2012 sustainability reporting of the world’s largest ......corporate environmental and...

3M, ALFA, Alstom, Bidvest Group,China Resources Ent, Danaher C o r p o r a t i o n , D C C , E m e r s o nE l e c t r i c , G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c ,H o n e y w e l l I n t l . , H u t c h i s o nWhampoa, Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited, Itaúsa, ITT Corporation, Jardine Matheson, Keppel, Koc Holding, LG Electronics, Noble Group, Platinum Equity, Royal Philips Electronics, Sabanci Group, Siemens, Sime Darby, SK C&C, Textron , ThyssenKrupp, Tyco International, United Technologies,

2012 Sustainability Reporting of the World’s Largest Diversified Industrial Companies

Pacific Sustainability Index Scores: A benchmarking tool for online sustainability repor ng

J.Emil Morhardt, Elgeri e Adidjaja, Taryn Akiyama, Ra k Asokan, Simone Berkovitz, Quinn Chasan, Whitney Ellen Dawson, Erin Franks, Sierra Gibson, Karina Gomez, Hilary Haskell, Nicholas Hobbs, Alan Hu, Sam Kahr, Somaiah Kambiranda, Eric Robert King, Helen Liu, Damini Marwaha, Stephanie Oehler, Katherine Recinos, Chad Redman, Megan Smith, Lucas Van Houten, and Grant Yang.

Contents Topics Page Company Rankings 3 PSI Overview 4 PSI Scoring in a Nutshell 5 Environmental Intent Topics 6 Environmental Reporting Topics 7 Social Intent Topics 8 Social Reporting Topics 9 Environmental Intent Element of the PSI Scores 10 Environmental Reporting Element of the PSI Scores

11

Social Intent Element of the PSI Scores 12 Social Reporting Element of the PSI Scores 13 Environmental Intent Scores Ranking 14 Environmental Reporting Scores Ranking 15 Environmental Performance Scores Ranking 16 Social Intent Scores Ranking 17 Social Reporting Scores Ranking 18 Social Performance Scores Ranking 19 Human Rights Reporting Element 20 Performance by Country 21 Visual Cluster Analysis 22 Relationship Between PSI Scores and Financial Variables

23

Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported 26 Number of Topics Showing Performance Improvement over Previous Year Data

27

Number of Topics in which Performance was Better than Sector Average

29

Analyst’s Comments, alphabetically listed by company name

30

Appendix: PSI Questionnaire 60 Questions should be addressed to: Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director ([email protected]) Roberts Environmental Center Claremont McKenna College 925 N. Mills Ave. Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA Direct line: (909) 621-8190 Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow (909) 621-8698 ([email protected]) Departmental Secretaries: (909) 621-8298

The Roberts Environmental Center has been the foremost analyst of corporate sustainability reporting for over a decade. We analyze corporate online disclosure using our Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) and publish the results online.

Industrial Sector** 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Aerospace & Defense X X

Airlines X

X

Banks, Insurance X

Chemicals X X X X

Colleges/Universities X X

Computer, Office Equipment, & Services

X

Conglomerates X

Food & Beverages X

X

X

Electronics & Semiconductors X

X X X

Energy & Utilities X

X X X

Entertainment X

Federal Agencies X

Food Services X

Forest & Paper Products X

X

X

General Merchandiser X

Homebuilders X

Household, Apparel, & Personal Products

X

Industrial & Farm Equipment X X X

Mail, Freight, & Shipping X

Medical Products & Equipment X

Metals X* X X

Mining, Crude Oil X* X

X

Motor Vehicle & Parts X

X X X

Municipalities X

Oil and Gas Equipment X

Petroleum & Refining X

X

X

Pharmaceuticals X

X X

X X

Scientific, Photo, & Control Equipment

X

Telecommunications, Network, & Peripherals

X

Transportation X

* Multiple-sector category was separated in later years.

The goal of corporate report analysis conducted by the Roberts Environmental Center is to acquaint students with environmental and social issues facing the world’s industries, and the ways in which industry approaches and resolves these issues. The data presented in this report were collected by student research assistants and a research fellow at the Roberts Environmental Center. Copyright 2012 © by J. Emil Morhardt. All rights reserved.

www.roberts.cmc.edu 2 Conglomerates Sector

Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Reporting

Overall GradeCompany Rankings

Sustainability Reporting of Worlds' Largest Diversified Industrial (Conglomerates) Companies

4.61

7.39

13.82

20.73

21.70

22.12

24.06

24.24

27.03

28.73

32.48

34.91

35.21

36.97

39.15

40.42

40.97

42.67

46.00

46.18

47.09

48.06

48.24

50.00

50.67

54.30

54.91

58.61

58.85

68.36

0 25 50 75 100

Platinum Equity

Jardine Matheson

China Resources Ent

Danaher Corporation

Sabanci Group

Hutchison Whampoa

DCC

SK C&C

Honeywell Intl.

ITT Corporation

Sime Darby

Emerson Electric

Bidvest Group

Textron

Ingersoll- Rand Company Limited

Noble Group

Keppel

Koc Holding

Wesfarmers

ALFA

United Technologies

Alstom

Itaúsa

General Electric

Tyco International

3M

ThyssenKrupp

Siemens

Royal Philips Electronics

LG Electronics

LG Electronics (South Korea)A+

Royal Philips Electronics (Netherlands)

A-

Siemens (Germany)A-

ThyssenKrupp (Germany)A-

3M (USA)A-

Tyco International (USA)B+

General Electric (USA)B+

Itaúsa (Brazil)B

Alstom (France)B

United Technologies (USA)B

ALFA (Mexico)B

Wesfarmers (Australia)B

Koc Holding (Turkey)B-

Keppel (Singapore)B-

Noble Group (Hong Kong/China)B-

Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited (Bermuda)

B-

Textron (USA)C+

Bidvest Group (South Africa)C+

Emerson Electric (USA)C+

Sime Darby (Malaysia)C+

ITT Corporation (USA)C

Honeywell Intl. (USA)C

SK C&C (South Korea)C-

DCC (Ireland)C-

Hutchison Whampoa (Hong Kong/China)

C-

Sabanci Group (Turkey)C-

Danaher Corporation (USA)C-

China Resources Ent (Hong Kong/China)

D

Jardine Matheson (Hong Kong/China)D-

Platinum Equity (USA)D-

This report is an analysis of the voluntary environmental and social reporting of companies on the 2010 Forbes Diversified Industrial sector lists. Data were collected from corporate websites during the initial analysis period (dates shown below). A draft sector report was then made available online and letters were sent to all companies inviting them to review the analysis, to identify anything missed by our analysts, and to post additional material on their websites if they wished to improve their scores.

1/24/2012 7/31/20128/13/2012 9/14/2012

throughthrough

Analysis Period:Draft sector report available for review:


The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) Overview

the PSI Scoring System The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) uses two systematic questionnaires to analyze the quality of the sustainability reporting—a base questionnaire for reports across sectors and a sector-specific questionnaire for companies within the same sector. The selection of questions is based on, and periodically adjusted to, the most frequently-mentioned topics in over 1,900 corporate sustainability reports analyzed from 2002 through 2009 at the Roberts Environmental Center. The Roberts Environmental Center The Roberts Environmental Center is an environmental research institute at Claremont McKenna College (CMC). Its mission is to provide students of all the Claremont Colleges with a comprehensive and realistic understanding of today’s environmental issues and the ways in which they are being and can be resolved--beyond the confines of traditional academic disciplines and curriculum--and to identify, publicize, and encourage policies and practices that achieve economic and social goals in the most environmentally benign and protective manner. The Center is partially funded by an endowment from George R. Roberts (Founding Partner of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and CMC alumnus), other grants and gifts, and is staffed by faculty and students from the Claremont Colleges. Methodology Student analysts download relevant English language web pages from the main corporate website for analysis. Our scoring excludes data independently stored outside the main corporate website or available only in hard copy. When a corporate subsidiary has its own sustainability reporting, partial credit is given to the parent company when a direct link is provided in the main corporate website. We archive these web pages as PDF files for future reference. Our analysts use a keyword search function to search reporting of specific topics, they fill out a PSI scoring sheet (http://www.roberts.cmc.edu/PSI/scoringsheet.asp), and track the coverage and depths of different sustainability issues mentioned in all online materials. Scores and Ranks When they are finished scoring, the analysts enter their scoring results into the PSI database. The PSI database calculates scores and publishes them on the Center’s website. This sector report provides an in-depth analysis on sustainability reporting of the largest companies of the sector, as listed in the latest 2010 Forbes lists. Prior to publishing our sector report, we notify companies analyzed and encourage them to provide feedback and additional new online materials, which often improve their scores. What do the scores mean? We normalize all the scores to the potential maximum score. Scores of subsets of the overall score are also normalized to their potential maxima. The letter grades (A+, A, A-, B+, etc.), however, are normalized to the highest scoring company analyzed in the report. Grades of individual companies in the report might be different from grades posted online on the Roberts Environmental Center's website, since the normalization of scores of an individual company online is not limited to the companies analyzed in the sector report, but also includes other companies of the same sector irrespective of the year of analysis. Companies with scores in the highest 4% get an A+ and any in the bottom 4% get an F. We assign these by dividing the maximum PSI score obtained in the sector into 12 equal parts then rounding fractional score up or down. This means that A+ and F are under-represented compared to the other grades. The same technique applies to the separate categories of environmental and social scores. Thus, we grade on the curve. We assume that the highest score obtained in the sector and any scores near it represent the state-of-the-art for that sector and deserve an A+.


PSI Scoring in a Nutshell

Our analysis of sustainability reporting has a set of basic topics applied to all organizations as well as a series of sector-specific topics. The topics are divided into environmental and social categories—the latter including human rights—and into three types of information: 1) intent, 2) reporting, and 3) performance. 1. Intent The “Intent” topics are each worth two points; one point for a discussion of intentions, vision, or plans, and one point for evidence of specific actions taken to implement them. 2. Reporting The “Reporting” topics are each worth five points and are either quantitative (for which we expect numerical data) or qualitative (for which we don’t). For quantitative topics, one point is available for a discussion, one point for putting the information into perspective (i.e. awards, industry standards, competitor performance, etc., or if the raw data are normalized by dividing by revenue, number of employees, number of widgets produced, etc.), one point for the presence of an explicit numerical goal, one point for numerical data from a single year, and one point for similar data from a previous year. For qualitative topics, there are three criteria summed up to five points: 1.67 points for discussion, 1.67 points for initiatives or actions, and 1.67 points for perspective. 3. Performance For each “Reporting” topic, two performance points are available. For quantitative topics, one point is given for improvement from the previous reporting period, and one point for better performance than the sector average (based on the data used for this sector report normalized by revenue). For qualitative topics, we give one point for any indication of improvement from previous reporting periods, and one point for perspective. The 11 “human rights” topics are scored differently, with five “reporting” points; 2.5 points for formally adopting a policy or standard and 2.5 points for a description of monitoring measures. In addition, there are two “performance” points; one point for evidence of actions to reinforce policy and one point for a quantitative indication of compliance.

Distribution of Scores by topics


Percent of possible points for all companies combined.

Environmental Intent Topics

Diversified Industrial: Conglomerates

54.17

59.58

55.00

79.17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Acco

unta

bilit

y

Man

agem

ent

Polic

y

Visi

on

Two possible points for each topic:

Accountability

Report contact person4 *Environmental management structure19 *

Management

Environmental education16 *Environmental management system20 *Environmental accounting21 *Stakeholder consultation23 *

Policy

Environmental policy statement9 *Climate change/global warming10 *Habitat/ecosystem conservation11 *Biodiversity12 *Green purchasing13 *

Vision

Environmental visionary statement5 *Environmental impediments and challenges6 *

Notes: * These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sector-specific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.



Environmental Reporting Topics


64.67

33.67

17.56

21.3324.44

49.33

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Emis

sion

s to

Air

Ener

gy

Man

agem

ent

Recy

clin

g

Was

te

Wat

er

Seven possible points for each topic:

Emissions to Air

Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total83 *

Energy

Energy used (total)26 *Renewable energy used27 *

Management

Notices of violation (environmental)38 *Environmental expenses and investments39 *Fines (environmental)40 *

Recycling

Waste recycled: solid waste30 *Waste (office) recycled32 *

Waste

Waste (solid) disposed of34 *Waste (hazardous) produced35 *Waste (hazardous) released to the environment37 *

Water

Water used29 *




Social Intent Topics


50.83

41.67

75.00

26.67

70.83

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Acco

unta

bilit

y

Man

agem

ent

Polic

y

Soci

al D

emog

raph

ic

Visi

on

Two possible points for each topic:

Accountability

Health and safety, or social organizational structure

51 *

Third-party validation54 *Management

Workforce profile: ethnicities/race17 *Workforce profile: gender18 *Workforce profile: age52 *Emergency preparedness program53 *Employee training for career development82 *

Policy

Social policy statement 45 *Code of conduct or business ethics47 *Supplier screening based on social or environmental performance/ supplier management

49 *

Social Demographic

Employment for individuals with disabilities80 *Vision

Social visionary statement 42 *Social impediments and challenges43 *




Social Reporting Topics


51.76

42.67

69.73

23.78

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Hum

an R

ight

s

Man

agem

ent

Qual

itativ

e So

cial

Quan

titat

ive

Soci

al

Seven possible points for each topic:

Human Rights

Sexual harassment1 *Political contributions7 *Bribery8 *Anti-corruption practices58 *Degrading treatment or punishment of employees59 *Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and occupation

60 *

Free association and collective bargaining of employees

61 *

Fair compensation of employees62 *Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor

63 *

Reasonable working hours64 *Effective abolition of child labor65 *

Management

Women in management2 *Qualitative Social

Community development66 *Employee satisfaction surveys67 *Community education68 *Occupational health and safety protection70 *Employee volunteerism72 *

Quantitative Social

Employee turnover rate3 *Recordable incident/accident rate74 *Lost workday case rate75 *Health and safety citations76 *Health and safety fines77 *Social community investment81 *



Environmental Intent Elements of the PSI Scores

= Percentage of companies addressing the topics= Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all companies combined for each topic, indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PSI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are the same it means that each of those reporting companies reporting on a topic got all the possible points.


38.3%

40.0%

51.7%

55.0%

40.0%

50.0%

63.3%

70.0%

66.7%

58.3%

75.0%

76.7%

95.0%

40.0%

46.7%

56.7%

56.7%

56.7%

63.3%

70.0%

73.3%

73.3%

73.3%

80.0%

86.7%

96.7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Biodiversity

Green purchasing

Habitat/ecosystemconservation

Environmental education

Environmental accounting

Report contact person

Environmental impedimentsand challenges

Environmental policystatement

Environmental managementsystem

Environmental managementstructure

Climate change/globalwarming

Stakeholder consultation

Environmental visionarystatement


Environmental Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores



8 .6 %

5 .2 %

8 .1%

11.4 %

14 .8 %

2 1.0 %

11.9 %

2 6 .2 %

3 5 .2 %

2 5 .2 %

4 6 .2 %

3 6 .2 %

2 0 .0 %

2 3 .3 %

3 0 .0 %

3 6 .7 %

3 6 .7 %

4 6 .7 %

5 0 .0 %

6 0 .0 %

7 3 .3 %

7 3 .3 %

7 6 .7 %

7 6 .7 %

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Notices of violation(environmental)

Waste (office) recycled

Fines (environmental)

Waste (hazardous) released tothe environment

Waste (hazardous) produced

Environmental expenses andinvestments

Renewable energy used

Waste (solid) disposed of

Water used

Waste recycled: solid waste

Greenhouse gases (or CO2equivalents), total

Energy used (total)


Social Intent Elements of the PSI Scores



15.0%

25.0%

26.7%

33.3%

46.7%

45.0%

53.3%

48.3%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

90.0%

95.0%

20.0%

33.3%

36.7%

43.3%

53.3%

56.7%

70.0%

73.3%

80.0%

83.3%

83.3%

93.3%

100.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Workforce profile: age

Emergency preparedness program

Employment for individuals with disabilities

Workforce profile: ethnicities/race

Social impediments and challenges

Workforce profile: gender

Third-party validation

Health and safety, or social organizational structure

Supplier screening based on social or environmentalperformance/ supplier management

Social policy statement

Code of conduct or business ethics

Employee training for career development

Social visionary statement


Social Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores



0.5%

3.8%

16.7%

13.3%

16.7%

30.5%

26.7%

27.1%

29.5%

29.0%

41.4%

43.8%

36.2%

39.0%

35.7%

27.6%

47.1%

49.0%

51.9%

48.1%

48.6%

62.9%

62.9%

3.3%

10.0%

30.0%

30.0%

40.0%

43.3%

43.3%

50.0%

53.3%

60.0%

63.3%

70.0%

70.0%

73.3%

73.3%

73.3%

80.0%

83.3%

83.3%

86.7%

86.7%

90.0%

100.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Health and safety fines

Health and safety citations

Reasonable working hours

Employee turnover rate

Degrading treatment or punishment of employees

Women in management

Employee satisfaction surveys

Recordable incident/accident rate

Lost workday case rate


Sexual harassment

Political contributions

Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor

Effective abolition of child labor

Fair compensation of employees

Social community investment

Anti-corruption practices

Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment andoccupation

Bribery

Occupational health and safety protection

Employee volunteerism

Community education

Community development


Environmental Intent Scores

Environmental intent scores include topics about the firm’s products, environmental organization, vision and commitment, stakeholders, environmental policy and certifications, environmental aspects and impacts, choice of environmental performance indicators and those used by the industry, environmental initiatives and mitigations, and environmental goals and targets.

EI Score RankingsNoble GroupA+LG ElectronicsA+3MAWesfarmersAALFAAKoc HoldingASiemensARoyal Philips ElectronicsA-ItaúsaA-SK C&CA-ThyssenKruppA-Ingersoll-Rand Company LimitedB+General ElectricB+KeppelB+AlstomB+Tyco InternationalBSime DarbyBHoneywell Intl.B-Bidvest GroupB-United TechnologiesC+ITT CorporationC+DCCC+Sabanci GroupC+Emerson ElectricC-Hutchison WhampoaC-China Resources EntC-TextronC-Danaher CorporationD+Platinum EquityDJardine MathesonF

0.0

15.4

23.1

26.9

26.9

34.6

34.6

42.3

42.3

46.2

50.0

53.8

57.7

61.5

65.4

69.2

69.2

73.1

73.1

76.9

80.8

80.8

80.8

84.6

84.6

84.6

88.5

88.5

92.3

92.3

0 25 50 75 100

Jardine Matheson

Platinum Equity

Danaher Corporation

Textron

China Resources Ent

Hutchison W hampoa

Emerson Electric

Sabanci Group

DCC

ITT Corporation

United Technologies

Bidvest Group

Honeywell Intl.

Sime Darby

Tyco International

Alstom

Keppel

General Electric

Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited

ThyssenKrupp

SK C&C

Itaúsa


Siemens

Koc Holding

ALFA

W esfarmers

3M

LG Electronics

Noble Group


Environmental Reporting Scores

Environmental reporting scores are based on the degree to which the company discusses its emissions, energy sources and consumption, environmental incidents and violations, materials use, mitigations and remediation, waste produced, and water used. They also include use of life cycle analysis, environmental performance and stewardship of products, and environmental performance of suppliers and contractors.

ER Score Rankings

Royal Philips ElectronicsA+LG ElectronicsA+WesfarmersA-SiemensA-3MA-Tyco InternationalBThyssenKruppBGeneral ElectricBIngersoll-Rand Company LimitedBAlstomBItaúsaBTextronB-SK C&CB-KeppelB-ALFAC+United TechnologiesC+DCCC+Koc HoldingCBidvest GroupD+Hutchison WhampoaD+Honeywell Intl.D+Noble GroupD+Danaher CorporationD-China Resources EntD-Sime DarbyD-ITT CorporationD-Emerson ElectricD-Platinum EquityFSabanci GroupFJardine MathesonF

0.00

0.00

0.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

6.67

15.00

15.00

15.00

15.00

23.33

28.33

30.00

30.00

33.33

35.00

35.00

36.67

36.67

36.67

38.33

38.33

40.00

48.33

50.00

50.00

56.67

58.33

0 25 50 75 100

Jardine Matheson

Sabanci Group

Platinum Equity

Emerson Electric

ITT Corporation

Sime Darby

China Resources Ent

Danaher Corporation

Noble Group

Honeywell Intl.

Hutchison W hampoa

Bidvest Group

Koc Holding

DCC

United Technologies

ALFA

Keppel

SK C&C

Textron

Itaúsa

Alstom


General Electric

ThyssenKrupp

Tyco International

3M

Siemens

W esfarmers

LG Electronics



Environmental Performance Scores

Environmental performance scores are based on whether or not the firm has improved its performance on each of the topics discussed under the heading of environmental reporting, and on whether the quality of the performance is better than that of the firm’s peers. Scoring for each topic is one point if performance is better than in previous reports, two points if better than industry peers, three points if both.

EP Score Rankings

ALFAA+Royal Philips ElectronicsB+Koc HoldingB+United TechnologiesB+ITT CorporationB-Tyco InternationalB-WesfarmersB-WesfarmersB-LG ElectronicsB-SK C&CCKeppelD+SiemensD+General ElectricD+TextronDIngersoll-Rand Company LimitedDHutchison WhampoaDChina Resources EntFDCCFSime DarbyFDanaher CorporationFPlatinum EquityFSabanci GroupFBidvest GroupFEmerson ElectricFJardine MathesonF3MFAlstomFHoneywell Intl.FNoble GroupFThyssenKruppFItaúsaF

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.004.174.174.178.338.338.3312.5016.6716.6716.6716.6720.8320.8320.83

29.17

0 25 50 75 100

Itaúsa

ThyssenKrupp

Noble Group

Honeywell Intl.

Alstom

3M

Jardine Matheson

Emerson Electric

Bidvest Group

Sabanci Group

Platinum Equity

Danaher Corporation

Sime Darby

DCC

China Resources Ent

Hutchison W hampoa


Textron

General Electric

Siemens

Keppel

SK C&C

LG Electronics

W esfarmers

Tyco International

ITT Corporation

United Technologies

Koc Holding


ALFA


Social Intent Scores

Social intent scores include topics about the firm’s financials, employees, safety reporting, social management organization, social vision and commitment, stakeholders, social policy and certifications, social aspects and impacts, choice of social performance indicators and those used by the industry, social initiatives and mitigations, and social goals and targets.

SI Score RankingsLG ElectronicsA+3MA-Tyco InternationalB+Royal Philips ElectronicsB+SiemensB+General ElectricB+Ingersoll-Rand Company LimitedB+Bidvest GroupBAlstomBALFAB-KeppelB-ITT CorporationB-WesfarmersB-ThyssenKruppB-Koc HoldingB-Sabanci GroupC+Emerson ElectricC+United TechnologiesC+TextronC+Noble GroupC+ItaúsaC+Honeywell Intl.C+China Resources EntCSime DarbyCDCCC-SK C&CC-Danaher CorporationD+Hutchison WhampoaDPlatinum EquityD-Jardine MathesonD-

7.697.69

19.2326.9230.7730.77

38.4642.3146.1550.0050.0050.0053.8553.8553.8557.6961.5461.5461.5461.5461.5465.3865.38

73.0876.9276.9276.9276.92

84.62100.00

0 25 50 75 100

Jardine Matheson

Platinum Equity

Hutchison W hampoa

Danaher Corporation

SK C&C

DCC

Sime Darby

China Resources Ent

Honeywell Intl.

Itaúsa

Noble Group

Textron

United Technologies

Emerson Electric

Sabanci Group

Koc Holding

ThyssenKrupp

W esfarmers

ITT Corporation

Keppel

ALFA

Alstom

Bidvest Group


General Electric

Siemens


Tyco International

3M

LG Electronics


Social Reporting Scores

Social reporting scores are based on the degree to which the company discusses various aspects of its dealings with its employees and contractors. They also include social costs and investments.

SR Score Rankings

ThyssenKruppA+LG ElectronicsASiemensA-Royal Philips ElectronicsB+ItaúsaB+Tyco InternationalB+3MB+Emerson ElectricB+AlstomB+General ElectricBUnited TechnologiesBTextronBALFABBidvest GroupBNoble GroupBKoc HoldingB-Sime DarbyB-KeppelB-WesfarmersC+Ingersoll-Rand Company LimitedC+ITT CorporationCHoneywell Intl.CHutchison WhampoaCSabanci GroupC-Danaher CorporationC-DCCC-Jardine MathesonDChina Resources EntDSK C&CDPlatinum EquityD-

5.8011.0113.9114.20

25.3626.9627.5428.5529.8533.9138.8440.4343.1943.7746.3847.1047.6849.5650.1452.6152.6154.0654.7855.0755.0757.1058.1161.88

71.3074.78

0 25 50 75 100

Platinum Equity

SK C&C

China Resources Ent

Jardine Matheson

DCC

Danaher Corporation

Sabanci Group

Hutchison W hampoa

Honeywell Intl.

ITT Corporation


W esfarmers

Keppel

Sime Darby

Koc Holding

Noble Group

Bidvest Group

ALFA

Textron

United Technologies

General Electric

Alstom

Emerson Electric

3M

Tyco International

Itaúsa


Siemens

LG Electronics

ThyssenKrupp


Social Performance Scores

Social performance scores are based on improvement, performance better than the sector average, or statements of compliance with established social standards.

SP Score Rankings

United TechnologiesA+LG ElectronicsASiemensA-Royal Philips ElectronicsB+AlstomBGeneral ElectricB3MBTyco InternationalB-Noble GroupB-ItaúsaB-Sime DarbyC+Danaher CorporationC+Koc HoldingCALFAC-KeppelC-Emerson ElectricC-WesfarmersC-WesfarmersC-ThyssenKruppC-ITT CorporationD+Hutchison WhampoaD+Honeywell Intl.D+Sabanci GroupDTextronD-Ingersoll-Rand Company LimitedD-Bidvest GroupD-Jardine MathesonD-China Resources EntD-DCCD-SK C&CD-Platinum EquityF

0.002.172.172.174.354.354.354.356.528.708.7010.8713.0415.2215.2215.2215.2217.3919.5721.7423.9123.9123.9126.0928.2628.2630.4334.7839.1341.30

0 25 50 75 100

Platinum Equity

SK C&C

DCC

China Resources Ent

Jardine Matheson

Bidvest Group


Textron

Sabanci Group

Honeywell Intl.

Hutchison W hampoa

ITT Corporation

ThyssenKrupp

W esfarmers

Emerson Electric

Keppel

ALFA

Koc Holding

Danaher Corporation

Sime Darby

Itaúsa

Noble Group

Tyco International

3M

General Electric

Alstom


Siemens

LG Electronics

United Technologies


Human Rights Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores


adoption reinforcement monitoring complianceHuman Rights Topics

Percent of companies reporting*

Anti-corruption practices 80.0% 40.0% 40.0% 0.0%

Bribery 83.3% 50.0% 43.3% 0.0%

Degrading treatment or punishment of employees 40.0% 6.7% 10.0% 0.0%

Effective abolition of child labor 73.3% 33.3% 26.7% 0.0%

Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor 70.0% 33.3% 20.0% 0.0%

Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and occupation

83.3% 53.3% 30.0% 0.0%

Fair compensation of employees 73.3% 33.3% 16.7% 0.0%


60.0% 26.7% 13.3% 0.0%

Political contributions 70.0% 43.3% 36.7% 0.0%

Reasonable working hours 30.0% 16.7% 10.0% 0.0%

Sexual harassment 63.3% 43.3% 33.3% 0.0%

We assign one point for adoption of a policy standard or for an explicit discussion of an organization’s stance on each of 11 human rights principles.

Adoption

We assign one point for a description of reinforcement actions to make a policy stronger, such as providing educational programs, training, or other activities to promote awareness.

Reinforcement

We assign one point for a description of monitoring measures including mechanisms to detect violations at an early stage, providing systematic reporting, or establishment of committee structure to oversee risky activities.

Monitoring

We assign one point for a quantitative indication of compliance, such as a description of incidences of failure of compliance, or a statement that there were no such incidences.

Compliance

Basis of Scores


Average Overall, Environmental, and Social PSI Scores Performance by Country


Australia

Australia

Australia

Bermuda

Bermuda

Bermuda

Brazil

Brazil

Brazil

China

China

China

France

France

France

Germany

Germany

Germany

Ireland

Ireland

Ireland

Malaysia

Malaysia

Malaysia

Mexico

Mexico

Mexico

Netherlands

Netherlands

Netherlands

Singapore

Singapore

Singapore

South Africa

South Africa

South Africa

South Korea

South Korea

South Korea

Turkey

Turkey

Turkey

USA

USA

USA

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Social

Environmental

Overall

This graph illustrates the average PSI in three categories--overall, environmental, and social--breakdown by countries. Since our sample size follows the world's largest companies from the Fortune list, several countries have only one company score to represent the whole country's sustainability reporting in the sector.

Country N

Australia 1Bermuda 1Brazil 1China 4France 1Germany 2Ireland 1Malaysia 1Mexico 1Netherlands 1Singapore 1South Africa 1South Korea 2Turkey 2USA 10


Visual cluster analysis multivariate data of the sort produced by the PSI are difficult to summarize. Here we have created radar diagrams of the performance of each company analyzed in the sector by its environmental and social intent, reporting, and performance sorted by company ranking. Maximum scores will match the outer sides of the hexagon, which total up to 100 percent.

Visual Cluster Analysis

EI = Environmental Intent, ER = Environmental Reporting, EP = Environmental PerformanceSI = Social Intent, SR = Social Reporting, SP = Social Performance

LG Electronics

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I


0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Siemens

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

ThyssenKrupp

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

3M

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Tyco International

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

General Electric

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Itaúsa

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Alstom

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

United Technologies

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

ALFA

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Wesfarmers

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Koc Holding

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Keppel

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Noble Group

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I


0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Textron

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Bidvest Group

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Emerson Electric

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Sime Darby

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

ITT Corporation

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Honeywell Intl.

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

SK C&C

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

DCC

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Hutchison Whampoa

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Sabanci Group

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Danaher Corporation

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

China Resources Ent

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Jardine Matheson

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Platinum Equity

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I


Relationships Between Overall PSI Score and Companies' Revenue and Profit

Company Name Overall Score

Revenue($million)

Profits($million)

Assets($million)

Market Value

($million)

Revenue Profits Assets Market ValueLog10 $M Log10 $M Log10 $M

Log10 $M

3M 54.30 23120 3190 27250 573501.36 0.50 1.44 1.76

ALFA 46.18 8580 150 8260 38000.93 -0.82 0.92 0.58

Alstom 48.06 24660 1460 30850 186301.39 0.16 1.49 1.27

Bidvest Group 35.21 14550 360 4930 60501.16 -0.44 0.69 0.78

China Resources Ent 13.82 8340 300 8990 86400.92 -0.52 0.95 0.94

Danaher Corporation 20.73 11180 1150 19600 243701.05 0.06 1.29 1.39

DCC 24.06 8420 150 2920 21400.93 -0.82 0.47 0.33

Emerson Electric 34.91 20510 1690 21490 356401.31 0.23 1.33 1.55

General Electric 50.00 156780 11030 781820 1696502.20 1.04 2.89 2.23

Honeywell Intl. 27.03 30910 2150 36000 310201.49 0.33 1.56 1.49

Hutchison Whampoa 22.12 30380 2280 86040 309701.48 0.36 1.93 1.49

Ingersoll-Rand Comp 39.15 13200 450 19990 105001.12 -0.35 1.30 1.02

Itaúsa 48.24 66360 2250 342630 287401.82 0.35 2.53 1.46

ITT Corporation 28.73 10900 640 11130 94901.04 -0.19 1.05 0.98

Jardine Matheson 7.39 22500 1600 39130 182501.35 0.20 1.59 1.26

Keppel 40.97 8710 1160 12330 95700.94 0.06 1.09 0.98

Koc Holding 42.67 36340 1320 41800 74501.56 0.12 1.62 0.87

LG Electronics 68.36 72360 730 50920 90701.86 -0.14 1.71 0.96

Noble Group 40.42 36090 580 10660 87201.56 -0.24 1.03 0.94

Platinum Equity 4.61 11350 1.05

Royal Philips Electro 58.85 33220 590 42020 293601.52 -0.23 1.62 1.47

Sabanci Group 21.70 12930 780 65240 73301.11 -0.11 1.81 0.87

Siemens 58.61 112230 3360 133940 800702.05 0.53 2.13 1.90

Sime Darby 32.48 8820 650 9920 152700.95 -0.19 1.00 1.18

SK C&C 24.24 71650 120 56660 25201.86 -0.92 1.75 0.40

Textron 36.97 10500 -30 18940 55101.02 1.28 0.74

ThyssenKrupp 54.91 59390 -2720 59530 164101.77 1.77 1.22

Tyco International 50.67 17060 -1770 25600 174601.23 1.41 1.24

United Technologies 47.09 52920 3830 55760 652801.72 0.58 1.75 1.81

Wesfarmers 46.00 40870 1240 31150 294901.61 0.09 1.49 1.47

2010 Forbes List Source:


4 .6 17 .3 9

13 .8 2

2 0 .7 32 1.7 0 2 2 .122 4 .0 6 2 4 .2 4

2 7 .0 32 8 .7 3

3 2 .4 83 4 .9 13 5 .2 1

3 6 .9 73 9 .15 4 0 .4 24 0 .9 7

4 2 .6 74 6 .0 04 6 .18 4 7 .0 94 8 .0 6 4 8 .2 4

5 0 .0 05 0 .6 7

5 4 .3 0 5 4 .9 1

5 8 .6 15 8 .8 5

6 8 .3 6

R2 = 0.2776

0

10

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

0 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2 .5

Revenue

Over

all P

SI S

core

s

Log10 $M

7 .3 9

13 .8 2

2 0 .7 32 1.7 0 2 2 .122 4 .0 62 4 .2 4

2 7 .0 32 8 .7 33 2 .4 8

3 4 .9 13 5 .2 13 9 .154 0 .4 2 4 0 .9 7

4 2 .6 74 6 .0 04 6 .18 4 7 .0 94 8 .0 6 4 8 .2 4

5 0 .0 05 4 .3 0

5 8 .6 15 8 .8 5

6 8 .3 6

R2 = 0.0885

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Profits

Over

all P

SI S

core

s

Log10 $M


7 .3 9

13 .8 2

2 0 .7 3 2 1.7 02 2 .122 4 .0 6 2 4 .2 4

2 7 .0 32 8 .7 3

3 2 .4 83 4 .9 13 5 .2 1

3 6 .9 73 9 .154 0 .4 24 0 .9 7

4 2 .6 74 6 .0 04 6 .18 4 7 .0 94 8 .0 6 4 8 .2 4

5 0 .0 05 0 .6 75 4 .3 0 5 4 .9 1

5 8 .6 15 8 .8 5

6 8 .3 6

R2 = 0.1086

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Asset

Over

all P

SI S

core

s

Log10 $M

7 .3 9

13 .8 2

2 0 .7 32 1.7 0 2 2 .122 4 .0 62 4 .2 4

2 7 .0 32 8 .7 33 2 .4 8

3 4 .9 13 5 .2 13 6 .9 7

3 9 .154 0 .4 24 0 .9 74 2 .6 7

4 6 .0 04 6 .18 4 7 .0 94 8 .0 6 4 8 .2 45 0 .0 05 0 .6 7

5 4 .3 05 4 .9 15 8 .6 15 8 .8 5

6 8 .3 6

R2 = 0.1186

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Market Value

Over

all P

SI S

core

s

Log10 $M


Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported

Explicit Goals Most Frequently Reported

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

67

1

0 5 10 15 20 25

Keppel

ItaúsaSime Darby

ALFA

DCCHutchison Whampoa

Koc Holding

SK C&CThyssenKrupp

TextronIngersoll-Rand Company Limited

Honeywell Intl.

Wesfarmers3M

SiemensRoyal Philips Electronics

Tyco International

United TechnologiesLG Electronics

Alstom

General Electric

Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total1 14

Water used2 9

Recordable incident/accident rate3 9

Energy used (total)4 6

Waste recycled: solid waste5 5

Lost workday case rate6 5

Environmental expenses and investments7 5


Number of Topics Showing Performance Improvement over Previous Year Data

Topics Most Frequently Reported as Having Improvements over previous year data

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

4

4

4

4

5

5

6

7

7

8

8

11

11

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Bidvest Group

Textron

Sime Darby

DCC

Sabanci Group

Hutchison Whampoa


Alstom

SK C&C

Keppel

ThyssenKrupp

3M

ITT Corporation

General Electric

LG Electronics

Wesfarmers

Siemens

Tyco International

ALFA

Koc Holding


United Technologies

Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total1 11Energy used (total)2 10Recordable incident/accident rate3 8Water used4 7Community education5 6Lost workday case rate6 6Women in management7 6Social community investment8 5Waste (solid) disposed of9 5Waste recycled: solid waste10 5Community development11 4Environmental expenses and investments12 4Employee volunteerism13 4Renewable energy used14 3Employee satisfaction surveys15 3Waste (hazardous) released to the environment16 2


Employee turnover rate17 2Waste (hazardous) produced18 1Fines (environmental)19 1Occupational health and safety protection20 1Health and safety citations21 1Notices of violation (environmental)22 1


Number of Topics in which Performance was Better than Sector Average*

*Sector averages are calculated from the materials scored for this report.

1

1

1

1

2

2

0 1 2 3

United Technologies

SK C&C

LG Electronics

3M

Siemens

Royal PhilipsElectronics


3M

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

3M has demonstrated its dedication to environmental and social sustainability through the considerable amount of relevant information included on its website. As a producer of a wide variety of goods, 3M is determined to reduce the environmental impact of its operations in addition to helping consumers lessen their impacts by supplying them with technologically advanced and environmentally friendly products. Throughout its global operations, 3M provides support for its employees, customers, and the communities where its plants are located. Through habitat conservation and restoration partnerships with organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, and the development of education programs for students of all ages, 3M has contributed significantly to the environmental and social wellbeing of the communities in which it operates. The company has constructed a complex system to manage its environmental sustainability and is looking to continue decreasing its impact in the future. 3M has created a timeline of its environmental developments beginning in 1960 and continuing through the present. Looking forward, the company has compiled sustainability goals to accomplish prior to 2015, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing energy efficiency, reducing waste, and maximizing water conservation. In addition to incorporating environmental sustainability into business operations, 3M aims to supply customers with products that will help to reduce their individual environmental impacts as well. The company demonstrates a commitment beyond that of its own operations by providing detailed explanations of the solution each of its products offers to customers and why 3M’s product has an environmental advantage over competitors’. In additions to the company’s large investment in environmental sustainability, 3M has developed social responsibility plans to manage the health and safety of employees and to reach out to communities in which the company is located. 3M has adopted many policies regarding the treatment of workers, including fair hiring processes and programs to improve diversity in its workforce. 3M is involved in many communities around the world, particularly through its assistance in education programs at all levels, with a focus on science and engineering. 3M also makes large donations to help communities that have suffered destruction from natural disasters. 3M is thorough in its reporting and has many policies in place to support its dedication to environmental and social sustainability. While there is little room for improvement, the company should consider including more data regarding its environmental performance to show the impact of its environmental goals on its emissions and waste production.

S52%

E4 8 %

3M 2010 Annual Report and 2012 Web pages

Comparison with sector averages Source of points

A-

Simone BerkovitzStephanie Oehler

Distribution of points

E=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance

EI ER EP SI SR SP

3M

88

48

0

85

55

26

Analyst 1: Analyst 2:

Environmental Intent

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Accountability 4 Excellent3 75

Management 8 Excellent8 100

Policy 10 Excellent8 80

Vision 4 Excellent4 100

Environmental Reporting

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Emissions to Air 7 Good5 71

Energy 14 Good7 50

Management 21 Needs improvement7 33

Recycling 14 Needs substantial improvement2 14

Waste 21 Needs substantial improvement4 19

Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent


Management 10 Good7 70


Social Demographic 2 Excellent2 100


Social Reporting

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Human Rights 77 Needs improvement34 44


Qualitative Social 35 Good22 63

Quantitative Social 42 Needs improvement14 33


ALFA

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

The 2011 ALFA Sustainability Report expresses a conscious effort towards the betterment of both environmental and social issues. The company abides by the guidelines laid out in the United Nations Global Compact, effectively stimulating a tolerant and progressive workplace. Furthermore, ALFA dutifully respects and protects the environment in simple ways. Although a few omissions in the report deserve to be touched upon, overall the company shows a respectable effort to better the areas and the environment around it. The report delineates the company’s commitment towards respecting human rights, labor conditions, the environment, and anti-corruption practices. It discusses the company’s policies on many important issues, such as its tolerance of free association, abolishment of child labor, and elimination of discrimination towards employees. However, the company does not mention a policy on sexual harassment, nor does it discuss employee satisfaction surveys; the lack of both of these topics makes the company’s claims regarding its social responsibility questionable. ALFA makes attempts to clean up the environment. It increasingly recycles and works to use less environmentally-detrimental packaging materials. Additionally, the company strives to protect biodiversity in local areas. A flaw to its presentation on the environment, though, is the lack of data. While numbers are sporadically dropped throughout the report, very few are reported as a whole. It would immensely benefit readers to see data tables with numbers on total energy used and the amount of hazardous waste produced and released.

S50%

E5 0 %

ALFA 2011 Sustainability Report and 2012 Web Pages


B

Hilary HaskellSierra Gibson



EI ER EP SI SR SP

ALFA

85

30 29

6250

15





Policy 10 Good6 60




Energy 14 Needs improvement5 36

Management 21 Needs substantial improvement5 24



Water 7 Needs improvement3 43

Social Intent



Policy 6 Good4 67


Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting




Quantitative Social 42 Needs substantial improvement7 17


Alstom

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Alstom’s 2010/2011 Sustainability Development and Social Responsibility Report, 2010 Code of Ethics, and 2012 web pages demonstrate the company’s commitment to environmental sustainability and social issues. Alstom does a commendable job of including its report and Code of Ethics directly in its website on dedicated Ethics and Sustainability pages. A notable example of Alstom’s commitment to the environment is its comprehensive overview of its environmental management structure. Its detailed environmental challenges and solutions section was worthy of praise as well. In most aspects, their report did a very good job of covering most scored areas, with only a few points missing, mostly due to a lack of details regarding initiatives and actions. Some other areas that could use improvement and would increase Alstom’s score on the PSI include providing more data regarding its social efforts and contribution. For instance, nothing on the Alstom report gave any info regarding monetary environmental or social contributions in general. Furthermore, the lack of a policy on fair compensation, working hours, or degrading punishment hurt the company’s social score further. Though Alstom is doing a good job overall in becoming more environmentally sustainable and socially responsible, more quantitative data and descriptions of charitable expenditures would raise Alstom’s PSI score.

S58%

E4 2 %

Alstom 2010/2011 Sustainability Development and Social Responsibility Report, 2010 Code of Ethics, and 2012 web pages


B

Stephanie OehlerGrant Yang



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Alstom

69

37

0

65 5428



Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Accountability 4 Needs improvement1 25


Policy 10 Good6 60








Water 7 Good5 71

Social Intent




Social Demographic 2 Good1 50

Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Human Rights 77 Good42 55





Bidvest Group

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Bidvest does not provide a dedicated corporate sustainability report. Although Bidvest states its commitment to the environment, they often refer to environmentally friendly practices in economic terms – determining whether they will yield bigger profits. The company has no apparent corporate environmental management structure, but rather leaves environmental management to the discretion of its individual subsidiaries. Bidvest encourages its subsidiaries to draft their own official policies and goals, but has no overarching company environmental policy. Due to the fragmented nature of the company, it lacks comprehensive quantitative data. The only overall environmental metrics it provides are total water usage and greenhouse gas emissions. Bidvest should strive to provide more complete environmental data and implement company-wide policies. Socially, Bidvest performs better. Despite its decentralized nature, the company has undertaken measures to ensure stakeholder consultation across all aspects of its business. Due to South Africa’s history of apartheid, there are legal requirements for eliminating discrimination and employment equality; the report claims that Bidvest has shifted from a compliance mindset towards one of transforming their management as a commercial priority. It has a robust code of conduct and an ethics hotline for reporting violations. Within the community, Bidvest sponsors events such as the Bidvest Unity Walk, which holds the Guinness World Record for largest charity walk. One area in which the company could improve its social performance is with regards to health and safety measures; once again due to its decentralized nature, there is no established company-wide practice in health, safety, or emergency response.

S65%

E3 5 %

Bidvest CSR, Website, Code of Conduct


C+

Stephanie OehlerLucas Van Houten



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Bidvest Group

54

150

6548

4





Policy 10 Good6 60



Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Emissions to Air 7 Needs improvement3 43

Energy 14 Needs substantial improvement1 7





Social Intent



Policy 6 Good4 67



Social Reporting



Qualitative Social 35 Needs improvement15 43



China Resources Ent

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

China Resources Enterprise demonstrates a disturbing lack of transparency regarding both environmental and social reporting, as illustrated by the complete absence of any quantitative data on its website and Corporate Social Responsibility report. Although the company claims to support the movement towards corporate sustainability and energy conservation, there is no numerical evidence indicating that any progress is being made; China Resources Ent’s CSR simply offers vague visionary statements and brief anecdotes in a half-hearted attempt to illustrate the company’s supposed commitment to environmental policy CRE does appear to make a genuine effort in the realm of community outreach and employee volunteerism, providing ample anecdotal evidence illustrating corporate action in this area (although, again, no quantitative data is provided). The Disaster Relief program is particularly admirable. It appears that internal social policy is not a priority for CRE, however, as the company fails to address employee issues or provide a cohesive code of conduct. Overall, China Resources Ent proves to be troublingly incompetent in regards to environmental and social reporting.

S62%

E3 8 %

China Resources Enterprise Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2010, Corporate Governance Report 2010, Code of Ethics & Securities Transactions, & 2012 Web Pages


D

Simone BerkovitzHelen Liu



EI ER EP SI SR SP

China ResourcesEnt

27

5 0

42

142



Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Accountability 4 Needs substantial improvement0 0


Policy 10 Good5 50

Vision 4 Good2 50


Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Emissions to Air 7 Needs substantial improvement0 0





Water 7 Needs substantial improvement1 14

Social Intent




Social Demographic 2 Needs substantial improvement0 0

Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Human Rights 77 Needs substantial improvement0 0





Danaher Corporation

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Danaher is devoid of sustainability quantitative information. Nowhere in their Standards of Conduct, annual report, or web pages could I find physical numbers relating to any sort of meaningful sustainability measurements. The annual report only focuses on environmental concerns insofar as the selling of water and petroleum to various sectors, and not at all on the sustainability of its sorts. The Standards of Conduct is lacking in depth, rarely provides any initiatives or actions related to the discussion of social sustainability matters, nor it discusses ways to reinforce their policies to any significant detail. I have a hard time believing that a company the size of Danaher’s does not keep any sorts of measurements relating to social or environmental sustainability (even simple things like Total Energy use, or Women in Management), and it would serve them well to report quantitative measurements at least to some degree. The annual report is loaded with thousands of numbers relating to stock price, gross incomes, and expenditures by sector, so it would be a relatively small task to throw in internal environmental expenditures into the 130+ page report each year. They clearly have the resources to do so.

S73%

E2 7 %

Danaher Standards of Conduct & 2012 Web Pages


C-

Hilary HaskellQuinn Chasan



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Danaher Corporation

23

70

27 2720



Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Accountability 4 Good2 50


Policy 10 Needs substantial improvement1 10

Vision 4 Good2 50








Social Intent



Policy 6 Good3 50



Social Reporting



Qualitative Social 35 Needs substantial improvement5 14



DCC

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

DCC plc’s Annual Report and Accounts and its Business Conduct Guidelines, details a small amount of information regarding the conglomerate’s environmental reporting and social policy. Although this is DCC plc’s third annual sustainability report, the report does not mention the corporation’s environmental vision or policy. DCC plc discusses its CO2 emissions and its energy used, but neglects to report any other environmental quantitative data such as its water usage, solid waste disposed of, hazardous waste produced, or its hazardous waste released to the environment. The company would improve its overall score if it included these data and measures. Despite these deficiencies, DCC plc addresses the threat of climate change. The corporation discusses its DCC Carbon Management Plan, which sets objectives for measuring, reducing, and reporting carbon emissions. The DCC Energy and Reporting Guidelines, based on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, describe the sources included in the company’s carbon footprint. Furthermore, the company reports its environmental fines and notices of environmental violations and provides context for each of these situations. DCC plc emphasizes that health and safety (especially in the Energy and Environmental divisions) is a key priority for all divisional and subsidiary managing directors. Health and safety resources have recently been strengthened following the acquisition of two oil terminals in Scotland. The conglomerate also reports its lost workday case rate and its incident/accident rate. The frequency of accidents that resulted in lost time dropped from 2.8% to 2.5% between 2010 and 2011. Despite the company’s emphasis on health and safety, it does not report its health and safety citations. Moreover, although DCC plc published a set of business ethics guidelines for its employees, the guidelines do not address issues such as sexual harassment, reasonable working hours, or fair compensation of employees. DCC plc could improve its PSI score by including a more detailed social policy that discusses these factors.

S45%

E5 5 %

DCC plc 2011 Annual Report and Accounts, Business Conduct Guidelines, and 2012 Web Pages


C-

Stephanie OehlerMegan Smith



EI ER EP SI SR SP

DCC

4228

0

31 25

2














Social Intent



Policy 6 Needs improvement2 33


Vision 4 Needs improvement1 25

Social Reporting






Emerson Electric

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

While Emerson’s subsidiary companies may have specific data, goals, and actions, it does not appear the parent company is wholly environmentally responsible or conscious as a conglomerate. Emerson lacks discussion of its environmental management structure, environmental management system, environmental education, environmental accounting, green purchasing, climate change, ecosystem conservation, or biodiversity. Furthermore, Emerson reports no environmental or social quantitative data whatsoever, though it mentions energy, renewable energy, and waste disposal briefly. Emerson reiterates its value of integrity and ethical behavior in several places and has policies on all human rights issues, but could improve by clearly and thoroughly describing their policies and ways to reinforce them. There is also no contact information for an environmental department or corporate social responsibility department in which to correspond, only the generic corporate address. Lastly, while Emerson’s Corporate Citizenship document and its web site are easy to navigate, the inclusion of charts, graphs, and pictures would enhance its overall presentation. However, Emerson should be commended on its dedication to community involvement, contributing $22.7 million to 1,980 charities and non-profit organizations, in fields from arts and culture, civic, education, health and human services, and youth. It is also a leading and innovative company, since new products represented 37% of its sales revenue, and $696 million was invested towards research and development in 2010. Emerson should channel its forward-thinking technologies towards manufacturing products that are energy efficient, preserve resources, and reduce the environmental impact on the planet.

S80%

E2 0 %

Emerson 2012 Business Ethics, Corporate Citizenship: A Passion for Progress and Integrity, and 2012 Web Pages


C+

Karina GomezTaryn Akiyama



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Emerson Electric

35

5 0

54 55

15














Social Intent






Social Reporting






General Electric

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

General Electric has stated commitment to sustainability, and this commitment is evident throughout their Corporate Sustainability Report and associated web pages. The company clearly outlines anticipated social, environmental, and economic challenges, and their plans to address them in a sustainable manner. Their central environmental sustainability initiative is the ecomagination, a company-wide strategy that focuses on solving environmental problems while driving economic growth; ecomagination products account for 12% of GE’s revenues. Although GE includes quantitative data in many areas, there are often years missing from the data. For example, water usage is only listed for 2006 and 2010. It is not clear why their records are incomplete. It is clear that they have the ability to report the data – as it was listed for 2006 and the current year – so there is no reason not to report it for every year. Socially, GE performs well. It has launched the healthymagination initiative, with the goal of improving health around the world – be it through better exercise and nutrition programs in the United States or access to modern, affordable health services in impoverished nations. With regards to its employees, GE recently revised its Growth Values – the central premises that guide employee development – and began updating the curriculum for its Crotonville Leadership program, which is aimed at providing leaders within the company with the skills to meet challenges and increase effectiveness. GE also has a Global Learning program available to all employees, which expanded its offerings and added new languages in 2010. The company’s code of conduct clearly addresses harassment, bribery, discrimination, and other areas of social importance.

S56%

E4 4 %

General Electric CSR, Citzenship Website, Code of Conduct


B+

Karina GomezLucas Van Houten



EI ER EP SI SR SP

General Electric

73

38

8

7753

28





Policy 10 Good6 60







Waste 21 Needs improvement8 38

Water 7 Good5 71

Social Intent






Social Reporting






Honeywell Intl.

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Honeywell International does not do a very good job of reporting its environmental sustainability practices through its 2012 web pages. The company does include a 2011 code of conduct, but at this time of our analysis, we did not find a corporate sustainability report. The company has many good policies and initiatives regarding environmental and social sustainability on the website, but fails to provide more details about important categories such as biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. In addition, Honeywell includes many details about their energy efficiency goals, but no current or previous data is mentioned. In fact, Honeywell doesn’t report any quantitative data so there is no proof that the company is following through in its sustainability initiatives. While the company does include many energy efficiency solutions videos on its website, they lack the content to provide any value to its environmental sustainability. For social sustainability reporting, the company has a code of conduct, but it does not include much information beyond basic policies about many important human rights violations. Overall, Honeywell International does not have enough environmental information, especially in the quantitative area, and needs to include much more information in its code of conduct.

S55%

E4 5 %

Honeywell International Code of Business Conduct and 2012 Web Pages


C

Karina GomezEric Robert King



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Honeywell Intl.

58

150

4630

9














Social Intent






Social Reporting






Hutchison Whampoa

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Hutchison Whampoa presents a very limited corporate sustainability report (CSR). Almost no quantitative figures are given, and only very brief mention is given to any environmental issues.Hutchison Whampoa reports a formal Environment, Social, and Governance Committee and names some of its members. This, however, is the extent to which the company reports on its environmental sustainability efforts.The company presents more information on its social sustainability efforts. Manny employee volunteer and donation opportunities are mentioned, as well as numerous accounts of community investments. Such expenditures include donations to the Erasmus Medical Center for a study on child development and a rehabilitation center in Tanzania. Hutchison’s efforts should be commended; however, no unified figure on community investments is reported. Hutchison’s CSR features a heavy emphasis on social sustainability efforts. We recommend that quantitative environmental data, such as greenhouse gas emissions and energy used, be gathered and reported in order to improve the company’s PSI score.

S56%

E4 4 %

Hutchison Whampoa 2012 Web Pages


C-

Hilary HaskellAlan Hu



EI ER EP SI SR SP

HutchisonW hampoa

35

154

1929

9






Vision 4 Good2 50








Social Intent





Vision 4 Needs improvement1 25

Social Reporting







0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Ingersoll-Rand’s 2011 corporate sustainability report, 2012 web pages, and code of business conduct represent an excellent effort in reporting the conglomerate’s responsibility in environmental and social issues.Ingersoll-Rand presents thorough environmental sustainability figures, including greenhouse gas emissions, water used, waste (hazardous and nonhazardous) disposed, and energy used. Special attention should be drawn to Ingersoll-Rand’s dramatic progress in decreasing greenhouse gas emissions—the conglomerate released around 1,500 thousand metric tons of CO2 equivalent in 2008 and 750 thousand metric tons of CO¬2 equivalent in 2010. Ingersoll-Rand further demonstrates commitment to environmental sustainability through its executives’ active involvement in various climate conferences and initiatives such as the Environmental Defense Fund’s Climate Corps Conference. Finally, Ingersoll-Rand devotes a significant portion of its website to the discussion of green building, providing resources for those who are targeting LEED certification and presenting evidence of its own commitment to building green.Ingersoll-Rand’s social sustainability reporting is as thorough as its environmental sustainability reporting. The company reports important quantitative data such as a breakdown of its workforce by race and gender, the total recordable incident rate, and the lost workday case rate. It should be noted, however, that Ingersoll-Rand’s graphs on the incident and lost workday rates do not include clear units, which make the figures presented ambiguous. Also, a breakdown of the workforce by age is unavailable, as Ingersoll-Rand clearly states that its human resources policy precludes them from collecting age information on its employees. The conglomerate reports a robust employee development program with institutions such as the Ingersoll-Rand University. Employee volunteerism is also encouraged—Ingersoll-Rand’s China employees are reported to have volunteered with children’s’ organizations and to have cleaned up litter in community spaces.

S48%

E5 2 %

Ingersoll-Rand 2011 CSR, Code of Conduct, and 2012 Web Pages


B-

Simone BerkovitzAlan Hu



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Ingersoll-RandCompany Limited

73

37

4

73

39

4





Policy 10 Good6 60



Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Emissions to Air 7 Excellent6 86





Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Itaúsa

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Itausa’s annual sustainability report and its web pages detail an adequate amount of information concerning the corporation’s environmental performance and its social policy Itausa developed a unique environmental initiative called “Essence of Sustainability,” which represents eight environmental challenges for bank management. These factors include diversity, climate change, stakeholder engagement, and social-environmental criteria. The bank concentrates on these factors in their quest for sustainable operations. Moreover, along with an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, Itausa has also measured the fixed carbon content in the planted forests that supply the corporation’s industrial plants. An analysis considering both emissions and sequestration reveal that one industrial plant, Duratex, has a higher carbon fixation rate than its emissions rate. However, although Itausa reports its total emissions, energy consumption and water use, other quantitative data such as its recycled solid waste, hazardous waste produced, and environmental fines is not reported in English. The company could improve its overall score if it included these measures. Itausa signed the UN Global Compact, which lists 10 principles essential to human rights, labour, and anti-corruption. Furthermore, the company describes its contributions to community development and education. For example, Itausa established The Unibanco Institute, which contributes toward the human development of at-risk youth. Despite these contributions, Itausa does not discuss its employee volunteerism. The company would improve its score if it described its employee volunteerism, as well as its policy regarding women in management, and employee satisfaction surveys.

S55%

E4 5 %

Itausa Annual Sustainability Report 2010 and Web Pages 2012


B

Simone BerkovitzMegan Smith



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Itaúsa

81

37

0

50 57

24













Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent






Social Reporting






ITT Corporation

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

ITT sustainability reporting seems to be in its infancy. There is much reporting on awards received, but no hard sustainability data whatsoever. The social reporting is marginal, as it cover just the basic elements of code of conduct without any specific plan of execution, monitoring, and performance reporting. Community involvements are part of a substantial element in its reporting, indicative of the early stage of sustainability reporting. There are much yet to be done in this field of sustainability reporting and we hope to see more sustainability reporting from ITT in the near future.

S65%

E3 5 %

ITT 2010-2011 Global Citizenship Report, 2011 Fact book, Code of Conduct, Supplier Expectations, and 2012 Web Pages


C

Nicholas HobbsDamini Marwaha



EI ER EP SI SR SP

ITT Corporation

46

517

62

3411






Vision 4 Good2 50








Social Intent






Social Reporting






Jardine Matheson

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Jardine Matheson presents limited material on environmental and social sustainability. The conglomerate presents no information on its environmental impact. Its discussion of social sustainability is more substantial with detailed reports on community development and education initiatives such as Mindset and Health in Mind. Jardine Matheson’s subsidiaries do have corporate sustainability reports that have more thorough environmental sustainability information, but it is the policy of REC to only score information covering all aspects of a company’s production. To improve, it is suggested that Jardine Matheson centralize its various sustainability reporting efforts in order to achieve a stronger score.

S100%

E0 %

Jardine Matheson 2011 MindSet Review and 2012 Web Pages


D-

Erin FranksAlan Hu



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Jardine Matheson0 0 0

8

14

4






Vision 4 Needs substantial improvement0 0








Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Keppel

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Keppel does an impressive job of reporting its environmental sustainability practices through its Sustainability Report and web pages. The company effectively outlines its social and environmental policies along with details on its actions to fulfill its commitments. One example of the company’s initiative is the health and safety organizational structure. Keppel explains how the system is organized, and how it is applied to all operational sites under the company’s control. In addition, there is an impressive amount of information about the efforts to mitigate climate change. One of Keppels’ specific efforts included switching its power consumption to green electricity, which has resulted in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 30,000 tones. One area in which the company could improve is in the workforce profile. Keppel mentions the gender distribution or workers but does not discuss any efforts being taken to avoid discrimination in the future. The same can be said for racial and age distribution of workers: the company has clearly the distribution of its workforce but it should try to come up with ways to improve in the future. There is some quantitative data about total energy used and greenhouse gas emissions; however, there are many crucial areas omitted, such as reporting on hazardous waste released to the environment. In addition, the company could improve by explaining its goals for the future, which gives it a standard to strive for in the future.

S52%

E4 8 %

Keppel 2010 Sustainability Report and 2012 Web Pages


B-

Karina GomezEric Robert King



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Keppel

69

338

6243

15





Policy 10 Good6 60






Recycling 14 Needs improvement4 29



Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Koc Holding

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Koç Holding emphasizes the responsibility of corporations to protect the environment and support their local communities in areas such as education. However, the company’s 2010 Corporate Social Responsibility report lacks any data tables, sporadically presents numbers, and rarely mentions previous years. While the company clearly attempts to convey an environmentally and socially conscious report, a few details should be attended to. The company focuses on enhancing environmental practices and conserving limited resources. A key component to its work is recycling water; with this practice, the company can immensely reduce the amount of water used. Koç Holding used 33.4% more recycled water in 2010, reducing the amount of water used by 2.1 million m3. The company also devotes much of its discussion to education of its employees and the public. 51% of all Koç Holding’s investments in social developments are dedicated to education. An example of this commitment is the VFK Education Scholarship, which the corporation established in 1969. In the company’s own words, the purpose of this scholarship is to help those “who are talented but have limited resources and to help them become individuals who make a difference in the world.” There are many places for improvement within the report itself. While some numbers are shown, they are scattered throughout the report in a non-systematic and confusing manner. There is not a single data table within the report, making it both nearly impossible to analyze trends and improvements, as well as difficult to easily and accessibly view the company’s impacts. In terms of human rights, the company has many policies. It does not, however, mention anything about sexual harassment or political contributions. Additionally, the report fails to mention any sort of monitoring or reinforcement of the employee policies. Overall, the report depicts Koç Holding as dedicated to helping the economy of Turkey, tackling environmental and educational issues, and helping its own employees prosper. By adding data tables and more monitoring/action to reinforce its employee policies, the report would improve immensely.

S52%

E4 8 %

Koc Holding 2012 Corporate Responsibility 2010


B-

Stephanie OehlerSierra Gibson



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Koc Holding

85

23 21

58 46

17






Vision 4 Good2 50








Social Intent



Policy 6 Good4 67


Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting



Qualitative Social 35 Excellent30 86



LG Electronics

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

LG publishes separate Environmental and Sustainability reports on an annual basis, in addition to the vast amounts of quantitative and qualitative data regarding the company’s operation that they provide on their website. LG’s environmental responsibility practices include the development of greener products, expansion of e-waste and product recycling, low carbon green management and reduction of environmental impacts in the manufacturing process. Not only does LG adhere a strict environmental code with regard to their production and waste management process, they also educate and involve their partners and suppliers in their green management systems. LG sponsors research to develop cleaner and more efficient technologies and are expanding businesses that provide green energy solutions. LG also is also invested in the social welfare of its customers, employees and stakeholders. The company conducts and funds several education, human rights and social welfare campaigns around the world. LG Electronics is a global company its CSR initiatives are tailored to the specific requirements of different counties and economies. LG serves as a good role model for conglomerate companies who care for the natural and social environments.

S54%

E4 6 %

LG Electronics 2011-2012 Sustainability Report: LG Way to Sustainability


A+

Hilary HaskellRatik Asokan



EI ER EP SI SR SP

LG Electronics

92

57

17

100

71

39











Recycling 14 Good9 64


Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent






Social Reporting






Noble Group

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Noble group does a good job in hitting most of the qualitative basis regarding official policy and sustainable social practices. They also identify a large number of environmentally conscious actions they participate in as well across the globe, but fail to give any quantitative measurements aside from energy use (which was buried and hard to find). Because of the vast infrastructure the company has set up and the copious amounts of meticulous data collected on unrelated (to sustainability) sets of data within the company, it should be a simple talk of collecting quantitative social and environmental data if they haven’t do so already, or reporting it if they do. Based on the way that Noble likes to present itself and the amount of data they require from their subsidiaries, I would not be surprised if the data were already collected at each location, it simply has to be synthesized and put in the annual report. The gaps in the social reporting come mostly in the workplace profile area. There is no mention of women in management, employee satisfaction, diversity, gender, or age profile, etc. If Noble actually follows through on their policy statements, then this sort of reporting would likely help their score.

S58%

E4 2 %

Noble Group 2011 Annual Report, Outreach Program, & 2012 Webpages


B-

Simone BerkovitzQuinn Chasan



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Noble Group

92

150

50 4724














Social Intent






Social Reporting






Platinum Equity

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

To call Platinum Equity’s Corporate Responsibility section a report would be excessively generous. The two page PDF does not contain a single number. The word “environment” is not mentioned once. Platinum Equity merely praises itself on its five philanthropic projects; of these projects, there is no mention of employee volunteerism, simply that they “support” different community organizations. Overall, this corporation’s report is useless fluff, at the most.

S56%

E4 4 %

Platinum Equity 2012 Corporate Responsibility


D-

Karina GomezSierra Gibson



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Platinum Equity

15

0 0

8 6

0






Vision 4 Good2 50








Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting







0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Royal Philips Electronics’ 2011 annual report integrates financial and corporate responsibility components. In addition to financial figures, the integrated report publishes a wealth of information on environmental and social sustainability. Royal Philips’ environmental sustainability section presents nearly all relevant metrics in the PSI. Quantitative data such as environmental investment, energy used, water used, and greenhouse gas emissions are thoroughly reported. Royal Phillips also publishes data on total waste generated back to the year 2007, though a breakdown of the waste figures into solid waste recycled, solid waste disposed, and hazardous waste produced is only available for the current year. For a higher score, we recommend that a breakdown of waste figures into the subcategories mentioned above be provided for past years as well. Philips also does well in reporting qualitative data, shown in its discussion of biodiversity and the various initiatives it has undertaken, including its partnership with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The social sustainability section of Royal Philips Electronics’ 2011 CSR is no less detailed than its environmental counterpart. The conglomerate reports many initiatives that help the career development of its employees. For example, programs such as the Core Curricula allow workers to take online courses on marketing, sales, and customer services for free. Available to selected candidates are Philips’ leadership development programs, which are run in conjunction with business schools. A plethora of quantitative social sustainability data is available, including lost workday case rate, employee turnover rate, and a count of reported health and safety violations. A notable absence in Philips’ roster of social quantitative data, however, is a measure of accident rates. Philips also provides a percentage breakdown of the conglomerate’s workforce by gender and age and takes an extra step by further segmenting gender data by seniority in the organization. It should be noted, however, that Philips does not report an analysis of its workforce by ethnicity. Royal Philips Electronics has shown a substantial effort in reporting its environmental and social sustainability. The CSR presents the majority of information measured by the PSI, though there are still some areas that can be improved upon. We recommend that Philips publish a breakdown of its past total waste figures by solid waste recycled, solid waste disposed, hazardous waste emitted, and hazardous waste produced. In terms of social sustainability reporting, the accident rate is a notable gap in Philips’ reporting and should be filled in for an improved score.

S49%

E5 1%

Royal Philips Electronics 2011 Annual Report, General Business Practices, and 2012 Web Pages


A-

Katherine RecinosAlan Hu



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Royal PhilipsElectronics

8158

21

7758

30












Waste 21 Good13 62

Water 7 Good5 71

Social Intent






Social Reporting






Sabanci Group

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Currently, Sabanci does not have much reporting environmental topics, but the company's website covers a wide array of social topics in varying level of depth.

S72%

E2 8 %

Sabanci Holding 2010 Annual Report, Code of Business Ethics, and 2012 Web Pages


C-

Erin FranksChad Redman



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Sabanci Group

42

0 0

54

28

7














Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Siemens

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

The Siemens website, 2011 annual report, 2010 sustainability report, environmental portfolio, and supplier code of conduct provide ample information to prove the company’s commitment to society and the environment. A striking example of social involvement from Siemens in the city of Mumbai is support for an orphanage in the Bandra district. Within St. Catherine’s orphanage, Siemens provides accommodations for 100 children to have a “normal” upbringing. Siemens is responsible for housing, feeding and educating all of these children, as well as financing renovations to the St. Catherine’s building. According to the Siemens sustainability report, it is a “considerable financial contribution.” Unfortunately, no concrete numbers are provided to quantify this social investment, but nonetheless the project reflects well on Siemens. Perhaps more impressive still is the fashion in which Siemens employees willingly donate much of their time to volunteer at St. Catherine’s, providing education and a family atmosphere for the orphans. Environmentally, Siemens has monitored an impressive variety of information. Greenhouse gas production has been steadily falling, with about a 500 thousand ton CO2 equivalent drop since the year 2007. Siemens also keeps close tabs on its waste and water use. However, Siemens fails to report numerical data for any sort of fines, violations, or even societal investments. Still, Siemens is investing in the research and development of green technologies and advocating a world powered increasingly by clean, renewable energy. The only pertinent financial figure included on the Siemens website is a goal to invest 25 million Euros in their Energy Efficiency Program (EEP). Finally, Siemens treats its employees well all across the globe. Recently, the first companywide employee survey was issued to nearly 275,000 employees. Such a large undertaking is impressive, and Siemens management received valuable feedback to help improve the company as a whole. Discrimination on any basis is dealt with effectively, with programs in place for employees to report and eliminate any such behavior.

S54%

E4 6 %

Siemens 2010 Sustainability Report, 2011 Company Report, 2011 Five-year Summary, 2011 Annual Report, and 2012 Web Pages


A-

Erin FranksChad Redman



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Siemens

85

50

8

7762

35













Water 7 Good5 71

Social Intent



Policy 6 Good4 67



Social Reporting






Sime Darby

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Sime Darby's nuanced approach involves a focus on ‘four pillars – Environment, Community, Education and Sports. Sime Darby’s environmental conservation and social welfare programs are mainly focused on the local population and local environment. The company’s commitment to its CSR program is further enforced by the active support it receives from the President & Group Chief Executive of the company. Though Sime Darby actively conducts various sustainability programs in the surrounding communities, the lack of monitoring over its own functioning makes it difficult to have an accurate estimation of the company’s environmental and social footprint. Sime Darby has conducted various biodiversity and environment related programs with a focus on both conservation and regeneration. Right from resource and energy consumption to waste management and supplier screening Sime Darby displays a lack of environmental considerations with regard to their industrial and organizational functioning. There are currently almost no quantitative figures on their website. The next step forward for the company would be to review its functioning and introduce technologies and polices to reduce their environmental impact.

S69%

E3 1%

Sime Darby Code of Business Conduct and 2012 Web Pages


C+

Somaiah KambirandaRatik Asokan



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Sime Darby

62

5 0

38 4422





Policy 10 Good6 60









Social Intent



Policy 6 Good4 67



Social Reporting






SK C&C

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

SK Group’s 2010 Environmental Report and 2012 web pages demonstrate the company’s overall commitment to environmental sustainability. SK Group does a good job of including its environmental report directly on its website, making it easy to find. Additionally, websites of the subsidiaries of SK Group (SK C&C, SK Energy, etc.) all include sections covering their social contributions and volunteerism. However, we were unable to include this information in our scoring because our policy is to only score information that is available from the parent website. A notable example of SK Group’s commitment to the environment is its attempt at creating a comprehensive environmental report covering the many industries in which its subsidiaries work. Their high volunteer participation rate of 95.1%, with 14.1 hours worked per person, was also notable. Other striking examples include the “Great Green Wall” project, which planted one million trees in China in 2009, and the award of scholarships to 490 low income children in South Korea. Some areas that could use improvement and would increase SK Group’s score on the PSI include providing a company Code of Conduct, and showing more data regarding their workforce makeup and employment. For instance, nothing on the SK Group website gave any insight into the ethnicities, age, education, satisfaction, or gender breakdown of the company. Furthermore, the lack of a Code of Conduct or Code of Ethics resulted in a significant loss of points in the areas covering bribery, worker’s rights, and harassment. Also, though SK Group does provide current quantitative data for a good number of categories, it often neglects to set goals for itself in the future. Though SK Group is doing a good job overall in becoming more environmentally accountable, there is little year-to-year improvement seen throughout the report. Furthermore, the inclusion of workforce information and a Code of Conduct would significantly raise SK Group’s score.

S22%

E7 8 %

SK Group 2010 Environmental Report and 2012 Web Pages


C-

Hilary HaskellGrant Yang



EI ER EP SI SR SP

SK C&C

81

3513

3111 2






Vision 4 Good2 50








Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Textron

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

The Corporate Responsibility Report of Textron Company is missing environmental and social policy statements, along with a multitude of other environmental factors. While it presents data on energy use, waste disposal, and greenhouse gases, it narrowly discusses recycling and hazardous waste release, Textron could benefit from providing more information from previous years, and from giving actual data values along with data in terms of percentage or revenue. Furthermore, the report only refers to climate change and green initiatives when stating that laws and regulations may increase environmental expenditures, but does not clarify its position on these issues elsewhere. •While Textron mentions the Vision 20/15 program, it does not explicitly explain how it will achieve the 20 percent reduction in energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and waste disposal by 2015, or the current status of meeting these environmental goals. More generally, both the Corporate Responsibility Report and Textron’s website could use more detailed information on the company’s position on environmental and social factors, as the text was brief and vague. However, Textron’s Corporate Responsibility Report was visually appealing and easy to follow with many colors, pictures, graphs, and banners. Also, Textron Charitable Giving should be commended for donating over 5 million dollars for workforce development and education, and healthy families and vibrant communities. •The Business Conduct Guidelines poses several possible conflicts of interest, but lacks information on Textron’s stance on anti-corruption, fair compensation, reasonable working hours, degrading treatment, and free association of employees. It also mentions the Global Anti-Corruption Compliance Policy, but the link provided was nowhere to be found. Overall, Textron has much to improve on in order to reflect a socially and environmentally conscientious conglomerate.

S60%

E4 0 %

Textron 2012 Web Pages


C+

Simone BerkovitzTaryn Akiyama



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Textron

2735

4

50 50

4














Social Intent






Social Reporting






ThyssenKrupp

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

The ThyssenKrupp Corporate Sustainability Report contains is very good at giving examples of the extent that its environmental goals have been implemented. For example, ThyssenKrupp gives a lot of information about how its blast furnaces have been carefully developed with respect to the communities they operate in and the total amount of waste and pollution they generate. The company also gives good, contextualized information on its green research and very clearly states how these technologies have been implemented throughout the company and the steel industry in general. This information demonstrates that the company is taking a proactive approach to minimizing the costs it imposes on the surrounding environment and bettering itself on its own initiative, rather than just purchasing environmentally friendly input materials. Finally, the technical glossary the company provides at the end of the report is very useful, as the company frequently uses technical vocabulary throughout the report. The glossary helps the reader understand the steel making process, its by-products and environmental costs.

S60%

E4 0 %

ThyssenKrupp 2010/2011 Corporate Sustainability Report, Code of Conduct, and 2012 Web Pages


A-

Erin FranksSam Kahr



EI ER EP SI SR SP

ThyssenKrupp

77

38

0

6275

13





Policy 10 Good6 60









Social Intent






Social Reporting






Tyco International

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Tyco International provides a comprehensive and detailed Corporate Responsibility Report, illustrating a genuine commitment to both social and environmental policy. The company has demonstrated an impressive effort in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as demonstrated by its “fleet overhaul” of service vehicles. In addition, Tyco provides quantitative environmental goals for each period, indicating a dedication to improvement in sustainability. This commitment to environmental responsibility is not only limited to the company itself, however, as Tyco provides a comprehensive Guide to Supplier Social Responsibility as well. While Tyco demonstrates a clear investment in environmental policy, there is room for improvement in the area of quantitative reporting. For instance, no data is provided regarding energy used or disposed waste. However, the company is notably thorough in its presentation of data regarding hazardous waste produced and water used. Furthermore, Tyco International’s CSR report highlights the company’s devotion to social responsibility. The “Safety, Health, and Wellness” section indicates that the employees’ well-being is a priority of the corporation, and the thorough reporting of Total Recordable Incident Rate and Lost Time Incident Rate illustrates consistent improvement in both categories. Regarding community involvement, Tyco’s international Water Access Initiative and South African ADT Teach program are especially notable. Finally, the company’s dedication to workplace ethics and integrity is clearly demonstrated in a detailed and organized Guide to Ethical Conduct. While issues such as bribery and political contributions are thoroughly addressed, Tyco is notably lacking in policy regarding specific employee rights such as reasonable working hours and the right to collective bargaining. Despite such minor issues, Tyco International’s CSR report and related documents are, overall, very impressive.

S55%

E4 5 %

Tyco International 2011 Annual Review & Corporate Responsibility Report, 2009 Environment, Health, & Safety Report, and 2012 Web Pages


B+

Hilary HaskellHelen Liu



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Tyco International

6540

17

7755

24





Policy 10 Good7 70

Vision 4 Good2 50







Water 7 Good5 71

Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






United Technologies

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

United Technologies’ 2011 Annual Report provides some information on environmental and social matters. The web pages touch on the initiatives and stances on environmental issues the company has taken, but leave out detailed information and quantitative data for most issues. Although there is little information to provide evidence that the company has strong environmental performance, a Supplier Energy Management guidebook is provided to suppliers to encourage reduced energy use. The company also has set solid sustainability goals for 2011 to 2015 to reduce environmental impacts. United Technologies has a thorough Code of Conduct, as well as supplementary guides on topics such as corporate giving, but does not provide quantitative information to prove the successes mentioned qualitatively. In 2010 the company received the Stanley C. Pace Leadership in Ethics Award, and it appears to care for its employees through the forums provided for various demographic groups to come together. United Technologies provides basic information on environmental issues and its social conduct, but can improve its score by fleshing out its reporting with more detail and quantitative data.

S60%

E4 0 %

United Technologies annual report 2010 and 2012 webpages


B

Karina GomezWhitney Ellen Dawson



EI ER EP SI SR SP

United Technologies

50

3021

54 5341





Policy 10 Good6 60








Water 7 Good5 71

Social Intent






Social Reporting






Wesfarmers

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Wesfarmers’ annual sustainability report reveals a clear commitment to environmental and social responsibility. Nearly all of the points in the PSI were addressed, and sufficient data were presented. In order to improve transparency, Wesfarmers provided data for each of the separate companies within the conglomerate, along with a group total. In addition, initiatives within certain companies are highlighted. For example, it is reported that 99% of Bannings timber products are sourced from low risk plantations or other sustainable operations. It is also highlighted that Kmart will begin offering shopping bags made from 100% recycled materials. Particularly notable is the 2012 Reconciliation Action Plan, which is a sixteen page report that details how Wesfarmers is working to build relationships with the indigenous aboriginal people of Australia. Wesfarmers is trying the bridge the gap between Aboriginal and non-indigenous Australians through the implementation of programs that incorporate Aboriginal people into the workforce. The key target areas are identified as “creating opportunities,” “building relationships,” and “building respect.” For each of these target areas, actions, targets, and a timeline are provided. With these programs and initiatives, it is evident Wesfarmers is dedicated to making a positive impact on the Aboriginal communities.

S42%

E5 8 %

Wesfarmers 2011 Sustainability Report, 2012 Reconciliation Action Plan


B

Hilary HaskellSimone Berkovitz



EI ER EP SI SR SP

W esfarmers

88

50

17

6240

15











Recycling 14 Good7 50



Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Diversified Industrial

Environmental visionary statement-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational commitment to good environmental performance. -Initiatives/actions: include measures to fulfill that commitment.

5

DiscussionInitiatives/actions

Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Environmental impediments and challenges-Discussion: of impediments and challenges faced by the organization in attempting to realize its environmental vision and commitments.-Initiatives/actions: include measures to overcome them.

6


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Social visionary statement -Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational commitment to good social performance.-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to fulfill that commitment.

42


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Social impediments and challengesDiscussion: of impediments and challenges faced by the organization in attempting to realize its social vision and commitments.Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to overcome them.

43


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Environmental policy statement-Discussion: includes a formal statement of the organization's environmental policy or plan.-Initiatives/actions: include a description of how the policy is being implemented.

9


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Social policy statement -Discussion: includes a formal statement of the company's social policy or plan.-Initiatives/actions: include a description of how the policy is being implemented.

45


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Report contact person-Discussion: identifies the person specifically designated to answer questions about the report or sustainability issues. Investor relations or public relations contact representatives are not valid contacts for this question. -Initiatives/actions: to facilitate such contact, i.e. providing email address, phone number, or a link for feedback and questions.

4


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Environmental management structure-Discussion: of the organization's environmental management structure or staffing.-Initiatives/actions: include identification of individuals currently holding the staff positions.

19


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Environmental management system-Discussion: includes a statement of adoption of ISO 14001 or other formal environmental management system. -Initiatives/actions: include information on the extent to which the system has been implemented.

20


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Health and safety, or social organizational structure-Discussion: of organizational structure or staffing for ensuring health and safety or social responsibility.-Initiatives/actions: include identification of the individuals currently holding the staff positions.

51


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Stakeholder consultation-Discussion: of consultation and dialogue with stakeholders about the organization's environmental aspects or impacts.-Initiatives/actions: include identification of specific consultation activities.

23


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Environmental education-Discussion: of efforts to promote environmental education and awareness of employees, the general public, or children.-Initiatives/actions: taken to provide such education.

16


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Environmental accounting-Discussion: of environmental expenditures.-Initiatives/actions: include detailed accounting of such expenditures.

21


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Third-party validation-Discussion: of the value (or lack thereof) of third-party auditing or validation. -Initiatives/actions: include formal auditing or validation by a qualified external third-party source.

54


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Climate change/global warming-Discussion: of the organization's position on climate change and/or global warming.-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken by the organization to decrease its contribution to climate change.

10


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#



Habitat/ecosystem conservation-Discussion: of the organization's position on conserving natural ecosystems and habitat.-Initiatives/actions: taken to increase conservation of natural ecosystems either associated with or separate from the organization's business activities.

11


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Biodiversity-Discussion: of the organization's position on biodiversity.-Initiatives/actions: taken by to the organization to foster biodiversity.

12


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Green purchasing-Discussion: about preferential purchasing of eco-friendly (non-polluting, recycled, recyclable, etc.) products.-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such purchasing.

13


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Supplier screening based on social or environmental performance/ supplier management-Discussion: or description of procedures to evaluate and select suppliers on their ability to meet the requirements of the company's social or environmental policy and principles.-Initiatives/actions: include measures to implement or assure such screening or selection.

49


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Workforce profile: ethnicities/race-Discussion: of racial or ethnic distribution of workforce.-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid racial or ethnic discrimination.

17


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Workforce profile: gender-Discussion: of gender distribution of workforce.-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid gender discrimination and achieve appropriate balance

18


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Workforce profile: age-Discussion: of age distribution of workforce.-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to avoid age discrimination or to encourage a balanced age structure.

52


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Employment for individuals with disabilities-Discussion: of appropriate actions to accommodate employees with disabilities.-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such accommodations.

80


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Emergency preparedness program-Discussion: of emergency preparedness programs to prepare employees or the public to cope with potential emergencies at the organization's facilities.-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to implement such programs.

53


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Employee training for career development-Discussion: of training, skills and learning programs appropriate to support employees' upward mobility.-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such training.

82


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Code of conduct or business ethics-Discussion: includes a formal organizational code of conduct or of ethical behavior.-Initiatives/actions: include measures to assure that the code of conduct is followed.

47


Discussion Pg#

Initiatives Pg#

Energy used (total)Sum of the energy used by the organization in all different forms, including electricity, fuel, natural gas and others.

26

Discussion Discussion Pg#:Context Pg#:

Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:

Prev Quan Pg#:Improve Pg#

Year Data Values Units

ContextGoalCurrent Period Quantitative DataPrevious Quantitative DataImprovement Over Previous

Renewable energy usedEnergy used from renewable sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, or other renewable sources.

27


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:






Waste recycled: solid wasteSum of all solid waste recycled, including hazardous waste.

30


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Waste (office) recycledOffice recycling of paper, cardboard, metal, or plastic.

32


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Waste (solid) disposed ofIncludes solid hazardous and non-hazardous waste landfilled, incinerated, or transferred.

34


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Waste (hazardous) producedSum of all hazardous materials remaining after production, irrespective of final disposition. Hazardous wastes include items identified as TRI, PRTR, HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutants), and similar indices, and may include mercury or lead. Depending on the nationality of the organization, this could be labeled "TRI" (Toxic Release Inventory,) "substance releases" , or something else.

35


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Waste (hazardous) released to the environmentAmounts of hazardous materials released into the environment, total (TRI, PRTR, HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutants), and similar indices), may include mercury or lead. Depending on the nationality of the organization, this could be labeled "TRI" (Toxic Release Inventory), "substance releases," or something else.

37


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Water usedSum of all water used during operations.

29


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:






Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), totalThe sum of all greenhouse gases released, which could include CO2, CH4 (methane), N2O (nitrous oxide), SF6 (Sulphur hexafluoride), PFCs (Perfluorocarbons) and HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons).

83


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Employee turnover rateAnnual employee turnover rate.

3


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Recordable incident/accident rateNumber of employee incidents or accidents, such as: “total case incident rate,” “incident rate,” or "accident rate."

74


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Lost workday case rateNumber of employee injuries or illnesses that resulted in one or more lost workdays.

75


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Social community investmentAmount of money spent on community outreach, including education grants, donations, and relief effort funds.

81


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Notices of violation (environmental)Notices of violation (NOVs) for environmental infractions.

38


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:






Environmental expenses and investmentsAn accounting of money spent or invested specifically to decrease environmental damage or to benefit the environment.

39


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Fines (environmental)Government imposed fines for environmental infractions.

40


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Health and safety citationsNumber of health and safety citations or notices of violation. If it is stated that there were none, check lines 1,2,3, 4, and 6.

76


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Health and safety finesFines levied against a company for health and safety violations.

77


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Women in managementRelative numbers of women in management.

2

Discussion Discussion Pg#:

Context Pg#:Improve Pg#:

Initiative Pg#:Initiatives/ActionContextImprovement Over Previous

Employee satisfaction surveysSurveys to monitor employee satisfaction.

67




Occupational health and safety protectionEfforts to provide a safe and healthy working environment at all sites.

70




Employee volunteerismEfforts to promote employee volunteerism in social or environmental projects.

72




Community developmentEfforts to participate in social activities that improve the quality of life of communities including that of indigenous people, where the organization operates.

66






Community educationEfforts to support education in the communities where the company is located.

68




Sexual harassmentRejection of any form of sexual harassment.

1

Initiative Pg#:Policy Adopt Pg#:

Monitoring Pg#:Qty Perf Pg#:

Adoption of PolicyAction to Reinforce PolicyMonitoringQuant. Indication of Compliance

Political contributionsPolicy about political contributions.

7




BriberyRejection of bribery

8




Anti-corruption practicesEfforts to uphold the highest standards of business ethics and integrity. May be foundunder a Code of Conduct.

58




Fair compensation of employeesAssurance that wages paid meet or exceed legal or industry minimum standard.

62




Reasonable working hoursCompliance with applicable laws and industry standards on working hours, including overtime.

64




Degrading treatment or punishment of employeesCommitment to oppose any corporal/hard labor punishment, mental/physical coercion, or verbal abuse.

59




Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and occupationCommitment not to engage in any kind of discrimination based on ethnicity, caste, religion, disability, sex, age, sexual orientation, union membership, or political affiliation in hiring practices or employee treatment.

60




Free association and collective bargaining of employeesEfforts to respect the right of employees to form and join trade unions of their choice and to bargain collectively.

61




Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory laborAssurance that all employees enter employment with the company of their own free will, not by compulsion.

63




Effective abolition of child laborRejection of illegal child labor by the company or its affiliates.

65





3M, ALFA, Alstom, Bidvest Group,China Resources Ent, Danaher C o r p o r a t i o n , D C C , E m e r s o nE l e c t r i c , G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c ,H o n e y w e l l I n t l . , H u t c h i s o nWhampoa, Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited, Itaúsa, ITT Corporation, Jardine Matheson, Keppel, Koc Holding, LG Electronics, Noble Group, Platinum Equity, Royal Philips Electronics, Sabanci Group, Siemens, Sime Darby, SK C&C, Textron , ThyssenKrupp, Tyco International, United Technologies,

Contact InformationContact Information

Roberts Environmental CenterRoberts Environmental Center

The Roberts Environmental Center is a research institute at Claremont McKenna College, endowed by George R. Roberts, Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. The Center is managed by faculty and staff, and its research, including the material in this report, is done by students at the Claremont Colleges.

Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director, Phone: 909-621-8190, email: [email protected] Adidjaja, Research Fellow, Phone: 909-621-8698, email: [email protected] Environmental Center, Claremont McKenna College, 925 N. Mills Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA.

Claremont McKenna College, a member of the Claremont Colleges, is a highly selective, independent, coeducational, residential, undergraduate liberal arts college with a curricular emphasis on economics, government, and public affairs.

Claremont McKenna CollegeClaremont McKenna College

The Claremont CollegesThe Claremont CollegesThe Claremont Colleges form a consortium of five undergraduate liberal arts colleges and two graduate institutions based on the Oxford/Cambridge model. The consortium offers students diverse opportunities and resources typically found only at much larger universities. The consortium members include Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd College, Pitzer College, Pomona College, Scripps College, Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences, and the Clremont Graduate University which—includes the Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of Management.

2012 sustainability reporting of the world’s largest ......corporate environmental and...

Documents