State of Supply Chain Sustainability 2022 slide image

State of Supply Chain Sustainability 2022

Figures 11 and 12 highlight where investments were different across the Global North and South, showing almost precisely the opposite pattern. In this case, the dimensions that were not significant when comparing goals are significant when comparing investment. These include water conservation, supply chain circularity, natural resource conservation, human rights protection, and supplier DEI. And in each of these cases, the mean score from respondents representing firms headquartered in the Global South is higher. We can infer from our own data only a bit about what accounts for the differences discovered here. First, recall from Figure 4 that firm size is an important factor in commitment to supply chain sustainability, and average firm size tends to differ by region. For instance, 63% of Latin American respondents came from small firms. Notably, however, our responses from Asia and Africa show firm sizes more similar to those in Europe and North America, but goals and investments more aligned with those of Latin America & the Caribbean. Second, although we did not observe much difference in Latin American & Caribbean respondents' rankings of governmental pressure compared to the rest of the world (see Appendix C), our executive interviews did yield some insights. Said one Spanish-language interviewee, "From the point of view of Latin American markets, consumers are less demanding than in other developed economies." Other explanations are possible, but not traceable with our data. These possible explanations include (1) the relative supply chain positions (upstream versus downstream) of firms in the Global North compared to those in the Global South, (2) the legacy of international development efforts that international relations scholars observe, similarly divides the world between the Global North and Global South along the Brandt Line; or (3) other hypotheses that we hope that our documentation of this phenomenon inspires. Ultimately, the differences observed here seem to further support the motivating premise of this research: that supply chain sustainability means many different things to different people. In light of that, we would advise supply chain mangers, who frequently work across international borders with both vendors and customers, to be aware of where local prioritizations and investments might differ from their own. Climate change Energy 200 150 Count 100 NORTH 50 www 3.1 Water Circularity Natural resources 3.3 3.2 0 Minor Mod High V-High Minor Mod High V-High Minor Mod High V-High Minor Mod High V-High Minor Mod High V-High 200 3.5 3.6 3.5 150 Count 100 SOUTH 50 الشرط 0 Minor Mod High V-High Minor Mod High V-High Minor Mod High V-High Minor Mod High V-High Minor Mod High V-High Figure 11: Environmental SCS investments in the Global North and Global South (n = 800) Supplier DEI Fair pay & fair trade Employee welfare Human rights Local impact 200 3 3.5 3.3 150 Count 100 NORTH 50 Count 200 150 100 SOUTH 50 Minor Mod High V-High Minor Mod High V-High Minor Mod High V-High Minor Mod High V-High Minor Mod High V-High 3.7 3.5 Minor Mod High V-High Minor Mod High V-High Minor Mod High V-High Minor Mod High V-High Minor Mod High V-High Figure 12: Social SCS investments in the Global North and Global South (n = 800) State of Supply Chain Sustainability 2022 | Changes Over Geography | sscs.mit.edu 11
View entire presentation