This year’s report sheds light on how companies put their SCS promises into practice. Of the many ways to accomplish this, three common approaches emerged, including supplier development, supply chain visibility, and environmental impact reduction. Supplier development was the most common across all industries; however, visibility proved equally attractive in manufacturing and transportation.

As the supply chain sustainability field advances, so does this report, and this year we introduce a classification of companies based on behaviors related to SCS. The model, called the SCS Firm Typology, yields fresh insights into the state of sustainability in supply chains. Categories of firms range from low-effort enterprises with little engagement in SCS to highly committed leaders. This typology distills the report’s analyses into an interpretable model and enables future exploration of the evolution of SCS across multiple dimensions.

An indication of the typology tool’s potential is this year’s analysis of supply chain professionals’ engagement in SCS activities—a critical determinant of what companies can accomplish in this area. The level of engagement shown by practitioners (from operating as a decision maker to having no engagement at all) was aligned with the commitment shown by different categories of firms. For example, professionals in firms that we identified as “Leaders” exhibited the highest level of engagement.

These impediments differ from company to company and from one industry to another, but our research identified some common threads, such as the key role of suppliers in furthering supply chain sustainability.

Investors are wielding more influence as advocates of SCS, and we expect this to continue in the near term. The connection between companies’ track records in sustainability and their ability to win market share and turn a profit is likely to strengthen.

Social issues and climate change mitigation will likely feature prominently in the future of SCS. Both areas received much attention in 2020, and both pose long-term challenges that are unlikely to abate in the foreseeable future.

We’re already looking forward to the 2022 edition.

The current report has four dimensions: First, we establish a framework for examining supply chain sustainability in 2020 based on the same measures of pressure, commitment, investment, practices, disclosure, and engagement established last year. Next, we explore the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on supply chain sustainability and changes between 2019 and 2020 to understand how these measures change over time. We then develop a quantitative typology of firms based on their level of commitment to supply chain sustainability. Finally, we conclude with an outlook on what is to come for supply chain sustainability.

Building off of last year’s report, our second survey included input from twice as many supply chain professionals. We also conducted a new round of executive interviews with a wide range of professionals and companies to explore supply chain sustainability trends more deeply. Finally, we refreshed and extended our analysis of reports, press releases, media articles, and other documents to track activity in the public sphere.

The report provides a platform to observe how supply chain sustainability changes over time and how supply chain professionals react to these changes. It does not take a stance on whether industries are doing enough (or too much) or on what they should (or shouldn’t) do; it is simply a gauge of the direction of supply chain sustainability.

Through this journey, we have developed a more nuanced understanding of supply chain sustainability, and we believe the report’s findings will help professionals make better strategic decisions and companies achieve sustainability goals in their supply chains.

In this report, our definition of SCS has not changed from the first State of Supply Chain Sustainability [1] and is based on both the environmental and social concerns of sustainability. We define supply chain sustainability as the management of environmental and social impacts within and across networks consisting of suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and customers in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. This spans every phase of the supply chain, from raw material sourcing and extraction to product use and end of product life.

As shown in Figure 3, the majority of responses came from men, skewed toward younger professionals working in a supply chain department. We also received responses from different industries including manufacturing, transportation and warehousing, business consulting, retail and others. The age, gender, industry, and company department/function profile were similar to the 2019 report.

* A subset of this total number of survey responses was used for analysis based on how much of the survey they completed. See Appendix A for more details on how the survey responses were analyzed and the limitations of survey data.

Figure 2: Breakdown of respondents by region. N = 1,492.

Figure 3: Breakdown of respondents for 2020 by age, gender, industry, and business function. N = 1,537.

Figure 4: Breakdown of respondents by how their firm’s commitment to SCS has changed since the start of the pandemic. N = 1,557.

Firms in North America and Europe were more likely to have experienced similar levels of pressure for SCS in 2020 compared to before the pandemic. The greatest increases were seen in the Middle East, Mediterranean, and Asia, with over 40% of respondents in these regions saying pressure has increased since the start of the pandemic (Figure 5). This is likely due to growing customer awareness [32] and increasing regulatory requirements in both regions. [33]

Radu Palamariu, Managing Director for Asia Pacific at supply chain recruitment agency Alcott Global, echoes this trend in Asia: “The shift that has already happened since 2019 and is now accelerating, in that the general public, the stock market, and the investors are demanding that sustainability be [at the] top of the agenda. Hence, especially MNCs have continued to invest and develop the directions around it, even if maybe less intensely than if Covid-19 had not happened.”

Figure 6: SCS firm commitment amid Covid-19 by company size. N = 1,550.

Figure 7: Year-over-year change in respondents reporting whether their firm felt pressure to act on SCS; totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding. N = 2,171.

On an industry level, most executives reported consistent pressure from multiple sources to pursue SCS initiatives. According to CSCMP Interim President and CEO Mark Baxa, “Companies are experiencing increased pressure to pursue sustainable business practices. There are companies receiving pressure from stakeholders, investors, boards, and employees. Furthermore, companies are being asked more questions in this space with greater expectations that companies make a positive impact in supply chain sustainability.”

Figure 8: Range and average intensity of reported pressure by source and the change from last year. A statistically significant increase (t-test, p < 0.05) was seen from investors and government bodies both at 8% year over year. N = 284 (2019) & 722 (2020).

This discrepancy suggests that without executive ownership of SCS, a firm may be less likely to take action. To make progress on SCS, firms must bake it into the core duties of leadership roles.

Less clear is what are the most influential pressures on executives to take on an SCS mantle. This is an open question that will be explored in a future report.

Table 1: Pressure sources with statistically significant regression coefficients for goal setting. See Table 7 in the Appendix for full results. N = 1,557.

When asked why these corporate commitments were prominent in 2020, the 21 supply chain and sustainability executives interviewed for this report had differing opinions, including:

• Commitments were a reaction to pressure from stakeholders in 2019 and 2020.
• Several executives suggested that the beginning of a new decade generally provides an opportunity to transition to new and bold commitments.
• And, notably, they highlighted that the extreme volatility experienced in 2020 provided an opportunity for significant change in organizations, and even accelerated certain programs.

The heightened profile of sustainability-related issues and goals was echoed in our survey. More than half of the respondents (52%) confirmed that their companies have SCS goals, an increase of 4% from the year prior. One-third said their companies do not have SCS goals, and 15% were unsure.

Figure 9: Commitment by issue areas related to SCS in 2020 and the change in commitments year over year. The most statistically significant increases (t-test) were in employee welfare at 9.7%, natural resources and biodiversity, 9.8%, and energy savings/renewable energy, 7.1%. there was also a notable dip in end-of-life management by roughly 5.3%. N = 289 (2019) & 794 (2020).

Commitments to the conservation of natural resources and biodiversity gained ground in 2020, a development that can also be linked to the publicity surrounding these components of sustainability. For instance, the year started with significant media coverage of clear-cutting in the Amazon rainforest for cattle grazing and beef farming. [46] Pandemic-related shutdowns highlighted the environmental impact of transportation and other industries when economic activity sharply decreased, and emissions levels and air pollution plummeted. Natural features usually obscured by smog suddenly became visible. [47] Interest in sustainable agriculture in the form of regenerative farming also received a boost during this time. [48]

The growth in commitment to energy savings and renewable energy is clear. Energy savings often translate into cost savings, and many firms are investing in new supply chain processes and technologies that reduce the cost of energy and its associated environmental impacts. Additionally, the cost of renewable energy has fallen significantly in the last decade, with solar and wind hitting record-low prices last year. [49] These trends make renewables an attractive opportunity for reducing costs and for environmental stewardship. [50]

As can be seen in Figure 9, commitments to employee welfare and safety measures showed the greatest increase from 2019 to 2020. Some of these changes may reflect a temporary refocus on localized issues (employee welfare and safety) as opposed to more global issues (climate change mitigation) as the pandemic forced firms, governments, and individuals to focus on issues that were nearest to them: [51] Rising infection rates, lockdowns, and other pandemic-related challenges brought awareness to social issues which may be reflected in an overall growth in commitments in this area.

Figure 10: Level of commitment to SCS by industry grouped into environmental (E) and social (S) categories; percentage of total respondence broken down from low to high (colors). N = 794.

In June 2019, California’s Air Resources Board approved the state’s Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, which mandates that 5% of all Classes 7–8 tractors sold be zero-emission vehicles starting in 2024. [53] That percentage increases with each new model year, rising to 40% by 2032. California also is one of 15 states, plus the District of Columbia, that has signed an agreement to cooperate on advancing the electric truck market, with a goal of achieving 100% zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty truck sales by 2050. [54] These regulations reflect growing commitments in the public sphere, which are having an impact on corporate SCS goals.

Figure 11: Year-over-year change in SCS investment in 2019 and 2020; totals may not sum to 100 due to rounding. N = 614 (2019) & 1,557 (2020).

Figure 12: Investments in 2020 and change year over year from 2019 to 2020. The majority of investments for 2021 either remained steady or increased. Statistically significant changes were in human rights (10%), supplier diversity (9.8%), welfare and safety (7.1%), and energy savings (6%). There was a notable dip in climate change mitigation by roughly 5.7%. N = 348 (2019) & 904 (2020).

While investments across industries shifted from 2019 to 2020, the wide gap between the SCS-related goals that companies committed to—and the investments required to fulfill these goals—did not change. The shortfall in human rights, fair pay, fair trade, and local community investments was particularly striking. This mismatch is detailed in Figure 13, which shows the difference between commitment and investment as an average (red dot) and distribution (plot area) for each issue, with zero indicating no difference.

A notable example in the real world is how chocolate companies were called out for failing to commit adequate resources to meeting their publicly stated goal of rooting out child labor in cocoa production. [64] Similar stories can be found in other industries such as apparel, where failures have not been properly addressed owing to a lack of investment. For instance, promises to improve working conditions were made after the 2013 Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh, yet instances of human rights violations are still frequent. [65]

In contrast, commitments and investments on environmental issues are more closely correlated, with the energy sector leading the way. This is partially due to the potential for cost reductions through energy savings and the increasing affordability of renewable energy options. Investments in solutions to social problems are often harder to identify, quantify, and implement. [66]

Figure 13: Comparison of goals vs. investment in different issues areas between 2019 and 2020. The violin chart demonstrates the difference between level of investment and level of commitment and how those responses are distributed away from the mean. The dot is the average difference, showing a more significant difference for human rights and social issues in general, but a better alignment at 0 can be seen for environmental issues, especially with energy. N = 1,252.

Supplier collaboration and sustainability standards were also high on the list in 2020, with mixed trends from 2019 with a 2% decrease in the use of standards and 2% increase in collaboration. Visibility and traceability saw the greatest increase, with a gain of 3% from 2019 to 2020, which may have been driven in part by outages and supply chain disruptions. [67] The adoption of audits dropped by 4% owing to the challenge of visiting supplier sites amid Covid-19-related restrictions. [68]

Figure 14: Practices in 2020 and year-over-year change from 2019 to 2020. N = 616 (2019) & 1,561 (2020).

• • Company & Supplier Code of Conduct
  • Supplier Training
  • Supplier Audit
  • Third-Party Verification
  • Supplier Benchmarking
  • Supplier Collaboration

Group 2: Visibility

• • Supply Chain Mapping
  • Visibility & Traceability

Group 3: Environmental Impact Reduction

• • Carbon Offsets
  • Environmental Technologies

Independent Practices

• • Sustainability Standards & Certifications
  • NGO or Third-Party Collaboration
  • Information Technology

Figure 15: Graphical representation of SCS practices and correlation-based groupings. Three main groupings emerge. N = 1563.

Jim Hartzfeld, Head of Sustainability, North America, for Brambles Limited, echoes this finding: “Near real-time tracking and tracing of goods and transportation assets across multiple supply chains enhances product visibility, stock control, transport efficiency, and asset productivity—all creating more economic and environmental value.”

Figure 16: The application by industry of different practice clusters represented as a heatmap of the average percentage of companies that have adopted this practice (respondents can select more than one practice). Darker shades indicate more heavily used practices. N = 1,561.

Figure 17: Reporting and disclosure did not change markedly between 2019 and 2020. There were no statistically significant changes seen year over year. Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding. N = 614 (2019) & 1,557 (2020).

Figure 18: Geographical representation of disclosure and reporting rates based on the average of Likert scale (1 to 5) responses, with 1 indicating “not at all” and 5 indicating “very often”. N = 1,557.

The lack of progress in reporting and disclosure practices, despite high levels of commitment, may be due in part to firms focusing on assessing their SCS impact and designing public goals for the next decade rather than more formal reporting. Disclosures may gain more attention as firms learn to measure how they are achieving their commitments with key performance indicators and start to disclose their progress publicly.

Figure 19: Reporting for SCS by firms in 2020 and change from 2019 to 2020; N = 268 (2019) & 687 (2020).

The different company types and their respective characteristics are:

• Low Effort: Low across all areas of pressure, commitment, investment, employee engagement, practices, and disclosure.
• Dreamer: Moderate commitment and practice application, but low pressure, low investment, engagement, and low disclosure.
• Compliant: Low commitment and disclosure, but moderate pressure, investment, engagement, and practices.
• Standard: Moderate across all areas of pressure, commitment, investment, employee engagement, practices, and disclosure.
• High Effort: High commitment, investment, and disclosure, but low pressure.
• Leader: High pressure, commitment, investment, employee engagement, and disclosure.

One way to visualize how the clusters compare across each general measure and the specific issue areas within each area can be seen in Table 2. Leaders score high across all issue areas and are typically large companies with highly engaged employees (see Figure 20). They are also more likely to have practices in place to manage their SCS efforts.

In contrast, the High Effort cluster stands out with lower levels of pressure to adopt SCS despite highly engaged sustainability professionals; strong SCS practices; and high levels of commitment, investment, and disclosure. They are also more diverse in size than Leaders.

Table 2: Firm typology clusters: Heatmap showing average scores for each firm typology based on the clustering of results. Scores are color coded and categorized as Low, Moderate, or High for simplicity. N = 1,223. See the more detailed heatmap of clustering results in Table 5 in Appendix A.

Figure 20: SCS firm types by company size. N = 1,223.

Figure 21A: Respondents’ level of engagement in supply chain sustainability in 2020. N = 1,526.

Our research findings support these sentiments. We identified a shift toward integrating supply chain professionals into corporate sustainability efforts—rather than in separate sustainability departments—in our inaugural report, and the current report reaffirms this shift. Moreover, we found that more SCM practitioners are engaged in sustainability initiatives compared to the prior report.

Although the nature of our survey may be biased toward professionals who are already involved in sustainability, almost half of those we surveyed are decision makers or directly involved in sustainability initiatives (see Figure 21A and Figure 21B). The largest share (44%) is indirectly involved, an increase of 4% from last year. This may be due, in part, to the realignment of business priorities as supply chain professionals were called to serve on the front lines of the pandemic and grapple with unprecedented operational disruptions.

As was the case in last year’s report, our current research shows that the level of practitioner engagement in sustainability programs is not consistent across industries (see Figure 22).

Figure 22: Respondents’ SCS engagement by industry and change year over year. N = 611 (2019) & 1,526 (2020).

Supply Chain Will Be Central to the Story

A key part of this role will be helping companies overcome the many formidable barriers to supply chain sustainability that lie ahead. These impediments vary by company and industry, but our research identified some common threads. An example is the challenge of securing the active support of suppliers, especially in large, complex supply bases that encompass broadly different corporate agendas and levels of sophistication in the sustainability area. Aligning sustainability goals across supply chains is another hurdle that will challenge practitioners in the future.

This concept of “moral calculus” is likely to be a key issue going forward for firms. Companies may need to juggle the needs and trade-offs of investing in different sustainability dimensions from social issues like worker welfare and safety that are increasingly in focus with the pandemic to environmental commitments such as climate change mitigation and product stewardship.

Bringing Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises Along

Next year’s report, the third in the series, will provide even more clarity about the shape of post-pandemic supply chains and related SCS challenges and opportunities. And it will include innovative analytical approaches, such as the new sustainability typology in this edition that we believe will promote a better understanding of SCS decisions and motivations.

We hope you will join us on this journey and participate in the 2022 State of Supply Chain Sustainability effort.

Research Advisors
Chris Caplice
Executive Director, MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics

Lisa D’Ambrosio
Research Scientist, MIT AgeLab

External Academic Advisor
Jon Kirchoff
Associate Professor, East Carolina University

Incoming Lead Investigator
David Correll
Research Scientist, MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics

CSCMP Lead
Donna Palumbo-Miele, EdD
Chair, Sustainable Supply Chain Committee, Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals

CSCMP Team
Chris Adderton
Vice President, Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals

Mark Baxa
Interim President and CEO, Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals

Nichole Mumford
Vice President of Marketing, Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals

Leah Benshoof
Senior Account Manager, Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals

Sponsoring Companies Advisory Panel
Adam Schafer, Intel
Ella Chan, Sam’s Club
Gretchen Hall, KPMG
James Sembrot, Sam’s Club
Jolene Peixoto, Blue Yonder
Kristin Pedersen, KPMG
Rachel Schwalbach, C.H. Robinson

Andrew Pastor
Ceclia Pecorari
Pranav Prakash
Eva Ponce
Jim Rice
Wendy Tate
Susana Val
Karen van Nederpelt
Kyra Whitten
Jennifer Wong
Hong Mo Yang

Organizations
Achieving Women’s Excellence in Supply Chain Operations, Management, and Education (AWESOME)
Center for Latin-American Logistics Innovation
Luxembourg Centre for Logistics and Supply Chain Management
Malaysia Institute for Supply Chain Innovation
Network for Business Sustainability
Ningbo China Institute for Supply Chain Innovation
One Step Closer
Retail Industry Leaders Association
Supply Chain Brain
Supply Chain Management Review
Supply Chain Revolution
Zaragoza Logistics Center
MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics MITx MicroMasters® Program in Supply Chain Management
Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals

1. Alexis Bateman et al., “State of Supply Chain Sustainability 2020” (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics and Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals, July 2020), https://ctl.mit.edu/pub/report/state-supply-chain-sustainability-report-2020.

2. Elizabeth Crawford, “Sustainably‑Marketed Products Drove More than Half of All Growth across CPGs in Past Five Years,” FoodNavigator‑USA, July 23, 2020, https://www.foodnavigator‑usa.com/Article/2020/07/23/Sustainably‑marketedproducts‑drove‑more‑than‑half‑of‑all‑growth‑across‑CPGs‑in‑past‑five‑years.

3. Katherine K. Ellis, “How Social Media Is Driving the Climate Change Conversation,” NewsWhip Blog, September 26, 2019, https://www.newswhip.com/2019/09/social‑media‑is‑driving‑the‑climate‑change‑conversation/.

4. Bateman et al., “State of Supply Chain Sustainability 2020.”

5. Jillian Ambrose, “BP Sets Net Zero Carbon Target for 2050,” Guardian, February 12, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/12/bp‑sets‑net‑zero‑carbon‑target‑for‑2050; Brad Smith, “Microsoft Will Be Carbon Negative by 2030,” Official Microsoft Blog, January 16, 2020, https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft‑will‑be‑carbon‑negativeby‑2030/; Amy Harder, “Delta Aims to Become First ‘Carbon Neutral’ Airline with $1 Billion Investment over 10 Years,” Axios, February 14, 2020, https://www.axios.com/delta-carbon-neutral-airline-climate-change-9796e386-f73b-4476-a5c306b5f08d785a.html.

6. “Wikipedia: Timeline of the COVID-19 Pandemic in February 2020,” Wikimedia Foundation, accessed May 25, 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_COVID‑19_pandemic_in_February_2020&oldid=1024962990.

7. Ruth Simon, “Covid‑19’s Toll on U.S. Business? 200,000 Extra Closures in Pandemic’s First Year,” Wall Street Journal, April 16, 2021, https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid‑19s‑toll‑on‑u‑s‑business‑200‑000‑extra‑closures‑in‑pandemics‑firstyear‑11618580619.

8. David Shukman, “Brazil’s Amazon: Deforestation ‘Surges to 12‑Year High,’” BBC News, November 30, 2020, sec. Latin America & Caribbean, https://www.bbc.com/news/world‑latin‑america‑55130304.

9. Tanveer M. Adyel, “Accumulation of Plastic Waste during COVID-19,” ed. Jennifer Sills, Science 369, no. 6509 (September 11, 2020): 1314–15, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd9925.

10. Jimmy O’Donnell, “Essential Workers during COVID‑19: At Risk and Lacking Union Representation,” Brookings (blog), Brookings Institution, September 3, 2020, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/09/03/essential-workers-during-covid-19-at-risk-and-lacking-union-representation/.

11. Bureau of International Labor Affairs, “Against Their Will: The Situation in Xinjiang,” US Department of Labor, accessed May 13, 2021, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/against-their-will-the-situation-in-xinjiang.

12. Shukman, “Brazil’s Amazon”; Fiona Harvey, “Biggest Food Brands ‘Failing Goals to Banish Palm Oil Deforestation,’” Guardian, January 16, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/17/biggest‑food‑brands‑failing‑goals‑to‑banishpalm-oil-deforestation.

13. Ben Westcott and Laura He, “China Has Announced a New Plan to Crack down on Most Single-Use Plastics by 2025,” CNN Business, January 20, 2020, https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/20/business/china‑single‑use‑plastics‑intl‑hnk/index.html.

14. Vicky Xiuzhong Xu et al., “Uyghurs for Sale: ‘Re‑Education’, Forced Labour and Surveillance beyond Xinjiang” (Canberra: Australian Strategic Policy Institute, March 1, 2020), https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale.

15. Lauren Thomas, “Coronavirus Wreaks Havoc on Retail Supply Chains Globally, Even as China’s Factories Come Back Online,” CNBC, March 16, 2020, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/16/coronavirus‑wreaks‑havoc‑on‑retail‑supply‑chains‑globally. html; Jamie Gumbrecht and Jacqueline Howard, “WHO Declares Novel Coronavirus Outbreak a Pandemic,” CNN, March 11, 2020, https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/11/health/coronavirus‑pandemic‑world‑health‑organization/index.html.

16. Ben Ames, “Covid‑19 Shortages: Brokers Shift Trucking Capacity to ‘Essential’ Sectors,” DC Velocity, March 27, 2020, https://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/45546‑covid‑19‑shortages‑brokers‑shift‑trucking‑capacity‑to‑essential‑sectors; Wade Shepard, “China-Europe Rail Is Set To Boom As COVID-19 Chokes Air, Sea And Road Transport,” Forbes, March 28, 2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2020/03/31/china‑europe‑rail‑is‑set‑to‑boom‑as‑covid‑19‑chokes‑air‑sea‑androad-transport/.

17. Jeff Tollefson, “How the Coronavirus Pandemic Slashed Carbon Emissions — in Five Graphs,” Nature 582, no. 7811 (June 11, 2020): 158–59, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586‑020‑01497‑0.

18. Gayle Markovitz and Samantha Sault, “What Companies Are Doing to Fight Systemic Racism,” World Economic Forum, June 24, 2020, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/companies‑fighting‑systemic‑racism‑business‑community‑blacklives-matter/.

19. Emma Cosgrove, “Coca‑Cola, Mondelez Trim SKUs as CPGs Tackle Pandemic Stresses,” Supply Chain Dive, June 2, 2020, https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/coronavirus-supply-chains-SKUs-pandemic-Mondelez-Procter-Gamble-CocaCola/579017/; Emma Cosgrove, “Unilever CSCO: Agility Beats Forecasting When the Supply Chain Is Stressed,” Supply Chain Dive, July 13, 2020, https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/unilever‑csco‑agility‑forecasting‑coronavirus/581323/.

20. Ned Pagliarulo, “US Taps Camera Makers for Help Manufacturing Drugs, Vaccines,” BioPharma Dive, July 28, 2020, https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/kodak‑fujifilm‑drug‑vaccine‑manufacturing/582434/.

21. Gartner, Inc., “Gartner Survey Reveals 17% of Chief Supply Chain Officers Are Women,” news release, July 21, 2020, https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press‑releases/2020‑07‑21‑gartner‑survey‑reveals‑17‑percent‑of‑chief‑supply‑chainofficers‑are‑women.

22. “2020 Fire Season,” California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, accessed May 25, 2021, https://www.fire.ca.gov/ incidents/2020/.

23. Avie Schneider, Andrea Hsu, and Scott Horsley, “Multiple Demands Causing Women To Abandon Workforce,” NPR, October 2, 2020, https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus‑live‑updates/2020/10/02/919517914/enough‑already‑multipledemands-causing-women-to-abandon-workforce; Wenjie Chen, “Disparities in Real Time,” Finance & Development 57, no. 4 (December 2020): 12–15.

24. Julie Chao, Berkeley National Laboratory, “Geothermal Brines Could Propel California’s Green Economy,” news release, August 5, 2020, https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2020/08/05/geothermal‑brines‑could‑propel‑californias‑green‑economy/.

25. Sara Ashley O’Brien, “Amazon Said Nearly 20,000 Employees Got Coronavirus,” CNN Business, October 2, 2020, https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/01/tech/amazon‑covid‑cases/index.html.

26. K. Oanh Ha et al., “Worst Shipping Crisis in Decades Puts Lives and Trade at Risk,” Bloomberg, September 17, 2020, https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020‑pandemic‑shipping‑labor‑violations/.

27. Pranav Baskar, “What Is A Cold Chain? And Why Do So Many Vaccines Need It?,” NPR, February 14, 2021, https://www.npr.org/ sections/goatsandsoda/2021/02/24/965835993/what‑is‑a‑cold‑chain‑and‑why‑do‑so‑many‑vaccines‑need‑it.

28. Matt Leonard, “Ocean Carriers Push Shippers to Use 20-Foot Containers with 40-Foot in Short Supply,” Supply Chain Dive, December 3, 2020, https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/ocean-shipping-container-equipment-capacityrates/591518/.

29. Deirdre Hipwell, Craig Trudell, and Dara Doyle, “Brexit Is a New World Businesses Still Need to Figure Out,” Bloomberg, January 1, 2021, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021‑01‑01/brexit‑is‑a‑new‑world‑businesses‑still‑need‑to‑figureout.

30. Association of American Railroads, “America’s Railroads Meet PTC Mandate, Look to the Future,” news release, December 29, 2020, https://www.aar.org/news/americas-railroads-meet-ptc-mandate-look-to-the-future/; Federal Railroad Administration, “FRA Announces Landmark Achievement with Full Implementation of Positive Train Control,” News Release No. FRA 19-20, December 29, 2020, https://railroads.dot.gov/newsroom/press-releases/fra-announces-landmarkachievement-full-implementation-positive-train.

31. US Travel Association, “Leisure & Hospitality Accounts for Whopping 39% of Jobs Lost to Pandemic,” news release, February 9, 2021, https://www.ustravel.org/press/leisure-hospitality-accounts-whopping-39-jobs-lost-pandemic.

32. “Consumers’ Environmental Consciousness Increasing,” The News International (Karachi), April 24, 2021, https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/824988-consumers-environmental-consciousness-increasing.

33. Emmy Hawker, “China’s Long March to Net Zero,” Regulation Asia, May 8, 2021, https://www.regulationasia.com/chinas-longmarch-to-net-zero/.

34. Somini Sengupta, “Protesting Climate Change, Young People Take to Streets in a Global Strike,” New York Times, September 20, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/climate/global‑climate‑strike.html.

35. A European Green Deal,” European Commission, accessed May 12, 2021, https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities‑2019‑2024/european‑green‑deal_en; Ionel Zamfir, “Towards a Mandatory EU System of Due Diligence for Supply Chains” (Brussels: European Parliamentary Research Service, October 2020), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/659299/EPRS_BRI(2020)659299_EN.pdf.

36. Slave‑Free Business Certification Act of 2020, S. 4241, 116th Cong. (2020).

37. Smith, “Microsoft Will Be Carbon Negative by 2030.”

38. Walmart, “Walmart Sets Goal to Become a Regenerative Company,” news release, September 21, 2020, https://corporate.walmart.com/newsroom/2020/09/21/walmart‑sets‑goal‑to‑become‑a‑regenerative‑company.

39. Lloyd Alter, “Unilever Will Put Carbon Footprint Labels on All Its Products,” Treehugger, July 12, 2020, https://www.treehugger.com/unilever‑will‑put‑carbon‑footprint‑labels‑on‑all‑its‑products‑5070970.

40. Megan Stowe, “Why Intel Is Doubling Down on Diversity,” Capacity (blog), June 24, 2020, https://www.capacitymedia.com/articles/3825804/why‑intel‑is‑doubling‑down‑on‑diversity.

41. Nike, Inc., “Statement on Forced Labor, Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery for Fiscal Year 2020,” Nike Purpose, November 20, 2020, https://purpose.nike.com/nike-statement-on-forced-labor.

42. Emma Newberger and Amelia Lucas, “Plastic Waste Surges as Coronavirus Prompts Restaurants to Use More Disposable Packaging,” CNBC, June 28, 2020, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/28/coronavirus‑plastic‑waste‑surges‑as‑restaurantsuse-more-disposable-packaging.html.

43. Hannah Beech, “A Company Made P.P.E. for the World. Now Its Workers Have the Virus.,” New York Times, December 20, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/20/world/asia/top‑glove‑ppe‑covid‑malaysia‑workers.html.

44. Matt McFarland, “‘We’re Getting Flat Out Hammered Right Now.’ UPS Employees on Working during the Pandemic,” CNN Business, April 23, 2020, https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/22/economy/ups‑delivery‑truck‑drivers‑coronavirus/index.html.

45. Kate Gibson, “Major Retailers Urged to Revive Hazard Pay amid Holiday Rush,” CBS News, November 25, 2020, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-walmart-major-retailers-urged-to-revive-covid-hazard-pay-holiday-rush/.

46. Shukman, “Brazil’s Amazon.”

47. Tollefson, “How the Coronavirus Pandemic Slashed Carbon Emissions.”

48. Taylor Locke, “Top 10 Food Trends for 2020, According to Whole Foods,” CNBC, October 23, 2019, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/23/top‑food‑trends‑for‑2020‑according‑to‑whole‑foods.html.

49. Silvio Marcacci, “Renewable Energy Prices Hit Record Lows: How Can Utilities Benefit From Unstoppable Solar And Wind?” Forbes, January 21, 2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2020/01/21/renewable‑energy‑prices‑hitrecord‑lows‑how‑can‑utilities‑benefit‑from‑unstoppable‑solar‑and‑wind/.

50. Hannah Ritchie, “What Are the Safest and Cleanest Sources of Energy?” Our World in Data, February 10, 2020, https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy.

51. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “The Territorial Impact of COVID-19: Managing the Crisis across Levels of Government,” November 10, 2020, https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/the-territorial-impact-of-covid-19-managing-the-crisis-across-levels-of-government-d3e314e1/.

52. Suzanne Greene and Cristiano Façanha, “Carbon Offsets for Freight Transport Decarbonization,” Nature Sustainability 2, no. 11 (2019): 994–96, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893‑019‑0413‑0.

53. “Advanced Clean Trucks,” California Air Resources Board, accessed May 13, 2021, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-trucks.

54. California Air Resources Board, “15 States and the District of Columbia Join Forces to Accelerate Bus and Truck Electrification,” news release, July 14, 2020, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/15-states-and-district-columbia-join-forces-accelerate-bus-and-truck-electrification.

55. Melissa Repko et al., “American Companies Spent Years in an Economic Boom. Then the Coronavirus Hit,” CNBC, May 10, 2020, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/10/american‑companies‑spent‑years‑in‑an‑economic‑boom‑then‑the‑coronavirushit.html.

56. LaToya Harding, “Majority of UK SMEs Negatively Impacted by COVID Cash Flow Crisis,” Yahoo! Finance, April 10, 2021, https://news.yahoo.com/majority‑of‑uk‑small‑businesses‑negatively‑impacted‑by‑covid‑cash‑flow‑crisis‑150408382.html.

57. Bureau of International Labor Affairs, “The Situation in Xinjiang.”

58. Alexis Bateman and Ken Cottrill, “Domestic Labor Issues Pose Hidden Supply Chain Risks,” MIT Supply Chain (blog), MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics, May 7, 2020, https://medium.com/mitsupplychain/domestic-labor-issues-pose-hiddensupply‑chain‑risks‑4ee94ad61788.

59. Helier Cheung, “George Floyd Death: Why US Protests Are so Powerful This Time,” BBC News, June 8, 2020, sec. US & Canada, https://www.bbc.com/news/world‑us‑canada‑52969905.

60. Alexis Bateman, Ashley Barrington, and Katie Date, “Why You Need a Supplier-Diversity Program,” Harvard Business Review, August 17, 2020, https://hbr.org/2020/08/why‑you‑need‑a‑supplier‑diversity‑program.

61. Emily Pontecorvo, “Renewable Energy Didn’t Just Survive 2020 — It Thrived,” Grist, May 12, 2021, https://grist.org/energy/renewable‑energy‑didnt‑just‑survive‑2020‑it‑thrived/.

62. “Companies Taking Action,” Science Based Targets, accessed June 2, 2021, https://sciencebasedtargets.org/.

63. CDP [Carbon Disclosure Project], “Cascading Commitments: Driving Ambitious Action through Supply Chain Engagement,” 2019, https://6fefcbb86e61af1b2fc4‑c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/004/072/original/CDP_Supply_Chain_Report_2019.pdf?1550490556.

64. Jessi Devenyns, “Child Labor in Cocoa Production Rises despite Industry Promises, Report Says,” Food Dive, October 22, 2020, https://www.fooddive.com/news/child-labor-in-cocoa-production-rises-despite-industry-promises-reportsay/587430/.

65. Amanda Randone, “It’s Been 8 Years Since Rana Plaza & Things Are Actually Worse For Asian Factory Workers,” Refinery29, April 28, 2021, https://www.refinery29.com/en‑us/2021/04/10440069/eight‑years‑after‑rana‑plaza‑factory‑workers‑rights.

66. Jennifer Howard‑Grenville, “ESG Impact Is Hard to Measure — But It’s Not Impossible,” Harvard Business Review, January 22, 2021, https://hbr.org/2021/01/esg‑impact‑is‑hard‑to‑measure‑but‑its‑not‑impossible.

67. Georgia Wilson, “Realising End-to-End Transparency in the Supply Chain,” Supply Chain Digital, May 10, 2021, https://supplychaindigital.com/supply-chain-2/realising-end-end-transparency-supply-chain.

68. Sylvain Guyoton, “An Unexpected Risk of COVID-19: Canceled Supplier Audits,” Supply Chain Dive, June 4, 2020, https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/covid‑19‑supplier‑audit‑pandemic‑virtual‑assessment/579229/.

69. Alexis Bateman and Ken Cottrill, “Barriers to Sustainability: Why Suppliers Are Part of the Problem and the Solution,” MIT Supply Chain (blog), MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics, May 12, 2021, https://medium.com/mitsupplychain/barriers-to-sustainability-why-suppliers-are-part-of-the-problem-and-the-solution-8a9c915996ea.

70. Richard Threlfall et al., “The Time Has Come,” The KPMG Survey of Sustainability Reporting (KPMG Global, December 2020), https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2020/11/the-time-has-come-survey-of-sustainability-reporting.html.

71. European Commission, “Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Directive 2013/34/EU, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, as Regards Corporate Sustainability Reporting,” April 21, 2021, https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/company-reporting-and-auditing/company-reporting/ corporate-sustainability-reporting_en.

72. Suzanne Greene and Sophie Punte, “Closing the Logistics Emissions Disclosure Gap: An Analysis of Emissions Disclosure to CDP by Corporations Worldwide” (Amsterdam: Smart Freight Centre and CDP, July 2020), https://www.smartfreightcentre.org/en/news/closing-the-logistics-emissions-disclosure-gap-an-analysis-of-carbon-disclosure-to-cdp-by-multinationalsworldwide/29464/.

73. CDP, “Cascading Commitments.”

74. Morningstar, Inc., “Sustainable Funds U.S. Landscape Report: More Funds, More Flows, and Impressive Returns in 2020,” February 10, 2021, https://www.morningstar.com/lp/sustainable-funds-landscape-report.

75. Laura S. Allegue Lara and Ashley Barrington, “Assessing the State of Supply Chain Sustainability” (master’s capstone, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2020), https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/126373.

Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
All rights reserved. This publication or parts thereof may not be reproduced or modified in any form, stored in any retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise—without prior written permission of the publisher, except as provided by United States of America copyright law. For permission requests, write to the publisher at: One Amherst Street, Second Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139 or ctl_comm@mit.edu

Suggested citation:
MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics and Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals. State of Supply Chain Sustainability 2021. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics. 2021.

About MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics | ctl.mit.edu
The MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics (MIT CTL) is a leading research and educational center within the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with almost 50 years of supply chain expertise. In 2007, supply chain sustainability emerged as a key research area at the center. The center has responded with research, education, and outreach to address the continuing growth of supply chain sustainability as a business imperative fueled by the demands and requirements of consumers, governments, and investors. Supply chain sustainability research at the center is focused on enabling research and collaboration on the social and environmental sustainability of supply chain business processes.

About the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals | cscmp.org
Since 1963, the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) has been the leading worldwide professional association dedicated to education, research, and the advancement of the supply chain management profession. With more than 9,000 members globally, representing business, government, and academia from 62 countries, CSCMP members are the leading practitioners and authorities in the fields of logistics and supply chain management.