Scientific Committee guides EcoVadis to prepare for 2017 challenges, and inspires ‘exponential progress’

January 3, 2017 David McClintock

Last month EcoVadis gathered the members of the EcoVadis Scientific Committee for an annual forum and guidance discussion. The business, social, and legal environment where our customers and their supply chains operate around the world is dynamic and constantly evolving. Thus EcoVadis is constantly monitoring and adjusting our strategy and methodology to keep our Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) ratings as reliable as possible.

 

As part of this endeavor, EcoVadis engages our Scientific Committee which serves an important role in advising our business on three areas:

  • Input and opinions on external market context and developments (economic, geopolitical, science, etc.);
  • Recommendations on how to take into account new sustainability standards, practices and regulations; and
  • Guidance on EcoVadis CSR/Sustainability rating methodology, principles, processes and its main evolution.

 

scientific-committee

Image: EcoVadis’ Vice-President Research, Sylvain Guyoton (standing), and the Scientific Committee team

 

Topics discussed at the 2016 EcoVadis Scientific Committee included

  • Review and discussion of new challenges facing EcoVadis, across new labels and standards, and the tension between transparency and confidentiality;
  • How to put suppliers on continuous Improvement path: from risk to value creation, capacity building, and measuring social impact; and
  • Project Breakthrough, a project presented by John Elkington, with the inspiring call to action to radically transition from ‘incremental’ steps to making “exponential progress” toward a sustainable world.

 

Who is in the Scientific Committee?

Attendees of last month’s meeting included:

 

About Methodology Governance

At the core of EcoVadis Ratings is our Methodology: This methodology defines criteria, measurement and scoring methods, and organizational and technical processes we use to produce reliable, benchmarkable ratings on CSR performance.

The Scientific Committee serves as the strategic review, the third and outermost layer of our Governance Model that maintains the EcoVadis Methodology, summarized as follows:

  1. Bi-weekly: tactical adjustments around scoring details are reviewed by the internal team of Senior Analyst Team Leaders;
  2. Quarterly: review by a company committee of overall processes, and considers new labels and standards to take into account, or ones which are obsolete, and how to adapt to emerging business segments; and
  3. Yearly: The Scientific Committee does an annual methodology governance review, which discusses core strategic questions noted above.

 

Additional information on our rating methodology may be found in this guide.

 

If you are a procurement organization seeking to evaluate and improve the sustainability performance in your supply chain, contact us here for more information or a custom consultation.
If you are an EcoVadis Client, contact your EcoVadis Client Success Manager (CSM) if you have specific questions or feedback.

 

 

Additional readings:

A Year In Events: Looking Back At 2016 (US Edition)

Are You Ready For Supply Chain Sustainability Reporting requirements?

Previous Article
How Pharma giant Johnson & Johnson engages suppliers to deliver on 2020 goals (Webinar recap)
How Pharma giant Johnson & Johnson engages suppliers to deliver on 2020 goals (Webinar recap)

In the webcast "Driving Supplier Performance in CSR to Reduce Risk and Boost Innovation", John Ruebush, Dir...

Next Article
New French law to require for companies to report on GHG emissions in their supply chains
New French law to require for companies to report on GHG emissions in their supply chains

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting is mandatory in France for publicly listed and non-listed c...

×

Join Our Newsletter To Stay Up To Date On Sustainable Procurement News

First Name
Last Name
Opt in to receive more information from EcoVadis
Thank you!
Error - something went wrong!