You are building a supplier file and find an ABB-branded quotation beside a page on abb.com. Record the source of the webpage and the issuer of the quotation as two separate fields. The website disclosure answers who provides that website; it does not identify the issuer of every document using the brand.
Source checked: 26 October 2026. ABB’s Provider information/Impressum names ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd as the website provider. The same page separately identifies the website hosting provider. This article is a document-organisation guide, not a corporate-register verification, an assessment of a seller or a recommendation to transact.
A short worksheet for the two records
| Record | What to capture | Question it leaves open |
|---|---|---|
| Corporate webpage | Exact URL, displayed provider name, date read and relevant passage | Does the quotation come from that entity? |
| Quotation | Issuer exactly as printed, document reference and issue date | What evidence connects that issuer to the proposed transaction? |
| Relationship note | Who supplied the explanation, its date and its supporting document | Has the responsible reviewer accepted the relationship for this specific purchase? |
These are proposed fields for a working file. They are not an ABB checklist, and filling them in does not make a supplier approved. Where a field is unresolved, use a dated question rather than copying the website provider’s name into the quotation-issuer field.
Handle a mismatch without rewriting the evidence
Keep each name as it appeared on its own source. A group name, a local entity name and a trading name may appear in the same enquiry. A difference is a reason to ask a precise question, not by itself a finding of fraud or proof of an authorised relationship.
A useful handover note says: “The webpage identifies its provider; the quotation names a different issuer; the connection remains to be documented.” It points the next reviewer to the missing relationship without asserting that either organisation has issued, endorsed or accepted the particular offer.
Do not treat the separately disclosed hosting provider as the seller of the goods. Similarly, do not turn a website contact into a purchase-order recipient by assumption. Use the applicable transaction records and the organisation’s own review process for those decisions. This article supplies no replacement contact details or payment instructions.
Keep identifiers tied to their purpose
In the same file, a product identifier should remain a product identifier. Our guide to GTINs and internal supplier SKUs covers that separate matching task. A product match and a webpage-provider match are different pieces of evidence; neither automatically settles who is offering the transaction.
No current company-register search, contract interpretation, stock check, product authentication or seller rating was performed for this guide. If the actual issuer or relationship is unresolved, retain that question for the responsible reviewer. The practical improvement is a traceable file with distinct sources, rather than a single “verified” label whose meaning nobody can reconstruct.
Leave a Reply