekly delivery orders to 1.5 million orders each day (Davey, 2021). The online
grocery business grew from 9% to more than 16% of Tesco’s entire sales in the United
Kingdom, allowing the business to continue investing both short-term and long-term (Davey,
Operational
Performance
Indicators
Sustained
Outcomes
Strategic
Performance
Indicators

10
2021). One of the ways that the company ensured it continued to operate is by making early
commitments to paying for goods ordered, especially in the fashion sector, one of the sectors
that was hardest hit by the pandemic (Jones & Comfort, 2020). Tesco ensured that it paid its
suppliers on time and sometimes earlier, for ordered clothes to make sure that its supply chain
did not have a problem.
Another example of a company adjusting its supply chain is the Brompton company.
In April 2020, a bike manufacturer, Brompton was forced to adapt its production and supply
chain to make 1,000 foldable bicycles for the NHS employees (Reid, 2020). The company
launched “Wheels for Heroes Crowdfund” with the aim to raise enough money to supply
NHS employees with bicycles so that they could safely report to work during lockdown. At
first, the company committed its production capacity value approximately £100,000 to
finance the bikes, but the initiative raised more over £344,785 in 2 and a half months leading
up to June. In spite of having to reduce its production capacity as a result of social distancing
on the assembly lines, its production stations are usually 1.7 metres apart thus the company
did not lose any day of production (Reid, 2020).
Apparently, the company is creating over 1,200 bikes each week notwithstanding the
production shifts brought by the pandemic. It can be argued that the smooth operation of the
company’s supply chain is as a result of the plans the company made ahead of the first Brexit
departure date, that was later changed. While preparing for Brexit, the company stockpiled
parts from its suppliers overseas. As a result, Do et al. (2021) state that the crisis (the
pandemic) enabled the company to understand that it is important to integrate agility in all
aspects of the supply chain to remain resilient in the future.
2.3 The Impact of the Pandemic on the Continuous Flow Supply Chain Model in the
United Kingdom
While some supply chain models (such as the agile supply chain model) need
companies to be flexible and responsive to changes, other supply chains need efficiency
(especially in fiercely competitive industries and markets) to operate. An efficient supply
chain allows a company to not only compare costs to key metrics but also make constant
adjustments when needed depending on the precise situation (Singh et al., 2018). A good
example of an efficient supply chain is the continuous flow supply chain model. This model
works best in highly competitive industries that are schedule-centered with the objective of
maximizing efficiency across the supply chain and using all assets at a lower cost (Singh et
al., 2018). The model relies on the stability of supply and demand, with processes organized

11
in a manner that it guarantees a stable tempo and constant flow of information and products
(view Figure 2).
Figure 2: Continuous Flow Supply Chain Model
The continuous flow model is essentially built for an established supply chain with a
consumer demand profile that has little change. Companies that use this model operate in an
environment where the market is flooded with the same manufactured products, all selling to
the same kind of consumers. Such consumers often do not seek the unique worth of a
particular product but its cost (Amelec, 2015). The primary focus of a continuous supply
chain model is to help the manufacturers have raw materials essential for the company to
remain competitive and manufacture the volume that will keep the costs down. This means
proper strategic actions taken to appeal to the increasing consumer base.
Prior to the pandemic, most companies in the United Kingdom, especially in the
manufacturing sector, used the continuous flow supply chain model because of its efficiency.
However, the same approach could not be used during the pandemic because the impact on
manufacturing companies varied significantly (Iyengar et al., 2020). For instance, while the
demand for non-essential products (such as construction equipment and automobiles)
dropped, the demand for essential products (such as food and medicines) increased across the
world (Iyengar et al., 2020). The global demand for construction equipment declined sharply
because of customers cancelling orders and deliveries being suspended. A good example is
Continuous Flow
Supply Chain Model
Maximizing
efficiency
Stability of supply
and demand
Constant flow of
information
Schedule-centered
industries

12
JCB Ltd. which halted its UK manufacturing facility to re-organize orders and focus on
products that customers need.
On the other hand, the demand for essential products such as medicines, food and
ventilators grew abruptly, causing short-term shortage of products. In fact, there were delays
in the online delivery of products (Chowdhury et al., 2021). The spiking demand for such
products were caused by panic purchasing, worrying about the future, and hoarding behaviors
(Chowdhury et al., 2021). As a result, the continuous flow supply chain model was
significantly disrupted. For essential products, companies were forced to adjust and increase
productions while for non-essential products companies had to reduce the production of such
products.
2.4 Effective Supply Chain Transformation
It has been argued that the post-COVID-19 business environment has prompted EU
based companies to undertake a process of supply chain transformation. This is because the
respective organizations have focused on how such transformation could improve the
functioning of their supply chains and enable them to facilitate growth and mitigate risks
(Perez-Batres & Trevino, 2020). Research shows that effective supply chain transformation
starts with proper alignment of supply chains with companies’ business objectives
(Williamson, 2021). The proper utilization of supply chain transformational strategies is
associated with visionary leadership (Enderwick & Buckley, 2020). Such leaders tend to
provide real-world examples because their goal is to turn their vision into a reality (view
Figure 3).
Figure 3: Factors Facilitating Supply Chain Transformation
Aligning supply
chains to business
objectives
Visionary
leadership
Turn vision
into a reality