學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 ESG因子對於科技產業採購決策之影響：以H公司為例
The impact of ESG factors on sourcing decisions in the technology industry: The case study of H corporation作者 張詠欣
Chang, Yung-Hsin貢獻者 鄭至甫
Jeng, Jyh-Fu
張詠欣
Chang, Yung-Hsin關鍵詞 ESG採購
責任採購
採購決策
供應商管理
ESG sourcing
Responsible sourcing
Sourcing Decision
Supplier Management日期 2024 上傳時間 5-八月-2024 13:06:09 (UTC+8) 摘要 永續供應鏈管理已成為21世紀企業經營的重要議題，涵蓋社會、經濟與環境層面的綜合考量。隨著國際組織和政府積極推動永續發展規範，企業逐漸重視環境、社會及公司治理(ESG)因子，並開始設立專責處理永續議題的部門。科技產業因其快速發展與創新所帶來的環境和社會影響，更需重視ESG原則。 過去有關ESG對於企業的影響，集中於ESG表現的揭露或對財務績效的探討，較少聚焦於企業如何在策略層面有效整合ESG因子；與此同時，在新冠疫情的影響下，供應商為因應永續潮流，正不斷調整自己的ESG表現，以在競爭對手中更獲優勢。本研究旨在填補ESG採購決策領域的研究空白。透過「科技公司如何因應ESG指標制定採購決策」來分析決策流程與利害關係人的互動模式。 本研究以H公司為案例進行深入分析，深入探討ESG因子如何影響科技產業的供應鏈採購策略，理解企業在面對ESG考量時的行動和決策，並考慮供應鏈夥伴的ESG表現如何影響企業的採購策略。研究透過Simon所提出的決策程序模型為理論架構，以智力、設計、選擇的決策三階段對ESG因子介入採購決策的流程進行分析。研究發現目前科技公司尚未在整體採購ESG策略上有明顯的作為；環境發展因子通常為ESG面向裡最早介入採購決策者，社會責任與公司治理則有待更完善的發展；在採購部門與永續部門的合作過程中，部門間資訊的不完全對稱，也導致永續團隊無法更量身定做的適用於公司的ESG策略；最後，在採購程序的選擇階段，ESG表現較好者往往會更容易在供應商的競選中勝出，顯示出ESG於採購策略中的地位愈趨往前。 本研究通過探討ESG因子對科技產業採購決策的影響，強調完整的ESG採購策略制定需要利害關係人更緊密的合作，以讓ESG在實際採購流程發揮更大的影響力。
Sustainable supply chain management has become a crucial issue in 21st-century corporate operations, encompassing a comprehensive consideration of social, economic, and environmental aspects. With international organizations and governments actively promoting sustainable development regulations, companies are increasingly emphasizing ESG factors and have begun establishing dedicated departments to address sustainability issues. The technology industry, due to the rapid development and innovation it brings, which impacts the environment and society, must pay particular attention to ESG principles. Past research on the impact of ESG on companies has primarily focused on the disclosure of ESG performance or its financial implications, with less emphasis on how companies effectively integrate ESG factors at a strategic level. Additionally, influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, suppliers are continuously adjusting their ESG performance to gain a competitive edge. This study aims to fill the research gap in ESG procurement decision-making by analyzing the decision-making process and the interaction patterns among stakeholders through the lens of “how technology companies formulate procurement decisions in response to ESG indicators.” Using H Company as a case study, this research deeply explores how ESG factors influence the procurement strategies of the technology industry’s supply chain. It seeks to understand the actions and decisions companies make when faced with ESG considerations and examines how the ESG performance of supply chain partners affects corporate procurement strategies. The study employs Simon's decision-making process model as the theoretical framework, analyzing the process of integrating ESG factors into procurement decisions through the three decision-making stages of intelligence, design, and choice. The research finds that currently, technology companies have not yet made significant strides in overall procurement ESG strategies. Environmental factors tend to be the earliest ESG aspects involved in procurement decisions, while social responsibility and corporate governance require further development. During the collaboration process between procurement and sustainability departments, information asymmetry between departments prevents the sustainability team from tailoring ESG strategies more effectively to the company. Finally, in the choice stage of the procurement process, suppliers with better ESG performance are often more likely to win bids, indicating the increasing prominence of ESG in procurement strategies. This study highlights that the formulation of a comprehensive ESG procurement strategy requires closer cooperation among stakeholders to enhance the influence of ESG in the actual procurement process.參考文獻 張雅婷（2020）。社會企業利害關係人之社會網絡分析－以里仁事業股份有限公司為例。中國行政評論，26(3)，30-63。https://doi.org/10.6635/cpar.202009_26(3).0002 傅穎（2016）。綠色創業背景下的組織變革決策過程研究〔未出版之博士學位論文〕。浙江大學。 涂敏芬（2012）。對抗制度的創新：策略行動者的能動性實踐。臺大管理論叢，22(2)，87-118。 陳炫碩、陳佩宜、游敏、張一中（2014）。由制度理論探討企業實施綠色供應鏈之研究。商管科技季刊，15(2)，247-278。 Asif, M., Searcy, C., & Castka, P. (2023). ESG and Industry 5.0: The role of technologies in enhancing ESG disclosure. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 195, 122806. Agrawal, V. V., & Lee, D. (2016). Responsible Sourcing. In A. Atasu (Ed.), Environmentally responsible supply chains (pp. 71-86). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30094-8_5 Baid, V., & Jayaraman, V. (2022). Amplifying and promoting the “S” in ESG investing: the case for social responsibility in supply chain financing. Managerial Finance, 48(8), 1279-1297. Bidgoli, H. (1989). Decision Support Systems: Principles and Practice.(1st ed.). West Publishing Company. https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=PVNaAAAAYAAJ Chen-Yuan Tung, P. D. (2023). TAIWAN AND THE GLOBAL SEMICONDUCTOR SUPPLY CHAIN: 2023 IN REVIEW. Taipei Representative Office in Singapore. https://www.roc-taiwan.org/uploads/sites/86/2024/04/2024_April___May_Issue.pdf Cherel-Bonnemaison, C., Erlandsson, G., Ibach, B., & Spiller, P. (2021). Buying into a more sustainable value chain. url: https://www. mckinsey. com/business-functions/operations/our-insights/buying-into-a-more-sustainable-value-chain (Last accessed: 11-04-2022). Ciliberti, F., De Haan, J., De Groot, G., & Pontrandolfo, P. (2011). CSR codes and the principal-agent problem in supply chains: four case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(8), 885-894. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications. Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think.(1st ed.). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American sociological review, 48(2), 147-160. Egorova, A. A., Grishunin, S. V., & Karminsky, A. M. (2022). The Impact of ESG factors on the performance of Information Technology Companies. Procedia Computer Science, 199, 339-345. Fiori, S. (2008). Herbert A. Simon and contemporary theories of bounded rationality. U. of Torino Department of Economics Research Paper(2). Fleck, R. S., & Schjerning Povlsen, C. (2023). Exploring the Decision Making Process for Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Procurement Investments within Organizations: Interviewing Sustainability Managers (Dissertation). Retrieved from https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-61581 Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge university press. Harrison, J. S., & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Stakeholders, Social Responsibility, and Performance: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Perspectives. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 479-485. https://doi.org/10.2307/256971 Henisz, W., Koller, T., & Nuttall, R. (2019). Five ways that ESG creates value. In The McKinsey quarterly. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business Functions/Strategy and Corporate Finance/Our Insights/Five ways that ESG creates value/Five-ways-that-ESG-creates-value.ashx Jordão, A. R., Costa, R., Dias, Á. L., Pereira, L., & Santos, J. P. (2020). Bounded rationality in decision making: an analysis of the decision-making biases. Business: Theory and Practice, 21(2), 654-665. Mayring, P. (2019). Qualitative content analysis: Demarcation, varieties, developments. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-20.3.3343 Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American journal of sociology, 83(2), 340-363. Jensen, M., & dan Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Cost and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X Simon, H. A. (1957). Background of decision making. Naval War College Review, 10(3), 1-24. Simon, H. A. (1995). Rationality in Political Behavior. Political Psychology, 16(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791449 Simon, H. A. (1997). Models of bounded rationality: Empirically grounded economic reason (Vol. 3). MIT press. Torres, L. A., & Pena Jr, M. A. G. (2021). Foresight as decision-making support within bounded rationality in individuals and organizations–Embrapa’s strategic intelligence system–Agropensa’s case. Foresight, 23(4), 477-495. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. United Nations, The Global Compact (2004). Who Cares Wins: Connecting the Financial Markets to a Changing World? United Nations. Guo, R., Lee, H. L., & Swinney, R. (2016). Responsible sourcing in supply chains. Management Science, 62(9), 2722-2744. Giunipero, L. C., Bittner, S., Shanks, I., & Cho, M. H. (2019). Analyzing the sourcing literature: over two decades of research. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 25(5), 100521. Monczka, R. M., Handfield, R. B., Giunipero, L. C., & Patterson, J. L. (2021). Purchasing & supply chain management. Cengage Learning. Virolainen, V.-M. (1998). A survey of procurement strategy development in industrial companies. International Journal of Production Economics, 56, 677-688. Sislian, E., & Satir, A. (2000). Strategic sourcing: a framework and a case study. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 36(2), 4-11. Narasimhan, R., & Carter, J. R. (1998). Linking business unit and material sourcing strategies. Journal of Business Logistics, 19(2), 155. Kocabasoglu, C., & Suresh, N. C. (2006). Strategic sourcing: an empirical investigation of the concept and its practices in US manufacturing firms. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 42(2), 4-16. Oke, A., & Kach, A. (2012). Linking sourcing and collaborative strategies to financial performance: The role of operational innovation. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 18(1), 46-59. Eltantawy, R. A., & Giunipero, L. (2013). An empirical examination of strategic sourcing dominant logic: Strategic sourcing centricity. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 19(4), 215-226. Shahzad, M., Rehman, S. U., Zafar, A. U., & Masood, K. (2024). Sustainable sourcing for a sustainable future: the role of organizational motives and stakeholder pressure. Operations Management Research, 17(1), 75-90. Jiang, Y., Jia, F., Blome, C., & Chen, L. (2020). Achieving sustainability in global sourcing: towards a conceptual framework. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 25(1), 35-60. Mehrjerdi, Y. Z., & Shafiee, M. (2021). A resilient and sustainable closed-loop supply chain using multiple sourcing and information sharing strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 289, 125141. Green, K., Morton, B., & New, S. (1998). Green purchasing and supply policies: do they improve companies’ environmental performance? Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 3(2), 89-95. Mahrinasari, M., Hussain, S., Yapanto, L. M., Esquivel-Infantes, S. M., Untari, D. T., Yusriadi, Y., & Diah, A. (2021). The impact of decision-making models and knowledge management practices on performance. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 20, 1-13. Nicolas, R. (2004). Knowledge management impacts on decision making process. Journal of knowledge management, 8(1), 20-31. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
111364117資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111364117 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 鄭至甫 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Jeng, Jyh-Fu en_US dc.contributor.author (作者) 張詠欣 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Chang, Yung-Hsin en_US dc.creator (作者) 張詠欣 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Chang, Yung-Hsin en_US dc.date (日期) 2024 en_US dc.date.accessioned 5-八月-2024 13:06:09 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 5-八月-2024 13:06:09 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 5-八月-2024 13:06:09 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0111364117 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/152653 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 科技管理與智慧財產研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 111364117 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 永續供應鏈管理已成為21世紀企業經營的重要議題，涵蓋社會、經濟與環境層面的綜合考量。隨著國際組織和政府積極推動永續發展規範，企業逐漸重視環境、社會及公司治理(ESG)因子，並開始設立專責處理永續議題的部門。科技產業因其快速發展與創新所帶來的環境和社會影響，更需重視ESG原則。 過去有關ESG對於企業的影響，集中於ESG表現的揭露或對財務績效的探討，較少聚焦於企業如何在策略層面有效整合ESG因子；與此同時，在新冠疫情的影響下，供應商為因應永續潮流，正不斷調整自己的ESG表現，以在競爭對手中更獲優勢。本研究旨在填補ESG採購決策領域的研究空白。透過「科技公司如何因應ESG指標制定採購決策」來分析決策流程與利害關係人的互動模式。 本研究以H公司為案例進行深入分析，深入探討ESG因子如何影響科技產業的供應鏈採購策略，理解企業在面對ESG考量時的行動和決策，並考慮供應鏈夥伴的ESG表現如何影響企業的採購策略。研究透過Simon所提出的決策程序模型為理論架構，以智力、設計、選擇的決策三階段對ESG因子介入採購決策的流程進行分析。研究發現目前科技公司尚未在整體採購ESG策略上有明顯的作為；環境發展因子通常為ESG面向裡最早介入採購決策者，社會責任與公司治理則有待更完善的發展；在採購部門與永續部門的合作過程中，部門間資訊的不完全對稱，也導致永續團隊無法更量身定做的適用於公司的ESG策略；最後，在採購程序的選擇階段，ESG表現較好者往往會更容易在供應商的競選中勝出，顯示出ESG於採購策略中的地位愈趨往前。 本研究通過探討ESG因子對科技產業採購決策的影響，強調完整的ESG採購策略制定需要利害關係人更緊密的合作，以讓ESG在實際採購流程發揮更大的影響力。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Sustainable supply chain management has become a crucial issue in 21st-century corporate operations, encompassing a comprehensive consideration of social, economic, and environmental aspects. With international organizations and governments actively promoting sustainable development regulations, companies are increasingly emphasizing ESG factors and have begun establishing dedicated departments to address sustainability issues. The technology industry, due to the rapid development and innovation it brings, which impacts the environment and society, must pay particular attention to ESG principles. Past research on the impact of ESG on companies has primarily focused on the disclosure of ESG performance or its financial implications, with less emphasis on how companies effectively integrate ESG factors at a strategic level. Additionally, influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, suppliers are continuously adjusting their ESG performance to gain a competitive edge. This study aims to fill the research gap in ESG procurement decision-making by analyzing the decision-making process and the interaction patterns among stakeholders through the lens of “how technology companies formulate procurement decisions in response to ESG indicators.” Using H Company as a case study, this research deeply explores how ESG factors influence the procurement strategies of the technology industry’s supply chain. It seeks to understand the actions and decisions companies make when faced with ESG considerations and examines how the ESG performance of supply chain partners affects corporate procurement strategies. The study employs Simon's decision-making process model as the theoretical framework, analyzing the process of integrating ESG factors into procurement decisions through the three decision-making stages of intelligence, design, and choice. The research finds that currently, technology companies have not yet made significant strides in overall procurement ESG strategies. Environmental factors tend to be the earliest ESG aspects involved in procurement decisions, while social responsibility and corporate governance require further development. During the collaboration process between procurement and sustainability departments, information asymmetry between departments prevents the sustainability team from tailoring ESG strategies more effectively to the company. Finally, in the choice stage of the procurement process, suppliers with better ESG performance are often more likely to win bids, indicating the increasing prominence of ESG in procurement strategies. This study highlights that the formulation of a comprehensive ESG procurement strategy requires closer cooperation among stakeholders to enhance the influence of ESG in the actual procurement process. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景 1 第二節 研究動機 3 第三節 研究目的 3 第四節 研究架構 4 第二章 文獻回顧 6 第一節 理論基礎 6 第二節 ESG採購策略 9 第三節 決策程序模型 13 第三章 研究方法 17 第一節 研究架構 17 第二節 研究方法 17 第三節 研究樣本 18 第四章 研究分析 21 第一節 訪談部門介紹 21 第二節 ESG介入採購決策 23 第三節 小結：ESG採購決策三階段 33 第五章 結論與建議 35 第一節 研究發現 35 第二節 研究討論 39 第三節 研究貢獻與意涵 42 第四節 研究限制與未來建議 44 第五節 結語 45 參考文獻 46 附錄 訪談大綱 50 zh_TW dc.format.extent 1386796 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111364117 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) ESG採購 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 責任採購 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 採購決策 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 供應商管理 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) ESG sourcing en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Responsible sourcing en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Sourcing Decision en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Supplier Management en_US dc.title (題名) ESG因子對於科技產業採購決策之影響：以H公司為例 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The impact of ESG factors on sourcing decisions in the technology industry: The case study of H corporation en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 張雅婷（2020）。社會企業利害關係人之社會網絡分析－以里仁事業股份有限公司為例。中國行政評論，26(3)，30-63。https://doi.org/10.6635/cpar.202009_26(3).0002 傅穎（2016）。綠色創業背景下的組織變革決策過程研究〔未出版之博士學位論文〕。浙江大學。 涂敏芬（2012）。對抗制度的創新：策略行動者的能動性實踐。臺大管理論叢，22(2)，87-118。 陳炫碩、陳佩宜、游敏、張一中（2014）。由制度理論探討企業實施綠色供應鏈之研究。商管科技季刊，15(2)，247-278。 Asif, M., Searcy, C., & Castka, P. (2023). ESG and Industry 5.0: The role of technologies in enhancing ESG disclosure. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 195, 122806. Agrawal, V. V., & Lee, D. (2016). Responsible Sourcing. In A. Atasu (Ed.), Environmentally responsible supply chains (pp. 71-86). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30094-8_5 Baid, V., & Jayaraman, V. (2022). Amplifying and promoting the “S” in ESG investing: the case for social responsibility in supply chain financing. Managerial Finance, 48(8), 1279-1297. Bidgoli, H. (1989). Decision Support Systems: Principles and Practice.(1st ed.). West Publishing Company. https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=PVNaAAAAYAAJ Chen-Yuan Tung, P. D. (2023). TAIWAN AND THE GLOBAL SEMICONDUCTOR SUPPLY CHAIN: 2023 IN REVIEW. Taipei Representative Office in Singapore. https://www.roc-taiwan.org/uploads/sites/86/2024/04/2024_April___May_Issue.pdf Cherel-Bonnemaison, C., Erlandsson, G., Ibach, B., & Spiller, P. (2021). Buying into a more sustainable value chain. url: https://www. mckinsey. com/business-functions/operations/our-insights/buying-into-a-more-sustainable-value-chain (Last accessed: 11-04-2022). Ciliberti, F., De Haan, J., De Groot, G., & Pontrandolfo, P. (2011). CSR codes and the principal-agent problem in supply chains: four case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(8), 885-894. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications. Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think.(1st ed.). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American sociological review, 48(2), 147-160. Egorova, A. A., Grishunin, S. V., & Karminsky, A. M. (2022). The Impact of ESG factors on the performance of Information Technology Companies. Procedia Computer Science, 199, 339-345. Fiori, S. (2008). Herbert A. Simon and contemporary theories of bounded rationality. U. of Torino Department of Economics Research Paper(2). Fleck, R. S., & Schjerning Povlsen, C. (2023). Exploring the Decision Making Process for Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Procurement Investments within Organizations: Interviewing Sustainability Managers (Dissertation). Retrieved from https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-61581 Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge university press. Harrison, J. S., & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Stakeholders, Social Responsibility, and Performance: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Perspectives. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 479-485. https://doi.org/10.2307/256971 Henisz, W., Koller, T., & Nuttall, R. (2019). Five ways that ESG creates value. In The McKinsey quarterly. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business Functions/Strategy and Corporate Finance/Our Insights/Five ways that ESG creates value/Five-ways-that-ESG-creates-value.ashx Jordão, A. R., Costa, R., Dias, Á. L., Pereira, L., & Santos, J. P. (2020). Bounded rationality in decision making: an analysis of the decision-making biases. Business: Theory and Practice, 21(2), 654-665. Mayring, P. (2019). Qualitative content analysis: Demarcation, varieties, developments. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-20.3.3343 Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American journal of sociology, 83(2), 340-363. Jensen, M., & dan Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Cost and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X Simon, H. A. (1957). Background of decision making. Naval War College Review, 10(3), 1-24. Simon, H. A. (1995). Rationality in Political Behavior. Political Psychology, 16(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791449 Simon, H. A. (1997). Models of bounded rationality: Empirically grounded economic reason (Vol. 3). MIT press. Torres, L. A., & Pena Jr, M. A. G. (2021). Foresight as decision-making support within bounded rationality in individuals and organizations–Embrapa’s strategic intelligence system–Agropensa’s case. Foresight, 23(4), 477-495. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. United Nations, The Global Compact (2004). Who Cares Wins: Connecting the Financial Markets to a Changing World? United Nations. Guo, R., Lee, H. L., & Swinney, R. (2016). Responsible sourcing in supply chains. Management Science, 62(9), 2722-2744. Giunipero, L. C., Bittner, S., Shanks, I., & Cho, M. H. (2019). Analyzing the sourcing literature: over two decades of research. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 25(5), 100521. Monczka, R. M., Handfield, R. B., Giunipero, L. C., & Patterson, J. L. (2021). Purchasing & supply chain management. Cengage Learning. Virolainen, V.-M. (1998). A survey of procurement strategy development in industrial companies. International Journal of Production Economics, 56, 677-688. Sislian, E., & Satir, A. (2000). Strategic sourcing: a framework and a case study. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 36(2), 4-11. Narasimhan, R., & Carter, J. R. (1998). Linking business unit and material sourcing strategies. Journal of Business Logistics, 19(2), 155. Kocabasoglu, C., & Suresh, N. C. (2006). Strategic sourcing: an empirical investigation of the concept and its practices in US manufacturing firms. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 42(2), 4-16. Oke, A., & Kach, A. (2012). Linking sourcing and collaborative strategies to financial performance: The role of operational innovation. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 18(1), 46-59. Eltantawy, R. A., & Giunipero, L. (2013). An empirical examination of strategic sourcing dominant logic: Strategic sourcing centricity. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 19(4), 215-226. Shahzad, M., Rehman, S. U., Zafar, A. U., & Masood, K. (2024). Sustainable sourcing for a sustainable future: the role of organizational motives and stakeholder pressure. Operations Management Research, 17(1), 75-90. Jiang, Y., Jia, F., Blome, C., & Chen, L. (2020). Achieving sustainability in global sourcing: towards a conceptual framework. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 25(1), 35-60. Mehrjerdi, Y. Z., & Shafiee, M. (2021). A resilient and sustainable closed-loop supply chain using multiple sourcing and information sharing strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 289, 125141. Green, K., Morton, B., & New, S. (1998). Green purchasing and supply policies: do they improve companies’ environmental performance? Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 3(2), 89-95. Mahrinasari, M., Hussain, S., Yapanto, L. M., Esquivel-Infantes, S. M., Untari, D. T., Yusriadi, Y., & Diah, A. (2021). The impact of decision-making models and knowledge management practices on performance. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 20, 1-13. Nicolas, R. (2004). Knowledge management impacts on decision making process. Journal of knowledge management, 8(1), 20-31. zh_TW
