Does Socially Responsible Supplier Selection Pay Off for Customer Firms? A Cross‐Cultural Comparison

Abstract

Building on Carter and Jennings' (2002a,b, 2004) seminal works on socially responsible purchasing and logistics, this multinational study investigates the extent to which socially responsible supplier selection (SRSS) is associated with customer firms’ financial performance in three key world economic regions. We collect and utilize a unique dataset consisting of a total of 479 manufacturing, retail, and service provider firms operating in three distinct national cultures: China, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States of America. Based on an exploratory empirical analysis, we observe evidence that, overall, firms that consider social responsibility aspects during the supplier selection process enjoy financial performance advantages versus rivals. However, model comparisons across the studied countries reveal differential outcomes of SRSS by region. Our findings aid supply chain managers by linking SRSS to commonly expected outcomes within these important national settings.

Sustainable supplier performance scoring using audition check-list based fuzzy inference system: A case application in automotive spare part industry

“…OHSAS 18001, health and safety incidents, standardized health and safety conditions and health and safety practices are the identified sub-criteria for this main criterion (Ghadimi et al, 2015). In studies conducted in China (W. Yu et al, 2012;Yuan et al, 2012), the importance of selecting suppliers that consider safety-related behaviours and safety standards in their workspaces is emphasized due to a significant increase in industrial accidents and work-related injuries (Thornton et al, 2013).…”

“…Culpan and Guglielmo (2010) stated that SC globalization could have direct impact on awareness and human rights treatments for workforces in geographically dispersed suppliers. Thornton et al (2013) identified this matter as an important focus by manufacturing firms in seeking for suppliers that paying attention to human right issues such as discrimination are being highly established as an organizational mind-set.…”

“…The sub-criteria that are involved in this criterion are regulatory and public services, security, grants and donations, service infrastructure, health, mobility infrastructure, supporting educational institutions, education, economic welfare and growth, social cohesion, housing, supporting community projects (Ghadimi et al, 2015). Thornton et al (2013) pointed out the community focus that a manufacturing firm could be looking for while selecting its suppliers. They mentioned that bigger organizations might be concerned by the negative influence of the suppliers on the local communities.…”

“…Contractual stakeholders influence (CSI) criterion measures the interest level of a supplier as a primary stakeholder in establishing a long-term relationship with the company (C. Chiouy et al, 2011;Govindan, Khodaverdi, et al, 2013;Thornton et al, 2013). The CSI criterion contains sub-criteria such as information disclosures, stakeholder engagement, partnership screens and standards, procurement standard, stakeholder empowerment, consumer's education and decision influence potential (Ghadimi et al, 2015).…”

“…The local communities influences (LCI) criterion measures the contributions of a supplier to its local communities (C. Baskaran et al, 2012;Dai & Blackhurst, 2012;Govindan, Khodaverdi, et al, 2013;Thornton et al, 2013). The sub-criteria that are involved in this criterion are regulatory and public services, security, grants and donations, service infrastructure, health, mobility infrastructure, supporting educational institutions, education, economic welfare and growth, social cohesion, housing, supporting community projects (Ghadimi et al, 2015).…”