In April 2022, it was presented at UPF, in the presence of its rector, the study

Ametller Origin Case: towards a centralised, circular and semi-automatic supply chain.Study of its economic, environmental and social sustainability.

carried out by the Sustainability Observatory of the UPF Barcelona School of Management (UPF-BSM) with the aim, it said, of assessing the potential for improving the sustainability of the new supply chain of Ametller Origin.

After reading the Observatory's study, we can conclude that it is a commissioned work. It is an example of a study lacking independence and impartiality, and also poorly documented.

Next, we make 10 considerations regarding the content of the study:

1. It is anything but an independent study, as shown by the fact that the logo of Ametller appears in the study as a ‘collaborating’ entity, and that the text is full of references to the objectives and claims of Ametller that do not seem to be based on any considerations that go beyond the company's own propaganda, i que el text està ple de referències als objectius i pretensions d’Ametller que no sembla que es basin en cap consideració que vagi més enllà de la pròpia propaganda de l’empresa. All estimates are based on the growth assumption that the company contemplates (to double the number of stores in 10 years to control 10% of the market share in Catalonia, page 27), without questioning it.
2. The study practically does not use or provide quantitative data regarding the specific case of Ametller (and even less so for the Agroparc) but is based on bibliographic data and estimates of ‘potential’ improvements calculated from ‘recognised standards’ and ‘best practices’ generic, as acknowledged on page 6 of the study. And sometimes values are simply given and highlighted as if they were headlines (e.g., page 16) that correspond to processes that have taken place in other companies and that do not necessarily have to be representative of the Ametller case.
3. Practically there is no explanation about the methodology followed to estimate the effect of the ‘improvements’ proposed, beyond very general considerations that do not allow reproducing the calculations proposed nor verifying the estimates resulting from them.
4. Some parts of the study are not very coherent with each other. For example, in the Theoretical Framework (page 9) it states ‘Successful centralised logistics centres are located in industrial areas and are of large capacity’. I believe it is difficult to consider the area affected by the Agroparc (or the municipality of Gelida in general), at this time, as an industrial area, although this might change if the Agroparc project is eventually implemented. However, this consideration is not made again throughout the study nor does it prevent them from considering the Agroparc project as unimprovable from all points of view. In this sense, in the conclusions on page 28, they say ‘almost all the actions proposed by Ametller Origen are at the optimal point of sustainability, where economic, social, and environmental interests converge.', and a similar phrase is used on page 21.
5. The discussion about theimpact on jobs(page 11) is of an incredible superficiality and naivety. Here and in other parts of the study Amazon is presented as the example to follow, when we all know that working conditions at Amazon have been repeatedly reported.https://www.forbes.com/sites/, which are not exactly great enemies of large companies.
6. Many of the considerations made are about 'improvements' that Ametller could implement but that have nothing to do with the Agroparc, for example when it is suggested to replace diesel transport vehicles with vehicles powered by 'alternative energies' (pages 16, 19), greater automation of processes (pages 15, 17) or aspects related to the implementation of e-commerce (pages 22-25).
7. When analysing the product flow between suppliers and the warehouse (page 16), it is concluded that the average distance between the (650!) suppliers and the central warehouse would increase, but on the other hand, the total distance travelled by the goods is reduced. It is not clear how this is possible, and in any case, the 'reduction' is very small (less than 1% in terms of CO2 emissions). As in the rest of the study the temporal reference of the comparisons is not clear, and it is evident that the expected increase in the company's activity is not taken into account, which would significantly increase (approximately double) the current emissions.
8. Comparisons are systematically made without specifying or justifying the reference situation with which they are compared. For example, when discussing automatic storage (page 17) and referring to automatic stackers, it is said that ‘some models have energy recovery devices that allow for a significant saving in electricity consumption’. But it is evident that we do not know which model Ametller would choose, and in any case, the relevant information here would be what the electricity consumption of the stackers is in order to compare it with other alternatives (e.g., the current situation), not whether there are some that consume less than others. Another example: on the next page (18) they say ‘electric machinery allows for the efficient use of energy, which reduces pollution and environmental damage’; in relation to what?
9. When discussing the product flow between the warehouse and the shops (page 19), it is concluded that there will be significant reductions in the kilometres travelled and the consequent CO2 emissions. Unfortunately it is not at all clear where the data comes from to support this claim, especially considering that two of the three current warehouses of Ametller are within the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona (page 5) and, therefore, much closer to the majority of the shops than the macro-warehouse that is proposed to be built in Gelida. On the same page there are also picturesque considerations, such as the fact that biogas combustion does not emit CO2..
10. When it is mentioned of the ‘circular chain’ (pages 20-21) it is again acknowledged that there is no data available to make any specific calculations, but estimates are still provided based on studies of other cases without justifying their relevance to the Ametller case. Absolutely nothing is commented on regarding the energy balance or the pollutant emissions of the ‘circular’ processes proposed.

In short, an example of an independent, impartial, and well-documented study.

Note: the image in this article is a screenshot of the presentation published on the Barcelona School of Management website, where Josep Ametller, co-founder of Ametller Origen; Oriol Amat, rector of UPF; and Erola Palau Pinyana, author of the study and academic coordinator of the Sustainability Observatory, are present.