采购的灰色地带:衡量可疑采购行为的普遍程度

IF 6.8 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.pursup.2024.100922
Fanny Chen, Jan van Dalen, Finn Wynstra
{"title":"采购的灰色地带:衡量可疑采购行为的普遍程度","authors":"Fanny Chen,&nbsp;Jan van Dalen,&nbsp;Finn Wynstra","doi":"10.1016/j.pursup.2024.100922","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Buyer-supplier relationships may be exposed to ethically questionable purchasing practices. This can have major financial and reputational consequences for individuals and organisations. Various studies have assessed procurement professionals' ethical judgements regarding questionable purchasing practices and a handful have estimated the prevalence of these practices. The insights from these studies, however, cannot be straightforwardly extrapolated to today's practice. First, the studies have mostly estimated prevalence without controlling for social desirability bias. The estimation of the prevalence of questionable practices based on subjects' responses is non-trivial, as it may be prone to socially desirable response behaviour. Second, most of the studies were conducted decades ago and the role of the purchasing function has changed significantly ever since. Based on these observations, the present study makes two main contributions to the literature. First, it methodologically extends extant studies by estimating the prevalence of questionable purchasing practices in Europe while controlling for social desirability bias. Specifically, the present study applies the recently developed Extended Crosswise Model to test for socially desirable answers and presents these prevalence estimates in comparison to estimates obtained via a direct questioning technique. The findings highlight the ongoing prevalence of unethical practices in buyer-supplier relationships and the need for organisations to be vigilant in addressing them. Post-hoc analyses indicate that gender, work experience, perceived levels of public sector corruption, and governmental procurement agreements affect the involvement in questionable purchasing practices. Second, the present study examines how earlier and newly identified questionable practices are perceived in the current business environment. The results suggest that ethical perceptions have changed and that most unethical practices are observed in supplier selection. From a theoretical perspective, the present study responds to both the call to further investigate ethical issues in supply chains (Quarshie et al., 2016) and the call to address social desirability bias in purchasing and supply management research (Ried et al., 2022). From a managerial perspective, our research can serve as a starting point for organisations to develop strategies to mitigate their impact and promote ethical behaviour throughout the purchasing process.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47950,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1478409224000281/pdfft?md5=9b4f7c44a824a849f1246abab43e6595&pid=1-s2.0-S1478409224000281-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The grey side of procurement: Measuring the prevalence of questionable purchasing practices\",\"authors\":\"Fanny Chen,&nbsp;Jan van Dalen,&nbsp;Finn Wynstra\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.pursup.2024.100922\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Buyer-supplier relationships may be exposed to ethically questionable purchasing practices. This can have major financial and reputational consequences for individuals and organisations. Various studies have assessed procurement professionals' ethical judgements regarding questionable purchasing practices and a handful have estimated the prevalence of these practices. The insights from these studies, however, cannot be straightforwardly extrapolated to today's practice. First, the studies have mostly estimated prevalence without controlling for social desirability bias. The estimation of the prevalence of questionable practices based on subjects' responses is non-trivial, as it may be prone to socially desirable response behaviour. Second, most of the studies were conducted decades ago and the role of the purchasing function has changed significantly ever since. Based on these observations, the present study makes two main contributions to the literature. First, it methodologically extends extant studies by estimating the prevalence of questionable purchasing practices in Europe while controlling for social desirability bias. Specifically, the present study applies the recently developed Extended Crosswise Model to test for socially desirable answers and presents these prevalence estimates in comparison to estimates obtained via a direct questioning technique. The findings highlight the ongoing prevalence of unethical practices in buyer-supplier relationships and the need for organisations to be vigilant in addressing them. Post-hoc analyses indicate that gender, work experience, perceived levels of public sector corruption, and governmental procurement agreements affect the involvement in questionable purchasing practices. Second, the present study examines how earlier and newly identified questionable practices are perceived in the current business environment. The results suggest that ethical perceptions have changed and that most unethical practices are observed in supplier selection. From a theoretical perspective, the present study responds to both the call to further investigate ethical issues in supply chains (Quarshie et al., 2016) and the call to address social desirability bias in purchasing and supply management research (Ried et al., 2022). From a managerial perspective, our research can serve as a starting point for organisations to develop strategies to mitigate their impact and promote ethical behaviour throughout the purchasing process.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47950,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1478409224000281/pdfft?md5=9b4f7c44a824a849f1246abab43e6595&pid=1-s2.0-S1478409224000281-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1478409224000281\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1478409224000281","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

买方与供应商之间的关系可能会受到有道德问题的采购行为的影响。这可能会对个人和组织的财务和声誉造成重大影响。各种研究评估了采购专业人员对有问题采购行为的道德判断,少数研究估计了这些行为的普遍程度。然而,这些研究得出的结论并不能直接推广到当今的实践中。首先,这些研究大多是在没有控制社会可取性偏差的情况下估计普遍程度的。根据受试者的回答来估算有问题做法的普遍性并非易事,因为这可能容易导致社会期望的回答行为。其次,大多数研究都是在几十年前进行的,自那时起,购买功能的作用发生了很大变化。基于这些观察结果,本研究对相关文献做出了两大贡献。首先,本研究在方法上对现有研究进行了扩展,估算了欧洲有问题采购行为的普遍程度,同时控制了社会可取性偏差。具体来说,本研究采用了最近开发的扩展交叉模型来检验社会期望答案,并将这些流行率估计值与通过直接询问技术获得的估计值进行了比较。研究结果凸显了不道德行为在买方与供应商关系中的持续普遍性,以及组织在解决这些问题时保持警惕的必要性。事后分析表明,性别、工作经验、对公共部门腐败程度的认知以及政府采购协议都会影响参与有问题采购行为的程度。其次,本研究探讨了在当前的商业环境中如何看待以前和新发现的有问题做法。研究结果表明,道德观念已经发生了变化,大多数不道德行为都出现在供应商的选择上。从理论角度来看,本研究既响应了进一步调查供应链中道德问题的呼吁(Quarshie 等人,2016 年),也响应了在采购和供应管理研究中解决社会可取性偏差的呼吁(Ried 等人,2022 年)。从管理的角度来看,我们的研究可以作为一个起点,帮助组织制定战略,在整个采购过程中减轻其影响并促进道德行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The grey side of procurement: Measuring the prevalence of questionable purchasing practices

Buyer-supplier relationships may be exposed to ethically questionable purchasing practices. This can have major financial and reputational consequences for individuals and organisations. Various studies have assessed procurement professionals' ethical judgements regarding questionable purchasing practices and a handful have estimated the prevalence of these practices. The insights from these studies, however, cannot be straightforwardly extrapolated to today's practice. First, the studies have mostly estimated prevalence without controlling for social desirability bias. The estimation of the prevalence of questionable practices based on subjects' responses is non-trivial, as it may be prone to socially desirable response behaviour. Second, most of the studies were conducted decades ago and the role of the purchasing function has changed significantly ever since. Based on these observations, the present study makes two main contributions to the literature. First, it methodologically extends extant studies by estimating the prevalence of questionable purchasing practices in Europe while controlling for social desirability bias. Specifically, the present study applies the recently developed Extended Crosswise Model to test for socially desirable answers and presents these prevalence estimates in comparison to estimates obtained via a direct questioning technique. The findings highlight the ongoing prevalence of unethical practices in buyer-supplier relationships and the need for organisations to be vigilant in addressing them. Post-hoc analyses indicate that gender, work experience, perceived levels of public sector corruption, and governmental procurement agreements affect the involvement in questionable purchasing practices. Second, the present study examines how earlier and newly identified questionable practices are perceived in the current business environment. The results suggest that ethical perceptions have changed and that most unethical practices are observed in supplier selection. From a theoretical perspective, the present study responds to both the call to further investigate ethical issues in supply chains (Quarshie et al., 2016) and the call to address social desirability bias in purchasing and supply management research (Ried et al., 2022). From a managerial perspective, our research can serve as a starting point for organisations to develop strategies to mitigate their impact and promote ethical behaviour throughout the purchasing process.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
18.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
70 days
期刊介绍: The mission of the Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management is to publish original, high-quality research within the field of purchasing and supply management (PSM). Articles should have a significant impact on PSM theory and practice. The Journal ensures that high quality research is collected and disseminated widely to both academics and practitioners, and provides a forum for debate. It covers all subjects relating to the purchase and supply of goods and services in industry, commerce, local, national, and regional government, health and transportation.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board From checking the box to driving impact – Perspectives on how to develop a supplier diversity program that is less narrowly scoped and more wholeheartedly adopted The circular business models of third-party loop operators: An activity-based view on performing activities internally or externally Establishing buyer-supplier self-organization through LSP brokered learning and information technologies: The effects on relational performance in logistic service triads Closing the loop: The fundamental role of Purchasing and Supply Management in reaching a circular economy
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1