Sustainable Procurement Practices: Exploring Environmental and Social Criteria in Supplier Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative research investigates sustainable procurement practices, focusing on the integration of environmental and social criteria in supplier evaluation processes. The study explores how organizations, ranging from large multinational corporations to smaller enterprises, navigate sustainability challenges and opportunities within their procurement strategies. Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with procurement professionals and sustainability managers across diverse industries. Themes identified include varying organizational commitments to sustainability, from structured policies and resource allocation in larger firms to reactive approaches constrained by resource limitations in smaller entities. Effective supplier relationship management emerged as crucial, facilitating collaborative partnerships aimed at improving environmental and social performance across supply chains. Motivations for sustainable procurement practices encompass regulatory compliance and responding to consumer demands for eco-friendly products, shaping procurement decisions to enhance market competitiveness and stakeholder satisfaction. Environmental and social criteria integration in supplier evaluations highlighted strategies such as lifecycle assessments and sustainable sourcing practices, aimed at minimizing environmental footprints and promoting ethical labor practices. Benefits included cost savings and enhanced brand reputation, tempered by challenges such as higher procurement costs and supplier resistance. Leadership commitment and organizational culture were identified as critical enablers of sustainable procurement, influencing strategic alignment and fostering a culture of sustainability within organizations. The study underscores the transformative potential of sustainable procurement in achieving organizational resilience and contributing to global sustainability goals.
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 | 0.030 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".