Mitigation, Avoidance, or Acceptance? Managing Supplier Sustainability Risk
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study takes a conceptual theory building approach to develop a framework for managing supplier sustainability risk—the adverse impact on a buying organization from a supplier's social or environmental misconduct. Using anecdotal evidence and the literature, we present four distinct risk management strategies that supply managers adopt: risk avoidance, monitoring‐based risk mitigation, collaboration‐based risk mitigation, and risk acceptance. Drawing on agency and resource dependence theories, we study how the interactions of two key risk management predictors—that is, the supply managers’ perceived risk and the buyer–supplier dependence structure—affect supply managers’ strategy choice. Specifically, we propose that a collaborative‐based mitigation strategy, involving direct interaction and solution development with the suppliers, is selected by supply managers in a high perceived risk‐buyer dominant context. In a low perceived risk‐buyer dominant context, however, a monitoring‐based mitigation strategy is preferred. When the buyer and the supplier are not dependent on each other and there is a low perceived risk, the supply managers accept the risk by taking no actions, whereas in a high perceived risk‐independent context the supply managers would avoid the risk by terminating the relationship with the supplier. We conclude the study by describing the theoretical contributions and managerial implications of the study as well as the avenues for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it