Measuring and improving performance based on ISO 20400
Domain 4 covers Clause 8: how you know whether any of it works, and what you do when it does not.
Three layers of measurement
- Process - are the steps happening? Percentage of tenders with sustainability criteria, contracts with clauses, buyers trained.
- Supplier - are suppliers performing? Audit findings closed on time, emissions per unit, incidents, grievances resolved.
- Outcome - is impact changing? Tonnes CO2e per EUR million spend, water use, waste diverted, local employment.
Leading indicators predict; lagging indicators confirm. A credible programme carries both, and knows which is which.
Reporting
Clause 8 expects internal and external reporting proportionate to size and risk: what was measured, the method, the boundary, and the limitations. External verification adds credibility, but unverified self-reported supplier data must be labelled as such rather than presented as fact.
Improvement
Findings feed corrective action, root-cause analysis, changes to specification or criteria, supplier development, and revision of policy and strategy - the loop back into Clause 6.
Worked example
A university baselines at 22% of contracts above EUR 100 000 including sustainability criteria, with no supplier-level data. Year one target is 70% of high-risk contracts including criteria - leading and controllable. Year two target is packaging waste per delivered pallet down 15% - lagging and outcome-based. The procurement board reviews quarterly; two categories miss target, root cause is late specification by budget holders, so the control moves earlier in the process. The target is not lowered; the process changes.
Traps
- Counting activity (workshops held, policies written) instead of outcomes.
- No baseline, so improvement cannot be evidenced.
- Comparing figures collected with different methods across years.
- Reporting only successes; the standard expects honest limitations.
- Setting targets without an owner, a data source or a review rhythm.