Purpose Supply chains are essential to economic growth in many industries. However, their complexity and slow response to market changes leave them vulnerable to environmental disruptions. The concept of antifragility explains how organizations can withstand and even thrive during disruptions. The goal of this paper is to review and consolidate the literature on supply chain antifragility and derive a conceptual framework that illustrates how antifragility-oriented capabilities can transform disruptions into long-lasting performance improvements. Design/methodology/approach A systematic literature network analysis (SLNA) and a keyword analysis were conducted on articles related to antifragility and supply chain capabilities published in the Scopus database between 2012 and June 2025. Based on the resulting thematic clusters identified through SLNA and keyword analysis, additional literature, and dynamic capability theory, a novel conceptual framework for supply chain antifragility was developed. Findings The SLNA reveals three principal thematic clusters: supply chain vulnerabilities, supply chain enablers, and supply chain capabilities for antifragility. These thematic clusters converge in an integrative conceptual framework showing how antifragility emerges from interactions among disruption drivers and triggers, technological and informational enablers, and antifragility capabilities. These factors collectively facilitate enhanced supply chain antifragility outcomes. Originality/value Introduced in 2012, antifragility offers an alternative perspective to the traditional concepts of robustness and resilience. It has only recently been applied to supply chains, which are subject to common disorder and disruption. By examining the concept in this context and reviewing relevant work, the analyses and conceptual framework developed in this study provide a comprehensive overview, establish a critical foundation for future research, and inform how to take advantage of supply chain antifragility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Inyo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: