Jump to content

Talk:Supply chain management: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
ClueBot III (talk | contribs)
m Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Supply chain management/Archives/2018. (BOT)
Line 24: Line 24:


Google only returned one relevant reference to SECH <ref>https://books.google.es/books?id=5Llh4zQj1gIC&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=SECH+Rating&source=bl&ots=prVXV5fdBP&sig=ACfU3U0bU_uWvEOTiyPMNG4A9bGT-Va4bw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjluvy3xM3rAhXUAWMBHZnRB2AQ6AEwAXoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=SECH%20Rating&f=false</ref>, which was nearly verbatim to this passage. There were more hits on ESG and other sustainability measures. Sustainability Ratings is likely a valid section, but the use of SECH should probably be removed. [[User:BBQTortilla|BBQTortilla]] ([[User talk:BBQTortilla|talk]]) 18:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Google only returned one relevant reference to SECH <ref>https://books.google.es/books?id=5Llh4zQj1gIC&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=SECH+Rating&source=bl&ots=prVXV5fdBP&sig=ACfU3U0bU_uWvEOTiyPMNG4A9bGT-Va4bw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjluvy3xM3rAhXUAWMBHZnRB2AQ6AEwAXoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=SECH%20Rating&f=false</ref>, which was nearly verbatim to this passage. There were more hits on ESG and other sustainability measures. Sustainability Ratings is likely a valid section, but the use of SECH should probably be removed. [[User:BBQTortilla|BBQTortilla]] ([[User talk:BBQTortilla|talk]]) 18:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

== Topics addressed by selected professional supply chain certification programmes ==

Article has a note from October 2017 proposing a [[Wikipedia:Splitting|split]] for the material on '''professional supply chain certification programmes'''. The proposal discussion is [[Talk:Supply chain management/Archives/2017#Comparison of supply chain certification programmes|archived]] with no discussion other that the split proposal by [[User:Biogeographist|Biogeographist]]. I '''agree''' that the table seems too large and specific for this article and support the proposed split, but I would call the article "Supply chain certification programmes" without the reference to "comparisons". - [[User:BobKilcoyne|BobKilcoyne]] ([[User talk:BobKilcoyne|talk]]) 05:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:25, 25 March 2021

Template:Vital article

References missing

A lot of references are missing. For Example (Akkerman, 2001) is mentioned in the text but there is no reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.45.12.231 (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

“SCM 2.0” reads like corporate spam

That section reeks like an ad for TrueC*rd. Mrflip (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"SECH" Commonly used?

Google only returned one relevant reference to SECH [1], which was nearly verbatim to this passage. There were more hits on ESG and other sustainability measures. Sustainability Ratings is likely a valid section, but the use of SECH should probably be removed. BBQTortilla (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topics addressed by selected professional supply chain certification programmes

Article has a note from October 2017 proposing a split for the material on professional supply chain certification programmes. The proposal discussion is archived with no discussion other that the split proposal by Biogeographist. I agree that the table seems too large and specific for this article and support the proposed split, but I would call the article "Supply chain certification programmes" without the reference to "comparisons". - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]