Drivers of consumer protection practices: implications for operational performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Globalization and increased outsourcing have contributed to increased supply chain complexity, exposing firms to greater vulnerability in the areas of product safety and supply chain security. Meanwhile, stakeholders pressure firms to ensure that their products are safe, and their supply chains are secure. Drawing from stakeholder theory, this paper aims to explore how the supply chain characteristics of distance and power affect the adoption of consumer protection (CP) practices, which ensure product safety and supply chain security. Design/methodology/approach Using primary survey data from a sample of Canadian manufacturing firms, this research examines the relationships among supply chain characteristics, adoption of CP practices and firm performance. Findings Analysis supported the use of two practices related to product safety (consumer education and product design) and three practices for supply chain security (packaging, tracking and authenticity). Greater cultural distance between the focal firm and its suppliers was positively associated with investments in safer design practices, while increased geographical distance between the focal firm and the customer was significantly related to increased consumer education. Moreover, as power of a focal firm relative to its suppliers increased, so too did investments in supply chain security. Finally, CP practices were related to improved operational performance along multiple dimensions. Originality/value This research focuses on the critical role of two key stakeholder groups in improving product safety and supply chain security: suppliers and customers. The authors add to the theoretical discussion of product safety and supply chain security by identifying critical differences between suppliers and customers for the focal firm. Second, the research informs the managerial community of the potential benefits of investments in CP practices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".