## 4 Research Method  
### Measurement Development  
Based on a literature review of digital capability definitions and its sub-dimensions, we define digital capability as comprising 3 sub-dimensions: digital infrastructure capability, digital analysis capability, and strategic support capability. Measurement items were adopted from [PERSON] et al. (2022) [57], as their scale aligns well with the conceptualization of digital capability in the context of supply chains. This include 5 items each for digital infrastructure capability and digital analysis capability, and 4 items for strategic support capability, totaling 14 items. digital capability was measured holistically across these dimensions. SCR was assessed using an 8-item scale from [PERSON] et al. (2023) [8], which has been used to assess the resilience of the tea supply chain during the COVID-19 pandemic and is highly relevant to the context of this study. On the other hand, supply chain risk management relied on a 4-item scale from [PERSON] et al. (2020) [75], which evaluates the level of supply chain risk management across four aspects: detection, prevention, response, and recovery from disruptions. To enhance the applicability of the measurement scale to the electric vehicle industry, we made adjustments to certain items. For example, the original items from [PERSON] et al. (2023) [8] were designed for the tea supply chain; therefore, we replaced references to \"tea supply chain\" with \"supply chain\" to ensure contextual relevance. To ensure cross-cultural applicability, the scale development process involved translating the original English items into Chinese while refining the language for clarity and contextual alignment. A professional translator then back-translated the questionnaire into English to verify semantic equivalence and maintain consistency. Studies have shown that a 5-point Likert scale generally provides higher reliability. Compared to fewer options (e.g., a 3-point scale), it helps avoid oversimplification of respondents' attitudes and opinions, ensuring a more accurate reflection of subtle differences. Figure 2: Proposed conceptual framework. On the other hand, a larger number of options (e.g., a 7-point scale) may increase cognitive load, making it harder for respondents to clearly distinguish between adjacent choices, which could affect data reliability and consistency [76]. Therefore, we adopted a 5-point Likert scale for measurement, where 1 represents \"strongly disagree\" and 5 represents \"strongly agree\" [77]. To validate the questionnaire's relevance in EV supply chain context, 5 industry experts rated the items' relevance to their respective dimensions. The Item-Content Validity Index (I-CVI) and Scale-Content Validity Index (S-CVI) values were calculated. While most items achieved an I-CVI of 1 [78], two items from digital infrastructure capability, one from digital analysis capability, and two from SCR scored 0.8, below the critical threshold [79]. The scale's overall S-CVI/Ave was 0.97, exceeding [PERSON]'s (2006) [79] recommended threshold of 0.9, indicating strong content validity. Items with low I-CVI values were removed based on expert feedback, resulting in the final questionnaire items presented in Table 1.