Examining the relationships between big data analytics capability, entrepreneurial orientation and sustainable supply chain performance: moderating role of trust
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Using a dynamic capability view, this study examined the relationships between big data analytics capability (BDAC), entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and sustainable supply chain performance (SSCP) by exploring the moderating role of trust among supply chain partners. Design/methodology/approach Questionnaires were collected from 300 manufacturing organizations using snow sampling. The moderating connections and direct relationships were examined using Hays' process macro and structural equation modeling. Findings BDAC was positively related to EO and SSCP. When supply chain partners experienced low levels of trust, an increase in BDAC did not enhance SSCP. As trust increased, the relationship between BDAC and SSCP became more positive, underpinning the moderating effects of trust. Moreover, trust did not moderate the relationship between BDAC and EO. The moderating effect of trust on the relationship between EO and SSCP showed a positive relationship between EO and SSCP when trust was low; however, the relationship became negative when trust was high. Practical implications Developing technology alone may not be sufficient, as supply chain managers need to establish a strong business relationship based on mutual trust. However, they also need to be aware of the dangers of high levels of trust because these may negatively affect performance. Therefore, supply chain managers need to achieve an optimal level of trust that is neither excessive nor insufficient. Originality/value Advances in technology and entrepreneurial drive for supply chain sustainability make it pertinent to examine trust levels among supply chain partners and the varying impact on BDAC, EO and SSCP. The current study shows the negative aspects of too much trust among supply chain partners.
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 | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".