# Evaluation of ISO 31010 Techniques for Supply Chain Risk Management in Automotive Suppliers
## 1 Introduction  
According to [PERSON] et al. [1], growing competition requires the industry to expand its concentration on core competencies and reduce manufacturing verticalization, leading to a new dimension of cooperation of numerous companies in the form of supply chains. However, since these industries depend on different levels of suppliers, processes, warehouses, and distribution channels, they consequently increase the complexity of their activities, mainly due to issues related to reductions in stock levels, delivery time, product and geographic dispersion [2, 3]. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [4] also note that supply chains are not a simple series of processes, but complex networks [5, 6], where disruptions can occur at any time and harm everyone involved [7]. When the dependence between companies increases, they are more exposed to risks [3, 8]. This is because supply chains are increasingly connected and, consequently, increasingly subjected to interruptions [9]. As an example, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [10] citea loss of millions of dollars that occurred with the German component supplier Robert Bosch (Tier 1), which delivered defective high-pressure pumps for diesel injection systems to its customers in early 2005. This error was caused by a Bosch sub-supplier (Tier 2), thus compromising the entire supply chain. Similarly, in 1996, an 18-day strike at a brake supplier factory disrupted operations, leading to idled workers at 26 General Motors plants. This strike resulted in an impact of USD 900 million [11]. In these examples, where raw materials or components represent between 50 and 70% of the added value of a supply chain, supplier performance significantly impacts many product dimensions such as cost, quality, and on-time delivery [12]. In monetary terms, [PERSON] et al. [13] estimates that interruptions in the automotive production chain have the potential to generate daily losses of around USD 100,000,000.00. Although the automobile companies Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors have implemented several risk management programs in their production chains over the years, [14; 15] note that the existing literature provides little in terms of operational frameworks for its realization. To fill this gap, [PERSON] et al. [16] found twenty-seven models of risk management in the supply chain in the literature, reaching the conclusion that there was no consensus among researchers about the best model for practical application in the daily operation of companies. Just as an example, with regard to the steps for its realization, authors such as [PERSON] et al. [17] define the existence of four stages, [PERSON] et al. [18] establish five steps, and [PERSON] and [PERSON] [19], in turn, defend performing the SCRM in seven stages. As for [PERSON] et al. [16], the standard established by the ISO 31000:2009 standard [20] is the one that best presents itself as a systematic procedure for performing the SCRM. Despite the relatively recent identification of the twenty-seven models and the finding that ISO 31000 could be used as a systematic procedure for carrying out the SCRM, part of the findings of [PERSON] et al. [15] still persevere, that is, there is still a lack of empirical research on \"how to do\" SCRM in practice [21; 22]. Seeking to fill part of this gap, [21; 22; 23] developed empirical research looking for tools that could be used to implement SCRM in industry while [PERSON] et al. [24] researched the development of SCRM in services. The recent efforts of these empirical studies align with the recommendations of [PERSON] et al. [25], who, more than a decade ago, pointed to the need to develop research based on practical applications in the industry through case studies. If, in general, research on the practical implementation of SCRM is scarce, this gap is even greater when this topic is delimited into direct and indirect suppliers. [PERSON] et al.