2014
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2469953
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Monitoring the Monitors: How Social Factors Influence Supply Chain Auditors

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
16
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 89 publications
1
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Factories selected for the study had been successfully passing external compliance audits with environmental measurement tools designed to examine and measure organizational non-financial performance. These tools have been, however, recently recognized to be insufficiently efficient, flawed or biased mainly due to being based on a 'check-box compliance' approach (Short, Toffel, and Huguill 2014;Lebaron and Lister 2015). Hence, our study provided additional, subjective measures beyond objectively adequate working conditions confirmed by external auditors.…”
Section: Study Design and Data Sourcementioning
confidence: 96%
“…Factories selected for the study had been successfully passing external compliance audits with environmental measurement tools designed to examine and measure organizational non-financial performance. These tools have been, however, recently recognized to be insufficiently efficient, flawed or biased mainly due to being based on a 'check-box compliance' approach (Short, Toffel, and Huguill 2014;Lebaron and Lister 2015). Hence, our study provided additional, subjective measures beyond objectively adequate working conditions confirmed by external auditors.…”
Section: Study Design and Data Sourcementioning
confidence: 96%
“…The audit process and auditor have been investigated from a regulatory perspective (Coglianese & Mendelson, 2009;García Martinez et al, 2007;García Martinez & Poole, 2004;Grabosky, 2013;Havinga, 2006;Oosterveer, 2015;Sodano et al, 2008;Swoffer, 2005; Bernd M.J. van der Meulen, 2011a; Verbruggen & Havinga, 2014b), a critical theory perspective (Anders et al, 2010;Burch & Lawrence, 2005;Busch, 2011a;Fuchs, Kalfagianni, & Havinga, 2011;Konefal et al, 2005;Richards et al, 2011;Sodano et al, 2008;Tanner, 2000), and from a legal perspective (Brewster & Goldsmith, 2007;Fagotto, 2014;Hawkins & Hutter, 1993;Lytton, 2017;Marks, 2016;Rouvière & Latouche, 2014;Bernd M.J. van der Meulen, 2011a). This literature includes an extensive analysis of private food safety regulatory approaches, and some discussion of the GFSI-system specifically, but has limited discussion of an audit's objectives or the auditors' understanding of their role in the food safety and public health system (Davey & Richards, 2013;Short et al, 2014).…”
Section: Rule Instruments: Meta-regulation and Voluntary Private Standardsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…a retailer based with a head office in Ontario has no direct input into the food safety practices of a lettuce producer in California (Aung & Chang, 2014;Charlebois & Labrecque, 2009;GFSI, 2018e;Havinga et al, 2015;Konefal et al, 2005;Richards et al, 2011;van der Meulen, 2011a). Therefore, a food producer's certification to a GFSI-recognized certification programme provides assurance to its customers that it has a globally recognized food safety management system in place (Deaton, 2004;Lytton & McAllister, 2014;Marks, 2016;Short et al, 2014). Most CPOs also allow registrants in its system to identify certified food producers through their websites, and in addition several allow businesses to put the certification programmes' logo on their documentation, e.g.…”
Section: Information Asymmetrymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations