Improving a supplier's social responsibility: the effect of competition and incomplete visibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Firms face increasing pressure from consumers, governments, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to implement better social responsibility (SR) practices in their supply chains. However, a lack of visibility into suppliers' operations and competition can hinder a firm's efforts to improve SR in its supply chain. In this study, we consider two competing supply chains, each consisting of a single firm and a single supplier, and explore the case where the firms can invest in their suppliers' SR capabilities. We assume the firms do not have full visibility into the suppliers' SR practices. Moreover, the suppliers are under scrutiny from a third party that may disclose the suppliers' compliance levels to consumers. Our results show that increasing the intensity of price competition leads firms to invest more in their suppliers and improves suppliers' SR. We further show that a firm benefits from having full visibility into its supplier's SR practices only when the suppliers' unit investment costs are low. We extend our results to consider the case where consumers respond to the supplier's actual compliance level (rather than just the news of their noncompliance) and demonstrate the robustness of our findings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".