Impact of Ethical Procurement Practices in Enhancing Corporate Reputation and Stakeholder Trust in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of the study was to examine the Impact of ethical procurement practices in enhancing corporate reputation and stakeholder trust in Canada Methodology: This study adopted a desk methodology. A desk study research design is commonly known as secondary data collection. This is basically collecting data from existing resources preferably because of its low cost advantage as compared to a field research. Our current study looked into already published studies and reports as the data was easily accessed through online journals and libraries. Findings: The study found that companies in Canada that adopt ethical procurement practices are socially responsible, which greatly enhances their reputation among consumers, investors, and the broader community. This positive perception is critical in a market where stakeholders are increasingly vigilant about corporate ethics. Moreover, ethical procurement practices foster trust among stakeholders, including suppliers, customers, employees, and regulatory bodies. By ensuring transparency and fairness in their procurement processes, companies can build stronger, more reliable relationships with their suppliers, leading to more stable and resilient supply chains. Additionally, consumers are more likely to remain loyal to brands that demonstrate a commitment to ethical sourcing, which can lead to increased market share and profitability. Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: Stakeholder Theory, Institutional Theory & Institutional Theory may be used to anchor future studies on Impact of ethical procurement practices in enhancing corporate reputation and stakeholder trust in Canada. Implement integrated ethical frameworks that incorporate procurement strategies aligned with sustainability, diversity, and social responsibility goals. Organizations can enhance practice by embedding ethical considerations into supply chain management processes and supplier relationships. Foster proactive stakeholder engagement to communicate ethical procurement initiatives transparently. This practice not only builds trust but also aligns organizational values with stakeholder expectations, enhancing reputation and credibility. Advocate for policies that promote ethical procurement standards and incentivize businesses to adopt transparent and accountable sourcing practices. Clear regulatory frameworks can provide guidance and support for organizations seeking to integrate ethical considerations into their procurement policies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".