The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility on Supplier Relationship Management in E-Commerce
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative research investigates the influence of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) on Supplier Relationship Management (SRM) within the e-commerce sector. Through semi-structured interviews and secondary data analysis, the study explores motivations, challenges, impacts, and strategic outcomes of integrating CSR practices into supplier relationships. Motivations for adopting CSR include ethical considerations, regulatory compliance, and meeting stakeholder expectations, reflecting a strategic alignment with corporate values and societal demands. Challenges such as resource constraints, regulatory complexities, and cultural differences highlight operational hurdles and strategic considerations e-commerce firms face in implementing CSR initiatives effectively. The study reveals that CSR enhances trust, collaboration, and risk mitigation within e-commerce supply chains through transparent communication, shared values, and ethical practices. Strategically, CSR contributes to enhanced brand equity, competitive advantage, and long-term value creation by differentiating firms in competitive markets and attracting socially conscious consumers and investors. However, economic trade-offs, stakeholder divergence, and operational complexities require firms to adopt adaptive strategies that balance short-term financial goals with long-term sustainability objectives. The findings suggest avenues for future research exploring longitudinal impacts of CSR on supplier relationships, cross-sectoral comparisons, and technological advancements in CSR-driven SRM practices. Practically, e-commerce firms should prioritize strategic alignment of CSR initiatives with core business objectives, engage stakeholders in CSR strategy development, and embrace continuous improvement to foster ethical conduct, stakeholder trust, and sustainable business practices.
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 | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".