Natural Disasters and the Reconfiguration of Global Value Chains: Evidence from Multinational Firms After the 2023 Türkiye Earthquakes

Can MAVRUK

doi:10.5281/zenodo.19309836

Authors

Can MAVRUK Nigde Omer Halisdemir University, Nigde Vocational School of Social Sciences, Department of Marketing, Niğde, Türkiye https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4084-7447

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19309836

Keywords:

Global value chains, Supply chain resilience, Natural disasters, Corporate social responsibility, Supplier diversification, Event study / difference-in-differences

Abstract

Natural disasters increasingly intersect with globally fragmented production systems, exposing vulnerabilities in multinational supply networks. This study examines how multinational enterprises (MNEs) responded to the February 2023 earthquakes in Türkiye, which disrupted a major export-oriented manufacturing region embedded in global value chains. Drawing on global value chain theory, internalization theory and institutional perspectives on corporate social responsibility (CSR), the paper analyzes how disaster exposure affected supply-chain disruptions, recovery trajectories and sourcing reconfiguration among internationally active firms. Using a mixed-method approach combining secondary data, sector-level trade statistics and simulation-based modeling of supply-chain exposure, the study identifies three key mechanisms shaping firm responses: geographic concentration of suppliers, relational governance through CSR engagement and operational flexibility embedded in multinational network structures. The findings suggest that disaster exposure is not merely an external shock but a structural property of multinational network architecture. Firms with highly concentrated supplier networks experienced more severe disruptions, while CSR engagement and diversified sourcing arrangements facilitated faster recovery. Reconstruction processes further triggered partial reconfiguration of global value chains as firms reassessed geographic risk and diversified production locations. These results contribute to international business research by integrating disaster risk into theories of multinational network design and highlighting the strategic role of ESG-oriented governance in crisis environments.

References

Aguilera, R., Rupp, D., Williams, C., Ganapathi, J., 2007. Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3):836–863.

Baldwin, R., 2016. The great convergence: Information technology and the new globalization. Harvard University Press.

Baldwin, R., Tomiura, E., 2020. Thinking ahead about the trade impact of COVID-19. Economics in the Time of COVID-19, In: R. Baldwin, BW. di Mauro (Eds.), CEPR Press.

Baldwin, R., Freeman, R., 2022. Risks and global supply chains: What we know and what we need to know. Annual Review of Economics, 14:153–180.

Boehm, C. E., Flaaen, A., Pandalai-Nayar, N., 2019. Input linkages and the transmission of shocks: Firm-level evidence from the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake. Review of Economics and Statistics, 101(1):60–75.

Buckley, P. J., Casson, M., 1976. The future of the multinational enterprise. Macmillan London.

Buckley, P.J., Doh, J.P., Benischke, M.H., 2017. Towards a renaissance in international business research? Big questions, grand challenges, and the future of IB scholarship. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9):1045–1064.

Campbell, J.L., 2007. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? Academy of Management Review, 32(3):946–967.

Coe, N.M., Yeung, H.W.C., 2015. Global production networks: Theorizing economic development in an interconnected world. Oxford University Press.

Craighead, C.W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M., Handfield, R., 2007. The severity of supply chain disruptions: Design characteristics and mitigation capabilities. Decision Sciences, 38(1):131–156.

Çam, S., 2024. Faiz oranlarının pay senedi getirileri üzerindeki etkisi: bir olay çalışması. S.Elasan, (Ed.), In: Istatistiksel ve Analitik Perspektifler: Teori ve Pratik (s.57-82). Ankara Bidge Publishing.

Dolgui, A., Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B., 2018. Ripple effect in the supply chain: An analysis and recent literature. International Journal of Production Research, 56(1–2):414–430.

Dunning, J.H., 1998. Location and the multinational enterprise: A neglected factor? Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1):45–66.

Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., Sturgeon, T., 2005. The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1):78–104.

Gereffi, G., Lee, J. (2016). Economic and social upgrading in global value chains and industrial clusters:Why governance matters. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(1):25-38.

Gereffi, G., 2018. Global value chains and development: Redefining the contours of 21st century capitalism. Cambridge University Press.

Hallegatte, S., 2014. Economic resilience: Definition and measurement. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6852.

Hallegatte, S., Rentschler, J., Walsh, B., 2018. Building back better: Achieving resilience through stronger, faster, and more inclusive post-disaster reconstruction. World Bank.

Hallegatte, S., Przyluski, V., 2010. The economics of natural disasters: Concepts and methods. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 5507, The World Bank.

Haraguchi, M., Lall, U., 2015. Flood risks and impacts: A case study of Thailand’s floods in 2011 and research questions for supply chain decision making. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14:256–272.

Ivanov, D., 2020. Viable supply chain model: Integrating agility, resilience and sustainability perspectives-lessons from and thinking beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Annals of Operations Research, 319(1):1411-1431.

Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., 2020. Viability of intertwined supply networks: Extending the supply chain resilience angles toward survivability. International Journal of Production Research, 58:2904–2915.

Kogut, B., Kulatilaka, N., 1994. Operating flexibility, global manufacturing, and the option value of a multinational network. Management Science, 40(1):123–139.

Kogut, B., Kulatilaka, N., 2001. Capabilities as real options. Organization Science, 12(6): 744–758.

Kolk, A., 2016. The social responsibility of international business: From ethics and the environment to CSR and sustainable development. Journal of World Business, 51(1):23–34.

Kostova, T., Zaheer, S., 1999. Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of multinational enterprises. Academy of Management Review, 24(1):64–81.

Krugman, P., 1991. Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3):483–499.

Locke, R., 2013. The promise and limits of private power: Promoting labor standards in a global economy. Cambridge University Press.

Matten, D., Moon, J., 2008. “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR. Academy of Management Review, 33(2):404–424.

Porter, M. E., 1998. Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6):77-90.

Rose, A., Liao, S. Y., 2005. Modeling regional economic resilience to disasters: A computable general equilibrium analysis of water service disruptions. Journal of Regional Science, 45(1):75–112.

Rugman, A., Verbeke, A., 2003. Extending the theory of the multinational enterprise: Internalization and strategic management perspectives. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(2):125–137.

Rugman, A., Verbeke, A., 2004. A perspective on regional and global strategies of multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(1):3–18.

Soundararajan, V., Brown, J. A., 2016. Voluntary governance mechanisms in global supply chains: Beyond CSR to a stakeholder utility perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(1):83–102.

Tang, C., 2006. Perspectives in supply chain risk management. International Journal of Production Economics, 103(2):451–488.

Tierney, K. (2007). Businesses and disasters: Vulnerability, impacts, and recovery. Handbook of disaster research. In: H. Rodríguez, E. Quarantelli, and R. Dynes (Eds.), New York, Springer Nature.

Tierney, K., 2014. The social roots of risk: Producing disasters, promoting resilience (1st Ed.) Stanford University Press.

Todo, Y., Nakajima, K., Matous, P., 2015. How do supply chain networks affect the resilience of firms to natural disasters? Evidence from the Great East Japan earthquake. Journal of Regional Science, 55(2):209–229.

Türkonfed 2024. Supply Chain Resilience After the February 6 Earthquakes.Turkish Enterprise and Business Confederation Research Report. https://turkonfed.org/en/detail/4168/supply-chain-resilience-after-the-february-6-earthquakes-report

UNDP 2023. Disaster Management, Risk Management and Business Continuity Report: Post-Earthquake Economic Assessment for Türkiye. United Nations Development Programme Türkiye. https://www.undp.org/turkiye/publications/disaster-management-risk-management-and-business-continuity-report

UNDP 2025. Support to Local Businesses in Apparel, Textile, Leather and Footwear Sectors in Earthquake-Affected Provinces (STRIDE Project Report). United Nations Development Programme Türkiye. https://www.undp.org/turkiye/projects/support-local-businesses-apparel-textile-leather-and-footwear-sectors-earthquake-affected-provinces

Verbeke, A., 2013. International business strategy: Rethinking the foundations of global corporate success. Cambridge University Press.

World Bank. (2023). Türkiye Earthquake Recovery and Reconstruction Assessment (TERRA): Damage and Loss Estimates Following the February 2023 Earthquakes.

Washington, DC: World Bank Group. https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Turkiye-Recovery-and-Reconstruction-Assessment.pdf

World Bank. (2023). Earthquake Damage in Türkiye Estimated to Exceed $34 Billion.

World Bank Press Release, February 27, 2023. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2023/02/27/earthquake-damage-in-turkiye-estimated-to-exceed-34-billion-world-bank-disaster-assessment-report#:~:text=ANKARA%2C%20February%2027%2C%202023%E2%80%94,damage%20assessment%20report%20released%20today.