2012 Sustainability Reporting of the World’s Consumer ... · Largest Motor Vehicle and Consumer...

Aisin Seiki, BMW Group, Bridge-stone, Continental AG, Daimler AG, Denso, Dongfeng Motor Group, Electrolux, Consumer Durables Fiat, Ford Motor, Fortune Brands, Honda Motor, Hyundai Mobis, Hyundai Motor, Johnson Con-trols, Magna International, Mazda Motor, Michelin, Mitsubishi, Nissan Motor, Peugeot, Porsche, Renault, SAIC Motor, Suzuki Motor, Tata Motors, Toyota In-dustries, Toyota Motor, Volvo Group, and Whirlpool

2012 Sustainability Reporting of the World’sLargest Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Companies

Pacific Sustainability Index Scores: A benchmarking tool for online sustainability reporting

J. Emil Morhardt, Elgeritte Adidjaja, Simone Berkovitz, Carolyn Campbell, Jaclyn T. D'Arcy, Whitney Ellen Dawson, Karen de Wolski, Han Dinh,Elizabeth Duckworth, Erin Franks, Karina Gomez, Hilary Haskell, Alan Hu, Bukola Jimoh, Sam Kahr, Karun Kiani, Eric Robert King, Jordan Lieberman, Danielle L. Manning, Daniel Olmsted, Ashley Scott, and Sachi Singh.

Contents Topics Page Company Rankings 3 PSI Overview 4 PSI Scoring in a Nutshell 6 Lead Analyst’s Commentary 7 Environmental Intent Topics 12 Environmental Reporting Topics 13 Social Intent Topics 14 Social Reporting Topics 15 Environmental Intent Element of the PSI Scores 16 Environmental Reporting Element of the PSI Scores

17

Social Intent Element of the PSI Scores 18 Social Reporting Element of the PSI Scores 19 Environmental Intent Scores Ranking 20 Environmental Reporting Scores Ranking 21 Environmental Performance Scores Ranking 22 Social Intent Scores Ranking 23 Social Reporting Scores Ranking 24 Social Performance Scores Ranking 25 Human Rights Reporting Element 26 Performance by Country 27 Visual Cluster Analysis 28 Relationship Between PSI Scores and Financial Variables

29

Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported 32 Number of Topics Showing Performance Improvement over Previous Year Data

33

Number of Topics in which Performance was Better than Sector Average

35

Analyst’s Comments, alphabetically listed by company name

36

Appendix: PSI Questionnaire 66 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 Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Sectors 2012

Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Reporting

Overall GradeCompany Rankings

Sustainability Reporting of World's Largest Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables Companies

0.23

0.66

12.19

13.35

15.71

16.67

17.66

22.64

23.75

25.59

26.15

26.34

28.18

28.44

28.56

28.72

29.76

32.60

35.48

35.51

36.15

37.65

38.49

38.57

40.67

41.00

41.31

45.13

49.89

53.72

0 25 50 75 100

Dongfeng Motor Group

SAIC Motor

Magna International

Mitsubishi

Fortune Brands

Hyundai Mobis

Porsche

Honda Motor

Continental AG

Bridgestone

Tata Motors

Volvo Group

Renault

Aisin Seiki

Suzuki Motor

Michelin

Nissan Motor

Toyota Motor

Fiat

Toyota Industries

Mazda Motor

Johnson Controls

Ford Motor

Hyundai Motor

Peugeot

Daimler AG

Denso

Whirlpool

Electrolux

BMW Group

BMW Group (Germany)A+

Electrolux (Sweden)A

Whirlpool (USA)A-

Denso (Japan)B+

Daimler AG (Germany)B+

Peugeot (France)B+

Hyundai Motor (South Korea)B+

Ford Motor (USA)B+

Johnson Controls (USA)B

Mazda Motor (Japan)B

Toyota Industries (Japan)B

Fiat (Italy)B

Toyota Motor (Japan)B-

Nissan Motor (Japan)B-

Michelin (France)C+

Suzuki Motor (Japan)C+

Aisin Seiki (Japan)C+

Renault (France)C+

Volvo Group (Sweden)C+

Tata Motors (India)C+

Bridgestone (Japan)C+

Continental AG (Germany)C

Honda Motor (Japan)C

Porsche (Germany)C-

Hyundai Mobis (South Korea)C-

Fortune Brands (USA)C-

Mitsubishi (Japan)D+

Magna International (Canada)D+

SAIC Motor (China)F

Dongfeng Motor Group (China)F

This report is an analysis of the voluntary environmental and social reporting of companies on the 2010 Forbes List Consumer Durables and Motor Vehicles 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.

8/1/2010 1/15/20111/25/2012 3/25/2012

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


Lead Analyst’s Commentary

By Hilary Haskel, CMC ‘14

The Consumer Durables and

Motor Vehicle sector faces a diverse array of sustainability issues, due not only to the nature of the Sector’s products and

operations, but also due to the wide definition of products that “consumer durables and motor vehicles” encompasses. The Sector’s strength is in reporting on Climate Change/Global Warming, due to the Sector’s significant challenges associated with this area of environmental sustainability. Along the same lines, 70% or more of the companies analyzed reported Energy Used (Total); Product Performance, Recyclability; Greenhouse Gas or CO2 Equivalent (Total); Product Performance, Emissions; Nitrogen Oxides (NOx); and Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) for the Environmental Reporting Elements of their PSI Scores. This trend in reporting further reflects the Sector’s appropriate emphasis on the sustainability of the products they produce: in their emissions, recyclability, and LCA.

Concerning the social sustainability of this Sector, it is interesting to note the relative prominence of community building activities within the companies analyzed for the Social Reporting Element of their PSI Scores. 86.7% of companies analyzed reported Community Development and Community Education activities. Eighty percent reported their companies’ Employee Volunteerism efforts. Furthermore, 76.7% of companies reported Product Performance, Safety, which is especially important to this Sector, because this industry deals with important safety concerns such as crash-test ratings.

For the Sector as a whole, an area of environmental sustainability reporting that is considerably under emphasized for most companies is Energy Used by Products. This area is pertinent to the environmental sustainability of the Sector, because it is such an important consideration when it comes to efficiency of consumer durables relative to one another, and thus the decisions consumers face in choosing which products to purchase, especially when attempting to choose more sustainable or economical options. Only 11.8% (the lowest rate of all

Environmental Reporting Topics) of companies analyzed provided information on this topic. The lack of reporting on this topic is also concerning due to its direct implications to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that result from the consumers’ usage of the Sector’s products. Concerning the Social Reporting Element of the PSI score, only 23.3% and 6.7% of companies report their Health and Safety Citations and/or Fines, respectively. In the manufacture of vehicles and consumer durables, this is disquieting in that it indicates a lack of transparency of companies’ initiatives and actions to protect their employees.

Perhaps the most critical considerations in the sector, include product performance and end-of-life-cycle implications. Not only are these areas of corporate sustainability widely and well-reported, but they also represent some of the biggest and most unique challenges to the Sector as a whole. It is therefore important to consider these areas of corporate sustainability most thoroughly when evaluating the current status of the Sector’s corporate sustainability reporting, as well as recent developments in this constantly evolving field. In addition to discussing Climate Change/ GHG Emissions, Recyclability and Remanufacturing, and LCA, the Sector’s weakness in reporting Energy Used by Products must also be addressed.

The rather sweeping range of environmental issues that are incorporated within the Consumer Durables and Motor Vehicle sector are mostly well reported and highly discussed in the majority of the companies’ sustainability reports. Climate Change/ Global Warming, Product Performance: Recyclability, Product Performance, Emissions; and Life Cycle Analysis are all heavily incorporated into the Sector’s corporate environmental sustainability reports. There is a definite need for improvement, concerning the Energy Used by Products, especially for consumer durable companies, for which the energy efficiency of its products are of both environmental and economic concern to consumers, as seen by the widely successful Energy Star program. Also, considering the current lack of federal legislation regulating climate change and GHG emissions directly, the need for the Consumer Durables and Motor Vehicle sector to be a leader in implementing stringent standards is only augmented further.


Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and Fuel Economy Standards

Of particular interest and concern to many individuals, organizations, governments, and corporations alike are climate change and GHG emissions. For this reason, this environmental issue is at the forefront of consideration for many consumer durables and motor vehicle corporations worldwide. To most effectively address climate change and GHG emission challenges, one must take into account the fuel economy standards that these corporations must adhere to as well.

BMW earned the highest overall PSI score of companies in the Motor Vehicles and Consumer Durables sector, receiving a score of “A+.” As a German company, BMW is subject to the European Union’s (E.U.) strict and effective fuel economy and GHG emissions standards. The E.U. tests vehicles for these standards through the European Union New Drive Cycle, in order to implement carbon dioxide limits measured in g/km on a weight-based limit value curve.1 Originally, the E.U. approached limiting GHG emissions and regulating corporate average fuel economy standards in a way similar to the U.S., with a voluntary program. However, the E.U. has now realized that this methodology is not the most effective, and has now opted for a mandatory (by 2012) carbon dioxide regulation approach, in light of its Kyoto Protocol agreement and the increased consistency achieved through this method. To further increase the efficiency of vehicles the EU adopted:

On 23 April 2009 Regulation [EC] No. 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council stipulating that by 2012, the fleet average to be achieved by all cars registered in the EU shall be 130 gCO2/km. Furthermore, 10 gCO2/km in savings had to be achieved through the implementation of: i) use of biofuels; ii) gear shifting reminders; iii) efficient air conditioners; iv) low rolling resistance tires; v) tire pressure

1 Feng, An, Robert Earley, and Lucia Green-Weiskel. United Nations Development. Proc. of Commission on Sustainable Development Nineteenth Session, New York. United Nations, 2011. Web. 1 June 2012. <http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res_pdfs/csd-19/Background-paper3-transport.pdf>.

monitoring; and vi) a limit curve for light commercial vehicles. ibid.

The E.U., unlike the U.S., has also implemented fiscal incentives, such as high fuel taxes and differential vehicle and fee taxes, to further curb greenhouse based emissions as well as increase fuel economy standards for vehicles.ibid. Electrolux, a consumer durables company, received the next highest overall PSI score with a grade of “A,” further reflecting a general emphasis on sustainability in the E.U. The United States is also a global leader in fuel economy and GHG emissions standards. However, the current overall GHG emissions and fuel economy standards in the U.S. lag behind the E.U., and in some respects, Japan and China. However, the U.S. may not trail other nations for long. Recently, the merge of Federal with California (propagated by the California Air Resources Board) fuel economy and GHG emissions standards initiated a wave of developments in these standards by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for light duty vehicles. These new standards reflect a “vehicle footprint” approach with fleet-average targets of “250 gCO2e/mile or 34.1 miles per gallon under the US CAFE combined driving test cycle (equivalent to 172 gCO2/km under NEDC cycle).” ibid. Furthermore, the departments have targeted a 2025 fuel economy standard ranging from 46 to 60 mpg, which is an equivalent of 102 - 133 gCO2/km (in terms of the EU reporting standard).ibid. As a final ruling, on July 29th, 2011, “President Obama today announced a historic agreement with thirteen major automakers to pursue the next phase in the Administration’s national vehicle program, increasing fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025.”2 This compliance level would equate to 163 g/mi CO2 emissions, if all emissions reductions were achieved solely through fuel economy.3 The means to achieve 2 "President Obama Announces Historic 54.5 Mpg Fuel Efficiency Standard." The White House. N.p., n.d. Web. Apr.-May 2012. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/29/president-obama-announces-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard>. 3 United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Transportation and Climate Division:Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Transportation and Air Quality. Environmental Protection Agency, Mar. 2012. Web. 30 May 2012.


the fuel economy and GHG emissions standards recently set in the U.S. will include the increased incorporation of “several advanced power train technologies” such as “gasoline direct injection,” “turbo-charging,” “cylinder deactivation,” and “both 6-speed and 7-speed transmissions. ” ibid. According to the EPA’s Light-Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2011, Executive Summary:

Taken together, the MY 2011 CAFE standards, the MY 2012-2016 greenhouse gas emissions and CAFE standards, and the proposed MY 2017-2025 greenhouse gas emissions and CAFE standards are projected to save approximately 6 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions and 12 billion barrels of oil over the lifetimes of the vehicles produced in MY 2011-2025.ibid.

These recent legislative developments definitely indicate that the U.S., despite its failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, is moving towards implementing much stricter fuel economy standards upon the vehicle industry in order to make progress in the area of climate change and global warming issues. Global Warming Federal Legislation

In a series of recent court cases and statewide initiatives, there is additional indication of the U.S.’s inclination to develop and enforce climate change and GHG emissions legislation, and not solely through fuel economy standards. For example, in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court found that despite the EPA’s denial of responsibility under the Clean Air Act (CAA) in regulating GHG emissions, the Agency was indeed required to regulate this non-traditional pollutant under the Act. This finding was reached because GHG emissions could “cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” (CAA Section 202 (a) (1)) due to the effects that GHG have on rising sea levels, severe weather patterns, etc. In the case of Central Valley Chrysler Jeep v. Goldstene, the court found that “California’s GHG emission requirements were not preempted by federal fuel efficiency standards.” This decision thus set the precedent that state standards could pave the way for more stringent federal regulations, and be a model for the federal

<http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/2012/420s12001.pdf>

government to follow.4 Another case, National Traffic Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) v. Center for Biological Diversity, established that “NHTSA’s failure to monetize the benefits of GHG emissions reductions was arbitrary and capricious, and that the environmental assessment performed by the agency under NEPA was deficient in its attempt to justify its refusal to complete an Environmental Impact Statement” ibid. This case, as well as the other cases mentioned, further signify that the U.S. government might side with a more stringent federal plan to regulate and reduce GHG emissions in order to soften the effect of drastic climate change. Although there “are currently no overarching federal laws that require the government or corporations to mitigate their impact on global climate change,” there is a “policy shift” that is occurring due to “state, regional, and local governments [that] are filling the void.” ibid. This void is being filled through mechanisms such as the cases outlined above and California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the “granddaddy” of climate change legislation. This Bill establishes “a range of statewide programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote efficiency,” in order to “establish a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020 based on 1990 emissions levels.” ibid. Through state efforts, on a smaller scale, there is new momentum and support for similar legislative efforts by the federal government. Nevertheless, progress towards all-encompassing federal climate change legislation still faces an uphill battle. The most recent push for comprehensive federal climate change legislation ended on September 10th, 2010. Senator Reid, at a clean energy summit in Las Vegas, Nevada, broke the news “that the world’s greatest deliberative body would not consider legislation that limits emissions from stationary sources of greenhouse gasses...”5

4 Schmidt, Lauren E., and Geoffrey M. Williamson. "Recent Developments in Climate Change Law." The Colorado Lawyer 63 (Nov. 2008): n. pag. Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Shreck. Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Shreck, Nov. 2008. Web. 28 May 2012. <http://www.bhfs.com/portalresource/lookup/wosid/contentpilot-core-2301-7524/pdfCopy.pdf>. 5 Goslin, Thomas, and Annemargaret Connolly. "Federal Climate Legislation Dies; EPA Prepares to Regulate." Climate Change Update (Sept. 2010): n. pag. Weil. Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Sept. 2010. Web. 28 May 2012.


With the possibility that the legislation would pass, “Advocates for GHG-capping legislation had hoped that a bill focused solely on limiting emissions from utilities – rather than a more controversial bill limiting economy-wide emissions – could be brought to the Senate floor,” ibid. but this progress was brought to a halt. EPA, however, has far from abandoned its efforts to further GHG regulations, as discussed, through other existing avenues such as the CAA. The CAA regulates GHG emissions primarily through “New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) and Title V Operating Permit programs, requiring only the largest emitters of GHGs to obtain permits for their GHG emissions,” ibid. but not mobile sources that would affect the standards for emissions in the motor vehicle industry. Therefore, the CAA cannot be relied upon entirely to address the climate change issues that currently must be addressed in the U.S. Product Performance: Recyclability Recyclability is another major topic of environmental concern, yet well-addressed issue in corporate sustainability reporting. To approach recyclability of products, the E.U. has adopted standards that “no more than 15 percent of a scrap vehicle can be discarded in Europe, with that percentage dropping to 5 percent by 2015, coupled with the mandate that a percentage of automobiles sold each year must be remanufactured.” Furthermore, “The German Packaging Order and the German Recycling and Waste Control Act are models of how to establish green legislation to drive remanufacturing.”6 However, the industry for recyclability and remanufacturing is yet to be fully discovered globally. Remanufacturing is the “ultimate form of recycling,” because “it conserves not only the raw material content but also much of the value added during the process required to manufacture <http://www.weil.com/files/Publication/315b43d0-2f45-4d12-9518 61d9ff4a8213/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/b8e074d9-b797-45b2-9db6-63d53831314e/Climate_Change_Update_September_2010.pdf>. 6 Giutini, R. "Remanufacturing: The next Great Opportunity for Boosting US Productivity."Business Horizons 46.6 (2003): 41-48. Print.

new products.” ibid. Currently, the U.S. spends a mere “47 billion dollars” or “0.4 percent of GDP” on remanufacturing, compared to “ten percent of GDP spent on manufacturing,” ibid. thus representing a large market waiting to be realized. Society can benefit from remanufacturing, in that it provides “lower prices for consumers...thirty to forty percent less than new products,” “it reduces the volume of energy and natural resources” required to manufacture products, and as a “direct result of energy savings, remanufacturing is also extremely effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” ibid. Due to these benefits of remanufacturing, and others, the U.S. is now taking more aggressive legislative initiatives to encourage the remanufacturing industry. For example, “in May 1998, the Federal Trade Commission formally began allowing remanufacturers to label their products as ‘recycled’ and ‘remanufactured in the U.S.’” ibid. Furthermore, “in 2000, Congress has been considering a twenty percent tax credit on the purchase of remanufacturing and recycling equipment.” ibid.

However, according to the Automotive Parts Remanufacturers Association (APRA), due to the efforts of APRA and other associations “more legislators and government officials have become aware of the energy benefits which can be obtained from great manufacturing;”7 but, there is no current legislation to promote remanufacturing on a federal level. According to the Association, the main avenue available in legislation to pursue increased remanufacturing practices is through The Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2011, which has been reintroduced to Congress recently. This Act increases federal funding for advanced vehicle technology, which provides for “recycling and remanufacture of vehicle batteries and other vehicle components for reuse in vehicles.” ibid. Remanufacturing is well-reported, but under-realized as a profitable industry as it stands today, especially in the U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Recycling/Remanufacture

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is an important aspect of Consumer

7 Colon, Michael. "APRA." APRA. Automotive Parts Remanufacturers Association, n.d. Web. 01 June 2012. <http://www.apra.org/Legislation/APRA_Positions.asp>.


Durable and Motor Vehicle Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), in addition to recyclability. This Act was set forth in 1976 “to address the huge volumes of municipal and industrial solid waste generated nationwide.”8 The Act aims to “protect human health and the environment from the potential hazards of waste disposal, conserve energy and natural resources, reduce the amount of waste generated, and ensure that waste are managed in an environmentally sound manner.” ibid Much of the end-of –life wastes from the Consumer Durables and Motor Vehicles sector are covered by this Act, due to the fact that many of the resulting chemicals from disposal of these products are considered hazardous wastes. Hazardous wastes are regulated in order to “manage hazardous wastes from cradle to grave” ibid. under Subtitle C of RCRA. According to Section 1 of RCRA, RCRA also aims to conserve energy and natural resources, and to protect these resources from contamination by hazardous waste. Because of this provision by RCRA, a natural implication is that the Act also encourages resource recovery, or remanufacture and recycling, which is a major factor for the end-of life-cycle for consumer durables and motor vehicles. RCRA has even implemented initiatives to provide for a recycling and remanufacturing market, and furthermore, promulgated federal procurement requirements to increase demand for recycled or remanufactured products. RCRA, the main legislation for solid (including hazardous) wastes, is a key piece of legislation when considering the end-of-life-cycle and LCA for motor vehicles and consumer durables, now and in the future if remanufacturing becomes a larger part of GDP Life Cycle Analysis

While it is of course important to consider the GHG emissions and energy use of consumer durables and motor vehicles from there usage by consumers, incorporating a LCA approach when evaluating these parameters, as most companies

8 United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste/Communications, Information, and Resources Management Division. Port Compliance: Environmental Compliance for Port Tenants and Authorities. Port Compliance: Environmental Compliance for Port Tenants and Authorities, n.d. Web. 01 June 2012. <http://www.portcompliance.org/pdfs2/rcra%20orientation%20manual%202006.pdf>

from the Sector successfully accomplish, provides a much more coherent picture of the overall environmental impact of these products. In the Communication for Car Manufacturers, it states that:

Only when a vehicle’s total life cycle emissions are accounted for can a true picture of its environmental impact emerge. An LCA approach allows manufacturers to make design choices based on true environmental impact and economic value.9 With the recent impetus towards a shift to either hybrid or electric vehicles, there are important LCA considerations. According to the same publication, “While a typical gasoline-powered vehicle currently emits only around 15% of its GHG in production, the use of cellulosic ethanol or a shift towards battery or hybrid electric vehicles would dramatically increase the share of vehicle production emissions.” ibid. Although there is currently a lack of federal legislation mandating LCA by manufacturers, as it is evident from the PSI score for this topic, many corporations are already taking this important factor into consideration. The European Commission has taken more governmental initiatives for LCA, and even considers the LCA approach to be “the best framework for assessing the potential environmental impacts of products currently available.” ibid. This serves as another instance that suggests that the E.U. provides a model for the U.S. in crafting its own legislation to best address sustainability issues faced by the Consumer Durables and Motor Vehicles sector. Energy Used by Products and Energy Star For the Consumer Durables and Motor Vehicles sector, the Energy Used by Products Element of environmental reporting requires significant improvement. Currently, it is underreported, considering its relative importance to especially the consumer durables industry. Not only is energy efficiency an important aspect of sustainability, but also the implied reduction in GHG emissions from improving the energy efficiency of products. The United States can be considered as a

9 World Auto Steel. Communication for Car Manufacturers. N.p.: World Auto Steel, n.d.World Auto Steel. World Auto Steel. Web. 5 May 2012. <http://c315221.r21.cf1.rackcdn.com/LCAComm_Car_Manufacturer_a4_201203_FINAL.pdf>.


leader in promoting energy efficiency for consumer durables through its Energy Star program. This widely recognized program was developed to address energy efficiency issues through “a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy helping us all save money and protect the environment through energy efficient products and practices.”10According to the Energy Star and Other Climate Projection Partnerships Annual Report: Since 1992, the Energy Star program has served as a trusted source for voluntary standards and unbiased information to help consumers and organizations across the country adopt energy-efficient products and practices as cost-effective strategies for reducing GHGs and protecting our climate.11 Some of the main highlights of 2010, according to the report, include that “EPA’s Energy Star efforts helped Americans: Save more than 240 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh)..., prevent 195 million metric tons of GHGs..., and save more than $20 billion on their energy bills.” ibid. To achieve this progress, “Energy Star continues to be regarded as the trusted source of unbiased information that helps Americans identify reliable, cost-effective, energy-saving solutions that protect the environment by reducing GHG emissions.” ibid. In addition, a primary focus of the Energy Star program is to incentivize consumer durable manufacturers to produce more energy efficient products. Achievements by the Energy Star program in this area include that, “more than 40,000 individual product models, produced by over 1,600 manufacturing partners, have earned the Energy Star across more than 60 product categories.” ibid. But it is not only the manufacturing of these products that has led to the notable achievements of the Energy Star program, for this program to be as widely successful as it has already been, it also required that “Americans purchased some 200 million Energy Star qualified 10 "About ENERGY STAR." : ENERGY STAR. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 2 June 2012. <http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=about.ab_index> 11 United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Air and Radiation. Energy Star. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. Web. 5 May 2012. <http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/publications/pubdocs/2010%20CPPD%20Annual%20Report.pdf?118a-68b7>

products in 2010, bringing the total to about 3.5 billion since 2000, and EPA finalized third-party certification and enhanced product testing and verification procedures.” ibid.

Despite these successes and the growing successes of the Energy Star program in the United States, across corporations globally, more initiatives must be taken by consumer durables manufacturers to enlighten consumers regarding the energy efficiency of their products. According to the Report, there have been many efforts to increase awareness and encourage participation with the Energy Star Program. The report cites that the:

EPA engages in public outreach that encourages Americans to make energy-efficient changes at home, at work, and in their communities. The Energy Star program’s approach highlights both the financial and environmental benefits of energy efficiency and provides a forum to drive behavior change through a variety of elements—reaching millions of people through print, broadcast, and social media channels, events nationwide, and grassroots-to-national partnerships. ibid.

To reach a wide audience and most effectively target consumers, EPA has implemented strategies such as “The national Change the World, Start with Energy Star campaign,” which has “continued to promote individual actions through the Energy Star Pledge in 2010.” ibid.

The success of this program alone is seen in “more than 240,000 individuals [taking] the Energy Star Pledge in 2010, representing an estimated potential 3.7 billion pounds of GHG emissions prevented and more than 2 billion kWh saved.” ibid. The Energy Star program is a notable model for outreach and awareness, and by implementing a similar program in other nations, there would be more incentive for consumer durables corporations to report the energy efficiency of their products.


Percent of possible points for all companies combined.

Environmental Intent Topics

Motor Vehicle and Consumer Durables

50.83

68.7571.67

81.67

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

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


31.90

35.78

17.78

35.67 35.51

17.33

28.93

63.33

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Emis

sion

s to

Air

Ener

gy

Man

agem

ent

Mat

eria

ls U

sage

Prod

ucts

Recy

clin

g

Was

te

Wat

er

Seven possible points for each topic:

Emissions to Air

Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total83 *Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)114 *Carbon monoxide (CO)118 *Nitrogen oxides (NOx)121 *Volatile organic carbon (VOC), concentration122 *Particulate matter (dust)123 *Logistics emissions124 *

Energy

Energy used (total)26 *Energy used (renewable)27 *Energy used: Logistics103 *

Management

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

Materials Usage

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)147 *Materials used: Non-returnable packaging148 *

Products

Energy used: Products138 *Product performance, emissions141 *Product performance, fuel efficiency142 *Product performance, recyclability143 *

Recycling

Waste recycled: solid waste30 *Waste (office) recycled32 *Materials recycled: Wastewater106 *Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials107 *Remanufacturing of products184 *

Waste

Waste (solid) disposed of34 *Waste (hazardous) produced35 *Waste (hazardous) released to the environment37 *Waste: Packaging materials109 *Waste water released to natural water bodies110 *

Water

Water used29 *




Social Intent Topics


45.0047.67

73.89

41.67

67.50

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


42.42

38.00

48.25

25.11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

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 *Product performance, noise151 *Consumer education program152 *Product performance, safety156 *

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.


40.0%

51.7%

60.0%

58.3%

65.0%

71.7%

70.0%

50.0%

76.7%

86.7%

91.7%

88.3%

88.3%

46.7%

60.0%

63.3%

63.3%

70.0%

73.3%

73.3%

83.3%

86.7%

90.0%

93.3%

93.3%

93.3%

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

Environmental accounting

Report contact person

Habitat/ecosystemconservation

Biodiversity

Green purchasing

Environmental impedimentsand challenges

Environmental education

Environmental managementstructure

Stakeholder consultation

Climate change/globalwarming

Environmental visionarystatement

Environmental policystatement

Environmental managementsystem


Environmental Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores



3 .4 %

5 .2 %

5 .2 %

5 .7 %

6 .2 %

16 .7 %

12 .9 %

11.9 %

9 .0 %

9 .0 %

2 0 .0 %

2 1.0 %

11.0 %

14 .3 %

12 .9 %

12 .9 %

18 .1%

2 1.0 %

18 .6 %

3 4 .3 %

2 2 .9 %

3 8 .1%

2 8 .6 %

3 5 .2 %

4 5 .2 %

4 6 .2 %

2 4 .8 %

4 4 .8 %

4 4 .3 %

11.8 %

13 .3 %

16 .7 %

16 .7 %

2 0 .0 %

3 6 .7 %

3 6 .7 %

3 6 .7 %

4 0 .0 %

4 0 .0 %

4 6 .7 %

4 6 .7 %

4 6 .7 %

5 0 .0 %

5 0 .0 %

5 3 .3 %

5 6 .7 %

5 6 .7 %

6 0 .0 %

6 3 .3 %

6 3 .3 %

7 0 .0 %

7 0 .0 %

7 6 .7 %

8 0 .0 %

8 3 .3 %

8 3 .3 %

8 3 .3 %

8 6 .7 %

9 0 .0 %

2 8 .6 %

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

Energy used: Products

Notices of violation (environmental)

Carbon monoxide (CO)

Volatile organic carbon (VOC), concentration

Waste (office) recycled

Waste (hazardous) released to the environment

Materials used: Non-returnable packaging

Fines (environmental)

Materials recycled: Wastewater

Waste: Packaging materials

Waste (hazardous) produced

Environmental expenses and investments

Remanufacturing of products

Energy used: Logistics

Waste water released to natural water bodies

Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials

Energy used (renewable)

Logistics emissions

Particulate matter (dust)

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

Waste recycled: solid waste

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)

Nitrogen oxides (NOx)

Product performance, fuel efficiency

Product performance, emissions

Water used

Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total

Product performance, recyclability

Waste (solid) disposed of

Energy used (total)


Social Intent Elements of the PSI Scores



25.0%

35.0%

36.7%

45.0%

41.7%

35.0%

65.0%

55.0%

65.0%

75.0%

76.7%

81.7%

90.0%

30.0%

46.7%

46.7%

53.3%

53.3%

60.0%

70.0%

70.0%

76.7%

80.0%

83.3%

86.7%

100.0%

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

Workforce profile: ethnicities/race

Workforce profile: age

Emergency preparedness program

Social impediments and challenges

Employment for individuals with disabilities

Health and safety, or social organizational structure

Workforce profile: gender

Third-party validation

Code of conduct or business ethics

Social policy statement

Employee training for career development

Supplier screening based on social or environmentalperformance/ supplier management

Social visionary statement


Social Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores



1.9%

9.5%

7.1%

12.4%

25.2%

20.0%

26.7%

27.1%

31.4%

29.0%

32.4%

30.5%

15.2%

31.0%

30.5%

30.5%

33.8%

23.3%

34.3%

46.7%

20.5%

41.0%

46.2%

46.7%

45.2%

45.7%

6.7%

16.7%

23.3%

30.0%

46.7%

50.0%

50.0%

53.3%

56.7%

56.7%

60.0%

60.0%

63.3%

63.3%

63.3%

63.3%

66.7%

66.7%

70.0%

73.3%

76.7%

80.0%

83.3%

86.7%

86.7%

86.7%

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

Health and safety fines

Degrading treatment or punishment of employees

Health and safety citations

Employee turnover rate

Reasonable working hours

Political contributions

Fair compensation of employees

Women in management

Consumer education program

Sexual harassment

Recordable incident/accident rate

Lost workday case rate

Product performance, noise

Bribery

Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor

Employee satisfaction surveys


Social community investment

Effective abolition of child labor

Anti-corruption practices

Product performance, safety

Employee volunteerism

Occupational health and safety protection

Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment andoccupation

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 RankingsDensoA+BMW GroupA+BridgestoneADaimler AGAMazda MotorAToyota MotorAJohnson ControlsAAisin SeikiA-Toyota IndustriesA-PeugeotA-Hyundai MotorA-MichelinA-PorscheA-FiatA-Ford MotorA-ElectroluxB+MitsubishiB+WhirlpoolB+Nissan MotorB+Honda MotorBRenaultBSuzuki MotorB-Tata MotorsB-Volvo GroupB-Continental AGC+Hyundai MobisCMagna InternationalC-Fortune BrandsD+SAIC MotorFDongfeng Motor GroupF

0.0

3.8

26.9

34.6

42.3

50.0

57.7

57.7

61.5

65.4

69.2

73.1

73.1

73.1

76.9

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

84.6

84.6

84.6

84.6

88.5

88.5

88.5

92.3

92.3

96.2

100.0

0 25 50 75 100


SAIC Motor

Fortune Brands

Magna International

Hyundai Mobis

Continental AG

Volvo Group

Tata Motors

Suzuki Motor

Renault

Honda Motor

Nissan Motor

W hirlpool

Mitsubishi

Electrolux

Ford Motor

Fiat

Porsche

Michelin

Hyundai Motor

Peugeot

Toyota Industries

Aisin Seiki

Johnson Controls

Toyota Motor

Mazda Motor

Daimler AG

Bridgestone

BMW Group

Denso


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

BMW GroupA+ElectroluxA-WhirlpoolA-DensoA-Hyundai MotorA-Toyota IndustriesB+Ford MotorB+Toyota MotorB+Suzuki MotorB+FiatB+PeugeotBDaimler AGBMazda MotorBHonda MotorBJohnson ControlsB-MichelinB-Aisin SeikiC+Nissan MotorC+PorscheCRenaultCVolvo GroupCContinental AGCBridgestoneC-MitsubishiC-Tata MotorsC-Hyundai MobisD+Fortune BrandsDMagna InternationalD-SAIC MotorFDongfeng Motor GroupF

0.00

0.00

2.76

6.00

10.67

14.48

14.89

16.00

18.22

19.54

20.92

21.11

22.00

24.14

27.56

28.67

30.44

30.57

32.44

33.56

34.02

34.71

35.78

35.86

36.22

37.78

38.16

38.89

40.00

47.59

0 25 50 75 100


SAIC Motor

Magna International

Fortune Brands

Hyundai Mobis

Tata Motors

Mitsubishi

Bridgestone

Continental AG

Volvo Group

Renault

Porsche

Nissan Motor

Aisin Seiki

Michelin

Johnson Controls

Honda Motor

Mazda Motor

Daimler AG

Peugeot

Fiat

Suzuki Motor

Toyota Motor

Ford Motor

Toyota Industries

Hyundai Motor

Denso

W hirlpool

Electrolux

BMW Group


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

BMW GroupA+Toyota IndustriesA-ElectroluxB+PeugeotB-Honda MotorB-DensoB-Suzuki MotorB-Ford MotorB-WhirlpoolC+RenaultC+FiatC+Daimler AGC+Toyota MotorC+Hyundai MotorC+Nissan MotorCAisin SeikiCVolvo GroupCMazda MotorC-Continental AGC-BridgestoneD+PorscheD+MichelinDJohnson ControlsDHyundai MobisD-MitsubishiD-Magna InternationalFFortune BrandsFTata MotorsFSAIC MotorFDongfeng Motor GroupF

0.000.000.000.000.001.673.335.005.006.678.3310.0010.3412.0712.0713.3315.0015.0015.0015.5215.5216.6717.2417.2417.2418.3318.3322.4125.00

31.03

0 25 50 75 100


SAIC Motor

Tata Motors

Fortune Brands

Magna International

Mitsubishi

Hyundai Mobis

Johnson Controls

Michelin

Porsche

Bridgestone

Continental AG

Mazda Motor

Volvo Group

Aisin Seiki

Nissan Motor

Hyundai Motor

Toyota Motor

Daimler AG

Fiat

Renault

W hirlpool

Ford Motor

Suzuki Motor

Denso

Honda Motor

Peugeot

Electrolux

Toyota Industries

BMW Group


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 RankingsDensoA+PeugeotAMazda MotorA-BridgestoneA-FiatB+BMW GroupB+Aisin SeikiB+Daimler AGB+Toyota MotorB+Johnson ControlsB+ElectroluxBMichelinBWhirlpoolBContinental AGBNissan MotorBHyundai MotorBFord MotorB-Suzuki MotorB-Tata MotorsC+Toyota IndustriesC+Hyundai MobisC+RenaultC+Volvo GroupC+Magna InternationalCHonda MotorC-PorscheC-Fortune BrandsD+MitsubishiD+SAIC MotorD-Dongfeng Motor GroupF

3.857.69

23.0826.92

30.7734.6238.46

46.1550.0050.0050.0050.0053.8557.6961.5465.3865.3865.3865.3865.3869.2369.2369.2369.23

73.0873.08

80.7780.7784.62

96.15

0 25 50 75 100


SAIC Motor

Mitsubishi

Fortune Brands

Porsche

Honda Motor

Magna International

Volvo Group

Renault

Hyundai Mobis

Toyota Industries

Tata Motors

Suzuki Motor

Ford Motor

Hyundai Motor

Nissan Motor

Continental AG

W hirlpool

Michelin

Electrolux

Johnson Controls

Toyota Motor

Daimler AG

Aisin Seiki

BMW Group

Fiat

Bridgestone

Mazda Motor

Peugeot

Denso


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

ElectroluxA+WhirlpoolABMW GroupAJohnson ControlsB+Daimler AGB+PeugeotB+Ford MotorBHyundai MotorBMazda MotorBDensoB-Tata MotorsB-FiatB-Nissan MotorB-RenaultC+Volvo GroupC+Toyota IndustriesC+Continental AGCMichelinCBridgestoneCToyota MotorCAisin SeikiCFortune BrandsCSuzuki MotorC-Magna InternationalC-Hyundai MobisC-Honda MotorDPorscheDMitsubishiDSAIC MotorFDongfeng Motor GroupF

0.000.009.239.3614.36

23.3323.8525.5128.4629.2330.5130.5131.1532.31

36.2837.9538.0838.8540.6442.9543.5946.0247.4448.8551.1552.0555.51

63.8564.36

71.54

0 25 50 75 100


SAIC Motor

Mitsubishi

Porsche

Honda Motor

Hyundai Mobis

Magna International

Suzuki Motor

Fortune Brands

Aisin Seiki

Toyota Motor

Bridgestone

Michelin

Continental AG

Toyota Industries

Volvo Group

Renault

Nissan Motor

Fiat

Tata Motors

Denso

Mazda Motor

Hyundai Motor

Ford Motor

Peugeot

Daimler AG

Johnson Controls

BMW Group

W hirlpool

Electrolux


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

BMW GroupA+ElectroluxA-Daimler AGB+WhirlpoolBPeugeotC+Fortune BrandsC+Tata MotorsC+Johnson ControlsC+DensoCToyota IndustriesC-Hyundai MotorC-Ford MotorC-MichelinC-Nissan MotorC-Mazda MotorD+Aisin SeikiD+RenaultD+FiatD+Volvo GroupD+Toyota MotorDHyundai MobisDPorscheDSuzuki MotorDContinental AGD-BridgestoneD-Magna InternationalFMitsubishiFSAIC MotorFDongfeng Motor GroupFHonda MotorF

0.000.000.000.000.003.853.855.775.775.777.699.6211.5411.5411.5411.5413.4613.4617.3117.3117.3119.2321.1521.1521.1523.08

30.7734.6238.46

46.15

0 25 50 75 100

Honda Motor


SAIC Motor

Mitsubishi

Magna International

Bridgestone

Continental AG

Suzuki Motor

Porsche

Hyundai Mobis

Toyota Motor

Volvo Group

Fiat

Renault

Aisin Seiki

Mazda Motor

Nissan Motor

Michelin

Ford Motor

Hyundai Motor

Toyota Industries

Denso

Johnson Controls

Tata Motors

Fortune Brands

Peugeot

W hirlpool

Daimler AG

Electrolux

BMW Group


Human Rights Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores


adoption reinforcement monitoring complianceHuman Rights Topics

Percent of companies reporting*

Anti-corruption practices 73.3% 40.0% 36.7% 13.3%

Bribery 63.3% 23.3% 16.7% 6.7%

Degrading treatment or punishment of employees 16.7% 10.0% 6.7% 0.0%

Effective abolition of child labor 70.0% 30.0% 13.3% 6.7%

Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor 63.3% 26.7% 13.3% 3.3%

Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and occupation

86.7% 46.7% 23.3% 13.3%

Fair compensation of employees 50.0% 26.7% 10.0% 10.0%


66.7% 36.7% 10.0% 10.0%

Political contributions 50.0% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7%

Reasonable working hours 46.7% 30.0% 10.0% 6.7%

Sexual harassment 53.3% 36.7% 13.3% 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


Canada

Canada

Canada

China

China

China

France

France

France

Germany

Germany

Germany

India

India

India

Italy

Italy

Italy

Japan

Japan

Japan

South Korea

South Korea

South Korea

Sweden

Sweden

Sweden

USA

USA

USA

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

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

Canada 1China 2France 3Germany 4India 1Italy 1Japan 10South Korea 2Sweden 2USA 4


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

BMW Group

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Electrolux

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Whirlpool

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Denso

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Daimler AG

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Peugeot

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Hyundai Motor

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Ford Motor

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Johnson Controls

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Mazda Motor

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Toyota Industries

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Fiat

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Toyota Motor

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Nissan Motor

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Michelin

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Suzuki Motor

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Aisin Seiki

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Renault

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Volvo Group

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Tata Motors

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Bridgestone

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Continental AG

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Honda Motor

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Porsche

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Hyundai Mobis

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Fortune Brands

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Mitsubishi

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Magna International

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

SAIC Motor

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


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

Aisin Seiki 28.44 22740 -260 17220 77401.36 1.24 0.89

BMW Group 53.72 74090 450 139310 268301.87 -0.35 2.14 1.43

Bridgestone 25.59 27940 10 28720 144401.45 -2.00 1.46 1.16

Continental AG 23.75 28790 -2360 32020 90101.46 1.51 0.95

Daimler AG 41.00 110060 -3690 184490 450702.04 2.27 1.65

Denso 41.31 32280 -860 29340 240501.51 1.47 1.38

Dongfeng Motor Gro 0.23 10360 590 8640 127001.02 -0.23 0.94 1.10

Electrolux 49.89 15240 360 9800 60901.18 -0.44 0.99 0.78

Fiat 35.48 71780 -1200 92760 132401.86 1.97 1.12

Ford Motor 38.49 118310 2720 194850 418002.07 0.43 2.29 1.62

Fortune Brands 15.71 6210 240 12370 66800.79 -0.62 1.09 0.82

Honda Motor 22.64 102820 1410 117240 632202.01 0.15 2.07 1.80

Hyundai Mobis 16.67 11110 840 8300 124601.05 -0.08 0.92 1.10

Hyundai Motor 38.57 63950 690 81450 218401.81 -0.16 1.91 1.34

Johnson Controls 37.65 29570 620 23810 214101.47 -0.21 1.38 1.33

Magna International 12.19 17370 -490 12300 64001.24 1.09 0.81

Mazda Motor 36.15 26040 -730 17500 46601.42 1.24 0.67

Michelin 28.72 20650 150 23670 103601.31 -0.82 1.37 1.02

Mitsubishi 13.35 20270 -560 11440 79901.31 1.06 0.90

Nissan Motor 29.76 86650 -2400 102520 356501.94 2.01 1.55

Peugeot 40.67 69370 -1660 91190 59701.84 1.96 0.78

Porsche 17.66 81310 -3600 300450 88801.91 2.48 0.95

Renault 28.18 47010 -4360 91690 112701.67 1.96 1.05

SAIC Motor 0.66 15440 100 15770 211101.19 -1.00 1.20 1.32

Suzuki Motor 28.56 30860 280 20590 116201.49 -0.55 1.31 1.07

Tata Motors 26.15 13610 -490 14290 79301.13 1.16 0.90

Toyota Industries 35.51 16270 -340 23450 86101.21 1.37 0.94

Toyota Motor 32.60 210840 -4490 292730 1271002.32 2.47 2.10

Volvo Group 26.34 30490 -2060 44770 183101.48 1.65 1.26

Whirlpool 45.13 17100 330 15090 64301.23 -0.48 1.18 0.81

2010 Forbes List Source:


0 .2 3 0 .6 6

12 .1913 .3 5

15 .7 1 16 .6 7 17 .6 6

2 2 .6 42 3 .7 5

2 5 .5 92 6 .15 2 6 .3 42 8 .182 8 .4 4 2 8 .5 62 8 .7 2 2 9 .7 6

3 2 .6 0

3 5 .4 83 5 .5 1 3 6 .153 7 .6 5 3 8 .4 93 8 .5 7

4 0 .6 7 4 1.0 04 1.3 1

4 5 .13

4 9 .8 9

5 3 .7 2

R2 = 0.1772

0

10

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

0 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2 .5

Revenue

Over

all P

SI S

core

s

Log10 $M

0 .2 30 .6 6

15 .7 1 16 .6 7

2 2 .6 42 5 .5 9

2 8 .5 62 8 .7 2

3 7 .6 5 3 8 .4 93 8 .5 7

4 5 .13

4 9 .8 9

5 3 .7 2

R2 = 0.0366

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

Profits

Over

all P

SI S

core

s

Log10 $M


0 .2 3 0 .6 6

12 .1913 .3 5

15 .7 116 .6 7 17 .6 6

2 2 .6 42 3 .7 52 5 .5 92 6 .15 2 6 .3 4

2 8 .182 8 .4 42 8 .5 62 8 .7 2 2 9 .7 63 2 .6 0

3 5 .4 83 5 .5 13 6 .153 7 .6 5 3 8 .4 93 8 .5 7

4 0 .6 7 4 1.0 04 1.3 1

4 5 .13

4 9 .8 9

5 3 .7 2

R2 = 0.132

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Asset

Over

all P

SI S

core

s

Log10 $M

0 .2 3 0 .6 6

12 .1913 .3 5

15 .7 1 16 .6 717 .6 6

2 2 .6 42 3 .7 52 5 .5 92 6 .15 2 6 .3 4

2 8 .182 8 .4 4 2 8 .5 62 8 .7 2 2 9 .7 63 2 .6 0

3 5 .4 83 5 .5 13 6 .153 7 .6 5 3 8 .4 93 8 .5 7

4 0 .6 7 4 1.0 04 1.3 1

4 5 .13

4 9 .8 9

5 3 .7 2

R2 = 0.0149

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

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

2222

33

4444444

55555

67

89

1112

1

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tata MotorsMichelin

Suzuki MotorPorsche

Hyundai MotorWhirlpool

Aisin SeikiVolvo Group

Continental AGRenault

PeugeotNissan Motor

ElectroluxFortune Brands

Daimler AGHonda MotorMazda MotorToyota Motor

Johnson ControlsToyota Industries

MitsubishiDenso

FiatFord Motor

BMW Group

Waste (solid) disposed of1 13

Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total2 10

Water used3 9

Product performance, recyclability4 9

Energy used (total)5 7

Product performance, emissions6 6

Waste recycled: solid waste7 6


Number of Topics Showing Performance Improvement over Previous Year Data

Topics Most Frequently Reported as Having Improvements over previous year data

1

4

5

6

6

6

7

7

9

9

9

9

10

10

11

11

11

11

14

14

14

15

19

21

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Hyundai Mobis

Porsche

Michelin

Bridgestone

Continental AG

Nissan Motor

Volvo Group

Mazda Motor

Honda Motor

Aisin Seiki

Johnson Controls

Toyota Motor

Suzuki Motor

Fiat

Whirlpool

Peugeot

Renault

Hyundai Motor

Ford Motor

Electrolux

Daimler AG

Denso

Toyota Industries

BMW Group

Water used1 17Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)2 16Energy used (total)3 16Waste (solid) disposed of4 15Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total5 15Product performance, emissions6 13Recordable incident/accident rate7 11Lost workday case rate8 9Waste (hazardous) released to the environment9 8Product performance, fuel efficiency10 8Waste (hazardous) produced11 7Nitrogen oxides (NOx)12 6Logistics emissions13 6Waste recycled: solid waste14 5Materials used: Non-returnable packaging15 5Women in management16 5


Occupational health and safety protection17 5Employee satisfaction surveys18 5Employee volunteerism19 4Environmental expenses and investments20 4Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)21 4Employee turnover rate22 4Energy used (renewable)23 4Community education24 3Waste (office) recycled25 3Fines (environmental)26 3Waste water released to natural water bodies27 3Social community investment28 3Energy used: Logistics29 3Consumer education program30 3Waste: Packaging materials31 3Particulate matter (dust)32 3Remanufacturing of products33 2Materials recycled: Wastewater34 2Product performance, safety35 2Health and safety citations36 2Product performance, noise37 2Carbon monoxide (CO)38 2Volatile organic carbon (VOC), concentration39 2Product performance, recyclability40 1Health and safety fines41 1Notices of violation (environmental)42 1Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials43 1Community development44 1AA1000, AccountAbility45 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

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

3

3

3

4

0 1 2 3 4 5

Whirlpool

Volvo Group

Peugeot

Johnson Controls

Hyundai Motor

Denso

Daimler AG

Continental AG

Nissan Motor

Hyundai Mobis

Honda Motor

Toyota Motor

Porsche

BMW Group

Electrolux


Aisin Seiki

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Aisin Seki demonstrates a clear commitment to corporate sustainability, as seen in its 2010 Corporate Sustainability Report, 2010 Web Pages, and 4th Environmental Action Plan. Much of its quantitative data, however, is not transparent. This is especially evident in Aisin Seki’s reporting of water usage and release to natural water bodies and logistics emissions. Only ten of twenty-three of Aisin Seki’s subsidiaries were reported.•Aisin Seki’s commitment to stakeholders and promoting biodiversity are two highlights of Aisin Seki’s environmental responsibility. Also, the company promotes a balance of male and female employees, as seen in its Reduced Working Hours for Childcare Program to increase women in its workforce. To improve its PSI score, Aisin Seki needs to report more quantitative data, completely and transparently.

S52%

E4 8 %

Aisin 2010 Corporate Sustainability Report, 4th Environmental Plan, and 2011 Web Pages

Comparison with sector averages Source of points

C+

Karen de Wolski

Hilary Haskell

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

Aisin Seiki

85

2412

69

2912

Analyst(s):

Environmental Intent

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Accountability 4 Good2 50

Management 8 Excellent8 100

Policy 10 Excellent8 80

Vision 4 Excellent4 100

Environmental Reporting

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Emissions to Air 49 Needs substantial improvement10 20

Energy 21 Needs improvement8 38

Management 21 Needs substantial improvement3 14

Materials Usage 14 Needs substantial improvement1 7

Products 21 Needs improvement7 33

Recycling 35 Needs substantial improvement4 11

Waste 35 Needs improvement9 26

Water 7 Needs substantial improvement0 0

Social Intent


Management 10 Good6 60

Policy 6 Good4 67

Social Demographic 2 Excellent2 100


Social Reporting

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Human Rights 77 Needs substantial improvement14 18


Qualitative Social 56 Needs improvement16 29

Quantitative Social 42 Needs improvement14 33


BMW Group

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

The 2008 BMW Sustainable Value Report covers a wide range of topics detailing its commitment to care for the environment and its communities. Although BMW has taken initiative in implementing top environmental management systems, its report did not include as much quantitative data as we prefer to score. The BMW Group has a high level of involvement with particular communities, describing a variety of social projects in the report. Social involvement is demonstrated through the Corporate Investment and Community Impact Award received by BMW from CiCi in March of 2009, and numerous community education projects such as SEED school in South Africa. Employees of BMW group receive a large amount of job and skill training, and surveyed as 89.2% very satisfied. • The BMW group chose to go above and beyond the environmental management system, ISO 14001, and sets higher standards for its effect on the environment, as well as for its suppliers. A separate report is created for BMW Group’s stance on climate change, and it details effective policy options for vehicle manufacturers to take in order to fight climate change. BMW also prides the recyclability of the vehicles produced, with close to the full vehicle recyclable. BMW group does not include any information of fine or violations received.

S55%

E4 5 %

BMW 2008 Sustainable Value Report and 2011 Web Pages


A+

Carolyn Campbell

Whitney Ellen Dawson



EI ER EP SI SR SP

BMW Group

96

4831

73 6446

Analyst(s):


Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Accountability 4 Excellent3 75





Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Emissions to Air 49 Good28 57

Energy 21 Good11 52

Management 21 Needs improvement6 29

Materials Usage 14 Needs improvement6 43

Products 21 Good15 71

Recycling 35 Needs improvement11 31

Waste 35 Needs substantial improvement6 17

Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent

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





Social Reporting

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


Qualitative Social 56 Excellent46 82



Bridgestone

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Bridgestone’s pervasive theme of “One Team, One Planet” is deeply rooted in its mission statement. TEAMS (Total Environmental Advance Management System) functions as Bridgestone’s overarching guide to ensure all global branches act in an environmentally and socially responsible manner. Bridgestone identifies three main areas of environmental progress: products and services, operations, and community activities. Within each category, Bridgestone provides a detailed discussion, as well as concrete examples, of how the company is continually striving towards a more environmentally sustainable future. Whether through higher quality products such as energy efficient tires or better operating logistics, Bridgestone reports efforts to improve its environmental performance. Bridgestone Americas requires all manufacturing facilities to obtain ISO 14001 certification within the first two years of ownership. The company also stresses the importance of employee volunteerism as a way to create a more environmentally conscious atmosphere in the communities in which it serves. Bridgestone implements several “eco-Projects” with four main points of emphasis: prevention of global warming, biodiversity protection, educating the next generation, and moving towards a recycling-oriented society.

S57%

E4 3 %

Bridgestone 2011 Environmental Report & 2012 Web Pages


C+

Carolyn Campbell

Daniel Olmsted



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Bridgestone

92

16 8

81

314

Analyst(s):








Energy 21 Needs substantial improvement4 19


Materials Usage 14 Good7 50

Products 28 Needs substantial improvement4 14



Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent




Social Demographic 2 Needs substantial improvement0 0


Social Reporting






Continental AG

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Continental’s web pages demonstrate strong commitment to corporate sustainability reporting. Continental presents quantitative data on its energy usage, water usage, carbon dioxide emissions, and the extent to which the ISO 14001 management system has been implemented throughout Continental’s organization. Additionally, Continental presents interesting findings on the relationship between tire rolling resistance, CO2 emissions, and breaking performance. Continental provides basic information on its environmental management structure, but does not identify the individuals currently holding the positions. The company also fails to report important data such as NOX and VOC emissions. More data should be published and the web pages should be reorganized to avoid any overlap.

S60%

E4 0 %

Continental AG 2011 Web Pages


C

Karen de Wolski

Alan Hu



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Continental AG

50

18 10

65

32

4

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Needs improvement3 30










Water 7 Excellent6 86

Social Intent






Social Reporting




Quantitative Social 42 Needs substantial improvement8 19


Daimler AG

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Daimler AG makes a conscious effort to demonstrate near total transparency about its environmental impact and initiatives to offset that impact to the public. This effort is evident in the company’s strict adherence to the Global Reporting Initiative’s indicators of corporate sustainability and environmental impact. However, despite Daimler’s impressive GRI grade of an A+ and the large amount of detail in its 2010 Sustainability Report; the report was at times confusing to read and determine specific information from. Daimler publishes two versions of the report, a print version and an interactive online report, the latter containing more detailed graphs that offer the viewer the ability to customize the data that they wish to compare. While the print version contains the same printed information about Daimler’s environmental and social initiatives, goals, and impacts, it lacks the detailed graphs of the online report. The lack of easily accessible graphical data can make it challenging to find certain emissions data and to achieve a visual representation of the change in emissions over time. Both reports would benefit from the addition of quantitative data pertaining to a wider range of emissions and waste categories. Additionally, the printed report lacks sufficient tables containing data over a multi-year period to allow the reader to garner a sense of whether the net increase or decrease in waste or emissions was on a yearly basis or due specifically to the decrease in sales that resulted during 2009 in the midst of the global depression. One detail that is omitted from both reports is a figure for the safety ratings received by Daimler’s vehicles. This omission may be a result of the inability to accurately compare the safety of a passenger van, bus, passenger car, and truck to one another; however, the data could be compiled if done by percentage of the entire fleet of vehicles that meets the standards for the top safety rating offered by the ratings association for its relevant genre of vehicle. Going forward, Daimler should include more graphs and data tables in their printed report that demonstrate a trend over time for all quantitative data. The company should also be clearer about its social policy statement, as its current descriptions of the desire to make a social impact are very general. As Daimler runs an impressive number of social initiatives, publishing a more specific statement of social policy would help the public connect its global initiatives to one another and form a more unified approach to social impact.

S59%

E4 1%

Daimler 2009 Sustainability Report, Integrity Code, Diversity Management at Daimler, and 2010 Web Pages


B+

Karen de Wolski

Elizabeth Duckworth



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Daimler AG

92

3215

6952

35

Analyst(s):







Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Emissions to Air 49 Needs improvement20 41







Water 7 Good5 71

Social Intent






Social Reporting

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Human Rights 77 Good39 51


Qualitative Social 56 Good29 52



Denso

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Denso Corporation’s commitment to corporate sustainability reporting is evident in its 2009 Corporate Sustainability Report, 2010 web pages, and 2015 Ecovision Report. The corporation provided thorough and transparent reporting on its actions and initiatives.• More quantitative data, especially about product performance should be included. Denso has already invested almost seventy seven-seven million dollars in 2009 alone on environmental expenses.• Denso is committed to employment without discrimination against race, gender, age, or disability. This is highlighted by profiles and initiatives. In addition, Denso emphasizes community efforts with its Denso Youth for Earth Action program and Denso Community Service Day.

S52%

E4 8 %

Denso 2009 Corporate Sustainability Report, 2015 Ecovision, and 2011 Web Pages


B+

Carolyn Campbell

Hilary Haskell



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Denso

100

3817

96

4419

Analyst(s):














Water 7 Needs improvement3 43

Social Intent






Social Reporting

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Human Rights 77 Needs improvement22 29






0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Dongfeng Motor Corporation has shown almost no commitment to either social or environmental sustainability through any of its publicly accessible information. While the company does have a Corporate Social Responsibility Report in Chinese, the Roberts Environmental Center does not score reports that are not in English.

S100%

E0 %

Dongfeng Motor Corporation 2011 Web Pages


F

Bukola Jimoh

Alan Hu



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Dongfeng MotorGroup

0 0 0

4

0 0

Analyst(s):


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


Policy 10 Needs substantial improvement0 0

Vision 4 Needs substantial improvement0 0










Social Intent





Vision 4 Needs improvement1 25

Social Reporting



Qualitative Social 56 Needs substantial improvement0 0



Electrolux

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Electrolux provides extensive data on its environmental and social sustainability online, but improvements could be made to make this information more readable and user-friendly. Rather than producing a designated sustainability report, Electrolux released only a brief GRI Summary Report, with additional data available online. Pages of small text and graphs, while highly informative, could use more explanatory notes.••One area where Electrolux performed extremely well was in human rights reporting. The Electrolux Workplace Standard outlines detailed policies and procedures for monitoring, preventing, and dealing with human rights issues such as forced or child labor, harassment, working hours, and fair compensation. These, and other Electrolux policy statements, are excellent examples of sound sustainability reporting. Although a few social programs are outlined, additional information regarding social community investment programs and employee volunteerism would increase Electrolux’s score. Other missing data include emissions of specific pollutants, such as volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides. Overall, Electrolux shows a strong commitment to sustainability, but could improve the methods by which it conveys this information.

S61%

E3 9 %

Electrolux Group 2009 GRI Summary Report and 2011 Web Pages


A

Karen de Wolski

Erin Franks



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Electrolux

77

4022

65 72

38

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Good6 60




Energy 21 Good11 52






Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent






Social Reporting

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Human Rights 77 Excellent68 88



Quantitative Social 42 Good22 52


Fiat

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Fiat Group’s web pages and nearly 200 page sustainability report are proof of a clear commitment to sustainability and improved environmental performance. The company gives much relevant data about its initiatives in green technology and reduced levels of pollution from earlier periods. The website’s layout of initiatives and future goals in a table form is a very clear and easy way of analyzing the company’s sustainability policy. The only area that the company lacks sufficient data in is fines and notices of health, safety, and environmental violations and sustainable and environmental policy statements. While the data is organized in a clear manner, it can be overwhelming for a typical reader to find specific information due to its sheer volume.

S52%

E4 8 %

Fiat Group 2009 Sustainability Report, Business Code of Conduct, and 2010 Web Pages


B

Bukola Jimoh

Sam Kahr



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Fiat

81

3416

73

41

12

Analyst(s):





Vision 4 Good2 50









Water 7 Good5 71

Social Intent




Social Demographic 2 Good1 50


Social Reporting






Ford Motor

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Ford Motor Company publishes a sustainability report each year that is specific to the current model year of its products. In its 2010/2011 report, the company focuses on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Ford explores the idea that operating in an environmentally friendly fashion is more than simply the company’s responsibility; it can also be fairly cost effective and lead to the generation of new profit for the company. Ford offers and explains its visionary statement for its environmental and social actions but the company could benefit from mentioning ways in which its actions have not been fully achieved as a result of difficulties encountered. The company is very positive about the effects it has had and the future effects it hopes to have on the communities its operations are based in and the people it employs; however, it is difficult to garner a truly accurate sense of the company’s achievements when no mention of failure is made. Ford’s published Code of Conduct is detailed and offers specific instructions of what to do and what not to do should they find themselves in an ethically unclear situation. The company utilizes yearly employee satisfaction surveys to determine how helpful the Code of Conduct is to its employees. Not included in the Code of Conduct, sustainability report or elsewhere on the Ford website is an evacuation or containment plan for emergencies that may occur at the company’s plants. Additionally, there is a lack of quantitative data pertaining to various types of emissions beyond CO2, water usage and waste produced by Ford’s plants. The company could benefit from publishing more quantitative data relating to the impacts made by its factories as opposed to continuing to only publish data about the impact its products have on the environment. Data about both components are necessary to create a more accurate picture of the company’s actual environmental impact.

S54%

E4 6 %

Ford Motor Company 2009/2010 Sustainability Report, Code of Conduct, and 2011 Web Pages


B+

Bukola Jimoh

Elizabeth Duckworth



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Ford Motor

81

3617

58 49

17

Analyst(s):














Water 7 Good5 71

Social Intent






Social Reporting






Fortune Brands

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

The 2009 Annual Review published by Fortune Brands was aesthetically pleasing and easy to read; however, it did not contain much information about the company’s energy consumption or its waste and water management policies. The Statement of Environmental Stewardship and Global Citizenship Policy superficially stated the company’s stance on environmental and social issues respectively. It would be useful for Fortune Brands to flesh out a more detailed sustainability report, which contained information on the environmental and social impacts of the company, and also lists the measures it is adopting to reduce these impacts.

S80%

E2 0 %

Fortune Brands 2009 Annual Review, Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and 2011 Web Pages


C-

Bukola Jimoh

Sachi Singh



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Fortune Brands

27

60

27 2821

Analyst(s):





Vision 4 Good2 50










Social Intent



Policy 6 Good4 67



Social Reporting






Honda Motor

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Honda motors was sporadic in its reporting in their 2010 Environmental report. While some areas were meticulously reported such as environmental intent and quantitative data on waste and emissions, other areas such as social intent and social reporting went for the most part unmentioned. •Honda Motors' report suggests a clear commitment to helping protect the environment, with a goal of acting “as a responsible member of society whose task lies in the preservation of the global climate.” Honda’s thorough reporting of its waste, emissions, and product performance all help support this statement. In addition, its improvements in reducing energy use, waste, water use and carbon dioxide and volatile organic compounds emissions all show how Honda Motors is becoming a more environmentally responsible company. On the contrary, Honda Motors’ lack of reporting on topics including its social visionary statement, workforce profiles, fines and violations, and adoption of policies that promote proper employee treatment, show that the company is failing to fulfill its policy statement. Improvement in reporting of social aspects of the company will help improve Honda’s score greatly.

S30%

E7 0 %

Honda Motors 2010 Environmental report


C

Carolyn Campbell

Jordan Lieberman



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Honda Motor

69

3018

3514

0

Analyst(s):














Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Hyundai Mobis

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

While the information contained on Hyundai Mobis’ sustainability web pages is limited; its 2010 Sustainability Report provides a considerable overview of the company’s practices and performance. The report describes materials used for its production, but little data are given about recycling or logistics. In addition, little data could be found about the company’s release of hazardous materials and volatile organic compounds. While the report does state what department is responsible for its publication, it does not provide information on who to contact specifically with questions. To improve its score, Hyundai Mobis must provide qualitative data about previous years to show improvement and trends toward increased sustainability. Also, the company should include an accessible code of conduct that details employee conduct and company policy.

S64%

E3 6 %

Hyundai Mobis 2010 Sustainability Report and 2011 Web Pages


C-

Karen de Wolski

Karun Kiani



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Hyundai Mobis

42

113

50

23

6

Analyst(s):





Vision 4 Good2 50










Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Hyundai Motor

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Hyundai Motor Company (HMC) shows a clear commitment to development of sustainable vehicles, but its environmental and social reporting is incomplete. One of the main issues with the 2010 Sustainability Report is that much of the environmental data is reported only for domestic operations. As a global company, with factories in the US, China, India, and Europe, HMC should extend its reporting to cover all of its production and sales. Another topic that is noticeably avoided is the discussion of fines and citations for non-compliance with environmental or safety regulations. We would like to see companies be transparent in their sustainability reporting, including information on negative aspects as well as positive ones.••One area where HMC really shines is in its commitment to development of more environmentally-friendly vehicles, as evidenced by the significant reductions made in the level of emissions and increased fuel efficiency for models released in the last few years. One particularly notable initiative aims to improve recyclability of vehicles to 95% by 2015, and HMC has several innovative programs to use recycled materials such as PET bottles in its vehicles. HMC mentions programs to attract a more diverse workforce, but does not offer a description of what those programs include – more detailed coverage of this issue would be preferable. While HMC appears to have a genuine commitment to sustainability, incomplete reporting damages both its score and its appearance.

S53%

E4 7 %

Hyundai Motor 2010 Sustainability Report and 2010 Web Pages


B+

Karen de Wolski

Erin Franks



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Hyundai Motor

85

3815

6247

17

Analyst(s):














Water 7 Good5 71

Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Johnson Controls

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Johnson Controls expressed its commitment to environmental and social responsibility in its Business and Sustainability Report. It designed a sustainable program that helps to manage and minimize environmental impact across product life cycle. The Global Environmental Sustainability Council leads efforts to reduce the environmental footprint of the company and improve eco-efficiency of the supply chain. Johnson Controls is also committed to renewable energy initiatives, specifically, solar photovoltaic, thermal, biomass, wind, and geothermal. It is also part of the Clinton Climate Initiative which helps municipalities improve their energy usage. Johnson Controls has goals to reduced its energy intensity by 30% by 2018. It is also the leading independent provider of hybrid battery systems that make vehicles more energy efficient and are focusing efforts on hybrid electric vehicles. The Conservation Leadership Corps offers internships and summer training crew opportunities to over 3,000 students per year. Community involvement is reflected in the company's work towards boosting the economy by offering teenagers jobs and decreasing unemployment. Johnson Controls has a limited information base regarding emission and energy output statistics. Despite reporting its United Nation human rights reporting, it has little information on social responsibility.

S62%

E3 8 %

Johnson Controls 2009 Business and Sustainability Report and 2010 Web Pages


B

Bukola Jimoh

Jaclyn T. D'Arcy



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Johnson Controls

88

295

6956

21

Analyst(s):














Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Magna International

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Magna International is not transparent or thorough in reporting its environmental and social initiatives and actions. The company does not provide a corporate sustainability report or include a section in its annual report dedicated to discussing its environmental efforts. • Most of Magna International’s information is found on the current web pages; there is no sustainability report. The information they do present is vague and cursory. It does not provide many specific details. In addition, Magna International did not report any quantitative data. To improve its PSI score, Magna International should include this data.

S78%

E2 2 %

Magna Corporate Constitution, Employee Charter, Health and Safety and Environmental Policy, Health and Safety and Environmental Committee Charter, and 2011 Web Pages


D+

Carolyn Campbell

Hilary Haskell



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Magna International

35

3 0

38

24

0

Analyst(s):





Vision 4 Good2 50










Social Intent



Policy 6 Good4 67


Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Mazda Motor

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Mazda provides extensive information in its 2010 Corporate Sustainability Report, 2010 web pages, and Mazda Supplier Guidelines discussing its environmental and social initiatives and actions. However, much of the report either lacks substantiating quantitative data or only covers domestic subsidiaries.• Mazda has many initiatives to improve its products’ fuel efficiency and reduce both noise and emissions. However, the report does not offer adequate description within its manufacturing and production environmental initiatives. Additionally, little historical quantitative data is given, making it difficult to determine if progress has been made. Mazda’s reporting focuses primarily on the product performance and sustainability in areas such as recycling, alternative energy use, efficiency, and waste. • Mazda’s social contributions are notable, with both monetary donations to the community and employee volunteerism included in its social initiatives.

S57%

E4 3 %

Mazda 2010 Sustainability Report, Mazda Supplier CSR Guidelines, and 2011 Web Pages


B

Karen de Wolski

Hilary Haskell



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Mazda Motor

88

3110

81

46

12

Analyst(s):















Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Michelin

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Michelin Group has received recognition from various organizations for its commitment to road safety initiatives. It chairs the Global Road Safety Partnership, in addition to working with other organizations. The Group also creates fuel-efficient tires and provides consumers the opportunity to retread and regroove their tires. Michelin selects suppliers based on social and environmental practices, with an emphasis on corporate responsibility in developing countries. Michelin's web pages addressed most environmental and social initiatives in depth, but providing specific goals and/or targets would greatly improve the company's transparency.

S53%

E4 7 %

Michelin Group 2011 Web Pages


C+

Bukola Jimoh

Ashley Scott



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Michelin

81

285

65

3113

Analyst(s):














Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent



Policy 6 Good3 50



Social Reporting






Mitsubishi

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Mitsubishi Motors is diligent in its publication of a Social and Environmental Report at the conclusion of each fiscal year. However, some of the reports are vastly more detailed than others. The 2008 Social and Environmental Report contained a detailed breakdown of the companies social and environmental initiatives, along with goals the company hoped to achieve in the next fiscal year, and graphs of quantitative data. In contrast, the 2009 and 2010 Social and Environmental Reports did not contain a detailed breakdown of all initiatives, goals, graphs, or quantitative data. Additionally, the 2009 and 2010 reports were significantly shorter than the 2008 report. The reports discussed the company’s social and environmental initiatives, but there is an absence of quantitative data from the last two years is a major obstacle in rating Mitsubishi Motors’ performance. Beyond the lack of quantitative data, Mitsubishi is very clear in its social and environmental policies and initiatives. The one area that the company was not clear about is how it treats its employees and the standard that those employees are expected to meet. A code of ethics is mentioned several times throughout the reports and the website; however, it is only mentioned in passing and no code can be downloaded or viewed online. Because there is no code of conduct, it is impossible to garner information about how the management treats employees, the gender and racial breakdown of the employees, and what rules the employees are told to follow when put in a situation where it would be easy to act unethically. Going forward, the company should publish quantitative data about its environmental impact at the end of each fiscal year, in addition to publishing its code of conduct and a breakdown of its workforce by gender and race.

S33%E

6 7 %

Mitsubishi Motors Social and Environmental Report 2008, Social and Environmental Report 2010, and 2011 Web Pages


D+

Carolyn Campbell

Elizabeth Duckworth



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Mitsubishi

73

152

239 0

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Good7 70











Social Intent



Policy 6 Good3 50



Social Reporting






Nissan Motor

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Nissan Motor Vehicles is committed to reducing the environmental impact of their operations; not just after their product has been purchased but throughout the product’s entire life-cycle. Nissan’s long-term goal is to create cars that will not have a cumulative impact more than what can be naturally absorbed by the earth. To reach this goal Nissan has centered its environmental initiatives around three Rs; reducing carbon dioxide emissions, reducing other emissions and recycling resources. The RRR framework is used throughout Nissan’s web pages and 2010 Sustainability Report to organize what initiatives the company is currently taking and is very effective in explaining the reasoning behind Nissan’s actions. • Nissan lacks transparency in certain areas related to how Nissan interacts with the environment such as the amount of wastewater the company discharges and how much money has been invested into environmental initiatives and to support social causes. Sometimes information is repeated in more than one place within their web pages but the numbers do not align when they should.

S58%

E4 2 %

Nissan Motor Vehicles 2010 Sustainability Report, CSR handbook, and 2010 Web Pages


B-

Karina Gomez

Danielle L. Manning



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Nissan Motor

73

22 13

6539

13

Analyst(s):














Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Peugeot

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

PSA Peugeot Citroën demonstrates a strong commitment to sustainability reporting. Their website provides a detailed mission statement and describes ongoing projects to decrease environmental impacts. The company indicated in its newer vehicles that there is a 95% recycling rate. With annual sales of more than a million vehicles with less than 140g/km of CO2, the company demonstrates its commitment to lowering carbon dioxide emissions. While the report does provide data for product performance in regards to emissions and fuel efficiency, the figures are presented per car and a company wide average is not presented. The website goes into specifics of its top priorities including green materials, controlling energy consumption, and low-consumption vehicles. There is also a detailed Code of Conduct that is clear in its employee’s standards. However, PSA Peugeot Citroën fails to identify a specialized person who can answer questions regarding the company’s sustainability. While lacking in certain areas, the company remains exceptional in its scoring, with high standards of green consumption and production, outstanding employee outreach, and excellent overall reporting.

S58%

E4 2 %

PSA Peugeot Citroen 2009 Sustainable Development Performance Indicators, Code of Ethics, and 2011 Web Pages


B+

Carolyn Campbell

Han Dinh



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Peugeot

85

3418

85

51

23

Analyst(s):














Water 7 Good5 71

Social Intent






Social Reporting






Porsche

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Porsche AG demonstrates a commitment to sustainability through its 2009 Environmental Statement, Porsche and the Environment Report, and the 2010 Web Pages. Overall, Porsche demonstrates this commitment, but the reporting is limited and lacks quantitative details and past years data. Porsche emphasizes their commitment to reducing 1.7% of carbon dioxide annually, which is the highest in the automotive industry, but Porsche’s reporting only presents carbon dioxide emissions from 2008 for the Zuffenhausen production facility and a graph showing the overall negative trend for carbon dioxide vehicle emissions from 1990 to 2006. Reporting states that the current Porsche fleet accounts for less than one tenth of one percent of the carbon dioxide emissions in Germany. It is also stated that the Porsche production process is regarded as an international model in terms of efficiency and environmental protection. For total energy used in the production process, a decrease over past years is shown, but no exact data is given for past years. There is no mention of materials recycled, renewable energy, logistics emissions, environmental investments, or environmental expenses. Porsche is in the process of developing a hybrid SUV, but the fuel consumption is still to be determined. • Porsche barely shows any commitment to social issues and has almost no social reporting. No code of conduct or business ethics is available on the web site, and therefore no social issues or rights of workers are addressed. The employees are rarely discussed at all. Porsche should vastly improve its social reporting.

S32%

E6 8 %

Porsche 2009 Environmental Statement, Porsche and the Environment, 2010 Web Pages


C-

Karen de Wolski

Simone Berkovitz



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Porsche

81

217

319 6

Analyst(s):















Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Renault

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Although Renault does not provide a report specifically dedicated to environmental initiatives and actions, the company demonstrates sustainability through its 2009 Annual Report, 2010 web pages, safety data sheets, environmental datasheets, and Code of Conduct. Renault’s commitment to producing environmentally sustainable vehicles is clear in the recyclability, fuel efficiency, and low emission technology of its products. However, the company is not as transparent in its environmental reporting initiatives. •There is little quantitative information about energy use, recycling, waste, water, emissions, investments, or fines. Renault’s reporting focuses on the performance and sustainability of its products, not on the environmental and social performance of the company. The safety and environmental data sheets effectively communicate the products’ performance, and similar data sheets reporting the company’s performance would increase Renault’s overall score.•Notable consumer education initiatives include the “Safety for All” program and “ecodriving” to promote environmentally responsible driving practices. However, Renault does not report how much was spent on these programs, community involvement, or environmental expenses.

S57%

E4 3 %

Renault 2009 Annual Report, Safety Data Sheets, Environmental Data Sheets, Code of Conduct, and 2010 Web Pages


C+

Karina Gomez

Hilary Haskell



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Renault

65

21 16

5038

12

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Good6 60











Social Intent






Social Reporting






SAIC Motor

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

The website of SAIC Motors is sparse. Little to no useful information could be gleaned from the website, as the company did not publish an environmental report or a code of conduct on their website. Additionally, the website does not contain any sort of interactive sustainability report. There is simply no information pertaining to sustainability to be found on the website. Perhaps that information was disregarded in the translation of the website from its original Chinese, but regardless, the company should add information about sustainability to its website in the future. It would be helpful for SAIC Motors to publish a code of conduct and a sustainability report with quantitative data in it; however, any additional sustainability data would be an enormous contribution to a website that contains essentially no information about the social and environmental impact of the company.

S69%

E3 1%

SAIC Motors 2011 Web Pages


F

Carolyn Campbell

Elizabeth Duckworth



EI ER EP SI SR SP

SAIC Motor4

0 0

8

0 0

Analyst(s):





Vision 4 Needs substantial improvement0 0










Social Intent






Social Reporting






Suzuki Motor

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Suzuki Motors has put considerable effort in sustainability reporting through its 2009 Environmental and Social Report (ESR) and Suzuki Green Procurement Guide. The ESR is well organized and covers a broad range of materials with great depth. The only issues with its report include the lack of a well developed business ethics section (only a list of principles are listed; no initiatives are reported) and the lack of an energy used section.

S42%

E5 8 %

Suzuki 2009 Environmental and Social Report, Suzuki Green Procurement Guide, and 2010 Web Pages


C+

Bukola Jimoh

Carolyn Campbell



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Suzuki Motor

6235

17

54

266

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Good7 70

Vision 4 Good2 50









Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Tata Motors

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Tata Motors does an adequate job reporting its sustainability practices through various online documents including its Global Reporting Initiative Report, Global Compact Communication on Progress and Social Responsibility Annual Report. These reports contain an impressive amount of information about its green initiatives with their channel partner and a dedication towards recycling. The company also shows their understanding of the importance of climate change and has developed low carbon, fuel efficient technologies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. However, some of the information is difficult to find because it is scattered over these different reports, and the only quantitative data is found in the 2007 version of the Global Reporting Initiative. Of this quantitative data, little is provided about their renewable energy used or waste recycled. The company needs to strongly improve their quantitative reporting in order show its commitment environmental sustainability. In terms of social sustainability, Tata Motors provides in-depth information about its policies against bribery, corruption and other basic social issues.

S71%

E2 9 %

Tata Motors 2011 Web Pages


C+

Karen de Wolski

Eric Robert King



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Tata Motors

58

140

5043

21

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Good5 50











Social Intent






Social Reporting






Toyota Industries

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Toyota Industries Corporation made huge strides in its efforts to become an environmentally friendly company. It has developed an Environmental Label Mark for products such that an environmental factor evaluation is used to assess improvements on environmental efficiency. To improve the greenness of its production techniques, it has developed environmentally-friendly lift trucks that meet new exhaust emissions standards and reduced the operating noise. Toyota Industries also promotes greening activities outside its plants to promote environmental pollution. It plants trees in the communities and has implemented a Green Fund at plant locations. Through this program, Toyota Industries requests donations from its employees to be used for government promotion of city-wide green activities. Another implementation at Toyota Industries is its Fourth Action Plan (2007-2011) that establishes targets for curbing global warming using resources more efficiently, reducing environmental risk factors, and consolidating management. In its environmental reporting web pages, it includes improved statistics on COD, Nitrogen, and Phosphorous emissions. While the environmental reporting is conclusive, there is a limited amount of human rights reporting.

S46%

E5 4 %

Toyota Industries 2011 Web Pages


B

Karina Gomez

Jaclyn T. D'Arcy



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Toyota Industries

85

3625

5036

17

Analyst(s):





Vision 4 Good2 50









Water 7 Excellent6 86

Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Toyota Motor

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Toyota Motor Corporation’s 2010 Sustainability Report clearly defines the company’s sustainability philosophy and initiatives. Data about the company’s energy use, recycling, and hazardous waste disposal are available. However, data about notices of violations, environmental fines, and product performance are not presented in the report. Another way Toyota could improve the report would be to include data regarding the breakdown of its workforce from an ethnic, gender, and age-oriented standpoint. It should go into more detail about programs made to ensure diversity including reporting its workforce profile for age, gender, and race. Toyota also demonstrates a commitment to improving traffic safety not only through improving its vehicles, but also through funding for traffic education. Additionally, the report also suggests a commitment to Toyota’s community through volunteer programs that range from disaster relief to community education outreach. However, Toyota should specify the amount of money it invests in its community to make its report more comprehensive.

S45%

E5 5 %

Toyota Motor Corporation 2010 Sustainability Report, Code of Conduct, Supplier Screening Guidelines, and 2010 Web Pages


B-

Carolyn Campbell

Karun Kiani



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Toyota Motor

88

3615

69

318

Analyst(s):














Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Volvo Group

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Volvo Group’s website has clear commitment to sustainability and consumer and employee protection. For a company the size of Volvo Group, however, it has a relatively sparse sustainability report and very little environmental information. Most of the data given in the environmental report is incomplete and focuses on social policy instead of environmental information. Many of the initiatives given by the company to improve their environmental performance are very brief and do not include any quantitative information. The sustainability report does not include any information about preserving biodiversity and natural ecosystems affected by its operations. Very little quantitative information is given in the report, rather it is found in a separate supplement to the report. The information on the whole company is given in graph form with no precise numbers. The only way to get totals for the entire company, such as total energy consumption, it to add the numbers given by individual operations, of which there are 67. ••In addition, the company’s code of conduct, a meager 4 pages, hardly even touches on the rights of the company’s workers. Most topics, such as fair compensation of employees and the elimination of discrimination in the workplace, are given only a few brief sentences.

S59%

E4 1%

Volvo Group 2009 Sustainability Report, Code of Conduct, The Volvo Way Report, and 2010 Web Pages


C+

Bukola Jimoh

Sam Kahr



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Volvo Group

58

2012

4638

10

Analyst(s):














Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent



Policy 6 Good4 67


Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Whirlpool

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Whirlpool Corporation shows a clear commitment to environmental and social sustainability through its 2008 Sustainability Report, 2008 Global Reporting Initiative, Code of Ethics, and 2010 Web Pages. Whirlpool states that is was the first appliance manufacturer to announce a global GHG reduction target. Today over 300 energy star appliances are sold and manufactured. Reporting addresses almost all aspects of the PSI, but is lacking a sustainability contact person and an environmental management structure. Much of the data was shown as bar graph, but exact quantitative values should be given. The Atlanta and Columbus facilities are among the ten largest LEED certified distribution centers in the US, with the Atlanta facility receiving a gold LEED rating. Whirlpool reporting states that renewable energy is used in the production process, but no quantitative data or percentage is given. Reporting should give a clear amount of renewable energy used or state investments in renewable sources. Reporting also lacks a detailed reporting of environmental expenditures. • Whirlpool demonstrates a clear commitment to its workforce. The Code of Business Ethics is very detailed and includes monitoring and reinforcement in almost every aspect. Whirlpool demonstrates community invest and volunteerism. It is stated that over $50 million was spent for the Habitat for Humanity Project, but in a different section it is stated only $12 million was spent on community investment. Community investments should be made clearer.

S60%

E4 0 %

Whirlpool 2008 Sustainability Report, 2008 Global Reporting Intiative, Code of Ethics, 2011 Web Pages


A-

Karina Gomez

Simone Berkovitz



EI ER EP SI SR SP

W hirlpool

73

3917

65 64

31

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Good7 70










Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent






Social Reporting

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Human Rights 77 Excellent60 78





Consumer Durables: Motor Vehicles and Parts

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

Energy used (renewable)Energy used from renewable sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, or other renewable sources.

27


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:






Energy used: LogisticsAmount of fuel consumed for logistics purposes

103


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#:






Materials recycled: WastewaterWastewater that is reused in a manufacturing process or otherwise recycled.

106


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materialsThe recycling of materials such as cardboard, plastics, or wood, used to package any goods received from a supplier or delivered to a distributor.

107


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Waste: Packaging materialsThe amount of waste materials specified as packaging materials by the organization, and not reused or recycled.

109


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Materials used: Non-returnable packagingMaterials such as cardboard, plastics, or wood, used to package any goods sold or delivered to a disributor or an end user. Likely to be specifically referred to as "packaging materials".

148


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Water usedSum of all water used during operations.

29


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Waste water released to natural water bodiesAmount of waste water released into natural waters.

110


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). The report should label this indicator as "greenhouse gases released", "CO2 Equivalents", or similar.

83


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)Total emissions of volatile organic compounds, airborn chemicals most often released during the painting process.

114


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Carbon monoxide (CO)Carbon Monoxide (CO) released.

118


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Nitrogen oxides (NOx)Emissions of all nitrogen oxides to air.

121


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Volatile organic carbon (VOC), concentrationThe concentration of volatile organic compound emissions in and around production facilities.

122


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Particulate matter (dust)"Particulate matter" usually refers to all material emitted to air smaller than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). Smaller, more toxic material such as PM 2.5, smaller than 2.5 microns, may also be called out.

123


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:






Logistics emissionsEmissions as a result of input and output transport of materials. Some companies report their CO2 logistics emissions while some only report logistics emission in general terms.

124


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#:




Product performance, emissionsQuantification of emissions in exhaust gases emitted by products

141


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Product performance, fuel efficiencyDescription of fuel efficiency of products

142


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:






Product performance, recyclabilityDescription of recyclability of products

143


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Product performance, noiseDescription of noise emissions by products

151


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Product performance, safetyDescription of safety of products

156


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Remanufacturing of productsDescription of use of remanufactured or refurbished parts in products

184


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is a formal procedure that examines the environmental aspects and impacts of a process or product from "cradle to grave". To get credit here, it must be referred to as life cycle analyses or planning.

147

Discussion Discussion Pg#:

Context Pg#:Improve Pg#:

Initiative Pg#:Initiatives/ActionContextImprovement Over Previous

Women in managementRelative numbers of women in management.

2




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




Consumer education programEffor to educate consumer of the reponsible usage of the product. For example education on road safety in automobile and parts sector or responsible drinking in food and beverage sector.

152




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





Aisin Seiki, BMW Group, Bridge-stone, Continental AG, Daimler AG, Denso, Dongfeng Motor Group, Electrolux, Fiat, Ford Motor, Fortune Brands, Honda Motor, Hyundai Mobis, Hyundai Motor, Johnson Controls, Magna International, Mazda Motor, Mi-chelin, Mitsubishi, Nissan Motor, Peugeot, Porsche, Renault, SAIC Motor, Suzuki Motor, Tata Motors, Toyota Industries, Toyota Motor, Volvo Group, and Whirlpool

Contact Information

Roberts 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 sta�, 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 a�airs.

Claremont McKenna College

The Claremont CollegesThe Claremont Colleges form a consortium of �ve undergraduate liberal arts colleges and two graduate institutions based on the Oxford/Cambridge model. The consortium o�ers 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 Consumer ... · Largest Motor Vehicle and Consumer...

Documents

Transcript of 2012 Sustainability Reporting of the World’s Consumer ... · Largest Motor Vehicle and Consumer...