A multi-stakeholders view of the barriers of social sustainability in healthcare supply chains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework for the identification, categorization and prioritization of social sustainability barriers in health-care supply chains. Design/methodology/approach An exploratory survey tool is used to identify barriers that are relevant to a health-care supply chain. The identified barriers are grouped into five main categories and experts’ opinions were applied to validate the content. Finally, an analytical hierarchical process (AHP) is used to prioritize the main categories and sub-categories of the barriers. Findings The exploratory phase identified 34 barriers that are relevant to a health-care supply chain. These barriers were grouped into the following categories: poor infrastructure, organizational culture, poor coordination, stakeholder disparity, and uncertainty. Organizational culture and poor coordination were assigned the highest priority through the AHP. Overall, lack of management support, lack of commitment and lack of coordination were found to be the top relevant barriers to a health-care supply chain. Research limitations/implications This study only explored and prioritized the barriers of social sustainability. Future research should explore the impact of the identified barriers on the overall performance of the hospital supply chain. Practical implications The findings of this study may be of value to the local health-care industry in achieving their objectives by overcoming social sustainability barriers, which would in turn facilitate the implementation of social sustainability programs that can positively contribute to the overall supply chain performance. Social implications Social sustainability has grown in importance as a pressurizing issue to push supply chain managers to assess their social impacts on the communities. This is especially important in service supply chains such as health care, where human element is a part of every stage. Originality/value Despite practitioners’ and academics’ growing emphasis on the social dimension of sustainability, the categorization and prioritization of social sustainability practices across health-care supply chains and general service care supply chains have not been addressed. This study aims to cover this gap by contributing to both the academic literature and the practical health-care environment.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".