12 June 2026
Elevating supplier ESG maturity: Managing supply chain risks through assessment and development
Ha Chau Ngo | Research & Innovation, S&P Global Sustainable1
Tomas Pintado | Research & Innovation, S&P Global Sustainable1
Within our ESG Scores and Raw Data, underpinned by the S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA), we evaluate the extent to which companies disclose key performance indicators (KPIs) for supply chain management. Companies with robust screening, assessment and development systems are expected to periodically identify significant suppliers and assess them for actual or potential negative ESG impacts, alongside their business relevance. Suppliers with significant impacts may undergo targeted capacity-building and performance improvement, while those failing to meet requirements may face contract termination. Significant suppliers refer to individual, or unique, suppliers that pose substantial risks of negative ESG impacts and/or have significant business relevance to the company.
The CSA is an annual evaluation of sustainability practices covering about 14,000 companies worldwide. As part of the assessment, supply chain KPI data was collected from over 9,300 applicable companies across 54 industries. This review focuses on the 1,317 companies that disclosed their supplier assessment data in 2025, as well as on the subset of 967 companies with suppliers identified as having adverse impacts that also disclosed supplier development data.
Figure 1 shows that, on average, half of the companies reported assessing at least 94% of their significant suppliers. Across all sectors, the third quartile was equal to the maximum value (100%), indicating that the top 25% of companies in each sector reported assessing all of their significant suppliers. In contrast, there was a wide spread in the lower range, with the median at 94% and the minimum value at 1%. This indicates a high concentration of top-performing companies compared with the large variability among medium- to low-performing ones. Overall, the data shows high levels of reported coverage among the companies that assessed their suppliers.
Most sectors followed this pattern. The information technology, consumer staples and communication services sectors reported high supplier assessment coverage, with the median company assessing almost 100% of its significant suppliers. However, the healthcare and energy sectors lagged behind in assessment and reporting practices, with median values of 60% and 80%, respectively. The first quartile, representing the lowest 25% of companies, also ranged across sectors, with healthcare at 30% and information technology at 60%. This suggests that the lower-performing information technology companies still assessed a majority of their significant suppliers, whereas healthcare companies had a wider gap with a weaker lower-end baseline.
Figure 2 shows that most companies have implemented development measures for identified significant suppliers with actual or potential negative impacts. In the CSA, these measures range from short-term corrective action plans to long-term technical support and capacity-building programs.
The sector spread in Figure 2 reflects differing levels of maturity in supply chain management. The communication services, utilities and information technology sectors had the highest implementation of development measures for identified suppliers, with coverage rates of 88%, 84% and 83%, respectively. These sectors often rely on concentrated, established and strategic supplier bases, which may explain the prevalence of structured development programs. However, the number of companies that identified suppliers with potential or actual negative impacts varied across sectors, as did the number of participating companies.
Conversely, only 56% of energy companies and 63% of real estate companies reported implementing development measures for suppliers with adverse impacts, below the cross-sector average. This suggests an implementation gap: Even when ESG risks were detected through supplier assessment, not all companies in these sectors invested in training, corrective action or capacity building, potentially leaving known risks unmanaged.
In addition to the KPI data above, since 2021, more than 40% of all supply chain-related controversy cases identified through the S&P Global Media and Stakeholder Analysis (MSA) framework have been linked to consumer staples companies, and 30% to consumer discretionary companies. These sectors remain more exposed to supply chain MSA cases than others due to higher media scrutiny, their consumer-facing nature and strong brand visibility, although their supplier development efforts are broadly in line with the sectoral average. Beyond regulatory and financial risks, these supply chain controversies increase companies' exposure to legal, reputational and operational risks, with potential repercussions for local, national and international stakeholders.
Companies across all sectors can distinguish themselves through higher ESG maturity in supply chain management, as evidenced by the low disclosure rate of supplier KPIs compared with the high coverage of supplier assessment and development among those that do report. Some sectors, such as energy and healthcare, have the potential to increase supplier ESG risk coverage and close the gap between supplier assessment and development. Sectors that perform better in these areas, such as information technology and communication services, may apply more structured approaches to identifying and managing supply chain risks, such as operational disruptions or controversies.
Regulatory requirements and rising stakeholder expectations are likely to increase pressure on companies to substantiate their supply chain due diligence. As ESG-related supply chain shocks remain a persistent global risk, companies with more mature suppliers and ESG programs may be better prepared to address risks. Consistent progress, particularly in sectors with elevated supply chain risks, will be critical to reducing negative impacts over the medium to long term.
Disclaimer
This content (including any information, data, analyses, opinions, ratings, scores, and other statements) (“Content”) has been prepared solely for information purposes and is owned by or licensed to S&P Global and/or its affiliates (collectively, “S&P Global”).
This Content may not be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means without the prior written permission of S&P Global. You acquire absolutely no rights or licenses in or to this Content and any related text, graphics, photographs, trademarks, logos, sounds, music, audio, video, artwork, computer code, information, data and material therein, other than the limited right to utilize this Content for your own personal, internal, non-commercial purposes or as further provided herein.
Any unauthorized use, facilitation or encouragement of a third party’s unauthorized use (including without limitation copy, distribution, transmission, modification, use as part of generative artificial intelligence or for training any artificial intelligence models) of this Content or any related information is not permitted without S&P Global’s prior consent and shall be deemed an infringement, violation, breach or contravention of the rights of S&P Global or any applicable third-party (including any copyright, trademark, patent, rights of privacy or publicity or any other proprietary rights).
This Content and related materials are developed solely for informational purposes based upon information generally available to the public and from sources believed to be reliable. S&P Global gives no representations or warranties regarding the use of this Content and/or its fitness for a particular purpose including but not limited to any regulatory reporting purposes and references to a particular investment or security, a score, rating or any observation concerning an investment or security that is part of this Content is not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold such investment or security, does not address the suitability of an investment or security and should not be relied on as investment or regulation related advice.
The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives.
S&P Global shall have no liability, duty or obligation for or in connection with this Content, any other related information (including for any errors, inaccuracies, omissions or delays in the data) and/or any actions taken in reliance thereon. In no event shall S&P Global be liable for any special, incidental, or consequential damages, arising out of the use of this Content and/or any related information.
The S&P and S&P Global logos are trademarks of S&P Global registered in many jurisdictions worldwide. You shall not use any of S&P Global’s trademarks, trade names or service marks in any manner, and in no event in a manner accessible by or available to any third party. You acknowledge that you have no ownership or license rights in or to any of these names or marks.
Adherence to S&P's Internal Policies
S&P Global adopts policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of non-public information received in connection with its analytical processes. As a result, S&P Globalemployees are required to process non-public information in accordance with the technical and organizational measures referenced in the internal S&P Global Information Security and Acceptable Use policies and related guidelines.
Conflicts of Interest
S&P Global is committed to providing transparency to the market through high-quality independent opinions. Safeguarding the quality, independence and integrity of Content is embedded in its culture and at the core of everything S&P Global does. Accordingly, S&P Global has developed measures to identify, eliminate and/or minimize potential conflicts of interest for Sustainable1 as an organization and for individual employees. Such measures include, without limitation, establishing a clear separation between the activities and interactions of its analytical teams and non-analytical teams; email surveillance by compliance teams; and policy role designations. In addition, S&P Global employees are subject to mandatory annual training and attestations and must adhere to the Sustainable1 Independence and Objectivity Policy, the Sustainable1 Code of Conduct, the S&P Global Code of Business Ethics and any other related policies.
See additional Disclaimers at https://www.spglobal.com/en/terms-of-use
Copyright© 2026 S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved.