How selection of collaborating partners impact on the green performance of global businesses? An empirical study of green sustainability
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
In recent days, both collaboration and sustainability have become an integral part of many global supply chains to achieve business excellence. Although previous literature and actual practices confirmed the successful implementation of sustainability practices through supply chain collaborations, it is not clear how collaborating partners can support financial and environmental performance, and hence strengthen the partnership performance in the global supply chains. To address this practice-based research question, we test the theoretical underpinning of suppliers and logistics partners in relation to required skills selection. We capture the depth of interdependencies in collaborations for routine operations and sustainability, through empirical evidence. We used case study observations from three global companies to develop a conceptual model and also conducted a questionnaire survey to test the conceptual model. The results of case analysis confirmed two dimensions of collaborations that could strengthen relationship; namely, partners’ selection and sustainability team formation. Data analysis strongly support business collaborations having careful choice of supply chain partners and logistics operators who are ready to maintain green operations with transparent information sharing. Results of this study also inform managers about the importance of commitment from collaborating partners to achieve sustainability in their global supply chains. It is clear from the results that both the business and financial performances will be strengthened by environmental positioning (green objectives) of the companies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it