Sustainability supplier scorecard assessment tools: A comparison between apparel retailers

IF 3.3 Q2 BUSINESS
Rachel Creighton, I. Jestratijević, Daton Lee
{"title":"Sustainability supplier scorecard assessment tools: A comparison between apparel retailers","authors":"Rachel Creighton, I. Jestratijević, Daton Lee","doi":"10.1080/20932685.2021.1987289","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The purpose of this qualitative study is to evaluate and compare eight sustainability supplier scorecard assessment tools in use among five major international apparel retailers, Walmart, Eileen Fisher, Nike, H&M, and Gap. Inductive content analysis was used to study the raw textual data and make evidence-based inferences. Results showed that the field of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) is subject to inefficiencies because there are inadequate standards for reporting information which would expose these inefficiencies. The investigated tools varied in terms of scope, performance measurements, and scoring methodologies, which had negative effects on their comparability. This obstacle, however, does not invalidate the major findings, which revealed an evident and concerning lack of information to support the practical application of the tools investigated. Because no retailer disclosed information about its lower tier suppliers’ assessments, it is uncertain whether and how suppliers in lower tiers are engaged in sustainability assessments. Because sustainability violations occur at a higher rate within fragmented supply chains, it is critical to communicate supplier engagement throughout the value chain. The findings of this study urge the application of standardized and comprehensive scorecard assessments which would help to enhance the credibility of SSCM practice, its assessment, and its communication.","PeriodicalId":46269,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Fashion Marketing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Global Fashion Marketing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2021.1987289","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT The purpose of this qualitative study is to evaluate and compare eight sustainability supplier scorecard assessment tools in use among five major international apparel retailers, Walmart, Eileen Fisher, Nike, H&M, and Gap. Inductive content analysis was used to study the raw textual data and make evidence-based inferences. Results showed that the field of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) is subject to inefficiencies because there are inadequate standards for reporting information which would expose these inefficiencies. The investigated tools varied in terms of scope, performance measurements, and scoring methodologies, which had negative effects on their comparability. This obstacle, however, does not invalidate the major findings, which revealed an evident and concerning lack of information to support the practical application of the tools investigated. Because no retailer disclosed information about its lower tier suppliers’ assessments, it is uncertain whether and how suppliers in lower tiers are engaged in sustainability assessments. Because sustainability violations occur at a higher rate within fragmented supply chains, it is critical to communicate supplier engagement throughout the value chain. The findings of this study urge the application of standardized and comprehensive scorecard assessments which would help to enhance the credibility of SSCM practice, its assessment, and its communication.
可持续性供应商记分卡评估工具:服装零售商之间的比较
摘要本定性研究的目的是评估和比较沃尔玛、艾琳·费舍尔、耐克、H&M和Gap五大国际服装零售商使用的八种可持续发展供应商记分卡评估工具。归纳内容分析用于研究原始文本数据并进行循证推理。结果表明,可持续供应链管理领域存在效率低下的问题,因为报告信息的标准不充分,这会暴露出这些效率低下的情况。所调查的工具在范围、绩效衡量和评分方法方面各不相同,这对其可比性产生了负面影响。然而,这一障碍并没有使主要调查结果无效,这些调查结果表明,明显缺乏支持所调查工具实际应用的信息,令人担忧。由于没有零售商披露其低级别供应商评估的信息,因此不确定低级别供应商是否以及如何参与可持续性评估。由于在分散的供应链中,违反可持续性的行为发生率更高,因此在整个价值链中传达供应商参与度至关重要。这项研究的结果敦促应用标准化和全面的记分卡评估,这将有助于提高SSCM实践、评估和沟通的可信度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
31.60%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: The Journal of Global Fashion Marketing is a quarterly journal that publishes peer-reviewed conceptual and empirical papers and business cases of original works that significantly contribute to the overall advancement of marketing theory, research, and practice in fashion, design, and culture. JGFM endeavors to be a “global bridge” connecting marketing scholars and practitioners in fashion, design, and culture throughout the world. We publish high-quality scholarly articles on marketing written by contributors representing the leading academic authors. As we state on the cover of every issue, our positioning statement, our value added to the marketing scholar readership, is truly to “Bridge Fashion and Marketing” 1. Monitor and analyze global fashion marketing trends. 2. Generate and integrate new ideas and theories related to fashion, luxury, and culture marketing theory and practice. 3. Apply new research methods and techniques in fashion, luxury, and culture marketing. 4. Explore and disseminate cutting edge fashion marketing practices. JGFM welcomes manuscripts that provide fresh, innovative insight to any topic in the field of fashion, luxury, and culture marketing. Both conceptual and empirical works are valued, so long as the manuscript addresses substantive issues in marketing.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信