Table of Contents
AMRT Fails Where Responsibility Is Vague
Most suppliers don’t fail AMRT because they lack data. They fail because no one truly owns it.
AMRT often sits between functions—engineering, compliance, procurement, sustainability—without clear accountability. Each team contributes something, but no team controls the outcome.
This article explains why shared ownership causes AMRT inconsistency, where accountability gaps emerge, and what effective ownership actually looks like in practice.
Why AMRT Ownership Is Commonly Fragmented
AMRT touches multiple domains:
- product design
- material selection
- supplier relationships
- ESG commitments
Because no single function owns all of these, AMRT responsibility is often distributed by default.
That distribution creates ambiguity:
- decisions are made without coordination
- assumptions go undocumented
- changes go unreported
Over time, fragmentation becomes drift.
The Typical AMRT Ownership Breakdown
Engineering: Product Knowledge Without Reporting Context
Engineering understands:
- materials
- components
- design changes
But often lacks:
- visibility into reporting expectations
- ownership of narrative consistency
- responsibility for updates after submission
Engineering input is essential—but insufficient on its own.
Compliance: Template Knowledge Without Product Control
Compliance teams often:
- complete the AMRT
- manage submissions
- respond to follow-ups
But may lack:
- deep product insight
- early awareness of change
- authority to enforce internal alignment
This leads to reactive updates instead of controlled reporting.
Procurement: Supplier Control Without Mineral Logic
Procurement manages:
- supplier relationships
- onboarding and substitution
- commercial leverage
But often lacks:
- mineral risk context
- AMRT-specific knowledge
- visibility into reporting assumptions
Supplier changes occur without triggering AMRT review.
Sustainability: Messaging Without Data Authority
Sustainability teams own:
- ESG commitments
- public disclosures
- stakeholder responses
But may not control:
- the underlying AMRT data
- product-level assumptions
- supplier engagement
This disconnect creates contradiction risk.
Why “Everyone Owns It” Means No One Does
Shared ownership fails because:
- no one is accountable for consistency
- no one owns update triggers
- no one retains historical context
When AMRT is revisited:
- prior answers are reinterpreted
- assumptions are forgotten
- explanations change unintentionally
Customers experience this as inconsistency, not collaboration.
How Ownership Gaps Create Data Inconsistency
Ownership gaps lead to:
- different answers across business units
- unexplained year-over-year changes
- misclassified minerals
- conflicting narratives
None of these issues stem from bad intent. They stem from unowned decisions.
What Effective AMRT Ownership Actually Looks Like
Effective AMRT ownership does not mean one person does everything.
It means:
- one function owns final accountability
- inputs are structured and repeatable
- assumptions are documented
- updates are triggered intentionally
Ownership is about decision control, not task execution.
The Role of a Central AMRT Owner
A central AMRT owner typically:
- defines scope logic
- coordinates cross-functional inputs
- approves changes before submission
- maintains consistency across cycles
This role does not replace other teams. It aligns them.
Why Ownership Matters More as AMRT Scales
As AMRT becomes recurring:
- historical responses accumulate
- customer expectations sharpen
- comparison increases
Without clear ownership:
- errors repeat
- credibility erodes
- escalation accelerates
Ownership becomes more important with each cycle, not less.
What This Means for Suppliers
AMRT does not fail because it is complex. It fails because responsibility is unclear.
Suppliers that assign ownership early:
- reduce inconsistency
- manage change intentionally
- protect credibility
Those that rely on shared responsibility often spend years explaining the same issues repeatedly.