Before Conflict Minerals (for its traceability and compliance requirements, see The Definitive Guide to Conflict Minerals Compliance for Manufacturers), REACH and RoHS supply chain compliance approaches were perhaps the best gauge for which types of programs procurement and operations teams would put into place to manage traceability. In an earlier survey on the subject, we found that only 3% of companies had put in place a system to collect, handle and validate “REACH and RoHS compliance on a product and supplier level.” In contrast, 35% of respondents relied on the non-audited sign-off of “suppliers providing agreements that they comply with REACH and RoHS” initiatives as opposed to a more formal traceability process.
Despite the availability of network-based approaches for other types of supplier risk and supplier enablement approaches, such as SAP Supplier InfoNet or Achilles, it would appear early going for materials/substance level compliance approaches that can leverage aggregated data. We found that 42% of companies (see chart below) were interested in such models but would be reluctant to share their own information, which is a key criterion for such approaches to work, of course.
Similarly, the concept of benchmarking logistical performance for compliance resulted in a similar percentage of respondents who were interested in learning more, but would be reluctant to share their own company’s information.
In both areas, however, it seems that the right safeguards standards would potentially put organizations at ease and convince them that a more collaborative means of collecting information will yield better insights.