A Systems Thinking Analysis of the Supply Chain Social Responsibility Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Given its material impact on bottom lines, social responsibility became essential to supply chain sustainability strategies. The authors of this paper reviewed the relevant literature and discovered its reliance on approaches like corporate social responsibility and its marginalization of systems thinking. This situation undermines the contributions of this literature, as it could be reductionist from a systemic perspective. Reductionism limits solutions to suboptimizations incapable of achieving multifinal and holistic outcomes. To assess this literature, the authors conducted a mapping study to analyse its distribution over four systemic paradigms: functionalism, interpretivism, emancipation, and postmodernism. The results showed that it clustered unevenly around these paradigms and lacked pluralism in perspective. This paper is significant as it revealed the innate inability of most of the supply chain social responsibility literature in offering creative and holistic solutions. Therefore, this literature can only resolve some social responsibility factors allowing the persistence and resurfacing of social responsibility messes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".