It's a familiar track of business news: CSR is a growing concern. But is there a danger that procurement's way of understanding the subject is becoming outdated as the issue develops?

Procurement training is not necessarily a given, in fact there are some tough truths that pave the way to an excellent leader.

The final task of the Procurement Leaders Mini MBA 2013: "If we want to make progress when getting back to the office, what are the actions we will need to consider?"

Finding the right tool to take the procurement function to the right level is as easy as 1,2,3,4. Or is it?

It seems as if the news surrounding Apple’s CSR conflicts are here to last for a while. The manufacturing giant just reported multiple cases of child labour in its supply chain, following increased audits of working conditions at major suppliers last year.

In the 1980s, a new customer satisfaction model, known as the Kano model, grabbed the attention of many marketing practitioners and researchers from a wide range of industries. Named after its creator, Noriaki Kano, a Japanese academic and consultant, the model challenged traditional customer satisfaction models that stated that more is better (i.e. the more you perform on each product/service attribute, the more satisfied customers will be).

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is now a major item on the CEO’s agenda; no annual report is complete without making reference to CSR performance. And yet, we hear it time and again in our procurement community: CSR is complex and can mean different things, it can be expensive and is hard to measure, and why does it matter anyhow?

The Apple-Foxconn saga continues.

It was back in 2010 when I had the pleasure of interviewing Marc Engel, CPO of Anglo-Dutch consumer goods giant Unilever, on the subject of its Sustainable Living Plan.

Those of you who have been following the scandals surrounding Apple's supply chain are probably aware of its recent decision to allow the largest investigation ever into a US company's operations abroad.