State of Supply Chain Sustainability 2022
Supply Chain Sustainability Goals:
The Environment Bounces Back
Once we understood variation in pressure
sources, we looked to understand how
respondents evaluated their firms' supply
chain sustainability goals. Like the approach
we applied to understanding sources of SCS
pressure, we compared the responses across
10 different dimensions of sustainability over
the three years of survey data.
Again, for each sustainability dimension,
responses mostly coalesced around an average
score of 3.5. However, every dimension shows
change year over year. And when comparing
2020 to 2021, every dimension shows an
increase.
Interestingly, commitment to climate change
declined from 2019 to 2020 but then shot
up significantly from 2020 to 2021. This was
also true of respondents' prioritizations of
supply chain circularity. At the same time,
commitment to social issues, including human
rights protection; supplier diversity, equity, and
inclusion; and fair pay and fair trade continue
to make steady increases every year from
3 ("high") in 2020 to 4 ("very high") in 2021.
Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is:
Supply Chain Sustainability Investments
We also investigated the potential gap between
the respondents' assessments of their firms'
supply chain sustainability goals and their
assessments of their firms' investments to meet
those goals.
Respondents were asked to assess their firms'
investment in the same 10 sustainability
dimensions using the same 1-5 Likert scale.
In Figure 8, we compare average responses along
each dimension. It is, perhaps, not surprising,
though disappointing all the same, that every
dimension shows goals ranked more highly than
investment. And indeed, this has also been the
case in prior years' reports. Actual investment
is, after all, costlier than is goal-setting.
But we can also detect a subtler signal in Figure 8:
The gap between goals and investment is higher
on social dimensions than for environmental
ones, another repeat from last year's report.
However, we also see evidence of progress in
closing the sustainability investment gap in
recent years, particularly for human rights
protection.
To what extent is each of the following issue areas a focus of your firm's SCS goals?
2021 Average Score
2019 > 2021
2020 > 2021
Employee welfare & safety
4.1
10%
1%
Energy savings &
3.9
7%
5%
renewable energy
Human rights protection
3.9
1%
4%
Local community impact
3.8
2%
2%
Climate change mitigation
3.7
-3%
12%
Fair pay & fair trade
Supplier diversity, equity, &
3.7
2%
6%
3.6
5%
7%
inclusion
End-of-life management &
3.5
-5%
9%
supply chain circularity
Water conservation
3.4
1%
7%
Natural resource &
3.4
7%
10%
biodiversity conservation
1 Not a priority ... 5 = Very high priority
Figure 7: Goal change from 2019-2021 (n = 1,100)
Difference in the average response for how the following issue areas are a focus of their firm's SCS goals compared to what extent
it is a focus of their firm's SCS investment. A negative value indicates the score for goals is greater than investment.
-0.31
2019
-0.38
2020
Climate change mitigation
-0.38
2021
-0.38
2019
-0.31
2020
End-of-life management & supply chain circularity
-0.32
2021
-0.30
2019
-0.35
2020
Energy savings & renewable energy
ENVIRONMENTAL
-0.33
2021
-0.21
2019
-0.36
2020
Natural resource & biodiversity conservation
-0.29
2021
-0.35
2019
-0.40
2020
Water conservation
-0.43
2021
.-033
2019
-0.45
2020
Employee welfare & safety
-0.39
2021
-0.50
2019
-0.50
2020
Fair pay & fair trade
-0.47
2021
-0.97
2019
-0.76
2020
Human rights protection
SOCIAL
-059
2021
-0.42
2019
-0.50
2020
Local community impact
-0.42
2021
-0.54
2019
-0.42
2020
Supplier diversity, equity & inclusion
-0.45
2021
Figure 8: Gap between goals and investments (n = 2,187)
State of Supply Chain Sustainability 2022 | Changes Over Time | sscs.mit.edu | 9View entire presentation