ABB, Atlas Copco, Bharat Heavy Electricals, Caterpillar Inc., … · 2019. 4. 2. · ABB, Atlas...

ABB, Atlas Copco, Bharat Heavy Electricals, Caterpillar Inc., Cooper I n d u s t r i e s , C u m m i n s , D e e r e & Company, Eaton, Fanuc, Hyundai Heavy Industries, Illinois Tool Works, Komatsu, Kubota, LeGrand, MAN Group, Mitsubishi Electric, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Nidec, Paccar Inc., Parker Hannifin, Samsung Heavy Industries, Sandvik, Schindler Holding, Schneider Electric, Shanghai Electric Group, Sumitomo Electric Industries, Vallourec, Vestas Wind Systems, W ä r t s i l ä , a n d W W G r a i n g e r

2012 Sustainability Reporting of theTop 30 Global Capital Goods Companies

(*Industrial and Farm Equipment)Pacific Sustainability Index Scores: A benchmarking tool for online sustainability reporting

J. Emil Morhardt, Elgeritte Adidjaja, Gracie Beck, Simone Berkovitz, Carolyn Campbell, Jaclyn T. D'Arcy, Whitney Ellen Dawson, Karen de Wolski, Elizabeth Duckworth, Erin Franks, Hilary Haskell, Alan Hu, Bukola Jimoh, Quentin Jones, Sam Kahr, Eric Robert King, Jordan Lieberman, Danielle L. Manning, Stepha-nie Oehler, Daniel Olmsted, Ashley Scott, Michael Handler Shoemaker, and Sachi Singh.

*This report is based on companies in the Forbes 2010 Capital Goods sector, roughly equivalent to the Fortune Magazine Industrial & Farm Equipment sector used in our previous reports.

Contents Topics Page Company Rankings 3 PSI Overview 4 PSI Scoring in a Nutshell 5 Lead Analyst’s Commentary 6 Environmental Intent Topics 9 Environmental Reporting Topics 10 Social Intent Topics 11 Social Reporting Topics 12 Environmental Intent Element of the PSI Scores 13 Environmental Reporting Element of the PSI Scores

14

Social Intent Element of the PSI Scores 15 Social Reporting Element of the PSI Scores 16 Environmental Intent Scores Ranking 17 Environmental Reporting Scores Ranking 18 Environmental Performance Scores Ranking 19 Social Intent Scores Ranking 20 Social Reporting Scores Ranking 21 Social Performance Scores Ranking 22 Human Rights Reporting Element 23 Visual Cluster Analysis 24 Performance by Country 25 Relationship Between PSI Scores and Financial Variables

26

Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported 29 Number of Topics Showing Performance Improvement over Previous Year Data

30

Number of Topics in which Performance was Better than Sector Average

32

Analyst’s Comments, alphabetically listed by company name

33

Appendix: PSI Questionnaire 63 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 Capital Goods: Industrial & Farm Equipment Sector 2012

Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Reporting

Overall GradeCompany Rankings

Capital Goods (Industrial and Farm Equipment) Sector

0.00

0.00

1.98

13.28

14.27

16.09

19.84

20.10

21.46

22.76

22.76

23.23

24.69

25.36

26.25

29.58

30.26

31.20

33.49

34.22

35.47

36.35

36.41

36.93

39.06

40.44

41.20

48.70

49.89

63.39

0 25 50 75 100

Vestas Wind Systems

Fanuc

Shanghai Electric Group

Parker Hannifin

Paccar Inc.

Bharat Heavy Electricals

Illinois Tool Works

Hyundai Heavy Industries

Eaton

Cummins

Nidec

Schindler Holding

Cooper Industries

WW Grainger

Deere & Company

MAN Group

Samsung Heavy Industries

Atlas Copco

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

Caterpillar Inc.

ABB

Kubota

LeGrand

Sumitomo Electric Industries

Vallourec

Komatsu

Sandvik

Mitsubishi Electric

Schneider Electric

Wärtsilä

Wärtsilä (Finland)A+

Schneider Electric (France)B+

Mitsubishi Electric (Japan)B+

Sandvik (Sweden)B

Komatsu (Japan)B

Vallourec (France)B-

Sumitomo Electric Industries (Japan)B-

LeGrand (France)B-

Kubota (Japan)B-

ABB (Switzerland)B-

Caterpillar Inc. (USA)C+

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Japan)C+

Atlas Copco (Sweden)C+

Samsung Heavy Industries (South Korea)

C+

MAN Group (Germany)C+

Deere & Company (USA)C

WW Grainger (USA)C

Cooper Industries (USA)C

Schindler Holding (Switzerland)C-

Nidec (Japan)C-

Cummins (USA)C-

Eaton (USA)C-

Hyundai Heavy Industries (South Korea)

C-

Illinois Tool Works (USA)C-

Bharat Heavy Electricals (India)D+

Paccar Inc. (USA)D+

Parker Hannifin (USA)D+

Shanghai Electric Group (China)F

Fanuc (Japan)F

Vestas Wind Systems (USA)F

This report is an analysis of the voluntary environmental and social reporting of companies on the 2010 Forbes List Capital Goods-Industrial and Farm Equipment 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.

2/3/2011 6/11/201110/22/2011 11/25/2011

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, 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 leader in the Capital Goods

sector overall is Wärtsilä, the only company to receive a grade of “A+” in its corporate environmental and

sustainability reporting. However, Fanuc, Vestas Wind Systems, and Shanghai Electric Group all received a grade of “F” in their corporate environmental and sustainability reporting, overall. A major contributor to the low grades received by many Capital Goods sector companies is the lack of reporting on Life Cycle Analysis, an integral aspect of corporate environmental and sustainability reporting for the Capital Goods sector. Only 43.3 % of companies within this sector addressed this topic, and the relative depth of reporting on this topic was only 19.0%, indicating a need for improvement in this area. Comparatively, companies from the Capital Goods sector focus substantially on reporting their products’ performance, including emission levels, fuel efficiency, and recyclability. Therefore, it is not surprising that for the Environmental Reporting topics for the Capital Goods sector, Products Reporting was reported at the highest rate for all companies combined, 60%. For the Social Reporting elements of the PSI Scores, consumer education programs, product performance, safety; and product performance, noise; were reported by all companies. This data further reflects the importance of not only the companies’ manufacturing processes, but the product sustainability and responsibility of the products that the companies in the Capital Goods sector produce.

Wärtsilä not only received the highest PSI score in its sector, but it also captures the importance of capital goods in sustainable production through its discussion of product performance. The company reports that its main role in sustainability is “to supply environmentally sound solutions and services, which enable its customers to develop their business in a sustainable way. This requires continuous investment in technology development and an on-going search for new solutions.” Through this statement, Wärtsilä explains the demands that the Capital Goods sector must respond to in the face of environmental

challenges. Furthermore, Wärtsilä discusses the issue that the “Growth in the world’s energy needs, combined with increasingly stringent environmental requirements, creates a challenging operating climate for companies in Wärtsilä’s line of business.” Consequently, “Wärtsilä has responded to these challenges by improving the energy efficiency of its products while simultaneously reducing their emissions” as obstacles that must be overcome. Wärtsilä’s exemplary corporate sustainability reporting serves as a framework for the other companies of the Capital Goods sector.

Life Cycle Analysis

Capital goods, the inputs required in the production of other goods, play an important role in global industry. Not only do the companies that manufacture capital goods have an impact on social and environmental factors, but their products affect the manufacturing process further down the supply chain as well. For this reason, capital goods are an integral aspect of the Life Cycle Analysis process. In the EPA’s Life Cycle Assessment: Principle and Practice, the main importance of capital goods in a “cradle to grave approach” that ranges from “the gathering of raw materials from the earth to create the product and ends at the point when all materials are returned to the earth”1 is through the manufacturing process. Furthermore, because “LCA evaluates all stages of a product’s life from the perspective that they are interdependent, meaning that one operation leads to the next,” ibid. it is important to consider the “interdependence” of capital goods within the process. LCA is an important aspect of corporate environmental and sustainability reporting in that “LCA provides a comprehensive view of the environmental aspects of the product or process and a more accurate picture of the true environmental trade-offs in product and process selection.” ibid.

1 United States. Environmental Protection

Agency. National Risk Management Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development. Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice. By Mary Ann Curran. Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC), May 2006. Web. 20 Apr. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/lca/pdfs/600r06060.pdf>.


Due to the relatively low level of reporting on LCA with respect to capital goods, it is important to consider why this might be problematic in sustainability reporting. In an article by Rolf Frischknecht et al, there is discussion of whether or not capital goods should be included in LCA of other products, and what factors should be considered when making this determination. It must be noted that:

In ISO standards 14040 and 14044 the capital goods are explicitly part of the product system. Thus, it is doubtful if capital goods can be excluded per se as has been done in quite a number of case studies and LCA databases. There is yet no clear idea about if and when capital goods play an important role in life cycle assessments.2

Cooper Industries has implemented its LCA so that “companies are also using this LCA tool, making it easier for customers to compare products from different suppliers” in order to address this issue. Cooper Industries serves as an example to other companies in the Capital Goods industry as to why it is important to provide data on LCA in sustainability reporting. Frischknecht’s conclusion is that the most relevant factors in LCA are “whether maintenance and depreciation costs of capital equipment form a substantial part of the product price (Heijungs et al. 1992a), and whether actual environmental hot spots occur along the capital goods' supply chain.” ibid. These factors are important considerations when assessing the Capital Goods sector’s implementation of LCA.

It is not only important to consider the impacts of capital goods in LCA, but also the performance of capital goods. The efficiency of these input factors in supply chains are an essential aspect of the sustainability of industrial practices. According to Ramirez et al, The Capital Goods sector must dedicate itself to producing technology and capital so that “investment in capital goods augments the effectiveness of input use and, thus, input productivity and lowers the pollution intensity of inputs…” This leads to the “Underlying…premise that pollution is

2 Frischknecht, Rolf, Hans-Jorg Althaus,

Christian Bauer, Gabor Doka, Thomas Heck, Niels Jungbluth, Daniel Kellengerger, and Thomas Nemecek. "The Environmental Relevance of Capital Goods in." International Journal Life Cycle Analysis (2006). ESU-Services Fair Consulting in Sustainability. ESU-services Ltd., 21 Feb. 2007. Web. 4 Apr. 2012. <http://www.esu-services.ch/fileadmin/download/Frischknecht-2007-CapitalGoods_IntJLCA.pdf>.

caused because inputs are not used effectively in the process of production, that is, inputs are not converted completely [embodied] into useful output.”3 Ramirez goes on to “refer(s) to capital that can increase the effectiveness (or productivity) of input-use and reduce pollution per unit of input and per unit of output as conservation capital,” ibid. which the Capital Goods sector must strive to produce in the future in order to create more sustainable production practices for entire industries. The economical considerations of conservation capital investment include that “…conservation capital is rival and productivity enhancing; there exist private incentives to invest in it. However, since producers are likely to disregard the public benefits of investing in conservation capital, they will under invest in it relative to the socially optimal level.” ibid Therefore, in order for there to be sustainable development through investment in capital goods that allow for efficient production, there must be an emphasis on research and development of capital goods in the Capital Goods sector. Over-arching Goals

Given the PSI scores of companies from the Capital Goods sector on a global scale, the importance of sustainable development in both developing and developed countries is a necessary consideration. In the United Nation’s Agenda 21, “Chapter 34: Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology, Cooperation & Capacity-Building;” there is discussion of “The availability of scientific and technological information and access to and transfer of environmentally sound technology are essential requirements for sustainable development.”4 This

3 Ramirez, Donna T., Madhu Khanna, and David Zilberman. "Conservation Capital and Sustainable Economic Growth." Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics College of Natural Resources | University oCalifornia, Berkeley. University of California, Berkeley. Web. 20 Apr. 2012. <http://are.berkeley.edu/~zilber11/papers/conservation.pdf>.

4 "DSD :: Resources - Publications - Core Publications- Agenda 21." UN News Center. UN, 2009. Web. 20 Apr. 2012.


section of the Agenda stresses “The availability of scientific and technological information and access to and transfer of environmentally sound technology [as] essential requirements for sustainable development.” ibid. The Capital Goods Sector, on a global scale, is in the position to be able to provide “access to and transfer of environmentally sound technology,” to developing nations, in the wake of the increasing demand for “green” and low emissions production methods. With sustainable practices from the Capital Goods sector, the “vicious cycle of economic decline, increasing poverty, and environmental degradation” ibid. can be halted with technology transfer and sustainable development. “Principle 9” of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, cited in the Issue Paper of the United Nations Minestrial Conference of the Least Developed Countries, asserted the following:

States should cooperate to strengthen endogenous capacity-building for sustainable development by improving scientific understanding through exchanges of scientific and technological knowledge, and by enhancing the development, adaptation, diffusion, and transfer of technologies, including new and innovative technologies. 5

Consequently, the case for technology transfers have the potential “To promote long-term technological partnerships between holders of environmentally sound technologies and potential users,” ibid. in order to make an impact on the sustainability of the developing world through these nations’ means of production.

As developing countries such as China and India grow at a rapid pace, especially in GDP, their capital inputs must also do so in order to support this new economic expansion. Although only one

<http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_34.shtml>.

5 "Globalization and the Least Developed Countries: Issues in Technology." Making Globalization Work for the LDCs. Proc. of United Nations Ministerial Conference of the Least Developed Countries, Turkey, Istanbul. United Nations. Web. 20 Apr. 2012. <http://www.unohrlls.org/UserFiles/File/LDC%20Documents/Turkey/Technology-Final.pdf>.

company represents the Capital Goods sector in both China and India, for both of these developing nations, the overall environmental PSI scores were the lowest compared to all other countries. This fact demonstrates the need for sustainable technology and capital goods in these nations, as already made evident by the relatively low environmental PSI scores received by the companies from these countries. The process of technology transfer has been facilitated through relevant international organizations such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations Development, Programme (UNDP), and the United Nations Industrial Development, Organization (UN1DO)” ibid. The Capital Goods sector offers promise for improving corporate sustainability, especially in the realm of tapping into global opportunities and crossing efficiency frontiers. In addition, the Capital Goods sector is unique in that the corporate sustainability of its companies not only impacts the company’s corporate sustainability, but supply chains as well through the company’s products. This unique attribute of the Capital Goods sector places it in the position to be a leader in corporate sustainability.


Percent of possible points for all companies combined.

Environmental Intent Topics

Capital Goods (Industrial and Farm Equipment)

41.67

52.50 51.00

70.00

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

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


28.78

33.11

13.56

26.45

60.00

23.17

29.78

49.33

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

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 *Methane (CH4)115 *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

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


56.67

32.33

64.44

26.67

58.33

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

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


29.15 28.00

56.21

26.11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

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.


33.3%

33.3%

38.3%

35.0%

36.7%

50.0%

48.3%

51.7%

50.0%

68.3%

80.0%

75.0%

88.3%

36.7%

40.0%

40.0%

43.3%

46.7%

53.3%

56.7%

56.7%

73.3%

73.3%

83.3%

83.3%

93.3%

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

Green purchasing

Report contact person

Biodiversity

Habitat/ecosystemconservation

Environmental accounting

Environmental education

Stakeholder consultation

Environmental impedimentsand challenges

Environmental managementstructure

Climate change/globalwarming

Environmental policystatement

Environmental managementsystem

Environmental visionarystatement


Environmental Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores



1.9 %

1.5 %

5 .2 %

6 .7 %

8 .9 %

11.0 %

17 .1%

13 .3 %

2 0 .5 %

19 .0 %

2 2 .4 %

2 3 .2 %

2 9 .5 %

3 3 .8 %

3 5 .2 %

3 0 .5 %

4 7 .3 %

2 8 .6 %

2 8 .6 %

8 5 .7 %

4 2 .9 %

7 1.4 %

14 .3 %

4 2 .9 %

5 7 .1%

14 .3 %

6 .7 %

10 .7 %

2 0 .0 %

2 0 .0 %

3 1.0 %

3 3 .3 %

4 0 .0 %

4 0 .0 %

4 3 .3 %

4 3 .3 %

5 3 .3 %

6 2 .1%

6 3 .3 %

7 0 .0 %

7 0 .0 %

7 0 .0 %

7 9 .3 %

10 0 .0 %

10 0 .0 %

10 0 .0 %

10 0 .0 %

10 0 .0 %

10 0 .0 %

10 0 .0 %

10 0 .0 %

10 0 .0 %

10 0 .0 %

14 .3 %

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

Waste (office) recycled

Methane (CH4)

Notices of violation (environmental)

Fines (environmental)

Particulate matter (dust)

Waste (hazardous) released to the environment

Environmental expenses and investments

Energy used (renewable)

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)

Waste (hazardous) produced

Nitrogen oxides (NOx)

Waste recycled: solid waste

Energy used (total)

Water used

Waste (solid) disposed of

Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total

Energy used: Logistics

Waste: Packaging materials

Logistics emissions

Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials

Product performance, emissions

Waste water released to natural water bodies

Product performance, fuel efficiency

Product performance, recyclability

Remanufacturing of products

Materials used: Non-returnable packaging


Social Intent Elements of the PSI Scores



16.7%

15.0%

26.7%

28.3%

33.3%

31.7%

56.7%

58.3%

61.7%

55.0%

70.0%

75.0%

83.3%

20.0%

20.0%

33.3%

36.7%

40.0%

40.0%

60.0%

63.3%

66.7%

73.3%

76.7%

83.3%

90.0%

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

Workforce profile: ethnicities/race

Workforce profile: age

Employment for individuals with disabilities

Workforce profile: gender

Social impediments and challenges

Emergency preparedness program

Supplier screening based on social or environmentalperformance/ supplier management

Third-party validation

Social policy statement

Health and safety, or social organizational structure

Employee training for career development

Code of conduct or business ethics

Social visionary statement


Social Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores



3.3%

9.5%

6.7%

10.5%

17.6%

12.4%

20.0%

21.0%

20.5%

17.1%

26.7%

21.9%

25.7%

19.0%

20.0%

32.9%

36.2%

33.8%

39.0%

25.7%

34.3%

60.0%

48.6%

42.9%

28.6%

28.6%

10.0%

20.0%

23.3%

26.7%

30.0%

36.7%

40.0%

43.3%

46.7%

46.7%

50.0%

50.0%

53.3%

53.3%

56.7%

63.3%

63.3%

66.7%

70.0%

73.3%

80.0%

83.3%

86.7%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

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

Health and safety fines

Employee turnover rate

Health and safety citations

Reasonable working hours

Employee satisfaction surveys

Degrading treatment or punishment of employees

Women in management

Sexual harassment

Bribery

Political contributions

Fair compensation of employees

Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor

Anti-corruption practices


Effective abolition of child labor

Lost workday case rate

Employee volunteerism

Recordable incident/accident rate

Community education

Social community investment

Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment andoccupation

Occupational health and safety protection

Community development

Product performance, noise

Product performance, safety

Consumer education program


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 RankingsSchneider ElectricA+Mitsubishi ElectricAKomatsuASamsung Heavy IndustriesA-WärtsiläA-MAN GroupA-Caterpillar Inc.A-VallourecB+KubotaB+Mitsubishi Heavy IndustriesB+NidecB+Sumitomo Electric IndustriesBHyundai Heavy IndustriesBSandvikBLeGrandB-CumminsB-Atlas CopcoB-ABBB-Cooper IndustriesC+WW GraingerC+Bharat Heavy ElectricalsC+Paccar Inc.CParker HannifinC-Schindler HoldingC-EatonC-Illinois Tool WorksD+Deere & CompanyD+Shanghai Electric GroupFFanucFVestas Wind SystemsF

0.0

0.0

3.8

23.1

23.1

26.9

26.9

26.9

38.5

42.3

42.3

46.2

57.7

57.7

57.7

57.7

61.5

65.4

65.4

69.2

73.1

73.1

73.1

76.9

76.9

76.9

80.8

84.6

88.5

92.3

0 25 50 75 100

Vestas W ind Systems

Fanuc


Deere & Company

Illinois Tool W orks

Eaton

Schindler Holding

Parker Hannif in

Paccar Inc.


W W Grainger

Cooper Industries

ABB

Atlas Copco

Cummins

LeGrand

Sandvik



Nidec


Kubota

Vallourec

Caterpillar Inc.

MAN Group

W ärtsilä


Komatsu

Mitsubishi Electric

Schneider Electric


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

WärtsiläA+Mitsubishi ElectricASandvikB+Schneider ElectricB+VallourecB-Sumitomo Electric IndustriesB-KomatsuB-Mitsubishi Heavy IndustriesC+Caterpillar Inc.C+Schindler HoldingC+Hyundai Heavy IndustriesC+ABBCLeGrandCMAN GroupCKubotaCSamsung Heavy IndustriesCAtlas CopcoCCumminsD+Deere & CompanyD+EatonD+Cooper IndustriesD+NidecDWW GraingerDParker HannifinDIllinois Tool WorksDBharat Heavy ElectricalsD-Paccar Inc.FFanucFShanghai Electric GroupFVestas Wind SystemsF

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.96

4.71

8.24

8.24

8.24

11.76

13.33

15.29

16.47

17.65

23.92

25.10

27.06

27.45

27.45

27.84

28.24

30.59

31.37

32.94

34.05

34.51

37.65

43.81

45.88

54.12

61.18

0 25 50 75 100



Fanuc

Paccar Inc.



Parker Hannif in

W W Grainger

Nidec

Cooper Industries

Eaton

Deere & Company

Cummins

Atlas Copco


Kubota

MAN Group

LeGrand

ABB


Schindler Holding

Caterpillar Inc.


Komatsu


Vallourec

Schneider Electric

Sandvik

Mitsubishi Electric

W ärtsilä


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

WärtsiläA+Mitsubishi Heavy IndustriesAABBASchneider ElectricA-VallourecB+Sumitomo Electric IndustriesB+Mitsubishi ElectricB+MAN GroupBLeGrandB-Parker HannifinB-EatonB-WW GraingerC-SandvikC-Schindler HoldingC-KubotaC-Atlas CopcoC-Hyundai Heavy IndustriesC-Caterpillar Inc.C-KomatsuD+NidecD+CumminsD+Samsung Heavy IndustriesD-Cooper IndustriesFPaccar Inc.FFanucFBharat Heavy ElectricalsFShanghai Electric GroupFVestas Wind SystemsFIllinois Tool WorksFDeere & CompanyF

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.002.945.885.887.148.828.828.828.828.828.828.8214.7114.7114.7117.6520.5920.5920.5921.4323.5323.5326.47

0 25 50 75 100

Deere & Company





Fanuc

Paccar Inc.

Cooper Industries


Cummins

Nidec

Komatsu

Caterpillar Inc.


Atlas Copco

Kubota

Schindler Holding

Sandvik

W W Grainger

Eaton

Parker Hannif in

LeGrand

MAN Group

Mitsubishi Electric


Vallourec

Schneider Electric

ABB


W ärtsilä


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 RankingsSchneider ElectricA+LeGrandAMitsubishi ElectricASumitomo Electric IndustriesB+Samsung Heavy IndustriesBKubotaBWW GraingerBWärtsiläB-Atlas CopcoB-KomatsuB-Deere & CompanyB-VallourecC+Caterpillar Inc.C+SandvikC+Parker HannifinC+MAN GroupC+Schindler HoldingC+Bharat Heavy ElectricalsC+Cooper IndustriesC+NidecCHyundai Heavy IndustriesCABBCPaccar Inc.C-CumminsC-EatonC-Mitsubishi Heavy IndustriesC-Illinois Tool WorksD+Shanghai Electric GroupD-FanucFVestas Wind SystemsF

0.000.007.69

23.0834.6234.6234.6234.6238.4638.4638.4642.3146.1546.1546.1546.1546.1550.0050.0053.8557.6957.6957.6961.5465.3865.38

73.0884.6284.62

92.31

0 25 50 75 100


Fanuc




Eaton

Cummins

Paccar Inc.

ABB


Nidec

Cooper Industries


Schindler Holding

MAN Group

Parker Hannif in

Sandvik

Caterpillar Inc.

Vallourec

Deere & Company

Komatsu

Atlas Copco

W ärtsilä

W W Grainger

Kubota



Mitsubishi Electric

LeGrand

Schneider Electric


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

WärtsiläA+KomatsuB+Schneider ElectricBSandvikBABBBMitsubishi ElectricB-LeGrandB-VallourecB-Atlas CopcoB-Illinois Tool WorksB-KubotaC+Deere & CompanyC+Cooper IndustriesC+Caterpillar Inc.C+Sumitomo Electric IndustriesC+Mitsubishi Heavy IndustriesC+MAN GroupCEatonCSamsung Heavy IndustriesCWW GraingerCNidecC-CumminsC-Schindler HoldingD+Bharat Heavy ElectricalsD+Paccar Inc.D+Parker HannifinDHyundai Heavy IndustriesD-Shanghai Electric GroupFFanucFVestas Wind SystemsF

0.000.002.908.129.13

17.3919.5620.29

25.0725.0727.9728.2628.4128.9932.3233.7734.6435.3635.6536.8138.7038.7040.0041.0141.5944.2045.9446.52

52.9570.29

0 25 50 75 100


Fanuc



Parker Hannif in

Paccar Inc.


Schindler Holding

Cummins

Nidec

W W Grainger


Eaton

MAN Group



Caterpillar Inc.

Cooper Industries

Deere & Company

Kubota


Atlas Copco

Vallourec

LeGrand

Mitsubishi Electric

ABB

Sandvik

Schneider Electric

Komatsu

W ärtsilä


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

WärtsiläA+KomatsuB-WW GraingerC+KubotaC+Mitsubishi ElectricCSandvikC-Deere & CompanyC-VallourecC-Schneider ElectricC-Sumitomo Electric IndustriesD+Caterpillar Inc.D+Mitsubishi Heavy IndustriesD+ABBD+Paccar Inc.DCooper IndustriesDLeGrandDNidecDSamsung Heavy IndustriesDSchindler HoldingD-CumminsD-Bharat Heavy ElectricalsD-EatonD-Atlas CopcoD-Parker HannifinFHyundai Heavy IndustriesFMAN GroupFFanucFShanghai Electric GroupFVestas Wind SystemsFIllinois Tool WorksF

0.000.000.000.000.002.172.174.354.354.356.526.528.708.708.708.7010.8713.0413.0415.2215.2217.3917.3919.5719.5721.7426.0926.09

34.6256.52

0 25 50 75 100




Fanuc

MAN Group


Parker Hannif in

Atlas Copco

Eaton


Cummins

Schindler Holding


Nidec

LeGrand

Cooper Industries

Paccar Inc.

ABB


Caterpillar Inc.


Schneider Electric

Vallourec

Deere & Company

Sandvik

Mitsubishi Electric

Kubota

W W Grainger

Komatsu

W ärtsilä


Human Rights Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores


adoption reinforcement monitoring complianceHuman Rights Topics

Percent of companies reporting*

Anti-corruption practices 53.3% 26.7% 6.7% 3.3%

Bribery 46.7% 20.0% 3.3% 3.3%

Degrading treatment or punishment of employees 36.7% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Effective abolition of child labor 56.7% 13.3% 0.0% 0.0%

Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor 50.0% 20.0% 6.7% 0.0%

Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and occupation

80.0% 33.3% 6.7% 0.0%

Fair compensation of employees 50.0% 26.7% 13.3% 3.3%


53.3% 10.0% 3.3% 0.0%

Political contributions 46.7% 13.3% 0.0% 3.3%

Reasonable working hours 26.7% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Sexual harassment 43.3% 26.7% 3.3% 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


China

China

China

Finland

Finland

Finland

France

France

France

Germany

Germany

Germany

India

India

India

Japan

Japan

Japan

South Korea

South Korea

South Korea

Sweden

Sweden

Sweden

Switzerland

Switzerland

Switzerland

USA

USA

USA

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Social

Environmental

Overall

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

Country N

China 1Finland 1France 4Germany 1India 1Japan 7South Korea 2Sweden 2Switzerland 2USA 10


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

Visual Cluster Analysis

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

Wärtsilä

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Mitsubishi Electric

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Sandvik

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Schneider Electric

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Komatsu

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

Kubota

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

ABB

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Caterpillar Inc.

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

LeGrand

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Vallourec

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Atlas Copco

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

MAN Group

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Deere & Company

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

WW Grainger

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Cooper Industries

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Schindler Holding

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Cummins

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Nidec

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Eaton

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

Illinois Tool Works

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

Paccar Inc.

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Parker Hannifin

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

Fanuc

0

2 5

5 0

7 5

1 0 0E R

E P

S P

S R

S I

E I

Vestas Wind Systems

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

ABB 35.47 31800 2900 33680 464601.50 0.46 1.53 1.67

Atlas Copco 31.20Bharat Heavy Electri 16.09 5160 610 8960 252400.71 -0.21 0.95 1.40

Caterpillar Inc. 34.22 32400 900 60040 361401.51 -0.05 1.78 1.56

Cooper Industries 24.69 5070 440 5980 77700.71 -0.36 0.78 0.89

Cummins 22.76 10800 430 8820 118701.03 -0.37 0.95 1.07

Deere & Company 26.25 22800 910 40780 246301.36 -0.04 1.61 1.39

Eaton 21.46 11870 380 16280 116101.07 -0.42 1.21 1.06

Fanuc 0.00 3990 1000 9830 233900.60 0.00 0.99 1.37

Hyundai Heavy Indus 20.10 22040 1810 30360 135301.34 0.26 1.48 1.13

Illinois Tool Works 19.84 13880 950 16080 231601.14 -0.02 1.21 1.36

Komatsu 40.44 20760 810 19570 193601.32 -0.09 1.29 1.29

Kubota 36.35 11370 490 13860 113101.06 -0.31 1.14 1.05

LeGrand 32.76 5130 420 7940 84800.71 -0.38 0.90 0.93

MAN Group 29.58 17230 -390 21550 106501.24 1.33 1.03

Mitsubishi Electric 48.70 37640 120 30400 177901.58 -0.92 1.48 1.25

Mitsubishi Heavy Ind 33.49 34670 250 45730 125301.54 -0.60 1.66 1.10

Nidec 22.76 6300 290 7000 143800.80 -0.54 0.85 1.16

Paccar Inc. 15.07 8090 110 14570 131200.91 -0.96 1.16 1.12

Parker Hannifin 13.28 9150 280 9790 99200.96 -0.55 0.99 1.00

Samsung Heavy Indu 30.26 8570 480 21090 49100.93 -0.32 1.32 0.69

Sandvik 41.20 2020 180 2020 72200.31 -0.74 0.31 0.86

Schindler Holding 23.23 12380 600 6710 95901.09 -0.22 0.83 0.98

Schneider Electric 40.52 22020 1190 34610 280501.34 0.08 1.54 1.45

Shanghai Electric Gr 1.98 8430 370 11910 142400.93 -0.43 1.08 1.15

Sumitomo Electric In 36.93 21790 180 18650 95201.34 -0.74 1.27 0.98

Vallourec 31.46 6410 740 8850 107600.81 -0.13 0.95 1.03

Vallourec 31.46 8900 870 9170 174100.95 -0.06 0.96 1.24

Vestas Wind System 0.00 9510 830 9080 98900.98 -0.08 0.96 1.00

Wärtsilä 63.39 7540 560 6550 47800.88 -0.25 0.82 0.68

WW Grainger 25.36 6220 430 3730 75500.79 -0.37 0.57 0.88

2010 Forbes List Source:


0 .0 0 0 .0 01.9 8

13 .2 815 .0 716 .0 9

19 .8 4 2 0 .102 1.4 6

2 2 .7 62 2 .7 6 2 3 .2 32 4 .6 9 2 5 .3 6 2 6 .2 5

2 9 .5 83 0 .2 63 1.4 6 3 1.4 63 2 .7 6 3 3 .4 93 4 .2 23 5 .4 73 6 .3 5 3 6 .9 3

4 0 .4 44 0 .5 24 1.2 0

4 8 .7 0

6 3 .3 9

R2 = 0.0789

0

10

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Revenue

Over

all P

SI S

core

s

Log10 $M

0 .0 00 .0 01.9 8

13 .2 815 .0 7 16 .0 9

19 .8 4 2 0 .102 1.4 62 2 .7 62 2 .7 6 2 3 .2 32 4 .6 92 5 .3 6 2 6 .2 5

3 0 .2 6 3 1.4 63 1.4 63 2 .7 63 3 .4 9 3 4 .2 2 3 5 .4 73 6 .3 53 6 .9 34 0 .4 4 4 0 .5 24 1.2 0

4 8 .7 0

6 3 .3 9

R2 = 0.0080

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Profits

Over

all P

SI S

core

s

Log10 $M


0 .0 00 .0 01.9 8

13 .2 815 .0 716 .0 9

19 .8 4 2 0 .102 1.4 62 2 .7 62 2 .7 62 3 .2 32 4 .6 92 5 .3 6 2 6 .2 5

2 9 .5 83 0 .2 63 1.4 63 1.4 63 2 .7 6 3 3 .4 9 3 4 .2 23 5 .4 73 6 .3 5 3 6 .9 34 0 .4 4 4 0 .5 24 1.2 0

4 8 .7 0

6 3 .3 9

R2 = 0.0173

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Asset

Over

all P

SI S

core

s

Log10 $M

0 .0 00 .0 01.9 8

13 .2 815 .0 7 16 .0 9

19 .8 42 0 .102 1.4 62 2 .7 62 2 .7 62 3 .2 32 4 .6 92 5 .3 6 2 6 .2 5

2 9 .5 83 0 .2 6 3 1.4 6 3 1.4 63 2 .7 6 3 3 .4 9 3 4 .2 2 3 5 .4 73 6 .3 53 6 .9 34 0 .4 4 4 0 .5 24 1.2 0

4 8 .7 0

6 3 .3 9

R2 = 0.0190

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Market Value

Over

all P

SI S

core

s

Log10 $M


Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported

Explicit Goals Most Frequently Reported

1

1

2

2

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

5

6

6

7

9

11

1

0 5 10 15 20 25

Cummins


Deere & Company

Atlas Copco


Kubota

Nidec

Wärtsilä

Eaton

Vallourec


Schneider Electric

Sandvik

Komatsu

LeGrand

Caterpillar Inc.

Mitsubishi Electric


Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total1 15

Lost workday case rate2 8

Waste (solid) disposed of3 7

Recordable incident/accident rate4 7

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)5 6

Energy used (total)6 5

Energy used (renewable)7 4


Number of Topics Showing Performance Improvement over Previous Year Data

Topics Most Frequently Reported as Having Improvements over previous year data

1

2

2

2

3

4

4

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

8

8

8

8

9

9

10

14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30


Cooper Industries

Deere & Company

Nidec


Atlas Copco

Cummins

MAN Group

LeGrand

Sandvik

Vallourec

Parker Hannifin

Komatsu

Eaton

Caterpillar Inc.

WW Grainger

ABB

Schneider Electric

Mitsubishi Electric


Kubota


Wärtsilä

Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total1 16Water used2 13Energy used (total)3 12Lost workday case rate4 12Occupational health and safety protection5 11Recordable incident/accident rate6 11Waste recycled: solid waste7 9Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)8 7Waste (solid) disposed of9 7Waste (hazardous) produced10 7Nitrogen oxides (NOx)11 4Environmental expenses and investments12 3Community development13 3Community education14 3Employee satisfaction surveys15 3Women in management16 2


Waste (hazardous) released to the environment17 2Employee volunteerism18 2Social community investment19 2Particulate matter (dust)20 2Employee turnover rate21 2Product performance, emissions22 1Health and safety citations23 1Logistics emissions24 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

3

3

3

4

0 1 2 3 4 5

Vallourec

Schneider Electric

Mitsubishi Electric

MAN Group

LeGrand

Kubota


Eaton


Wärtsilä

Komatsu

ABB

Schindler Holding


ABB

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

ABB Group does a decent job of reporting its sustainability practices through its Sustainability Performance Report and web pages. The company covers all of the standard environmental policy statements but often fails to provide examples of how its plans to implement these policies. For example, with regard to the environmental management system, there is mention of the adoption of the ISO 14001 but no details about its implementation within the company. ABB does a good job with quantitative data by information about energy use, waste disposal of and even nitrogen oxide emissions. However, it states that much the data is estimated so it is difficult to know if the company has improved performance from previous years. In addition, the company should work to lower the number of employee injuries to demonstrate that they it is a safe place to work. For social sustainability reporting, the company provides the basic policies against discrimination and child labor but it should go into more detail to show that these polices are implemented and enforced to protect workers’ rights.

S53%

E4 7 %

ABB Group 2009 Sustainability Performance Report and 2011 Web Pages

Comparison with sector averages Source of points

B-

Bukola Jimoh

Eric Robert King

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

ABB

58

28 2438 44

13

Analyst(s):

Environmental Intent

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Accountability 4 Excellent3 75

Management 8 Needs improvement3 38

Policy 10 Good7 70

Vision 4 Good2 50

Environmental Reporting

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Emissions to Air 35 Needs improvement13 37

Energy 14 Needs improvement4 29

Management 21 Needs substantial improvement1 5

Materials Usage 7 Needs improvement2 29

Recycling 14 Needs substantial improvement0 0

Waste 21 Needs improvement8 38

Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent

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


Policy 6 Good4 67

Social Demographic 2 Needs substantial improvement0 0

Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Human Rights 77 Needs improvement20 26

Management 7 Good4 57

Qualitative Social 35 Needs improvement15 43

Quantitative Social 42 Needs improvement13 31


Atlas Copco

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Atlas Copco does a decent job of reporting its sustainability practices through its Sustainability Report, Sustainable Productivity Report and web pages; stating its basic environmental polices and explaining how it will implement them in a clear concise manner. Atlas Copco thoroughly reports quantitative performance data, including energy use and greenhouse gasses. Additionally, its explanation of the measures taken to decrease greenhouse gas emissions is impressive. A problem of its reporting is that the graphs do not give the exact data values of each data set; one can only see that they are in between a range of fifty. The company should include these exact values on the graph. Also it would do well to include more information about its specific emissions, and the specific types of waste produced. For social sustainability reporting, the company provides basic policies against discrimination, but it should go into more detail to show that these polices are implemented and enforced to protect workers’ rights.

S55%

E4 5 %

Atlas Copco Sustainable Productivity Report, 2009 Sustainability Report, Business Code of Practices and 2011 Web Pages


C+

Erin Franks

Eric Robert King



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Atlas Copco

58

249

58

39

4

Analyst(s):


Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Accountability 4 Good2 50


Policy 10 Good6 60

Vision 4 Good2 50


Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Emissions to Air 35 Needs substantial improvement3 9




Recycling 14 Needs improvement5 36

Waste 21 Needs substantial improvement1 5

Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent



Policy 6 Excellent6 100

Social Demographic 2 Good1 50

Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting

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






0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Although quantitative reporting by Bharat Heavy Electricals is limited, the company participates in various progressive initiatives. These include medical camps, efforts to eradicate child labor, village adoptions, and acting in accordance with the UN Global Compact. But while the company does not report its own energy consumption, it is engaged in the development of sustainable technologies for its customers.

S65%

E3 5 %

Bharat Heavy Electricals 2011 Web Pages


D+

Erin Franks

Ashley Scott



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Bharat HeavyElectricals

42

5 0

46

204

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Needs improvement4 40

Vision 4 Good2 50



Energy 14 Needs substantial improvement2 14


Materials Usage 7 Needs substantial improvement0 0



Water 7 Needs substantial improvement0 0

Social Intent



Policy 6 Good4 67

Social Demographic 2 Excellent2 100

Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting




Quantitative Social 42 Needs substantial improvement5 12


Caterpillar Inc.

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Caterpillar provides substantial information in its 2009 Sustainability Report and web pages; however, much of the information reported and does not demonstrate transparency in its environmental and social initiatives. There is little quantitative data to substantiate Caterpillar’s environmental initiatives. When provided, the data is reported in the form of percentages of an unknown initial amount. It is notable that Caterpillar reports a commitment to sending zero waste to landfills. Additionally, Caterpillar manufactures machines that utilize methane gas released into the air from areas such as landfills with decomposing waste. Yet, the company does not report using these machines in its production process.••Social responsibility is emphasized at Caterpillar. Caterpillar demonstrates a clear commitment to reducing its recordable incident rate, as well as it lost time case frequency rate. Additionally, Caterpillar emphasizes the importance of community development by encouraging employees to volunteer by offering awards such as the Chairman’s Community Service Awards.

S48%

E5 2 %

Caterpillar 2009 Sustainability Report and 2011 Web Pages


C+

Erin Franks

Hilary Haskell



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Caterpillar Inc.

77

319

5035

15

Analyst(s):



Management 8 Excellent6 75


Vision 4 Excellent4 100








Water 7 Good5 71

Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Cooper Industries

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Cooper Industries provides a 2009 Corporate Social Sustainability Report, Code of Conduct, and information on its 2011 web pages to demonstrate environmental and social responsibility. Cooper Industries recently started considering the environmental impacts of its operations. Now, the company is attaining baseline values for future evaluation of environmental performance. These areas include waste disposal, water usage, and greenhouse gas emissions. However, Cooper Industries’ recycling efforts were never mentioned in the report at all, and there was no indication that recycling efforts would be considered in the future. A notable effort reported by the company is its commitment to providing renewable energy products and services to its consumers.Cooper Industries’ commitment to occupational health and safety is evident in its decreasing recordable incident and lost workday case trends. The company invested in community development in the past, but contributed considerably less in 2009.

S65%

E3 5 %

Cooper Industries 2009 Corporate Social Sustainability Report, Code of Conduct, and 2011 Web Pages


C

Karen de Wolski

Karen de Wolski



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Cooper Industries

46

130

42 35

9

Analyst(s):














Social Intent






Social Reporting






Cummins

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Cummins’ webpages suggest it is clearly dedicated to not only sustainability but to ethical business practices as well. The extensive questions and answer section in the Business Code of Conduct models the company’s dedication to these ethical business practices. For both ethics and sustainability, the company gives examples and qualitative information of how its decisions have been implemented. •Much of this information, however, is unclear about many of its sustainable practices. The company focuses too much on its business practices and does not focus enough on sustainability. A great deal of extraneous information must be sifted through to find the meaningful sustainability information. Much of the 115 page report is dedicated to the efforts of the company’s individual operations rather than focusing on the business practices of the company as a whole. Additionally, very little quantitative sustainability information is given. There is no mention of energy use and emissions other than carbon dioxide. The environmental report could be greatly improved by balancing the given environmental and ethics data and providing more quantitative information.

S50%

E5 0 %

Cummins 2010 Sustainability Report, Code of Business Conduct, and 2011 Web Pages


C-

Erin Franks

Sam Kahr



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Cummins

58

186

3525

7

Analyst(s):













Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Deere & Company

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Deere & Co.’s 2009-2010 Citizenship Summary Report and 2011 Web Pages demonstrate a lack of commitment to environmental sustainability. The Citizen Summary Report is only 6 pages long and no past reports are provided. Deere & Co. does claim to be committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but there is no reporting of how this is being done, only that Deere & Co. is a part of the U.S. EPA Climate Leader’s Program. It is in the process of developing a sustainable system for woody biomass-fueled power generation, there is no reporting about the use of renewable energy. Quantitative data is only provided for waste and greenhouse gas emissions. The data given for waste and greenhouse gas emission are in the unit kilograms per metric ton of production, but the total amount produced is not provided. There is also no sustainability contact provided. In order to achieve greater transparency, Deere & Co. needs to provide more quantitative data and more specific initiatives instead of brief general descriptions of visions. For example, they have an environmental policy, but it is not adequately explained. • Deere & Co. does show a strong commitment to social responsibility through its Citizenship Summary Report, 2009 Business Conduct Guidelines, and 2011 Web Pages. Incident rates and lost workdays are quantitatively reported, but reporting of fines or citations is missing.

S71%

E2 9 %

Deere & Co 2009-2010 Citizen Summary Report, 2009 Business Conduct Guidelines, 2011 Web Pages


C

Bukola Jimoh

Simone Berkovitz



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Deere & Company23 16

0

54

3620

Analyst(s):


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



Vision 4 Needs improvement1 25









Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Eaton

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

In its 2009 Sustainability Report, Eaton states that it is “helping to create a more sustainable world.” Yet, Eaton’s failure to report much quantitative data along with mediocre reporting of environmental intent does not support its visionary statement. Quantitative reporting on topics such as waste and emissions would improve Eaton’s score greatly. •Socially, Eaton’s performance is stronger with ample reporting of its human rights practices along with thorough reporting of certain pieces of qualitative data such as community investment. Reporting on fines and violations will help improve Eaton’s score in the social categories.

S58%

E4 2 %

Eaton 2009 Annual Report, Ethics Guide, and 2011 Web Pages


C-

Karen de Wolski

Jordan Lieberman



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Eaton

27

15 15

3528

4

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Needs substantial improvement2 20









Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent



Policy 6 Good4 67


Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting



Qualitative Social 35 Needs substantial improvement2 6



Fanuc

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Fanuc fails to report its commitment to corporate sustainability. There is no information provided regarding its environmental or social efforts.

S1%E

1%

Fanuc 2011 Web Pages


F

Karen de Wolski

Hilary Haskell



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Fanuc0 0 0 0 0 0

Analyst(s):





Vision 4 Needs substantial improvement0 0









Social Intent






Social Reporting







0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

For the largest shipbuilding company in the world, Hyundai Heavy Industries has a relatively limited environmental report. The small, but concise, 35 page Toward a Sustainable Future environmental report includes relevant qualitative information but provides little quantitative data. The sustainability report includes little information on the company’s social policy and vision. Additionally, the Code of Conduct consists only of a bulleted list and does not elaborate at all on the social integrity of the company’s policy. There is also no report contact for the environmental report. By adding additional qualitative information to the Code of Conduct and quantitative information to the environmental report, both could be improved.

S26%

E7 4 %

Hyundai Heavy Industries 2010 Environmental Report and 2011 Web Pages


C-

Erin Franks

Sam Kahr



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Hyundai HeavyIndustries

65

289

38

8 2

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Good7 70

Vision 4 Good2 50








Water 7 Needs improvement2 29

Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Illinois Tool Works

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Illinois Tool Works (ITW) is relatively new when it comes to corporate sustainability reporting and consequently, it has much room for improvement. In 2009, ITW initiated a web-based data collection site designed to measure the amount of electricity, natural gas, oil, and propane consumption as a way to determine greenhouse gas emissions. Once ITW obtains this baseline data, it can proceed to set reduction targets to lessen its environmental impact. However, this information has not yet been released. •Although the Go Green Initiatives program was responsible for multiple lighting retrofit projects, it currently addresses energy consumption only. ITW is in the process of implementing a formal sustainability program which also incorporates a waste management and recycling program. Despite participating in the Carbon Disclosure Project for the past five years and reporting an annual increase in scores, ITW provides no quantitative data to back up its claim. Similarly, ITW reports reducing its Toxic Release Inventory based air emission by 30 percent from 2004 through 2008; however, there is no concrete data indicating the total amount produced each year. •ITW’s commitment to social responsibility is reflected by the level of support it lends to a number of charitable organizations. The ITW Foundation provides financial support to several non-profit organizations seeking to enhance the local community.

S75%

E2 5 %

Illinois Tool Works 2009 Corporate Social Responsibility Report, Code of Ethics, Statement of Principles of Conduct, and 2011 Web Pages


C-

Bukola Jimoh

Daniel Olmsted



EI ER EP SI SR SP


23

80

23

39

0

Analyst(s):














Social Intent






Social Reporting






Komatsu

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Komatsu’s 2010 Environmental and Social Report: Global Teamwork demonstrated strong corporate sustainability reporting through inclusion of flow charts detailed with quantitative data. Additionally, Komatsu effectively reported the management systems responsible for overseeing its global environmental impact. Thorough reporting of Komatsu’s environmental accounting and a clear awareness of issues pertinent to the environmental intent aspect of corporate sustainability reporting enhanced Komatsu’s report. One area of potential improvement that Komatsu might consider in future reports is the geographic completeness of quantitative data reported. Although Komatsu included significant amounts of quantitative data, much of the quantitative data was specific to domestic business operations. Seeing as Komatsu is a multinational corporation, only reporting domestic quantitative data is an incomplete description of the company’s environmental and social impacts. As such, points could not be awarded for quantitative data of this nature, and including geographically complete quantitative data could improve future reports.

S60%

E4 0 %

Komatsu CSR 2011


B

Karen de Wolski

Michael Handler Shoemaker



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Komatsu

85

347

58 5335

Analyst(s):











Products 21 Needs improvement9 43




Social Intent



Policy 6 Good4 67


Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Human Rights 77 Good46 60


Qualitative Social 56 Good29 52



Kubota

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Kubota is a tractor corporation that demonstrates global social investments and environmental concern. Kubota reports its environmental consciousness through its efforts to conserve and protect wildlife habitats. It has recently proposed a Medium-Term Environmental Conservation plan to set goals and initiatives towards environmental preservation and reduction of greenhouse gasses. Kubota began an initiative to reduce chemical substances in products and eliminate PRTR designated substances. To combat global water issues, Kubota has developed new iron pipes for water services and has contributed to global improvement of water resources. Its social investments are evident in its natural disaster relief funds, community development and education, and global support for extracurricular activities and sports in schools. It is thorough in its Material Safety Data Sheets for products and customer safety guidelines and has implemented a management team to address accidents and employee safety. Kubota adheres to the Universal Declaration of human rights reporting.

S55%

E4 5 %

Kubota 2011 Web Pages


B-

Erin Franks

Jaclyn T. D'Arcy



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Kubota

73

279

6537

26

Analyst(s):













Water 7 Good5 71

Social Intent



Policy 6 Good4 67



Social Reporting



Qualitative Social 35 Excellent28 80



LeGrand

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

The various documents provided by LeGrand, including its webpages, charters, 2009 Reference Document, 2009-2010 LeGrand and Sustainable Development document, and 2010 Registration Document, demonstrate the company’s dedication to reporting its environmental and social impact. LeGrand presents a significant amount of detailed information on social sustainability. For example, it provides the breakdown of its employee population by age and gender. It also reports a program for hiring persons with disabilities. Employee satisfaction is ensured through periodic employee reviews of managers. Additionally, the report presents both current and past year accident rates. LeGrand shows a commitment to the community in the regions where it operates by contributing to programs such as “Electricians Without Borders.” LeGrand provides less information on environmental sustainability. Current year quantitative data on energy used, waste disposed of, waste produced, waste released, water used, and GHG emissions are mentioned. LeGrand has shown initiative in maintaining an extensive supplier screening program. LeGrand presents its sustainability information in many documents and charters, mostly titled with words uncommon to the sustainability words, such as Registration Document, which makes finding sustainability information much harder for those not familiar with the company. Plus, much of the information is repetitive. For example, the Environmental Charter is included in the Fundamental Principles Charter and much of the information presented in the 2009-2010 LeGrand and Sustainable Development document is also presented in the 2009 Reference Document. It would be more efficient to organize all the relevant information LeGrand presents as a single document to avoid such repetition of information and to increase overall accessibility.

S57%

E4 3 %

LeGrand 2011 Webpages, Environmental, Prevention, Fair Competition, and Fundamental Principles Charters, 2009 Reference Document, 2009-2010 LeGrand and Sustainable Development Document, 2010 Registration Document, and 2011 Web Pages


B-

Erin Franks

Alan Hu



EI ER EP SI SR SP

LeGrand

58

2715

85

41

9

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Good7 70










Social Intent






Social Reporting






MAN Group

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

The MAN group publishes a CR Strategy Report and Code of Conduct each year. The CR Strategy report is a short summary of the company’s progress, initiatives, and goals with respect to environmental and social impact. It contains no quantitative data. Under the Corporate Responsibility section of its website, MAN publishes some quantitative data in graphical displays. However, no concrete values are given for various points on the graphs; rather the reader can see only general trends from year to year and is left to speculate about the actual values of the data points. •MAN is very thorough in the publication of its responsibility goals for both short-term and long-term initiatives. One of the company’s goals is to publish a full length corporate responsibility report at the conclusion of 2011 that includes quantitative data and more in-depth information and to continue to publish one such report at the conclusion of each subsequent year. A more detailed report will help increase the level of transparency with which the company relays information to the public and further cement its reputation as a responsible corporation. •The Code of Conduct MAN publishes is quite lengthy and includes multiple scenarios that offer employees instruction in what to do when a branch of the company’s ethical standard is violated. While these scenarios offer concrete advice, the Code of Conduct lacks statements regarding employee compensation, reasonable working hours, degrading treatment of employees, and the elimination of forced labor. In addition, the code does not offer any information about how it is reinforced, how the company monitors potentially unethical situations or any quantitative indication of how well, or poorly, the code is followed by MAN employees. Moreover, MAN does not publish any information regarding the profile of its workforce with respect to age, gender or race. It would be beneficial to the company to publish these workforce profiles in the more complete corporate responsibility report to offer concrete evidence that it is abiding by its non-discrimination pledge.

S42%

E5 8 %

MAN 2010 CR Strategy, 2010 Code of Conduct, and 2011 Web Pages


C+

Bukola Jimoh

Elizabeth Duckworth



EI ER EP SI SR SP

MAN Group

77

27 18

4629

0

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Good6 60









Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent



Policy 6 Good4 67


Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Mitsubishi Electric

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Mitsubishi Electric demonstrates transparency by providing reports that are detailed and address almost all the aspects of the PSI. Through the twenty page, 2021 Environmental Vision, Mitsubishi Electric demonstrates clear plans in environmental sustainability in the company’s future. The vision is divided into three sections -preventing global warming, recycling, and social responsibility- each of which are investigated and future solutions are presented. Mitsubishi Electric is not only investing in energy efficiency devices, but they are also investing in photovoltaic systems. Mitsubishi not only demonstrates environmental awareness within the company, but also ensures that suppliers must follow the “Green Accreditation Guidelines” which is discussed in detail in a ten page report. One flaw is that Mitsubishi Electric fails to identify a specific contact person to answer questions regarding reporting, but questions are encouraged via a form on the website. • Mitsubishi Electric demonstrates a commitment to social responsibility as well, but there is less data and emphasis compared to the environmental aspects addressed. A Social Responsibility Policy is provided and data for accident rates is also given. Various volunteer and community development projects, in which the company spent 550 million yen, are also described in detail.

S45%

E5 5 %

Mitsubishi Electric 2021 Environmental Vision, 2010 CSR Policy, 2010 Green Accreditation Guidelines, 2011 Web Pages


B+

Bukola Jimoh

Simone Berkovitz



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Mitsubishi Electric

88

54

21

85

4222

Analyst(s):








Energy 14 Good7 50



Recycling 14 Good9 64

Waste 21 Good11 52

Water 7 Good5 71

Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting







0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) 2010 Corporate Social Responsibility report presents relatively detailed social and environmental sustainability information including data on energy use, solid waste recycled and disposed of, water use, greenhouse gas emissions, organochloride emissions, and accident rate. MHI only presents hazardous waste release data for 2009; easy points can be earned if information from previous years were published as well. The report includes a well-developed environmental accounting section that is broken down into detailed segments. While Mitsubishi Corporation presents an online Code of Conduct, neither Mitsubishi Heavy Industries nor its parent Mitsubishi Group has a Code of Conduct. MHI presents interesting third-party opinions in its CSR report, but does not have any actual third-party validation of its report.

S42%

E5 8 %

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 2011 Web Pages


C+

Erin Franks

Alan Hu



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Mitsubishi HeavyIndustries

73

33 24 35 3213

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Good7 70









Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent






Social Reporting






Nidec

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Nidec did a good job in stating its environmental and social policies on its website. Its Code of Conduct provided crucial information about the company’s anti-discrimination and anti-corruption policies. However, Nidec did not have a corporate sustainability report listed on its website. It would be useful for the company to create such a report that had information on its energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and workforce data.

S53%

E4 7 %

Nidec Code of Conduct and 2011 Web Pages


C-

Bukola Jimoh

Sachi Singh



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Nidec

69

12 6

3825

9

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Good7 70

Vision 4 Good2 50









Social Intent



Policy 6 Good4 67


Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Paccar Inc.

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Paccar has a formal policy of closely adhering to current environmental laws and regulations in all aspects of its operations. Paccar also states that its “global leadership includes addressing the environmental challenges facing our own and future generations” but does not discuss the reasons behind this commitment or the environmental challenges facing this and the next generation. Paccar does reason that, “it is more environmentally prudent and cost effective to identify a problem before it occurs, than to connect or clean it up afterwards.” ••The context behind the decisions Paccar makes are not frequently nor explicitly given throughout Paccar’s web pages and 2009 annual report. Paccar does not provide data on any aspects of its energy and water usage nor the emissions and wastes that the company releases. Paccar has a commitment to its employees which it displays by agreeing to abide by all U.S. labor laws and regulations, but it does not explicitly elaborate on these laws and regulations in the context of the company operations.

S69%

E3 1%

Paccar 2009 Annual Report and 2011 Web Pages


D+

Carolyn Campbell

Danielle L. Manning



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Paccar Inc.

38

2 0

35

1711

Analyst(s):














Social Intent



Policy 6 Good3 50



Social Reporting






Parker Hannifin

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Parker-Hannifin’s unclearly conveys its commitment to environmental and social responsibility through its Environment, Health, and Safety Policy and web pages. Much of the information provided is only a brief discussion of the issue, or lacks transparency. Parker-Hannifin bases its environmental performance report off of only two areas: energy use and per unit of sales employee injury rate. The company only provides substantiating quantitative data for per unit of sales employee injury rate. There is quantitative data for energy use, but it is presented as a percent reduction of an unknown initial amount. Other indicators of performance are considered, but they are not reported. Furthermore, Parker-Hannifin omitted the performance indicators of recycling rate, industrial waste, and a compliance index because the company found these areas to be of inconsequential importance or no longer germane to its performance. Parker -Hannifin does not include a Code of Conduct, and thus considerably lacks indication of social responsibility. Also, there are no explicit examples of the company’s philanthropic initiatives. A notable aspect of Parker-Hannifin’s sustainability efforts is its creation of a Renewable Energy Team that researches and develops renewable energy projects.

S49%

E5 1%

Parker-Hannifin Environmental, Health, and Safety Policy and 2011 Web Pages


D+

Carolyn Campbell

Hilary Haskell



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Parker Hannifin

27

8 15

46

92

Analyst(s):





Vision 4 Good2 50









Social Intent



Policy 6 Good4 67


Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting







0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Samsung Heavy Industries did a great job in discussing stainability and how they've worked toward maintaining the global welfare of both people and the environment, but that is where they stopped. Their reporting was purely qualitative, with 0 environmental or social numbers to show for their efforts. If their claims of environmental and social stainability being a main concern are actually true, then they should have no issues with releasing a report that corroborates that story. As one of the largest shipping companies in the world, they had some conscientious distinguishable features that set them apart from other firms in the industry, and releasing a comprehensive report could help them immensely. The most deficient part of their reporting was in their employee relations. There was virtually no mention of minority, women, or disabled worker policies, no mention of employee-employer relations, employee turnover, etc. To start they would be benefitted by releasing a workplace profile of their employees, and build from there.

S49%

E5 1%

Samsung Heavy Industries 2011 Web Pages


C+

Karen de Wolski

Quentin Jones



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Samsung HeavyIndustries

81

253

65

289

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Good7 70










Social Intent






Social Reporting






Sandvik

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Sandvik touched upon most topics in its environmental and social reporting. The company aims to train all employees in environmental and social responsibility and business ethics. By 2009, 84% of employees had received this training. Sandvik is a member of the FTSE4Good Index, DJSI World, and DJSI STOXX. Where the company operates in Africa, it is implementing HIV/AIDS education and alleviation programs. However, the topic of recycling was mostly ignored. In addition, nearly all qualitative and quantitative measures could be greatly improved by increasing the depth of provided information.

S50%

E5 0 %

Sandvik 2009 Sustainability Report and 2011 Web Pages


B

Karen de Wolski

Ashley Scott



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Sandvik

6246

9

46 4620

Analyst(s):












Waste 21 Good11 52

Water 7 Good5 71

Social Intent



Policy 6 Good4 67



Social Reporting






Schindler Holding

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

The Schindler Group does a decent job of reporting its environmental sustainability practices on its web pages, but could improve significantly by creating a comprehensive sustainability report. The web pages have basic environmental policies but there is no mention of anything specific such as policies on biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. In addition, the company has a lot of quantitative data on energy used, waste produced and greenhouse gas emissions. However, there is not enough detail about what the company is doing to reduce these numbers. Also, many of these categories do not show improvement from the previous year and the Schindler Group does not explain the reason for these increases. For social sustainability reporting, there is no information about basic ethics and human rights policies such as sexual harassment and bribery. The company could improve by expanding its code of conduct, discussing more topics and better organizing its sustainability information.

S45%

E5 5 %

Schindler Group 2011 Code of Conduct and 2011 Web Pages


C-

Erin Franks

Eric Robert King



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Schindler Holding

27 31

9

46

207

Analyst(s):





Vision 4 Good2 50





Materials Usage 7 Excellent6 86




Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Schneider Electric

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Schneider Electric’s 2010 Business and Sustainable Development Report outlines its energy production system, detailing its goals for efficiency, safety, renewable sources, and access to communities in need. Schneider Electric has a thoroughly presented environmental policy statement, and is clearly committed to reducing its own carbon footprint. The company has global goals as well, such as increasing renewable energy use. Schneider takes part in achieving these larger goals through participation in the Copenhagen Climate Change discussions and partnering in the Masdar’s carbon neutral project in the Middle East. •Schneider Electric has a priority of allowing energy access to low income societies through its “base of the pyramid” program, helping them to reach their potential with innovation and education opportunities. Employees of the company are increasingly satisfied and receive substantial training for electrical career development. Workplace safety is of high value at Schneider Electric. •Schneider Electric’s Business and Sustainable Development report does not cover much of the quantitative data and the code of ethics that we score, however, this information are available in its 2010 Annual Report. The whole second chapter of the company’s annual report discusses sustainable development topics, down to the quantifications of indicators monitored by the company, including GRI topics which is also verified by third party. Overall, Schnneider-Electric presents an excellent, highly commendable sustainable reporting, absolutely one of the best in Capital Good sector.

S48%

E5 2 %

Schneider Electric 2010 Business and Sustainable Development Report and 2011 Web Pages


B+

Karen de Wolski

Whitney Ellen Dawson



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Schneider Electric

92

4421

92

47

17

Analyst(s):







Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Emissions to Air 14 Good10 71

Energy 14 Good7 50





Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent






Social Reporting







0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Shanghai Electric Company does not provide any evidence demonstrating its commitment to environmental or social responsibility on its web pages.

S81%

E19 %

Shanghai Electric Company 2011 Web Pages


F

Erin Franks

Alan Hu



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Shanghai ElectricGroup

4

0 0

8

30

Analyst(s):














Social Intent






Social Reporting







0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

As seen through Sumitomo’s 2010 CSR report, the company is dedicated to its socially and environmentally sustainable operations. The amount of transparency the company offers should be applauded, for the company discusses a large portion of the topics included in the Pacific Sustainability Index through its five foci: relationships with global environment, relationships with customers, relationships with suppliers, relationships with employees, and relationships with society. The company has a clear environmental and social visionary and policy statement that it adheres to through various initiatives, including environmental education for its employees, screening of suppliers based on environmental awareness, and community involvement through its SEI Group CSR Foundation. Additionally, Sumitomo provides quantitative figures sowing the stride s it has taken towards strengthening its dedication to maintaining an environmentally friendly corporation. It reports that its energy usage and waste generation have both steadily declined over the past few years.•While the company provides strong evidence of its adherence to its social and environmental commitments, there is certainly room for improvement of its CSR report. For instance, Sumitomo Electric fails to disclose any information about environmental expense and fines or information about health and safety fines and citations. Moreover, while the company states its strong stance against sexual harassment and anti-corruption practices, the CSR does not include a Code o Conduct that outlines company regulations regarding topics like political contributions, bribery, and forced labor. Thus it is advised that the company quantify fines incurred from environmental and social infractions, and included a detailed Code o Conduct in its CSR report.

S49%

E5 1%

Sumitomo Electric 2011 Web Pages


B-

Erin Franks

Michael Handler Shoemaker



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Sumitomo ElectricIndustries

65

35 21

73

3415

Analyst(s):













Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent






Social Reporting






Vallourec

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Vallourec has a well-outlined sustainable development management structure. The multi-disciplinary Continuous Improvement Teams were established to address health, safety, and environmental issues. In addition, the Company restores mining area landscapes. However, Vallourec provides minimal quantitative environmental data. Vallourec could further improve its transparency by reporting social initiatives and information regarding social and environmental infractions and fines in more depth.

S47%

E5 3 %

Vallourec 2010 Sustainability Report and 2011 Web pages


B-

Bukola Jimoh

Ashley Scott



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Vallourec

73

3821

50 4017

Analyst(s):








Energy 14 Good10 71




Waste 21 Good15 71

Water 7 Good5 71

Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Vestas Wind Systems

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E S1%E

1%

Vestas Wind Systems 2010 Sustainability Report and 2011 Web Pages


FBukola Jimoh

Gracie Beck



EI ER EP SI SR SP

Vestas W indSystems

0 0 0 0 0 0

Analyst(s):














Social Intent






Social Reporting






Wärtsilä

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

Wartsila’s devotion to environmental sustainability is apparent in its environmental management system and its policies outlined in the 2010 Annual Report, Code of Conduct, and 2011 web pages. Wartsila’s products help other companies to develop and maintain environmentally conscious production processes and facilities, but it also ensures that its own processes have minimal impacts on the environment. This is achieved through a clear environmental policy and management structure. Wartsila also has a very detailed report of its business practices, particularly communication with shareholders and the use of a Code of Conduct to prevent harmful behavior such as bribery, fraud, and degrading punishment of employees. • Wartsila’s report lacks information about its efforts in ecosystem conservation. The company includes data regarding how much it invests in the community, but provides few details about how that money is specifically spent. • Wartsila emphasizes that environmental impact is considered strongly in its business procedures. While the report and web pages are extensive, more information regarding community involvement and workforce profile could be included.

S54%

E4 6 %

Wartsila 2010 Annual Report, Code of Conduct, and 2011 Web Pages


A+

Karen de Wolski

Hilary Haskell



EI ER EP SI SR SP

W ärtsilä

7761

26

58 7057

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Good6 60



Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Emissions to Air 35 Good21 60

Energy 14 Good7 50


Materials Usage 7 Excellent6 86



Water 7 Good4 57

Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting

Question Category Max Score General CommentScore %Human Rights 77 Good44 57



Quantitative Social 42 Good26 62


WW Grainger

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

SSA

SESA

E

WW Grainger has partnered with many environmental organizations to further its commitment to environmental protection and conservation. It has partnered with US Green Building, ENERGY STAR, and Water Sense. Grainger has LEED certified facilities that have decreased energy costs by 30%, water usage by 35%-50%, and waste by 90%. The cleaning management switched to using green cleaning products. Grainger is EPA SmartWay certified; carriers, shippers, and logistic companies deliver products in a more environmentally responsible manner. One hundred percent of its electronic equipment is now recycled and diverted from landfills. Grainger also uses FSC paper to print its catalogs. Grainger is a socially responsible company as well. It has a matching charitable gifts program and donates $2500 annually. In 2009, Grainger donated $16 million in money and products. Its partnership with the Red Cross enabled Grainger to donate $6 million in cash, products, and employee volunteerism. Employee volunteers are trained and have responded to more than 24 natural disasters worldwide. The Grainger Tools for Tomorrow Scholarship program dedicated time and resources to educating students and employees in skill trade jobs and technical education. Grainger needs to report energy used, emissions, and waste produced. More information on human rights reporting is also necessary.

S69%

E3 1%

WW Grainger 2011 Web Pages


C

Bukola Jimoh

Jaclyn T. D'Arcy



EI ER EP SI SR SP

W W Grainger42

8 9

62

28 26

Analyst(s):




Policy 10 Good6 60

Vision 4 Good2 50









Social Intent





Vision 4 Good2 50

Social Reporting






Capital Goods: Industrial and Farm Equipment

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#:






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

30


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




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

32


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




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

34


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




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

35


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




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

37


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




Water usedSum of all water used during operations.

29


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:






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




Methane (CH4)Methane (CH4) released to air.

115


Goal Pg#:Quant Pg#:




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

121


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#:




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#:




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




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





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.

ABB, Atlas Copco, Bharat Heavy Electricals, Caterpillar Inc., Cooper I n d u s t r i e s , C u m m i n s , D e e r e & Company, Eaton, Fanuc, Hyundai Heavy Industries, Illinois Tool Works, Komatsu, Kubota, LeGrand, MAN Group, Mitsubishi Electric, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Nidec, Paccar Inc., Parker Hannifin, Samsung Heavy Industries, Sandvik, Schindler Holding, Schneider Electric, Shanghai Electric Group, Sumitomo Electric Industries, Vallourec, Vestas Wind Systems, W ä r t s i l ä , a n d W W G r a i n g e r

ABB, Atlas Copco, Bharat Heavy Electricals, Caterpillar Inc., … · 2019. 4. 2. · ABB, Atlas...

Documents

Transcript of ABB, Atlas Copco, Bharat Heavy Electricals, Caterpillar Inc., … · 2019. 4. 2. · ABB, Atlas...