2022
DOI: 10.1155/2022/3592859
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dual-Source Procurement Strategy of Cross-Border E-Commerce Supply Chain considering Members’ Risk Attitude

Abstract: The risk attitude of decision-makers will significantly affect the decision-making of enterprise risk management. Specifically, high risk represents the potential premise of high return for risk preference decision-makers, and for risk-averse decision-makers, the increase of risk degree will stimulate decision-makers’ aversion to uncertainty and turn to seek safer business strategies. Although there are many pieces of literature on the risk preference of decision-makers, they usually only assume the risk attit… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
0
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There are a number of methods to measure supply chain risks in academia, such as mean-variance model, value-at-risk (VaR) model and conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) model. Some scholars have used mean-variance model to measure the risk profit for risk takers [54], [55]. However, this method cannot directly reflect market fluctuations.…”
Section: Problem Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are a number of methods to measure supply chain risks in academia, such as mean-variance model, value-at-risk (VaR) model and conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) model. Some scholars have used mean-variance model to measure the risk profit for risk takers [54], [55]. However, this method cannot directly reflect market fluctuations.…”
Section: Problem Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tis article has been retracted by Hindawi, as publisher, following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. Tis investigation has uncovered evidence of systematic manipulation of the publication and peer-review process.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%