Managing Supplier Risks in E-Commerce: Qualitative Insights into Relationship Management Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study investigates the management of supplier risks in e-commerce through relationship management strategies, focusing on trust-building, communication practices, digital technology integration, risk assessment methodologies, challenges, innovation initiatives, and ethical considerations. The research aims to provide nuanced insights into how e-commerce companies navigate the complexities of global supply chains to mitigate operational, financial, and reputational risks associated with supplier relationships. Through semi-structured interviews with 20 key stakeholders in the e-commerce sector, data were collected and analyzed using thematic analysis. The findings underscored the foundational role of trust in establishing resilient supplier relationships, facilitated by transparent communication, consistent performance evaluation, and mutual respect for contractual obligations. Effective communication practices, supported by digital platforms and technologies such as AI, blockchain, IoT, and cloud computing, enhanced operational transparency and decision-making capabilities across supply chains. The study identified diverse approaches to risk assessment, from qualitative evaluations to quantitative models utilizing predictive analytics and scenario planning. However, participants highlighted challenges including geopolitical uncertainties, trade disruptions, regulatory changes, and cultural barriers, necessitating adaptive strategies and diversified sourcing options. Innovation initiatives such as joint product development and technology adoption were crucial in enhancing supply chain agility and competitive advantage. Ethical considerations emerged as a critical aspect, influencing supplier selection criteria, CSR initiatives, environmental sustainability practices, and labor standards compliance. Integrating ethical guidelines into supplier contracts reinforced corporate values and enhanced brand reputation. Overall, this study contributes practical implications for e-commerce practitioners seeking to enhance supply chain resilience, mitigate supplier risks, and sustain competitive advantage in a dynamic global marketplace.
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 | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".