Client Background

The Client, Chemicals Company Private Limited, is a global chemical manufacturer based in Germany.
Established in late 1980, the client has become one of the industry's top suppliers with annual revenue
of € 1B. The client serves various industries, including but not limited to Construction, Consumer
Packaged Goods, Transportation, Pharmaceuticals, Rubber and Plastics. It supplies a variety of
materials like Surfactants, Silicones, Resins etc.

Due to a complex product portfolio, the client sources 1500+ raw materials from various suppliers in
Europe, North America, Asia, and the Middle East. Although the client maintains a healthy relationship
with all its vendors, 95% of the raw materials are from 5 suppliers (Refer to Annex 1).

The business grew at 10% CAGR with EBITDA of ~ 21% until 2021, when the market started facing
multiple challenges in every direction. First, the pandemic-induced lockdowns disrupted logistics due
to various port restrictions, followed by China's energy rationing policies induced inflationary
pressures in the market. More recently, the Russia-Ukraine war has added to the woes. Now, we see
average raw material prices at least 50% higher than the pre-Pandemic.

Industry dynamics
The Chemical Industry has been going through turbulent times recently due to material shortages
because of capacity and supply chain fragilities. In addition, the industry is facing rising raw material
costs, hurting companies' profitability. The situation has only worsened with lockdowns across various
production capabilities worldwide. As these factors interplay, challenges such as raw materials
stockouts, high lead times and force majeure like sanctions and regulations have become more
common, causing revenue loss. On the downstream side of things, customer demand is skyrocketing
in volume terms. Furthermore, the industry can't keep up with the fill rates aligned with this buoyant
demand.
Historically, the chemicals industry has been one of the most environmentally polluting industries
worldwide, with the material waste and gas emissions contaminating multiple water bodies
permanently and creating health hazards for people living around these chemical manufacturing
plants. The industry has been at the forefront of class-action lawsuits for numerous years. They have
had to pay severe penalties for such malpractices. It is now pushing a wave of sustainability reforms
for all chemical companies. Today, customers are willing to switch their chemicals supplier if they do
not meet the environmental and governance sustainability requirements. A recent report says that
the suppliers can gain or lose 10% of the sales based on 1 point increase or decrease in their
sustainability risk score (Refer to Annex 9). It has made the chemical companies put environmental
sustainability as one of their primary focus areas to ensure that the business grows in the long term.
Another criterion for environmental sustainability scoring is based on the carbon emissions made by
the chemical company and its suppliers. All the carbon emissions caused by manufacturing, packaging
and logistics are considered when chemical companies are rated for their carbon emissions scoring.
As carbon emissions significantly impact company valuations, a recent SEC ruling mandates the
registered companies to include climate-related disclosures in their audited financial statements.
The World Bank recently increased the prices of CO2 emissions to $70/MT, which is also expected to
increase significantly in the future. (Refer to annex 9)
Due to the above factors, reducing CO2 emissions and sustaining the value chain are on the client's
agenda.
Some other challenges the industry faces are worker unionizations and power holidays. The workers
in the industry are gaining more bargaining power. Thus, they are creating a risk of production
downtimes with unforeseen strikes and large-scale resignations.
Mandatory allocation to some regional suppliers: The government has also asked to allow a minimum
number of suppliers to be sourced locally. It is a government's move to reduce the carbon footprint
on logistics and transport. If this condition is not met, huge penalties could follow.

Company Landscape:
The client started a new Surfactant product line in 2017, which has significant demand potential in the
construction industry due to the latest research in the field. As a result, clients' Surfactant revenues
almost tripled from €3.04 million to €9.79 million from 2017 to 2022 (Refer to Annex 7). The chemical
market size is expected to become €1 billion by 2026.

At the Annual Performance Review Meeting, several issues needed management attention. Therefore,
the company CEO, Benjamin Schmidt, has invited a team of GEP consultants to this meeting. Below is
a small snippet of the conversation:

Benjamin: I see that there has been a steady decline in our margins despite the healthy increase in
revenues. We have launched new products with great potential, and the demand remains buoyant.
What could be the reason behind the declining margin?

Petra (President, Marketing and Sales): Benjamin, you are correct in stating that the demand is
strong. However, our service levels are not stable with the current OTIF (On-Time In-Full) of 82% (See
Annex 4). In comparison, the competitors can meet a service level of more than 95%. It leads to us
paying heavy fines, causing margin leakages. Moreover, we see a potential drop in future sales as our
service levels worsen daily.

Benjamin then diverts his attention to Vikas, the Company's COO, to understand the steps taken by
the operations and supply chain team to improve the service levels.
Vikas (COO): Let's try understanding the supply chain's bottlenecks. Dev, do you see any issues on the
production floor?

Dev (Manufacturing head): Our production lines are running at full capacities with only 19%
equipment downtimes (Refer to Annex 2). The actual production is running well according to the
schedule we receive from the planning team. However, I think that the raw material shortage is a
primary concern here. I have observed that many lines are sitting idle owing to the shortage. (Refer to
Annex 4). Can we improve inventory levels to ensure that the lines are continuously running?

Manav (Sourcing head): I don't think the raw material shortage is the concern here. Currently, the
supplier OTIF is decent at 81% (Refer to Annex 1) for the top 5 suppliers. So, of the demand-supply gap
of 18%, nothing can be attributed to the raw material shortage. Moreover, we have always tried to
ensure we stick to the planning schedule.

Mitra (Planning head): Our planning schedules are carefully prepared, accounting for the sales and
production capacity data. The planning schedule is tight due to the limited production capacity, which
I think should be expanded further. Moreover, I have observed that there have been many misses in
the deliveries due to logistics issues. I see that finished goods are stored and ready to be dispatched,
but the status remains the same in the system for a few days. Can we improve logistics performance
to improve OTIF?
Sandra (Logistics head): I agree that there have been some issues with the timely pickup of the
materials. However, I don't think that significantly contributes to the lower service levels. We often
book trucks anticipating the pickup, but the FG goods aren't ready. As a result, we had to cancel the
booking, forfeiting the booking amount. Due to the demand-supply variation, there is a shortage of
trucks for customer deliveries. We should be more resourceful in handling this. Our ability to convert
inbound for outbound is 90% and above. However, the inbound to outbound truck utilization is just
23% today (Refer to Annex 8), far from optimal levels.

Vikas: Why do you think that is the case, Sandra?

Sandra: As all the inbound deliveries seem to be happening at the month's end, we can only use the
inbound trucks for outbound activities during that time.

Mitra: Even the planning is affected by this sourcing schedule. As I investigate the on-hand inventory
and consumption data, I see a big sourcing issue. All the deliveries are happening together at the end
of the month, risking the entire production schedule. Moreover, there is a considerable gap in the
planned vs actual deliveries, leading to stockouts.

Manav: Stockouts are never a concern here as the demand-supply gap is due to other factors. To
ensure a stable supply, we are currently dealing with 20+ vendors; Five of these contribute to 95% of
the purchase requirements (Refer to annex 1). With limited storage capacity, we order whatever is
required and can be stored. Sometimes the suppliers are ready to provide more, but our storage
capacity is limited to 2000 MT (Refer to annex 5). Hence, we must deny those proposals. A recent
market insight shows that there would be a massive shortage in the Palm Oil supply; still, we cannot
stock more of it due to storage constraints.

Mitra: Can we not distribute the volumes among multiple suppliers to guard ourselves against the
shortage and high inflation?

Manav: Not really! A new constraint introduced by the sustainability team requires the suppliers to
comply with specific regulations such as RSPO (Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil). Moreover, we
cannot switch to suppliers with poor sustainability risk scores as this would decrease the overall sales
and increase penalties due to Co2 emissions (Refer to Annex 9). Most of our suppliers have a
sustainability risk score of 6 today, which should be higher to increase sales. Moreover, recent news
on the supplier consolidation (refer Annexure 1) would significantly reduce the number of suppliers we
can source. Is there a way we can improve the storage capacity so we can stock up on whatever is
available today?

Sandra: I agree that we have limited storage capacity. I have tried to devise a proposal to address it
(Refer to Annex 6). But I believe that the storage capacity is limited due to the production schedule as
the inventory is not consumed as planned.

Mitra: I agree with Sandra on this. The average line utilization has significantly gone down. Although
the production capacity is 700 MT/Week, I hear that the line is down because of MRO issues (Refer to
Annex 2 and Annex 3).

Dev: What about when our lines run with a peak utilization factor but still can't meet the demand due
to material scarcity?

Manav: With so many constraints on sourcing (Refer to Annex 9), such as limited storage, and
sustainability, we are still doing our best to meet the material demand. Only two of the five suppliers
we have in top spend meet this criterion. Both suppliers have highly inflated prices, which might reduce
the margins further if we do not act now. With constraints on storage, supplier selection and other
factors, how can sourcing be held solely responsible for the lower service level?

As Vikas observed that the discussion was becoming a never-ending debate, he tried to intervene.
Vikas: You are right, Manav. We need to take immediate action on the suppliers. I had asked for some
Supplier data. Have you created it?

Manav: Yes, Vikas, mailing it to you and the GEP team for further analysis.

Benjamin: Ok, so we have almost run out of time. We can schedule another call to continue this
discussion. Let's try our best to identify the bottlenecks and ways to improve the performance. Thank
you for your time today!

Benjamin called Meera to have a quick discussion:

Benjamin: So, Meera, this is what happens in every discussion. Every team blames another team
without reaching the bottom of the issue. I want to know the facts. You have got quite a task cut out
for yourself to bring clarity on the core issues and potential solutions.
Meera: Got it, Benjamin. I have already received all the required data and will do my best to resolve
the issue.
Deliverables

The participants should help Meera identify the issues in the supply chain and recommend solutions
to mitigate them. The key areas and deliverables are listed below:

Category Deliverables
1. Identify critical addressable problems the client and the industry are facing today
2. Prioritize the problems, generate hypotheses along with the approach to validate
Current state them and high-level solutions
assessment 3. Assess as-is state in terms of sustainability in supply chain and operations
4. Recommend ways to improve sustainability in the supply chain and prioritize them
(Assess Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3)

Instructions:

1. The deadline to submit responses is 7th August 2022 (EOD). Please note that there would not be any
extension beyond 7th August.
2. The slide limit for Round 1 submission is 2 slides only (excluding introduction and appendix slides).
3. The PPT file along with other supporting documentation can be uploaded in the form of a .zip or .rar
format file (maximum size of 15 MB) on the Case Study Challenge page.
4. Only Calibri fonts are allowed and font size in any slide should not be lower than 10. However, lower
limit for the font sizes is 8 for graphs and charts.
5. Please name your submission file as <Institute Name>_<Team Name>. For e.g., if you are a student of
ABC college and your team name is XYZ, your submission file should be named as ABC_XYZ.
6. Appendix slides are not mandatory and there is no limit on number of appendix slides if you wish to
add any. Please mark these separately to avoid confusion with the actual solution. Appendix slides will
not be considered for evaluation.
7. Clearly state any assumptions you make & include all quantitative / qualitative analysis you have
performed to arrive at your hypothesis / recommendations
Annexure 1:

Supplier landscape

Serial No. 1 2 3 4 5 Others

Supplier Name Supplier 1 Supplier 2 Supplier 3 Supplier 4 Supplier 5 Others
Ability to
provide a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
variety of RM
Spend in
€ 3.71 € 0.60 € 0.29 € 0.72 € 0.53 € 0.31
€M
Asia
Plant/WH Europe North America Europe Europe
(Indonesia, Global
location (Germany) (USA) (Germany) (Germany)
Malaysia)
Sustain. Risk
(low-10, 1 is 9 8 5 7 6 5
high)
OTIF
80% 80% 70% 90% 90% 70%
performance*
Geo. Risk
(Low-10, 1 is 7 9 5 7 7 6
high)
Annual capacity
50,000 40,000 25,000 15,000 15,000 30,000
in MT
% of capacity
committed to 45% 10% 10% 40% 40% 11%
client
Price
movements 120% 110% 85% 95% 90% 96%
(% of indices)
last year's
Landed price € 67 € 73 € 71 € 73 € 53 € 45
(€/MT)
This year's
Landed price € 200 € 183 € 142 € 145 € 106 € 113
(€/MT)
Capacity
22500 4000 2500 6000 6000 3300
Available (MT)
Quantity
18531 3294 2059 4942 4942 2718
Purchased (MT)
1. Increased 1. Increased prices
1. Increased
1. Increased prices by 150% 1. Increased 1. Increased by 100% in 2022
prices by 150%
prices by 200% in 2022 prices by 100% prices by 2. The client is the
in 2022
in 2022 2. Pledged to in 2022 100% in 2022 biggest
2. Low
2. Planning to achieve a 2. Filed for 2. The client is customer
sustainability
expand sustainability bankruptcy in the biggest 3. Low
risk score due
capacity by risk score of 9 2020 customer sustainability
Other to insufficient
50% by 2025 and OTIF of 3. Planning to 3. Pledged to risk score due to
information 3. Considering 90% expand achieve a insufficient
funds for
wastewater
the acquisition 3. Planning to capacity in sustainability funds for
and carbon
of a supplier 3 expand Europe by risk of 9 by wastewater and
emission
4. Incoterms are capacity by 2024 2023 carbon emission
mgmt.
DDP 100% by 2025 4. Incoterms are 3. Incoterms are management
3. Incoterms are
4. Incoterms are DDP DDP 4. Incoterms are
DDP
DDP DDP
*Weighted average OTIF across suppliers is 81%
Annexure 2:

Line Downtime

Week Production Line Downtime duration in % line availability

(A) (B) days (C) (D=(1-C/7) *100)
Week 01 Surfactants 2 71%
Week 02 Surfactants 2 71%
Week 03 Surfactants 3 57%
Week 04 Surfactants 0 100%
Week 05 Surfactants 2 71%
Week 06 Surfactants 0 100%
Week 07 Surfactants 2 71%
Week 08 Surfactants 0 100%
Week 09 Surfactants 1 86%
Week 10 Surfactants 3 57%
Week 11 Surfactants 1 86%
Week 12 Surfactants 2 71%
Week 13 Surfactants 0 100%
Week 14 Surfactants 2 71%
Week 15 Surfactants 0 100%
Week 16 Surfactants 1 86%
Total 21 81%
Annexure 3:

MRO Consumption

Closi
ng
Inven Inventory
Material Material Qty Quantity Opening Shortage
Week tory short
ID Desc. reqd. purchased Inventory days
(B) (H=M (I=Max(D
(A) (C) (D) (E) (F=H(Week-1)) (J=I/D*7)
ax(E+ -E-F,0))
F-
D,0)
100005 Week 01 Cable 40 20 10 0 10 2
Repair
100018 Week 01 48 63 20 35 0 0
Kit
100132 Week 01 Screw 123 193 30 100 0 0
Pump
100219 Week 01 42 72 5 35 0 0
Spares
100005 Week 02 Cable 38 30 0 0 8 2
Repair
100018 Week 02 47 17 35 5 0 0
Kit
100132 Week 02 Screw 121 71 100 50 0 0
Pump
100219 Week 02 48 13 35 0 0 0
Spares
100005 Week 03 Cable 33 40 0 7 0 0
Repair
100018 Week 03 65 40 5 0 20 3
Kit
100132 Week 03 Screw 125 75 50 0 0 0
Pump
100219 Week 03 56 60 0 4 0 0
Spares
Annexure 4:

Supply-Demand data

Qty produced Qty delivered OTIF Usable Line

Demand as per as per (D = inventory utilization
Week
(A) production shipment Min(C/A*100), based on (G=B/700*10
report-(B) report -(C) 100%) recipe mix * 0)

Week 0
Week 01 500 500 500 100% 2250 71%
Week 02 500 500 500 100% 1750 71%
Week 03 600 400 500 83% 1250 57%
Week 04 700 700 600 86% 850 100%
Week 05 650 500 550 85% 1860 71%
Week 06 450 700 500 100% 1360 100%
Week 07 400 500 450 100% 660 71%
Week 08 500 160 450 90% 160 23%
Week 09 500 600 600 100% 2250 86%
Week 10 500 400 410 82% 1650 57%
Week 11 400 600 400 100% 1250 86%
Week 12 700 500 500 71% 650 71%
Week 13 800 700 520 65% 1860 100%
Week 14 900 500 500 56% 1160 71%
Week 15 800 660 550 69% 660 94%
Week 16 800 0 400 50% 0 0%
Total 9700 7920 7930 82% 71%
Note:

1. Demonstrated line capacity is 700 MT/Week

2. FG storage capacity is 1800 MT
3. *Maximum FG that can be produced with material recipe mix
4. The conversion ratio is 0.9 (1 MT of raw material can produce 0.9 MT of FG)
Annexure 5:

RM Consumption

Max FG Closing Std.

Recipe Opening Purchased Storage
Material production Consumption inv. dev. in
mix % Inventory inventory capacity
ID (A) possible (H) (I=E+F- lead
(D) (E=I (Week-1)) (F) (N)
(G=(E+F)/D) H) time
100246 10% 25 230 2295 56 199 3 200
100247 20% 50 460 2295 111 399 4 400
100251 30% 210 555 2295 167 598 5 600
100252 20% 90 420 2295 111 399 2 400
100253 5% 20 105 2250 28 97 3 100
100268 5% 30 95 2250 28 97 4 100
100272 5% 30 95 2250 28 97 2 100
100273 5% 30 95 2250 28 97 5 100
Note:

1. Lead time is 2 months

2. The ordering frequency is 1 per month
3. All quantities are in Metric tons (MT)
Annexure 6:

Improvement opportunities

Supplier facility upgrade

Suppliers 4 and 5 are among the few vendors the company has dealt with since its inception. Over
these years, the company has built a strong relationship with these suppliers. As the company grew
over the years, the suppliers' capacity did not expand proportionately, representing 15000 MT/year.
Moreover, the sustainability risk of these suppliers is not reasonable either, which leads to increased
regularity pressures and higher costs. The suppliers do not have enough capital to upgrade their
facilities and have approached the company with an investment proposal. With this investment, the
suppliers' capacity would be 2x the current state. Moreover, the sustainability risk could be nine or
even better.

Storage capacity expansion

The sourcing team has proposed to increase the raw material storage capacity, which currently stands
at 2000 MT. The project involves a € 1M investment, including buying the storage and human
resources to maintain them.

Project Projected Projected

Opportunity Investment timeline sales cost
SN Description
Name (in € M) in increase (% reduction
months of net sales) (% of Sales)
Investment in
overhauling supplier
Supplier
plant to minimize
1 facility € 2.0 12 15% 2.3%
carbon emissions and
upgrade
increasing capacity by
2x
Storage Increase raw material
2 € 1.0 2 5% 0%
increase storage
Annexure 7

Income Statement

Income Statement (New surfactant material)

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Revenue (€ millions) - A € 3.04 € 3.58 € 4.30 € 5.59 € 9.79
Expenses
Direct Material - B € 1.71 € 2.10 € 2.56 € 3.81 € 6.15
Utilities - C € 0.17 € 0.24 € 0.29 € 0.38 € 0.66
Direct Labor -D € 0.16 € 0.19 € 0.23 € 0.30 € 0.53
Inbound Freight & Logistics Cost -E € 0.17 € 0.21 € 0.31 € 0.38 € 0.71
Outbound Freight & Logistics Cost -F € 0.24 € 0.17 € 0.26 € 0.69 € 1.32
Rent -G € 0.03 € 0.10 € 0.10 € 0.10 € 0.10
Total Cost of Revenue –
€ 2.49 € 3.01 € 3.75 € 5.66 € 9.47
(H=B+C+D+E+F+G)
Margin (I=A-H) € 0.55 € 0.58 € 0.55 € (0.07) € 0.32
% Margin (J=I/A*100) 18% 16% 13% -1% 3%

Note: Engagement with GEP started in week 10 and closed in week 16. The quantity procured from Week 1 to
Week 16 is given in annex 5. Therefore, from week 16 onwards, the quantity procured is assumed to be 778 MT
per week, equivalent to running the line to the total capacity.
Annexure 8:

Truck utilization

% of inbound
Number of
Outbound Truck placed trucks routed
Inbound inbound
Truck for actual for outbound
Week Truck count trucks routed
requirement deliveries to the total
(A) for Outbound
(B) (C) inbound
(D)
(F=D/A)
Week 01 103 25 25 22 21%
Week 02 0 25 25 0 0%
Week 03 0 30 25 0 0%
Week 04 0 35 30 0 0%
Week 05 107 33 28 25 23%
Week 06 0 23 25 0 0%
Week 07 0 20 23 0 0%
Week 08 0 25 23 0 0%
Week 09 117 25 30 27 23%
Week 10 0 25 21 0 0%
Week 11 0 20 20 0 0%
Week 12 0 35 25 0 0%
Week 13 98 40 26 24 24%
Week 14 0 45 25 0 0%
Week 15 0 40 28 0 0%
Week 16 1 40 20 0 0%
Total 426 486 399 98 23%
Annexure 9:

Sustainability and supplier Selection criteria

Co2 emission/ton of
Sustainability chemical production World Bank's CO2 cost % Decrease in sales
Risk Score (kg) ($/MT) from the score of 10
10 0 $70 0
9 2 $70 -10%
8 3.5 $70 -20%
7 5 $70 -30%
6 6.5 $70 -40%
5 8 $70 -50%
4 9.5 $70 -60%
Note: The $ to € exchange rate is 1

While planning a 5-year roadmap, the company is creating robust supplier selection policies. The
policies would improve the supply chain resilience and ensure that the company is prepared for future
government regulations on sustainability.

While selecting the suppliers, the company is focused on strengthening three pillars – Cost efficiency,
Supply Chain Resiliency and Sustainability.
• Cost efficiency –
Although it is known that the market is going through inflationary pressures, some suppliers are
passing way more than the costs justified through inflation. Therefore, the company wants to
ensure that the supplier selection should consider the impact on the gross margins.

• Supply chain resiliency –

Raw material shortage and the delays in logistics are the most significant contributors to the lost
sales
One of the most vital raw materials used for production is palm oil. The RSPO regulates this raw
material, and certification from them is paramount in maintaining good sustainability risk scores
in Palm Oil Sourcing. With the regulations in place, an acute shortage in this raw material is
anticipated in the upcoming months.

Moreover, multiple factors such as Geopolitical Risks have created huge bottlenecks in production
and logistics:
1. Russia-Ukraine War – Ukraine, the largest producer of Sunflower oil, cannot supply it. As a
result, it has created a global shortage of edible sunflower oil. In response, consumers are now
turning towards Palm oil as a substitute. Moreover, palm oil is another critical material used
in surfactants. Now that there is a considerable demand from the edible oil sector, there is a
demand-supply gap, leading to price increases due to anticipated global shortage.
2. China's lockdown – Some other raw materials and MRO inventory are being sourced today
from China. Due to multiple lockdowns on account of Covid, the suppliers cannot run the
production at total capacity, leading to shortages.

While creating the supplier strategy, the company wants to guard itself against similar issues.
• Sustainability –

As the company's customers are pushing to improve the sustainability risk score, the company is
paying more attention to enhancing ESG performance.

ESG scores in a nutshell:

An ESG score measures a company's exposure to long-term environmental, social, and governance
risks often overlooked during traditional financial analyses. These risks include energy efficiency,
worker safety, and board diversity, which can have significant economic consequences.

What do ESG scores measure?

ESG scores are based on environmental, social, and governance factors and assess issues such as
energy use, employee satisfaction, business ethics standards, and executive pay.

Environmental issues can include factors such as:

• Carbon emissions
• Climate change vulnerability
• Water sourcing
• Biodiversity & land use
• Toxic emissions & waste
• Packaging material & waste
• Electronic waste

ESG rating companies also consider the opportunities within different ESG categories. For
example, environmental options can include clean technology, green building, and renewable
energy. At the same time, some social opportunities can be better communication, finance, or
healthcare access.
Under the Carbon Emissions Segment, the greenhouse gases (GHG) are primarily divided into
these three categories. Therefore, the right way to rate a company's sustainability is by tracking
the Scope 1,2 & 3 emissions, which are defined as follows:

Scope 1 (Direct GHG Emissions): Direct GHG emissions occur from sources owned or controlled
by the company, for example, emissions from combustion in owned or controlled boilers,
furnaces, vehicles, etc.; emissions from chemical production in owned or controlled process
equipment.

Scope 2 (Electricity Indirect GHG Emissions): Scope-2 accounts for GHG emissions from the
generation of purchased electricity consumed by a company. Purchased electricity is defined as
electricity that is purchased or otherwise brought into the organizational boundary of the
company. Therefore, scope-2 emissions physically occur at the facility where electricity is
generated.

Scope 3 (Other Indirect GHG Emissions): Scope-3 is an optional reporting category that allows for
treating all other indirect emissions. Scope-3 emissions are a consequence of the company's
activities but occur from sources not owned or controlled by the company. Some examples of
scope-3 activities are extraction and production of purchased materials , transportation of
purchased fuels, and use of products and services.
 The company is planning to formulate a strategy to work on these scopes and prioritize within
these scopes based on which scope would possibly improve the GHG Emissions rating most
quickly.
With all these factors in place, the company needs some help shortlisting the suppliers to build a long-
term relationship.