Supply chain social responsibility is increasingly a pressing concern to organizations of all sizes.Justified by its impact on the bottom line, various measures were adopted for resolution and prevention. However, despite the abundance of literature on the topic, there continues to be a lack of evidence on which of the measures are the most prolific, that is, how the concern of interest is actually handled. Such evidence would highlight missed opportunities and set the stage for future research. Toward this goal, the authors conducted a mapping study analyzing 590 articles. The findings reveal that corporate social responsibility, sustainable reporting, and social life cycle assessment are the most used methods whereas systems thinking ranks far behind. This work is original in that it is the first of its kind to reveal such findings scientifically. Practical implications of this work include reducing the supply chain's social footprint, ameliorating stakeholder quality of living, and mitigating social risk.

No abstract

No abstract

Various understandings of enterprise architecture (EA) exist and there is no agreement on them. The various definitions of EA are not always complementary but sometimes in opposition. Within this study, we conduct a systematic literature review to analyze explicit definitions of EA. Based on concepts from the academic field of terminology, we have broken down these definitions into many parts in order to examine each part individually before making generalizations. The findings show how some of the EA definitions are implicit, incomplete, complex, and incoherent.

Despite growing interest in enterprise architecture (EA) around the world in recent years, a lack of common understanding is frequently described by EA researchers/practitioners. We conducted a systematic mapping study and it revealed that the extent to which the authors/researchers are focused on EA, the sectors in which they are working, the academic disciplines in which they have studied, the countries where their affiliated organizations are located, the subject areas of the journals/publishers of their publications and the way they have approached EA and its practitioners are some major elements that might influence the existing uniformity in EA. In addition, this study demonstrates how important it is to pay attention to the definition of 'enterprise architecture' itself. The contribution of this study is the organization of the EA literature according to three major questions concerning 'who' have been published in the literature, 'where' they have been located and 'what' their publications are about. This helps to better identify sources of variety which could be on the basis of the lack of common understanding in EA and provides practitioners and stakeholders a better understanding of this challenge. This also provides relevant directions for future studies.