Install
openclaw skills install supplier-risk-scoringGenerates a 0-100 Supplier Risk Index score across financial, dependency, compliance, performance, and geographic risks with tiered action plans.
openclaw skills install supplier-risk-scoringFramework: Supplier Risk Index (SRI) Price: $19 Category: Productivity / Risk Management Tags: supplier risk, vendor risk, procurement, risk scoring, ops, compliance last_validated: 2026-03-03
The Supplier Risk Index (SRI) is a structured scoring system that produces a 0-100 risk score for every vendor across five dimensions. It classifies vendors into Green, Yellow, or Red tiers and prescribes specific actions for each tier. Run it at onboarding, annually, and whenever a vendor's situation changes materially.
Problem it solves: Ops teams can't manage vendor risk without a consistent framework. The SRI eliminates gut-feel risk assessments and gives procurement teams an objective, defensible methodology for prioritizing vendor oversight and making sourcing decisions.
Output: A risk score (0-100), tier classification (Green/Yellow/Red), and a recommended action plan for every supplier in your portfolio.
Five Risk Dimensions:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ SUPPLIER RISK INDEX (SRI) │
│ │
│ D1: Financial Stability (max 25 pts) │
│ D2: Single-Source Dependency (max 20 pts) │
│ D3: Compliance History (max 20 pts) │
│ D4: Performance Track Record (max 20 pts) │
│ D5: Geographic / Regulatory Risk (max 15 pts) │
│ │
│ Total SRI Score: 0-100 │
│ (Higher = LOWER risk — score is a "health" score) │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Note: The SRI is a health score, not a risk score — higher is better. A score of 90 means low risk; a score of 20 means high risk. This keeps it intuitive: you want vendors to score high.
Why it matters: A financially unstable supplier can't fulfill contracts, maintain quality, or stay in business. Financial instability is the leading cause of unexpected supply chain disruption.
What to assess:
| Indicator | How to Evaluate |
|---|---|
| Business age | Years in operation |
| Revenue stability | Growing / Stable / Declining |
| Funding/ownership | Bootstrapped stable, PE-backed, VC-backed, public |
| Credit risk signals | Late payments to their vendors, legal judgments |
| Concentration risk | Are they heavily dependent on a single customer? |
Scoring Rubric:
| Condition | Points |
|---|---|
| Company 5+ years old, stable/growing revenue, no financial red flags | 25 |
| Company 3-5 years old, stable revenue, minor concerns | 18-22 |
| Company 1-3 years old (startup), VC-funded or early-stage | 10-17 |
| Company has known financial stress (late payments, restructuring, news of losses) | 3-9 |
| Company has declared bankruptcy, receivership, or is insolvent | 0-2 |
Data Sources:
Scoring Action: For vendors scoring below 15 on D1, escalate to Finance for review before awarding new contracts.
Why it matters: If you rely on one vendor for a critical product or service with no alternative, you're exposed. Any disruption — financial, operational, or relationship — creates immediate business risk.
What to assess:
| Factor | Question |
|---|---|
| Replaceability | How quickly can you replace this vendor if they disappear? |
| Alternatives | How many qualified alternatives exist in the market? |
| Revenue concentration | What % of your spend goes to this vendor? |
| Criticality | What happens to operations if this vendor stops delivering? |
| Switching cost | Time and cost to transition to an alternative |
Scoring Rubric:
| Condition | Points |
|---|---|
| Multiple qualified alternatives exist, vendor is easily replaceable in <30 days | 20 |
| Some alternatives exist, 30-90 day replacement window, moderate switching cost | 13-19 |
| Few alternatives, 90-180 day replacement window, significant switching cost | 6-12 |
| No alternatives identified, critical dependency, >180 day replacement window | 0-5 |
Dependency Multiplier (apply if both conditions are true):
→ Reduce D2 score by 5 points (floor at 0)
Scoring Action:
Why it matters: Compliance failures are leading indicators — they signal process weakness, poor management, or risk-taking culture. A vendor that's had one compliance issue is statistically more likely to have another.
What to assess:
| Area | What to Check |
|---|---|
| Insurance compliance | COI gaps, lapses, late renewals |
| Regulatory compliance | Industry violations, fines, regulatory actions |
| Legal history | Lawsuits, judgments, settlements |
| Data / security incidents | Breaches, audit failures, security violations |
| Contract compliance | Prior vendor relationships, terminations for cause |
| Licensing | Valid licenses maintained in all required jurisdictions |
Scoring Rubric:
| Condition | Points |
|---|---|
| Clean history — no known compliance issues in 3+ years | 20 |
| Minor issues, fully resolved, 1-2 instances in 3 years | 14-19 |
| Moderate issues (1-2 regulatory warnings, minor litigation) — resolved | 8-13 |
| Significant issues (major litigation, regulatory action, insurance lapse) — resolved | 3-7 |
| Active unresolved compliance issues, ongoing litigation, or recent serious violations | 0-2 |
Data Sources:
Scoring Action: Any vendor scoring 0-7 on D3 requires a Legal review before contract renewal.
Why it matters: Past performance is the most reliable predictor of future performance. Vendors with consistent quality, on-time delivery, and responsive issue resolution are lower risk than vendors with spotty records.
What to assess:
| Metric | How to Measure |
|---|---|
| On-time delivery rate | % of deliverables/invoices delivered on schedule |
| Quality defect rate | # of quality issues reported in last 12 months |
| Issue resolution time | Average days to resolve a reported problem |
| Communication responsiveness | Response time to queries and escalations |
| Contract adherence | Are they delivering exactly what was contracted? |
| Customer satisfaction | Internal stakeholder rating of the vendor |
Scoring Rubric (for existing vendors with performance history):
| Condition | Points |
|---|---|
| Consistently exceeds expectations, <2 issues/year, fast resolution | 20 |
| Meets expectations, 2-5 minor issues/year, resolved promptly | 14-19 |
| Mostly meets expectations, occasional issues, moderate resolution time | 8-13 |
| Inconsistent, frequent issues, slow resolution, complaints from internal teams | 3-7 |
| Significant ongoing performance problems, at-risk relationship | 0-2 |
For New Vendors (no internal history):
Scoring Action: Any vendor scoring 0-7 on D4 should be on a Performance Improvement Plan (see Vendor Performance Audit skill).
Why it matters: Where a vendor operates and where they're incorporated can create risk — political instability, regulatory changes, natural disaster exposure, data sovereignty requirements, and trade compliance complexity.
What to assess:
| Factor | Risk Indicators |
|---|---|
| Country of operation | Political stability, sanctions risk, trade restrictions |
| Data sovereignty | Does data leave the country? GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA applicability? |
| Natural disaster exposure | Operations in high-risk zones (hurricanes, earthquakes, flooding) |
| Regulatory environment | Is their industry heavily regulated in their jurisdiction? |
| Currency / FX risk | Are payments in a volatile currency? |
| Export controls | Any ITAR, EAR, or export control applicability? |
Geographic Risk Reference:
| Vendor Location | Risk Level | Starting Points |
|---|---|---|
| US, Canada, UK, EU (stable) | Low | 12-15 |
| Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea | Low | 12-15 |
| Mexico, Brazil, India | Moderate | 8-11 |
| Eastern Europe, Middle East (stable countries) | Moderate-High | 5-9 |
| China (data handling concerns, regulatory risk) | High | 3-6 |
| Countries with active US sanctions or instability | Very High | 0-2 |
Regulatory Complexity Modifier:
| Condition | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| Vendor operates in a heavily regulated industry (healthcare, finance, defense) | -2 pts |
| Vendor handles personal data across international borders | -2 pts |
| Vendor has active export control considerations | -3 pts |
| Vendor has robust regulatory compliance program documented | +2 pts |
Scoring Action: Any vendor scoring 0-5 on D5 should be reviewed by Legal or Compliance before contract execution.
| Dimension | Max Points | Your Score |
|---|---|---|
| D1: Financial Stability | 25 | ___ |
| D2: Single-Source Dependency | 20 | ___ |
| D3: Compliance History | 20 | ___ |
| D4: Performance Track Record | 20 | ___ |
| D5: Geographic / Regulatory Risk | 15 | ___ |
| TOTAL SRI SCORE | 100 | ___ |
| SRI Score | Tier | Label |
|---|---|---|
| 75-100 | 🟢 Green | Low Risk |
| 50-74 | 🟡 Yellow | Moderate Risk |
| Below 50 | 🔴 Red | High Risk |
Outside of scheduled reviews, re-score a vendor immediately when:
After scoring all vendors, conduct a portfolio review:
| Tier | Target | Action if Exceeded |
|---|---|---|
| 🟢 Green | >70% of portfolio | — |
| 🟡 Yellow | <25% of portfolio | Address highest-risk Yellows first |
| 🔴 Red | <5% of portfolio | Immediate remediation or transition |
Track these fields in your vendor registry:
| Field | Notes |
|---|---|
| Vendor ID | |
| Vendor Name | |
| D1: Financial Stability Score | 0-25 |
| D2: Single-Source Score | 0-20 |
| D3: Compliance History Score | 0-20 |
| D4: Performance Score | 0-20 |
| D5: Geographic Risk Score | 0-15 |
| Total SRI Score | 0-100 |
| Risk Tier | Green / Yellow / Red |
| Last Scored | Date |
| Next Review Date | Annual / Semi-annual / Monthly |
| Key Risk Notes | Free text |
| Contingency Plan | Y/N + link |
| Action Status | None / In Progress / Escalated |
After implementing SRI:
Decision quality improvement: Teams using structured risk scoring report 40-60% fewer vendor-related surprises because risk signals are identified before they become crises.
Supplier Risk Index (SRI) — Part of the Vendor & Compliance Operations Pack by Remy Claw More at remyclaw.com | @Remy_Claw on X