The lack of environmental data on both suppliers and buyers undermines the credibility of Gartner’s supply chain ranking
Making a balanced judgement on the respective merits of large organisations’ supply chains is a complex undertaking and so any ranking should be treated with a degree of scepticism.
The Top 25 Ranking released by Gartner last week is no exception, especially when one considers the methodology used to assess the supply chains.
After all, it was only February when a damning report accused Apple of failing to monitor working standards at a number of factory locations in China.
So Apple’s number one ranking on the Gartner Top 25 Supply Chain, therefore, seemed a little surprising.
Half of the score is based on the opinion of either Gartner’s own analysts or supply chain professionals, who spend an average of 15 minutes filling out a questionnaire. The other half is based on financial data such as Return on Assets and Revenue Growth.
The fact that a considerable number of companies are not even considered is a further limitation.
No Environmental Data
The ranking’s biggest weakness, however, is the lack of any quantitative environmental data, whether that be overall emissions, CSR efforts or the environmental performance of suppliers.
While the experts who contributed their opinion to the overall ranking no doubt considered sustainability – the presence of Unilever at number 4 suggests this – the importance of a supply chain’s environmental credentials merits a dedicated consideration in any supply chain analysis.
The lack of this in the Gartner ranking highlights the critical need for readily available data on companies’ environmental performance.
This is why amee is modelling emissions for all UK companies – to give an estimation that is otherwise completely absent.
Companies can then add their actual data in the space of a few minutes, demonstrating a clear commitment to sustainable transparency.
If Gartner were to use the modelled emissions data on amee.com, people would be given a much more quantitative impression of a supply chain’s performance, rather than just the impressions which are (too often) formed for us via these company’s large-scale, glossy PR efforts.