Implementing Ethical Procurement Standards: Experiences and Challenges in Different Sectors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Implementing ethical procurement standards is increasingly recognized as pivotal for organizations aiming to align their practices with principles of social responsibility and sustainability. This qualitative research explores the experiences, challenges, strategies, and impacts associated with ethical procurement across diverse sectors. Motivations for adopting ethical procurement include enhancing corporate reputation, meeting stakeholder expectations, and complying with regulatory frameworks. However, organizations face significant challenges such as balancing ethical considerations with cost-efficiency pressures, navigating complex regulatory landscapes, and ensuring transparency across global supply chains. Strategies for overcoming these challenges emphasize effective supplier relationship management, leveraging technological innovations for transparency, and investing in supplier capacity-building. The study reveals that ethical procurement practices contribute to organizational resilience by improving risk management, enhancing stakeholder engagement, and fostering innovation in procurement processes. Moreover, ethical procurement supports sustainable development goals by promoting environmental sustainability, supporting social equity through fair labor practices, and contributing to economic development. Future research directions include exploring the impact of emerging technologies on ethical procurement, promoting global collaboration for unified standards, and evaluating the long-term sustainability of ethical procurement initiatives.
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 | 0.035 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".