Ethical judgments in supply chain management: a scenario analysis

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to empirically analyze managers’ ethical judgments in supply chain management. It investigated the influence of those judgments on trust and collaboration in relationships with suppliers. Design/methodology/approach – A scenario-based method was applied to measure managers’ ethical judgments using a sample of 341 data sets collected via survey. Structural equation modeling was utilized to test the proposed hypotheses associating ethical judgments with trust and collaboration in supply chains. Findings – This study illustrates that managers’ ethical judgments in bidding/contracting, information management and inventory management significantly increase trust, which in turn increases supply chain collaboration. Originality/value – The study extends our understanding of ethical judgments in the supply chain management context. Its findings on the causality among ethical judgment, trust and supply chain collaboration provide an effective approach to the management of supplier relationships.

The Role of It in Enhancing Supply Chain Resilience: A Global Review

“…Transparency in supply chain management is studied mainly regarding information asymmetry among suppliers , and ethical supply chains have become vital to organizational success, with companies now competing as supply chains rather than as individual entities (Yusuf et al, 2014). Moreover, the ethical judgments in supply chain management are linked to key factors such as inter-organizational trust and collaboration (Ha & Nam, 2016), and the mere writing down rules of cooperation may not be enough, especially if the supply chain is complex and knowledge of the individual links is limited (Rudnicka, 2017). In conclusion, the challenges in implementing IT for supply chain resilience can be addressed through strategies such as promoting ethical behavior, enhancing workplace ethics, and ensuring supply chain transparency.…”

Ethical marketing strategies: the unique Nash equilibrium

“…Marketing ethics as a research domain has been defined as an “inquiry into the nature and grounds of moral judgments, standards, and rules of conduct relating to marketing decisions and marketing situations” (Vitell, 1986, p. 4) or “the systematic study of how moral standards are applied to marketing decisions, behaviors and institutions” (Murphy et al , 2005, p. xvii, as cited in Abela and Murphy, 2008, p. 39; Schlegelmilch and Öberseder, 2010, p. 2). Marketing ethics has many sub-domains of research, such as “STP (segmentation, targeting and positioning) ethics” (Brenkert, 1998a, 1998b, 2008; Murphy et al , 2005; Palmer and Hedberg, 2013; Putrevu and Swimberghek, 2013; Spotswood and Nairn, 2016), “product ethics” (Arnold and Bowie, 2003, 2007; Brenkert, 2008; Chonko, 1995; Crane and Kazmi, 2010; Kates, 2015; Koenigsberg et al , 2011; Murphy et al , 2005; Powell and Zwolinski, 2012), “pricing ethics” (Bass et al , 2006; Dixit et al , 2006; Elegido, 2009, 2011; Hemphill, 2010; Leslie, 2013; Mehafdi, 2000; Zwolinski, 2008, 2009), “promotion ethics” (Ariffin et al , 2017; Bakir and Vitell, 2010; Boyd, 2012; Brenkert, 2008; Escalas, 2004; Herbst et al , 2013; Munoz and Mallin, 2019; Nebenzhal and Jaffe, 1998; Phillips and McQuarrie, 2010; Schwepker, 2003; Trawick and Swan, 1988), “distribution ethics” (Aalberts and Jennings, 1999; Brenkert, 2008; Chonko, 1995; Ha and Nam, 2016; Klein and Murphy, 2008; Melamed, 2006; Miller et al , 2021; Murphy et al , 2005), “marketing research ethics” (Aggarwal et al , 2012; Brenkert, 2008; Chonko, 1995; Murphy et al , 2005; Tybout and Zaltman, 1974), “international marketing ethics” (Armstrong, 1992, 1996; Brenkert, 2008; Mehafdi, 2000; Zarkada-Fraser and Fraser, 2001) and “consumer ethics” (…”

“…In industrial marketing, ethics is important (Anaza et al , 2015; Anwer et al , 2020; Chou and Chen, 2018; Elahee and Brooks, 2004; Ha and Nam, 2016; Indounas, 2008; Lei et al , 2020; Low and Davenport, 2009; Lu and Yan, 2016; Miller et al , 2021; Munoz and Mallin, 2019; Murli, 2011; Schwepker, 2016; Schwepker and Ingram, 2016; Schwepker and Good, 2013; Schwepker, 2003; Trawick and Swan, 1988; Zanini and Musante, 2013; Zarkada-Fraser and Fraser, 2001). Browning and Zabriskie (1983, p. 219) contend that “an industrial market exists when a buyer and a seller trust each other enough to create a transaction.” They add that “ethical behaviour is defined as the use of recognized social principles involving justice and fairness in situations that are part of business relationships” (1983, p. 219).…”

Simulation Study of Collaborative Inventory Management for Seasonal Products by Incorporating Newsvendor and Buyback Contract

“…For example, Simatupang & Sridharan [12] defined SCC as "Two or more chain members working together to create a competitive advantage through sharing information, making joint decisions, and sharing benefits which result from greater profitability of satisfying end-customer needs than acting alone." According to Ha & Nam [13], it is "Joint work that generates better performance through joint planning and execution of supply chain operations by two or more independent participants." Simatupang & Sridharan [14] postulated SCC as, "A network consisting of key players, such as a retailer and a supplier who partner with each other to improve the value of the entire system."…”