@article{ZeitlerSchwarzkopf, author = {Zeitler, Marlene and Schwarzkopf, Julia}, title = {Assessing human rights due diligence in supply chains}, series = {Management Decision}, journal = {Management Decision}, publisher = {Emerald Publishing}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2024-0583}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:523-22639}, pages = {1 -- 19}, abstract = {Purpose - This study aims to broaden the understanding of auditing practices of sustainability initiatives that promote sustainability standards in supply chains. We examine the extent to which the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights are embedded in such auditing practices to support the legitimacy of firms' supply chain efforts. Design/methodology/approach - Building on legitimacy theory, this study explores the role and limitations of auditing practices to contribute to the legitimacy of corporate sustainable supply chain efforts. We analyze sustainability audit protocols of selected initiatives to determine their alignment with the UN Guiding Principles. Findings - We identify key auditing gaps, specifically concerning the provision of guidance, stakeholder engagement, impact assessment, and effectiveness measurement. Our findings extend discussions on legitimacy theory by emphasizing that formally adopting auditing practices calls into question the legitimacy of common sustainable supply chain practices. Research limitations/implications - The study emphasizes that legitimacy requires substantive alignment with human rights standards, which encourages greater scholarly attention to this normative dimension. We provide recommendations for practitioners to better integrate normative standards into their auditing practices. However, our research is built on a limited sample of published audit protocols, suggesting further research on additional initiatives and their practices. Originality - This article uses academic research on sustainable supply chain practices to highlight the limitations of initiatives' auditing practices in providing normative guidance for effective human rights due diligence.}, language = {en} } @article{FraserMuellerSchwarzkopf, author = {Fraser, Iain J. and M{\"u}ller, Martin and Schwarzkopf, Julia}, title = {Dear supplier, how sustainable are you?}, series = {Sustainability Management Forum | NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum}, volume = {28}, journal = {Sustainability Management Forum | NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum}, number = {3-4}, publisher = {Springer Berlin Heidelberg}, issn = {2522-5987}, doi = {10.1007/s00550-020-00507-z}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:523-17079}, pages = {127 -- 149}, abstract = {This article analyses one of the most common tools employed by global focal companies in sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) across all industries: supplier sustainability self-assessment questionnaires. Extant research has moved beyond the questions of whether and which suppliers should be assessed. Current research is already focussing on how to share and standardise such assessment data. Despite mounting general research on SSCM, we identified that specific tools such as self-assessment questionnaires have not been empirically analysed in SSCM literature. Thus, this paper addresses the research questions of what differences there are among supplier self-assessment questionnaires and how supplier responses to such questionnaires might be influenced. Our research involves an abductive multiple-case study design and an analysis of over 25,000 responses from globally dispersed suppliers to two types of supplier sustainability self-assessment questionnaires administered and requested by a global automotive focal company. Although the two questionnaires covered similar areas of sustainability practices and were administered to suppliers of the same focal company, the suppliers' responses demonstrated various observable differences in average sustainability scores. Social desirability bias and supplier assessment fatigue were identified as issues confronting such questionnaires. We find that questionnaire design, how the questionnaire is embedded in the focal company's processes and institutional settings are factors that potentially influence suppliers' responses and could counteract social desirability bias and supplier assessment fatigue. Based on these findings we make suggestions for improving these SSCM tools and provide recommendations for further research.}, subject = {Supply Chain Management}, language = {en} }