Exploring Sustainable Procurement Practices: A Qualitative Study of Supplier Selection Criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study explores sustainable procurement practices and supplier selection criteria, delving into the complexities, challenges, and opportunities of integrating sustainability considerations into procurement decisions. Through in-depth interviews with procurement professionals from diverse industries, the research uncovers key themes such as the multifaceted nature of sustainable procurement criteria, the challenge of assessing and managing suppliers' sustainability performance, the importance of collaboration and communication, and the influence of regulatory and market pressures. Findings reveal that sustainable procurement involves a comprehensive approach that considers environmental, social, and ethical factors alongside traditional criteria like cost and quality. Assessing suppliers' sustainability performance emerges as a significant challenge, necessitating robust assessment processes and technological solutions to enhance transparency and traceability. Collaboration and communication with suppliers are identified as critical enablers of sustainable procurement, fostering trust and mutual understanding. Regulatory mandates and market demands drive organizational commitments to sustainability, shaping supplier selection criteria and procurement strategies. Despite challenges, sustainable procurement offers benefits such as enhanced risk management, cost savings, innovation, and reputation enhancement. Overall, sustainable procurement represents a strategic approach that contributes to positive environmental and social outcomes, supporting a more sustainable and equitable future for organizations and society.
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 | 0.027 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".