A.P. Moller-Maersk, ABN AMRO Holding, Air France

Comments

Transcription

A.P. Moller-Maersk, ABN AMRO Holding, Air France
A.P. Moller-Maersk, ABN AMRO
Holding, Air France-KLM, All Nippon
Airways, British Airways, Cathay
2012 Sustainability Reporting
Pacific
Airways,
Central
Japan
Railway,
of the World’s Largest Transportation Logistics Companies
China Cosco Holdings, Continental
Airlines, Delta Airlines, Deutsche Post
DHL, East Japan Railway, FedEx,
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Kühne & Nagel
Intl, Lufthansa Group, Mitsui OSK
Lines, Nippon Express, Nippon Yusen
Kaisha (NYK), Qantas Airways,
Singapore Airlines, STX Corp, TNT,
Tokyu, Union Pacific, United Airlines,
United Parcel Service, US Airways
Group, West Japan Railway, and
Y a m a t o
H o l d i n g s .
Pacific Sustainability Index Scores: A benchmarking tool for online sustainability reporƟng
J.Emil Morhardt, ElgeriƩe Adidjaja, Taryn Akiyama, RaƟk Asokan, Simone Berkovitz, Quinn Chasan,
Whitney Ellen Dawson, Erin Franks, Sierra Gibson, Karina Gomez, Hilary Haskell, Nicholas Hobbs, Alan
Hu, Sam Kahr, Somaiah Kambiranda, Helen Liu, Damini Marwaha, Stephanie Oehler, Katherine Recinos,
Chad Redman, Megan Smith, Lucas Van Houten, Stephanie Wolfe, and Grant Yang.
Contents
Topics
Company Rankings
PSI Overview
PSI Scoring in a Nutshell
Environmental Intent Topics
Environmental Reporting Topics
Social Intent Topics
Social Reporting Topics
Environmental Intent Element of the PSI Scores
Environmental Reporting Element of the PSI
Scores
Social Intent Element of the PSI Scores
Social Reporting Element of the PSI Scores
Environmental Intent Scores Ranking
Environmental Reporting Scores Ranking
Environmental Performance Scores Ranking
Social Intent Scores Ranking
Social Reporting Scores Ranking
Social Performance Scores Ranking
Human Rights Reporting Element
Performance by Country
Visual Cluster Analysis
Relationship Between PSI Scores and Financial
Variables
Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported
Number of Topics Showing Performance
Improvement over Previous Year Data
Number of Topics in which Performance was
Better than Sector Average
Analyst’s Comments, alphabetically listed by
company name
Appendix: PSI Questionnaire
Page
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.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Industrial Sector**
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
Banks, Insurance
Chemicals
60
Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow
(909) 621-8698
([email protected])
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Entertainment
Federal Agencies
Food Services
X
X
X
X
X
General Merchandiser
X
Homebuilders
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X*
X*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Petroleum & Refining
X
Pharmaceuticals
X
Scientific, Photo, & Control
Equipment
Telecommunications, Network, &
Peripherals
Transportation
X
X
Municipalities
Oil and Gas Equipment
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
2
0
1
2
X
X
Motor Vehicle & Parts
Questions should be addressed to:
2
0
1
1
X
Household, Apparel, & Personal
Products
Industrial & Farm Equipment
Mail, Freight, & Shipping
Medical Products & Equipment
Metals
Mining, Crude Oil
30
2
0
1
0
X
Forest & Paper Products
29
2
0
0
9
X
X
Energy & Utilities
26
27
2
0
0
8
X
Colleges/Universities
Computer, Office Equipment, &
Services
Conglomerates
Food & Beverages
Electronics & Semiconductors
2
0
0
7
X
Aerospace & Defense
Airlines
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2
0
0
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* Multiple-sector category was separated in later years.
Departmental Secretaries: (909) 621-8298
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
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Sustainability Reporting of Worlds' Largest
Transportation and Logistics Companies
Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Reporting
Company Rankings
Overall Grade
65.15
United Parc el Servic e
63.64
Deutsc he Post DHL
A+
United Parcel Service (USA)
A+
Deutsche Post DHL (Germany)
A
TNT (Netherlands)
A
Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK) (Japan)
TNT
58.46
A-
Mitsui OSK Lines (Japan)
Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK)
58.30
A-
Air France-KLM (France)
A-
United Airlines (USA)
A-
British Airways (U.K.)
A-
A.P. Moller-Maersk (Denmark)
A-
Delta Airlines (USA)
B+
East Japan Railway (Japan)
Mitsui OSK Lines
56.39
Air Franc e- KLM
56.12
53.03
United Airlines
British Airways
52.91
B+
Qantas Airways (Australia)
A.P. Moller- Maersk
52.73
B
ABN AMRO Holding (Netherlands)
B
FedEx (USA)
B-
Lufthansa Group (Germany)
B-
Cathay Pacific Airways (China)
B-
Nippon Express (Japan)
C+
Union Pacific (USA)
C
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (Japan)
C-
Kühne & Nagel Intl (Switzerland)
C-
All Nippon Airways (Japan)
C-
Singapore Airlines (Singapore)
C-
West Japan Railway (Japan)
D
US Airways Group (USA)
D
Tokyu (Japan)
D
Yamato Holdings (Japan)
D
Central Japan Railway (Japan)
F
China Cosco Holdings (China)
F
STX Corp (South Korea)
52.48
Delta Airlines
47.70
East Japan Railway
46.67
Qantas Airways
ABN AMRO Holding
44.55
FedEx
44.42
39.58
Lufthansa Group
38.91
Cathay Pac ific Airways
36.73
Nippon Express
30.18
Union Pac ific
29.15
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha
24.24
Kühne & Nagel Intl
All Nippon Airways
23.70
Singapore Airlines
23.39
19.88
West Japan Railway
US Airways Group
13.52
Tokyu
13.09
Yamato Holdings
9.82
Central Japan Railway
9.21
China Cosc o Holdings
0.73
STX Corp
0.00
0
25
50
75
100
This report is an analysis of the voluntary environmental and social reporting of companies on the 2010 Forbes Transportation and
Logistics 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.
Analysis Period:
1/24/2012 through 7/31/2012
Draft sector report available for review:
8/13/2012 through 9/14/2012
www.roberts.cmc.edu
3
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) Overview
the PSI Scoring System
The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) uses two systematic questionnaires to analyze the quality of the
sustainability reporting—a base questionnaire for reports across sectors and a sector-specific
questionnaire for companies within the same sector. The selection of questions is based on, and
periodically adjusted to, the most frequently-mentioned topics in over 1,900 corporate sustainability reports
analyzed from 2002 through 2009 at the Roberts Environmental Center.
The Roberts Environmental Center
The Roberts Environmental Center is an environmental research institute at Claremont McKenna College
(CMC). Its mission is to provide students of all the Claremont Colleges with a comprehensive and realistic
understanding of today’s environmental issues and the ways in which they are being and can be resolved-beyond the confines of traditional academic disciplines and curriculum--and to identify, publicize, and
encourage policies and practices that achieve economic and social goals in the most environmentally
benign and protective manner. The Center is partially funded by an endowment from George R. Roberts
(Founding Partner of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and CMC alumnus),
other grants and gifts, and is staffed by faculty and students from the
Claremont Colleges.
Methodology
Student analysts download relevant English language web pages from
the main corporate website for analysis. Our scoring excludes data
independently stored outside the main corporate website or available
only in hard copy. When a corporate subsidiary has its own
sustainability reporting, partial credit is given to the parent company
when a direct link is provided in the main corporate website. We archive these web pages as PDF files for
future reference. Our analysts use a keyword search function to search reporting of specific topics, they fill
out a PSI scoring sheet (http://www.roberts.cmc.edu/PSI/scoringsheet.asp), and track the coverage and
depths of different sustainability issues mentioned in all online materials.
Scores and Ranks
When they are finished scoring, the analysts enter their scoring results into the PSI database. The PSI
database calculates scores and publishes them on the Center’s website. This sector report provides an indepth 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+.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
4
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
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
www.roberts.cmc.edu
5
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Transportation and Logistics
Environmental Intent Topics
Percent of possible points for all companies combined.
Two possible points for each topic:
Accountability
79.31
80
4
19
Management
65.52
70
* Report contact person
* Environmental management structure
60
16
20
21
23
50
Policy
61.21
58.62
9
10
11
12
13
40
30
* Environmental education
* Environmental management system
* Environmental accounting
* Stakeholder consultation
* Environmental policy statement
* Climate change/global warming
* Habitat/ecosystem conservation
* Biodiversity
* Green purchasing
Vision
5
6
20
* Environmental visionary statement
* Environmental impediments and challenges
Vision
Policy
Management
0
Accountability
10
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sectorspecific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
6
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Transportation and Logistics
Environmental Reporting Topics
Seven possible points for each topic:
Emissions to Air
Percent of possible points for all companies combined.
83
* Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total
Energy
80
77.93
26
27
* Energy used (total)
* Renewable energy used
Management
70
38
39
60
40
* Notices of violation (environmental)
* Environmental expenses and investments
* Fines (environmental)
Recycling
30
50
32
* Waste recycled: solid waste
* Waste (office) recycled
41.48
41.03
Waste
40
34
31.03
35
37
30
24.37
* Waste (hazardous) released to the environment
Water
29
20
* Waste (solid) disposed of
* Waste (hazardous) produced
* Water used
14.71
10
Water
Waste
Recycling
Management
Energy
Emissions to Air
0
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sectorspecific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
7
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Transportation and Logistics
Social Intent Topics
Two possible points for each topic:
Percent of possible points for all companies combined.
68.39
70
Accountability
51
68.10
54
60
* Health and safety, or social organizational
*
structure
Third-party validation
Management
55.52
53.45
17
18
50
52
44.83
53
82
40
* Workforce profile: ethnicities/race
* Workforce profile: gender
* Workforce profile: age
* Emergency preparedness program
* Employee training for career development
Policy
45
30
47
49
* Social policy statement
* Code of conduct or business ethics
* Supplier screening based on social or
environmental performance/ supplier
management
20
Social Demographic
10
80
* Employment for individuals with disabilities
42
Vision
Social Demographic
Policy
Management
Accountability
Vision
0
43
* Social visionary statement
* Social impediments and challenges
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sectorspecific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
8
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Transportation and Logistics
Social Reporting Topics
Seven possible points for each topic:
Human Rights
Percent of possible points for all companies combined.
1
7
80
8
72.41
58
70
59
60
* Sexual harassment
* Political contributions
* Bribery
* Anti-corruption practices
* Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
* Elimination of discrimination in respect to
employment and occupation
60
51.72
61
* Free association and collective bargaining of
employees
50
62
40
63
37.24
* Fair compensation of employees
* Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory
labor
64
30
65
24.48
* Reasonable working hours
* Effective abolition of child labor
Management
20
2
* Women in management
Qualitative Social
10
66
68
Quantitative Social
Qualitative Social
Management
Human Rights
67
0
70
72
* Community development
* Employee satisfaction surveys
* Community education
* Occupational health and safety protection
* Employee volunteerism
Quantitative Social
3
74
75
76
77
81
* Employee turnover rate
* Recordable incident/accident rate
* Lost workday case rate
* Health and safety citations
* Health and safety fines
* Social community investment
Notes:
* These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PSI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sectorspecific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
9
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Transportation and Logistics
Environmental Intent Elements of the PSI Scores
Environmental visionary
statement
96.6%
96.6%
Environmental policy
statement
89.7%
81.0%
Climate change/global
warming
86.2%
82.8%
Environmental management
structure
79.3%
60.3%
75.9%
72.4%
Stakeholder consultation
Environmental education
72.4%
69.0%
Environmental management
system
72.4%
69.0%
Environmental impediments
and challenges
65.5%
62.1%
Green purchasing
65.5%
58.6%
Report contact person
65.5%
56.9%
58.6%
56.9%
Habitat/ecosystem
conservation
51.7%
48.3%
Biodiversity
48.3%
34.5%
Environmental accounting
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
= 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.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
10
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Transportation and Logistics
Environmental Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
Greenhouse gases (or CO2
equivalents), total
86.2%
55.7%
75.9%
Energy used (total)
36.5%
72.4%
Waste recycled: solid waste
29.6%
66.7%
Water used
29.6%
58.6%
Waste (solid) disposed of
27.6%
55.2%
Renewable energy used
22.2%
55.2%
Waste (hazardous) produced
20.2%
48.3%
Waste (office) recycled
14 . 8 %
Environmental expenses and
investments
27.6%
11. 3 %
2 4 . 1%
Fines (environmental)
10 . 3 %
Notices of violation
(environmental)
Waste (hazardous) released to
the environment
20.7%
9.9%
13 . 8 %
4.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
= 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.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
11
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Transportation and Logistics
Social Intent Elements of the PSI Scores
89.7%
87.9%
Social visionary statement
Employee training for career development
79.3%
79.3%
Supplier screening based on social or environmental
performance/ supplier management
79.3%
70.7%
75.9%
69.0%
Code of conduct or business ethics
75.9%
Health and safety, or social organizational structure
53.4%
Emergency preparedness program
72.4%
62.1%
Social policy statement
72.4%
65.5%
69.0%
60.3%
Workforce profile: gender
65.5%
53.4%
Third-party validation
Social impediments and challenges
51.7%
48.3%
Workforce profile: ethnicities/race
51.7%
43.1%
Employment for individuals with disabilities
48.3%
44.8%
Workforce profile: age
48.3%
32.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
= 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.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
12
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Transportation and Logistics
Social Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
86.2%
Community development
60.1%
Employee volunteerism
53.7%
75.9%
64.5%
Occupational health and safety protection
72.4%
Community education
45.8%
Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and
occupation
43.8%
41.9%
62.1%
Recordable incident/accident rate
34.0%
Bribery
37.9%
28.6%
Sexual harassment
29.6%
51.7%
Lost workday case rate
51.7%
24.1%
48.3%
36.9%
Women in management
Free association and collective bargaining of employees
27.6%
48.3%
44.8%
34.5%
Employee satisfaction surveys
37.9%
23.6%
Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor
Employee turnover rate
15.3%
34.5%
Political contributions
34.5%
21.2%
Fair compensation of employees
34.5%
20.2%
Reasonable working hours
31.0%
14.8%
Effective abolition of child labor
31.0%
21.7%
Health and safety fines
58.6%
58.6%
Social community investment
Health and safety citations
72.4%
69.0%
Anti-corruption practices
Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
75.9%
27.6%
10.3%
20.7%
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0%
10% 20%
30% 40%
50% 60%
70% 80%
90% 100%
= 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.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
13
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
EI Score Rankings
Environmental Intent Scores
British Airways
Mitsui OSK Lines
East Japan Railway
A+
British Airways
96.2
A+
Mitsui OSK Lines
96.2
A+
East Japan Railway
96.2
A+
A
Nippon Express
Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK)
A
Deutsche Post DHL
Air France-KLM
United Parcel Service
92.3
Nippon Express
Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK)
88.5
A
A
Deutsche Post DHL
88.5
A-
Qantas Airways
A-
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha
AA-
United Airlines
Cathay Pacific Airways
80.8
A-
ABN AMRO Holding
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha
80.8
AB+
A.P. Moller-Maersk
TNT
United Airlines
80.8
B+
Lufthansa Group
B+
Union Pacific
B+
B
Delta Airlines
Singapore Airlines
B
All Nippon Airways
FedEx
West Japan Railway
84.6
Air France-KLM
84.6
United Parcel Service
Qantas Airways
Cathay Pacific Airways
76.9
ABN AMRO Holding
76.9
A.P. Moller-Maersk
76.9
T NT
73.1
B
C+
Lufthansa Group
73.1
C+
Kühne & Nagel Intl
C
Central Japan Railway
CD+
US Airways Group
Yamato Holdings
D
Tokyu
DF
China Cosco Holdings
STX Corp
Union Pacific
69.2
Delta Airlines
69.2
Singapore Airlines
61.5
All Nippon Airways
61.5
FedEx
61.5
W est Japan Railway
50.0
46.2
Kühne & Nagel Intl
42.3
Central Japan Railway
US Airways Group
30.8
26.9
Yamato Holdings
T okyu
19.2
China Cosco Holdings 7.7
ST X Corp 0.0
0
25
50
75
100
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.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
14
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
ER Score Rankings
Environmental Reporting Scores
65.00
East Japan Railway
50.00
United Parcel Service
A+
East Japan Railway
B+
United Parcel Service
United Airlines
Delta Airlines
United Airlines
48.33
B+
B+
Delta Airlines
48.33
B
Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK)
B
B-
Air France-KLM
FedEx
B-
ABN AMRO Holding
B-
Mitsui OSK Lines
Cathay Pacific Airways
A.P. Moller-Maersk
45.00
Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK)
45.00
Air France-KLM
40.00
FedEx
ABN AMRO Holding
36.67
Mitsui OSK Lines
36.36
C+
C+
Cathay Pacific Airways
35.00
C+
Deutsche Post DHL
A.P. Moller-Maersk
33.33
C+
C+
Singapore Airlines
TNT
Deutsche Post DHL
33.33
C+
West Japan Railway
Singapore Airlines
31.67
C+
Nippon Express
T NT
30.91
W est Japan Railway
30.00
C
C
British Airways
Qantas Airways
C-
Union Pacific
Nippon Express
30.00
British Airways
28.33
CD+
US Airways Group
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha
D+
All Nippon Airways
D+
Kühne & Nagel Intl
Central Japan Railway
Lufthansa Group
25.00
Qantas Airways
23.33
Union Pacific
US Airways Group
20.00
D
D
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha
18.33
D-
Yamato Holdings
All Nippon Airways
18.33
Kühne & Nagel Intl
16.67
F
F
Tokyu
STX Corp
F
China Cosco Holdings
Central Japan Railway 8.33
Lufthansa Group 8.33
Yamato Holdings 3.33
T okyu 1.67
ST X Corp 0.00
China Cosco Holdings 0.00
0
25
50
75
100
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.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
15
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Environmental Performance Scores
EP Score Rankings
29.17
Delta Airlines
25.00
Air France-KLM
A+
Delta Airlines
A-
Air France-KLM
B+
East Japan Railway
TNT
Mitsui OSK Lines
T NT
18.18
BB-
Mitsui OSK Lines
18.18
B-
Qantas Airways
Qantas Airways
16.67
United Airlines
16.67
BB-
United Airlines
United Parcel Service
United Parcel Service
16.67
C
British Airways
C
Kühne & Nagel Intl
All Nippon Airways
ABN AMRO Holding
20.83
East Japan Railway
British Airways
12.50
Kühne & Nagel Intl
12.50
C
C
All Nippon Airways
12.50
C
FedEx
ABN AMRO Holding
12.50
FedEx
12.50
D+
D+
Singapore Airlines
Cathay Pacific Airways
Singapore Airlines 8.33
D+
Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK)
Cathay Pacific Airways 8.33
D+
Deutsche Post DHL
D
D
Yamato Holdings
Union Pacific
D
Nippon Express
D
F
A.P. Moller-Maersk
US Airways Group
F
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha
F
STX Corp
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha 0.00
F
F
West Japan Railway
Tokyu
ST X Corp 0.00
F
Central Japan Railway
W est Japan Railway 0.00
F
F
China Cosco Holdings
Lufthansa Group
Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK) 8.33
Deutsche Post DHL 8.33
Yamato Holdings 4.17
Union Pacific 4.17
Nippon Express 4.17
A.P. Moller-Maersk 4.17
US Airways Group 0.00
T okyu 0.00
Central Japan Railway 0.00
China Cosco Holdings 0.00
Lufthansa Group 0.00
0
25
50
75
100
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.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
16
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
SI Score Rankings
Social Intent Scores
Air France-KLM
Deutsche Post DHL
88.46
A+
A+
Air France-KLM
Deutsche Post DHL
88.46
A
United Parcel Service
Union Pacific
Nippon Express
Union Pacific
80.77
A
A
Nippon Express
80.77
A
Mitsui OSK Lines
80.77
A-
Qantas Airways
AA-
TNT
United Airlines
A-
Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK)
East Japan Railway
Delta Airlines
84.62
United Parcel Service
Mitsui OSK Lines
Qantas Airways
76.92
T NT
76.92
United Airlines
76.92
Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK)
76.92
AA-
East Japan Railway
76.92
A-
A.P. Moller-Maersk
Delta Airlines
76.92
A-
Lufthansa Group
A.P. Moller-Maersk
76.92
B+
B+
Cathay Pacific Airways
British Airways
B+
ABN AMRO Holding
B
B-
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha
FedEx
B-
All Nippon Airways
C+
West Japan Railway
C+
C
Kühne & Nagel Intl
Singapore Airlines
C-
US Airways Group
CC-
Yamato Holdings
Tokyu
73.08
Lufthansa Group
69.23
Cathay Pacific Airways
65.38
British Airways
ABN AMRO Holding
65.38
57.69
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha
53.85
FedEx
50.00
All Nippon Airways
W est Japan Railway
46.15
Kühne & Nagel Intl
46.15
34.62
Singapore Airlines
US Airways Group
30.77
D+
Central Japan Railway
Yamato Holdings
30.77
F
STX Corp
T okyu
30.77
F
China Cosco Holdings
23.08
Central Japan Railway
ST X Corp 0.00
China Cosco Holdings 0.00
0
25
50
75
100
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.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
17
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
SR Score Rankings
Social Reporting Scores
74.78
Deutsche Post DHL
72.32
United Parcel Service
69.13
T NT
66.38
Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK)
63.48
A.P. Moller-Maersk
British Airways
59.56
56.52
Mitsui OSK Lines
55.94
Air France-KLM
53.77
Lufthansa Group
Delta Airlines
51.59
Qantas Airways
49.85
United Airlines
48.55
44.49
FedEx
39.56
ABN AMRO Holding
A+
Deutsche Post DHL
A+
A
United Parcel Service
TNT
A
Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK)
AA-
A.P. Moller-Maersk
British Airways
B+
Mitsui OSK Lines
B+
Air France-KLM
B+
B
Lufthansa Group
Delta Airlines
B
Qantas Airways
B
B-
United Airlines
FedEx
C+
ABN AMRO Holding
C+
Cathay Pacific Airways
Nippon Express
East Japan Railway
Nippon Express
30.43
C
C
East Japan Railway
29.71
C-
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha
CD+
Kühne & Nagel Intl
Union Pacific
D+
All Nippon Airways
D+
Tokyu
D
D-
Singapore Airlines
West Japan Railway
D-
US Airways Group
DF
Yamato Holdings
Central Japan Railway
Yamato Holdings 6.96
F
STX Corp
Central Japan Railway 2.90
F
China Cosco Holdings
34.78
Cathay Pacific Airways
25.36
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha
24.93
Kühne & Nagel Intl
21.74
Union Pacific
19.27
All Nippon Airways
17.39
T okyu
14.20
Singapore Airlines
W est Japan Railway 9.28
US Airways Group 7.97
ST X Corp 0.00
China Cosco Holdings 0.00
0
25
50
75
100
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.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
18
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
SP Score Rankings
Social Performance Scores
A+
Deutsche Post DHL
A-
United Parcel Service
34.78
B+
B+
TNT
United Airlines
34.78
B+
British Airways
Mitsui OSK Lines
ABN AMRO Holding
45.65
Deutsche Post DHL
39.13
United Parcel Service
T NT
United Airlines
British Airways
32.61
Mitsui OSK Lines
32.61
B+
B+
ABN AMRO Holding
32.61
B
FedEx
B-
Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK)
BC+
Air France-KLM
Qantas Airways
C+
Delta Airlines
C+
C
A.P. Moller-Maersk
East Japan Railway
D+
Cathay Pacific Airways
D
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha
D
D
Union Pacific
Lufthansa Group
Union Pacific 8.70
D-
Singapore Airlines
Lufthansa Group 8.70
Singapore Airlines 4.35
DD-
Tokyu
Nippon Express
T okyu 4.35
D-
Yamato Holdings
D-
West Japan Railway
DF
Kühne & Nagel Intl
US Airways Group
F
STX Corp
US Airways Group 0.00
F
F
All Nippon Airways
Central Japan Railway
ST X Corp 0.00
F
China Cosco Holdings
30.43
FedEx
Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK)
26.09
Air France-KLM
26.09
23.91
Qantas Airways
23.91
Delta Airlines
23.91
A.P. Moller-Maersk
17.39
East Japan Railway
13.04
Cathay Pacific Airways
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha 8.70
Nippon Express 4.35
Yamato Holdings 2.17
W est Japan Railway 2.17
Kühne & Nagel Intl 2.17
All Nippon Airways 0.00
Central Japan Railway 0.00
China Cosco Holdings 0.00
0
25
50
75
100
Social performance scores are based on improvement, performance better than the sector average, or statements of
compliance with established social standards.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
19
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Transportation and Logistics
Human Rights Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores
Percent of companies reporting*
Human Rights Topics
adoption
reinforcement
monitoring
69.0%
37.9%
34.5%
0.0%
58.6%
34.5%
34.5%
0.0%
Anti-corruption practices
Bribery
Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
Effective abolition of child labor
Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor
Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment
and occupation
Fair compensation of employees
Free association and collective bargaining of
employees
Political contributions
Reasonable working hours
Sexual harassment
compliance
27.6%
3.4%
3.4%
0.0%
31.0%
20.7%
20.7%
0.0%
37.9%
20.7%
20.7%
0.0%
72.4%
34.5%
41.4%
0.0%
34.5%
17.2%
17.2%
0.0%
48.3%
20.7%
24.1%
0.0%
34.5%
24.1%
13.8%
0.0%
27.6%
10.3%
13.8%
0.0%
51.7%
34.5%
17.2%
0.0%
Basis of Scores
Adoption
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.
Reinforcement
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.
Monitoring
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.
Compliance
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.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
20
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Transportation and Logistics
Average Overall, Environmental, and Social PSI Scores Performance
by Country
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.
USA
U.K.
Switzerland
South Korea
Singapore
Overall
Netherlands
Japan
Germany
France
Denmark
China
Country
N
Australia
Australia
1
USA
U.K.
Switzerland
2
Denmark
1
France
Germany
1
2
Japan
10
Singapore
Netherlands
Singapore
2
1
Netherlands
South Korea
1
Japan
Switzerland
1
Germany
U.K.
USA
1
6
South Korea
Environmental
China
France
Denmark
China
Australia
USA
U.K.
Switzerland
South Korea
Singapore
Social
Netherlands
Japan
Germany
France
Denmark
China
Australia
0
www.roberts.cmc.edu
10
20
30
40
50
21
60
70
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Visual Cluster Analysis
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.
EI = Environmental Intent, ER = Environmental Reporting, EP = Environmental Performance
SI = Social Intent, SR = Social Reporting, SP = Social Performance
ER
EI
ER
100
100
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
EI
EP
50
EI
50
EP
EI
50
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
SP
SI
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
Deutsche Post DHL
SI
SR
TNT
ER
SP
SR
Nippon Yusen
Kaisha (NYK)
ER
Mitsui OSK Lines
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
EP
EI
25
0
SI
50
SI
SR
ER
SP
SI
SR
EI
SI
SP
SR
Delta Airlines
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
EP
50
EI
50
EP
EI
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SI
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
East Japan Railway
SI
SR
Qantas Airways
ER
SP
ER
SP
SI
SR
ABN AMRO Holding
SP
Lufthansa Group
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
EP
50
EI
50
EP
EI
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SI
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
Cathay Pacific
Airways
SI
SR
Nippon Express
ER
SP
ER
SP
SI
SR
Union Pacific
SP
Kühne & Nagel Intl
ER
ER
100
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
75
50
EP
EI
50
EP
EI
EP
50
EI
50
EP
EI
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
SI
SP
SI
SR
SP
SI
SR
All Nippon Airways
SI
SR
Singapore Airlines
ER
SP
ER
SP
SR
West Japan Railway
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
EP
EI
25
EP
EI
25
0
SI
50
SR
Yamato Holdings
www.roberts.cmc.edu
SI
EI
25
0
SP
EP
50
SR
Central Japan
Railway
Tokyu
50
EP
25
0
SP
SP
ER
100
50
SI
EP
SR
US Airways Group
ER
EP
SR
Kawasaki Kisen
Kaisha
ER
EP
SR
FedEx
ER
EP
0
SP
A.P. Moller-Maersk
ER
50
25
SR
British Airways
ER
EP
0
SI
United Airlines
50
25
0
SP
SR
Air France-KLM
EI
25
0
SP
EP
50
EP
SP
100
25
EI
EP
25
0
ER
EI
50
25
SR
EI
ER
100
75
United Parcel
Service
EI
ER
100
75
SI
EI
ER
100
0
SI
SP
SR
China Cosco
Holdings
22
SI
SP
SR
STX Corp
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Relationships Between Overall PSI Score and Companies' Revenue and Profit
Company Name
Overall
Score
Revenue
($million)
Revenue
Log10 $M
Profits
Profits
($million) Log $M
10
Assets Assets
($million) Log $M
10
Market
Value
($million)
Market
Value
Log10 $M
A.P. Moller-Maersk
ABN AMRO Holding
52.73
44.55
48700
1.69
-1320
66490
1.82
33770
1.53
19920
1.30
-1470
25440
1.41
3130
0.50
Air France-KLM
56.12
31540
1.50
-1070
37130
1.57
3970
0.60
All Nippon Airways
British Airways
23.70
52.91
14300
1.16
-40
17000
1.23
7540
0.88
12640
1.10
-530
15030
1.18
3660
0.56
Cathay Pacific Airwa
Central Japan Railw
38.91
9.21
11170
1.05
-1100
14800
1.17
7350
0.87
16130
1.21
1290
0.11
51030
1.71
16070
1.21
China Cosco Holding
0.73
19210
1.28
1710
0.23
16950
1.23
17850
1.25
Delta Airlines
Deutsche Post DHL
52.48
63.64
28060
1.45
-1240
43540
1.64
10340
1.01
66290
1.82
920
-0.04
49840
1.70
19690
1.29
East Japan Railway
47.70
27700
1.44
1920
0.28
67930
1.83
27430
1.44
FedEx
Kawasaki Kisen Kais
44.42
29.15
32590
1.51
-250
24590
1.39
26850
1.43
12780
1.11
330
-0.48
9730
0.99
2270
0.36
Kühne & Nagel Intl
24.24
13240
1.12
430
-0.37
5730
0.76
10980
1.04
Lufthansa Group
Mitsui OSK Lines
39.58
56.39
31100
1.49
-160
31270
1.50
6850
0.84
19160
1.28
1300
0.11
18240
1.26
7730
0.89
Nippon Express
Nippon Yusen Kaish
36.73
58.30
18780
1.27
160
-0.80
11870
1.07
4390
0.64
24960
1.40
580
-0.24
20650
1.31
6110
0.79
Qantas Airways
46.67
11740
1.07
90
-1.05
16210
1.21
5330
0.73
Singapore Airlines
STX Corp
23.39
0.00
10510
1.02
700
-0.15
16330
1.21
12620
1.10
13040
1.12
10
-2.00
18340
1.26
740
-0.13
TNT
58.46
14330
1.16
390
-0.41
11030
1.04
9630
0.98
Tokyu
Union Pacific
13.09
30.18
13390
1.13
110
-0.96
20270
1.31
5390
0.73
14140
1.15
1900
0.28
42410
1.63
34210
1.53
United Airlines
53.03
16340
1.21
-650
18350
1.26
3010
0.48
United Parcel Servic
US Airways Group
65.15
13.52
45300
1.66
2150
0.33
31880
1.50
58430
1.77
10460
1.02
-210
7450
0.87
1240
0.09
West Japan Railway
19.88
13100
1.12
560
-0.25
23650
1.37
6990
0.84
9.82
12860
1.11
260
-0.59
8650
0.94
6190
0.79
Yamato Holdings
Source:
www.roberts.cmc.edu
23
2010 Forbes List
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
70
6 5 .15
60
5 8 .4 6
5 8 .3 0
5 6 .3 9
5 2 .9 1
6 3 .6 4
5 6 .12
5 3 .0 3
5 2 .7 3
5 2 .4 8
Overall PSI Scores
50
4 7 .7 0
4 6 .6 7
4 4 .5 5
40
4 4 .4 2
3 9 .5 8
3 8 .9 1
3 6 .7 3
30
3 0 .18
2 9 .15
2
R = 0.3561
2 3 .3 9 2 4 2.234.7 0
20
19 .8 8
13 .5 2
10
13 .0 9
9 .8 2
0
0 .0 0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
9 .2 1
0 .7 3
1. 2
1. 4
1. 6
1. 8
2
Revenue
Log10 $M
70
6 5 . 15
63.64
60
58.46 58.30
56.39
50
47.70
Overall PSI Scores
46.67
40
36.73
3 0 . 18
30
2 9 . 15
24.24
23.39
2
R = 0.1287
19 . 820
8
13 . 0 9
9.82
-2
9.21
0.73
0
0.00
- 2.5
10
- 1.5
-1
- 0.5
0
0.5
Profits
Log10 $M
www.roberts.cmc.edu
24
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
70
6 5 . 15
60
58.46
58.30
56.39
63.64
5 6 . 12
5 2 . 9 15 3 . 0 3
52.73
52.48
Overall PSI Scores
50
47.70
46.67
4444. 4. 525
40
39.58
38.91
36.73
30
3 0 . 18
2
2 9 . 15
R = 0.1244
24.24
2233. 3. 790
20
19 . 8 8
13 . 5 2
10
13 . 0 9
9.82
9.21
0.7
03
.00
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Asset
Log10 $M
70
6 5 . 15
63.64
60
58.30
58.46
56.39
5 6 . 12
5 3 . 0532 . 9 1
52.73
52.48
50
47.70
Overall PSI Scores
46.67
44.55
44.42
40
3 93 .85.89 1
36.73
30
2 9 . 15
23.70
20
2 4 .2234. 3 9
19 . 8 8
13 . 5 2
13 . 0 9
9.82
10
9.21
0.73
0 .00 0
- 0.5
3 0 . 18
2
R = 0.0916
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Market Value
Log10 $M
www.roberts.cmc.edu
25
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported
Mitsui OSK Lines
Air France-KLM
British Airways
East Japan Railway
United Parcel Service
Qantas Airways
8
5
5
5
4
3
3
Deutsche Post DHL
FedEx
United Airlines
TNT
Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK)
2
2
2
2
Nippon Express 2
Kühne & Nagel Intl 2
A.P. Moller-Maersk 2
Delta Airlines 2
Lufthansa Group 1
Yamato Holdings 1
Central Japan Railway
Cathay Pacific Airways
ABN AMRO Holding
US Airways Group
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha
1
1
1
1
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Explicit Goals Most Frequently Reported
1
Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total
2
Energy used (total)
6
3
Social community investment
5
4
Recordable incident/accident rate
5
5
Waste recycled: solid waste
5
6
Renewable energy used
4
7
Waste (solid) disposed of
3
www.roberts.cmc.edu
17
26
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Number of Topics Showing Performance Improvement over Previous Year Data
Mitsui OSK Lines
11
Air France-KLM
10
United Parcel Service
8
TNT
8
FedEx
8
Deutsche Post DHL
8
Delta Airlines
8
East Japan Railway
7
Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK)
7
Qantas Airways
7
British Airways
6
United Airlines
6
ABN AMRO Holding
6
Cathay Pacific Airways
3
All Nippon Airways
3
Union Pacific
3
Kühne & Nagel Intl
3
A.P. Moller-Maersk
2
Singapore Airlines
2
Yamato Holdings 1
Nippon Express 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Topics Most Frequently Reported as Having Improvements over previous year data
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total
Occupational health and safety protection
Water used
Recordable incident/accident rate
Energy used (total)
Women in management
Social community investment
Lost workday case rate
Waste recycled: solid waste
Renewable energy used
Employee volunteerism
Waste (solid) disposed of
Employee satisfaction surveys
Waste (hazardous) produced
Community development
Notices of violation (environmental)
www.roberts.cmc.edu
14
11
9
8
8
7
6
6
6
6
5
5
4
4
4
4
27
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
17
18
19
20
21
22
Community education
Waste (office) recycled
Fines (environmental)
Employee turnover rate
Environmental expenses and investments
Waste (hazardous) released to the environment
www.roberts.cmc.edu
3
2
2
2
1
1
28
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Number of Topics in which Performance was Better than Sector Average*
Delta Airlines
3
ABN AMRO Holding
2
Air France-KLM
2
Singapore Airlines
2
United Parcel Service
2
Cathay Pacific Airways
1
Deutsche Post DHL
1
East Japan Railway
1
FedEx
1
Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK)
1
TNT
1
United Airlines
1
0
1
2
3
4
*Sector averages are calculated from the materials scored for this report.
www.roberts.cmc.edu
29
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
A-
AP Moller Maersk 2011 CSR, Code of Conduct, and
2012 Web Pages
A.P. Moller-Maersk
Maersk has a strong stated commitment to sustainable environmental and social practices as a means to long-term economic development and growth.
The company is one of 55 worldwide participants in the UN Global Compact LEAD program, focused on achieving the highest levels of corporate
sustainability on both local and global levels. Due to the company’s nature as a conglomerate involved with shipping, production, oil, and retail, it has no
overarching group environmental policy; each subsidiary is encouraged to create its own measures for reducing environmental impact in line with the
company’s environmental vision. Maersk Line, its shipping division, is developing new Triple-E class ships which will be 90% recyclable and some of the
most CO2 efficient large container ships in the world. To prevent transmission of invasive species through ship ballast water, the company has developed a
ballast water treatment system that will be implemented across all ships within the Maersk fleet. Although these subsidiary environmental achievements
are commendable, the company should strive to set more concrete environmental policy and goals for the entire group. Maersk’s social performance is
similarly decentralized. It does not provide group-wide records of employee turnover, lost workday rate or community investment. However, it does have an
overarching action plan for human rights policy based upon the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The company has identified gaps
within its performance and has outlined action plans for closing these gaps. Further, it provides a concise but robust code of conduct that protects
employees and ensures compliance with appropriate laws and regulations related to social performance. To aid with disaster relief, Maersk fields Logistics
Emergency Teams as a part of the UN’s World Food Program. These teams employ logistics expertise and assets to assist in the immediate aftermath of a
disaster; an LET was deployed to Japan in the wake of the 2011 tsunami.
Analyst 1: Lucas Van Houten
Analyst 2: Erin Franks
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
77
E
40%
ES A
S
S
60%
SSA
0
25
50
77
63
33
24
4
EI
ER
EP
A.P. Moller-Maersk
SI
SR
SP
75
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
6
10
60
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
5
7
71
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Waste
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Water
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
6
10
60
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
4
4
100
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
50
77
65
Good
Excellent
Needs substantial improvement
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
6
7
86
Excellent
Qualitative Social
21
35
60
Good
Quantitative Social
4
42
10
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
30
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
B
AMR 2010 Corporate Responsibility Report, 2007
Environmental Responsibility Report, and 2012 Web
Pages
ABN AMRO Holding
While AMR seems to be making an effort to be more environmentally sustainable, it lacks sufficient data, and results are mixed. The company’s 2010
Corporate Responsibility Report and 2012 website include environmental sections, but the last published Environmental Responsibility Report, which was
more extensive, was from 2007. AMR’s greenhouse gas emissions have increased during the period from 2005 to 2010. Water usage shows only a small
decrease. For many other categories considered in the PSI, such as solid waste recycled and solid waste disposed, there are only data for the current
year, which makes it difficult to track performance over time. This being said, AMR was listed in Newsweek in 2011 as the greenest U.S. airline. It is
important to note that the aviation industry is intrinsically linked to high CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, and AMR acknowledges this. It has
implemented a program called Fuel Smart which aims to both reduce fuel usage and improve fuel efficiency. Additionally, the company has managed to
achieve reductions in noise pollution through modification of existing aircraft, and new purchases. Where AMR really shines is in its social policies,
especially those considering diversity. AMR has received numerous awards from a variety of different organizations, including the Human Rights
Campaign, Hispanic Business magazine, and Corporate Counsel Women of Color. The corporation has a strong framework for promoting and maintaining
diversity which consists of a Diversity Committee, a Diversity Strategies organization, and different Employee Resource Groups. Minority and female
participation in management positions has increased over the past 15 years. AMR also fosters a culture of volunteerism and community improvement; the
company itself and its employees are engaged in a commendable number of volunteer initiatives.
Analyst 1: Katherine Recinos
Analyst 2: Stephanie Oehler
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
77
ES A
E
50%
S
S
50%
SSA
25
50
40
33
SR
SP
13
EI
0
65
37
ER
EP
ABN AMRO Holding
SI
75
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
6
10
60
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
6
7
86
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Management
5
21
24
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Waste
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
7
10
70
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
30
77
39
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
7
7
100
Excellent
Qualitative Social
20
35
57
Good
Quantitative Social
5
42
12
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
31
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
A-
Air France KLM CSR report 2010-11, Sustainable
Development Charter, Social Rights and Ethics
Charter, and 2012 Webpages
Air France-KLM
Air France KLM’s 2010-11 Corporate Social responsibility report is impressive. For an organization that quite literally spans the globe, it pays remarkable
attention to local concerns in its various operational areas. Relevant data for the status of the company’s social and environmental policy initiatives are
clearly annexed. The groups’ web pages, reports, and ethical charters are accessible, up-to-date, and for the most part, easy to navigate. The group
operates under relevant ISO standards as much as possible. However, the group’s stellar reporting is undermined by its neglecting to outline the specifics
of its monitoring structure for the wide array of its CSR projects. One area it definitely needs to improve on, in including a specifically designated contact
person for its CSR operations.
Analyst 1: Somaiah Kambiranda
Analyst 2: Simone Berkovitz
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
88
85
ES A
E
48%
S
S
52%
SSA
0
25
50
56
45
26
25
Air France-KLM
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
7
8
88
Excellent
Policy
10
10
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
6
7
86
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
9
14
64
Good
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
13
21
62
Good
Water
5
7
71
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
8
10
80
Excellent
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
24
77
31
Needs improvement
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
6
7
86
Qualitative Social
22
35
63
Good
Quantitative Social
21
42
50
Good
www.roberts.cmc.edu
32
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
C-
All Nippon Air Annual Report 2011, and 2012 Web
pages
All Nippon Airways
All Nippon Air (ANA) has a stated commitment to being a leading eco-friendly airline and utilizing airlines’ efficiency advantages over other modes of
transport to reduce society’s environmental impact. It has worked in conjunction with Boeing to develop the Boeing 787, a medium-body aircraft that
reduces fuel consumption by 20% over the industry-standard 767; ANA will introduce the 787 to its fleet in spring 2012. To offset its CO2 emissions, it
sponsors forestation projects around 50 airports in Japan. However, ANA provides very little quantitative data, and the sparse data it provides is limited to
the year of the report. The company should strive to provide more comprehensive quantitative indicators for its environmental performance. Socially, ANA
is committed to safety for its employees and customers and satisfaction from its stakeholders. It has an extensive system for stakeholder communication in
place, and solicits feedback regularly. The company also has a sound system in place for emergency response; it was tested by the Japan earthquake in
March 2011 and functioned as expected. Quantitative indicators are similarly lacking for social performance. Although it is clear that ANA supports social
initiatives, there is no indication of the scope of its contributions. Furthermore, despite its emphasis on safety and employee satisfaction, ANA does not
provide the results of its employee satisfaction survey, its employee turnover rate, or the lost workday rate. The company also provides no code of conduct
or similar statement of policies in areas such as corruption, compensation, and discrimination. ANA should be more transparent about the scope of its
commitment to its social practices and its internal policies.
Analyst 1: Lucas Van Houten
Analyst 2: Simone Berkovitz
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
S
41%
ES A
E
59%
S
62
50
18
19
13
0
All Nippon Airways
SSA
EI
0
25
50
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
75
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
4
8
50
Good
Policy
7
10
70
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Water
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
5
10
50
Good
Policy
1
6
17
Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
77
3
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
15
35
43
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
3
42
7
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
33
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
A-
British Airways CSR, Env. Policy, Staff Concerns,
Business Standards, Business Integrity, and 2012
Webpages
British Airways
British Airways does a good job of touching on most subjects concerning social and environmental sustainability. However, their quantitative data is
severely lacking. Aside from some figures on waste, greenhouse gas emissions, and accident rate, they hardly have any consistently measured figures at
all (or, if they do, they do not report them). From a plethora of single statistics throughout their website, it seems that British Airways either does keep track
of these figures and simply did not release them, or at the very least has the capacity to do so. The figures may have been kept up to date for several years,
but the annual report on sustainability that was started in 1990 was disbanded in 2005. On the qualitative side, however, British Airways is quite thorough.
They delve deeply into several topics, covering a wide variety of topics related to community investment, for example. If they were to take just a few more
measurements or add a few paragraphs to their CSR, they could easily increase the breadth of their sustainability reporting greatly, and could then phase-in
the sort of depth they have become accustomed to over time.
Analyst 1: Quinn Chasan
Analyst 2: Karina Gomez
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
96
E
43%
ES A
S
65
S
57%
SSA
0
25
50
28
EI
75
ER
60
33
13
EP
British Airways
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
8
8
100
Excellent
Policy
10
10
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
6
7
86
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Waste
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
5
10
50
Good
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
34
77
44
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
7
7
100
Excellent
Qualitative Social
32
35
91
Excellent
Quantitative Social
11
42
26
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
34
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
B-
Cathay Pacific Airways 2011 CSR, Supplier Code of
Conduct, FAQs, and 2012 Webpages
Cathay Pacific
Airways
Cathay publishes Sustainable Development Report 2011 that received an A+ GRI grade because of the major revamp of the previous report. Cathay is
thorough in covering environmental as well as social topics. There are significant attention given to reporting quantitative data and also reporting on
progress made in prior years.
Analyst 1: Quinn Chasan
Analyst 2: Stephanie Wolfe
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
77
ES A
S
47%
E
53%
S
SSA
0
25
50
69
35
35
13
8
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
Cathay Pacific
Airways
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
8
10
80
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
5
7
71
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
2
21
10
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
7
14
50
Good
Waste
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Water
5
7
71
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
10
10
100
Excellent
Policy
2
6
33
Needs improvement
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
0
4
0
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
8
77
10
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
24
35
69
Good
Quantitative Social
12
42
29
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
35
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
D
Central Japan Railway Environmental Issues, Series
N700, 2011 Annual Report Environmental Section,
2010 Environmental Report, and 2012 Web Pages
Central Japan
Railway
Central Japan Railway publishes a variety of information through its environmental issues paper, series N700 paper, and 2010 Environmental Report.
Though Central Japan Railway makes a strong effort to report its sustainability efforts, it does not provide the most important data for measuring
environmental and social sustainability. The transportation company’s environmental report focuses on describing its advances in designing new and more
carbon-efficient trains. Also included is an analysis of the carbon emissions of the railway industry as compared to the airline industry. While all the
information that Central Japan Railway included is useful, it fails to provide current data on the most important environmental sustainability data, such as
greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, or waste disposal. Central Japan Railway does, however, provide detailed environmental accounting figures. The
company should be praised for its efforts in improving the energy and carbon efficiency of its trains; however, it should report up-to-date figures on
greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, and waste disposal in order to improve. Central Japan Railway’s social sustainability report similarly covers a wide
variety of topics but fails to include measures such as a breakdown of its workforce by age, gender, and ethnicity. Also missing from the report is any
measure of lost workday or accident rates. The company does, however, report opportunities for employee training and its initiatives for community
development. These projects include the training centers at Aichi and Shizuoka Prefecture and the Nagoya Central Hospital. All these endeavors are
encouraged and praised, though to improve, we recommend that Central Japan Railway report data on the metrics mentioned above. Central Japan
Railway’s sustainability reports are detailed and describe many of the company’s efforts to be responsible. However, the company does not report some of
the most central measures of sustainability. We recommend that these figures be reported for a better score.
Analyst 1: Alan Hu
Analyst 2: Hilary Haskell
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
S
26%
ES A
S
42
23
8
E
74%
SSA
0
25
50
EI
75
ER
0
EP
SI
3
0
SR
SP
Central Japan
Railway
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
3
8
38
Needs improvement
Policy
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
7
14
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
1
14
7
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
1
7
14
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
2
10
20
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
2
6
33
Needs improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
3
35
9
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
36
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
F
China Costco Holdings 2012 Web Pages
China Cosco
Holdings
China Costco Holding’s web pages dedicate a single page to its environmental sustainability reporting efforts. The shipping company reports a partnership
with the China Global Compact Office in order to promote the ten principles of Global Compact; however, no more detail is given other than this 2005 effort.
China Costco Holding makes no effort to report any corporate responsibility initiatives, and as such receives a low score.
Analyst 1: Simone Berkovitz
Analyst 2: Alan Hu
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
S
0%
E
ES A
8
S
SSA
0
25
50
E
10 0 %
75
EI
0
0
0
0
0
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
China Cosco
Holdings
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
8
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
6
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
0
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
37
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
A-
Delta Airlines 2010 Corporate Responsibility
Report, 2009 Corporate Responsibility Report, and
2012 Web Pages
Delta Airlines
Delta Airlines provides a detailed and comprehensive Corporate Responsibility Report that clearly demonstrates its commitment to both social and
environmental policy. Thorough quantitative data is reported regarding recycled waste, hazardous waste produced, and greenhouse gases released, all of
which have seen improvement over the past several years. The data provided regarding greenhouse gas emissions is especially notable, as the company
presents detailed information illustrating the breakdown of emissions throughout its various operations (aircraft, facilities, etc). The consistent decrease in
Delta’s greenhouse gas emissions over recent years is laudable, and is clearly presented in graphical form. An element that is notably missing from Delta’s
CSR, however, is any quantitative reporting of energy use. Although there is a brief mention of energy saved due to the installation of eco-friendly roofing
material, the report lacks detailed data regarding the company’s overall energy use. Delta Airlines excels in its social policy as well, particularly in regards
to occupational health & safety protection and employee benefits. There has been a consistent decrease in both the reportable employee accident/incident
rate and lost workday case rate over recent years, and Delta’s commitment to “providing employees with a safe and healthy work environment” is detailed
in the “Employee Safety” section of the company’s CSR. In addition, Delta’s Force for Global Good upholds the values of community development,
specifically “advancing global diversity, improving global wellness, improving the environment, and promoting arts and culture.” The company’s support of
such causes has been demonstrated by a dramatic increase in social community investment from 2009 to 2010. This achievement, however, is slightly
marred by the fact that from 2007 to 2009, the amount of money Delta spent on community outreach decreased by about $2.5 million each year (although this
may be attributed to Delta’s bankruptcy during the economic recession). Despite this and various other areas that could be improved, overall Delta Airlines
presents a very impressive Corporate Responsibility Report.
Analyst 1: Helen Liu
Analyst 2: Karina Gomez
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
77
69
ES A
E
50%
S
SSA
0
25
50
52
48
S
50%
29
24
Delta Airlines
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
7
8
88
Excellent
Policy
6
10
60
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
6
7
86
Excellent
Energy
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Management
10
21
48
Needs improvement
Recycling
8
14
57
Good
Waste
8
21
38
Needs improvement
Water
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
8
10
80
Excellent
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
36
77
47
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
18
35
51
Good
Quantitative Social
15
42
36
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
38
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
A+
DHL Corporate Responsibility Report 2010 and Web
Pages
Deutsche Post DHL
Deutsche Post DHL 2010 Corporate Responsibility Report and web pages thoroughly cover many environmental and social responsibility topics. The
transportation company includes its position on many environmental matters, as well as what it is doing in response in its GoGreen Strategy. DHL has
incorporated electric vehicles into its fleet, holds a World Environment Day for awareness, and was second in the transportation industry in Newsweek’s
2010 Green Ratings. DHL has a strong social mission which focuses on relief efforts worldwide. Many tons of goods have been donated, as well as the time
of many employee volunteers. The company also has many health initiatives for employees, from road safety programs to organized fitness groups. DHL
does lack in its quantitative data reporting, which it is aware of and mentions in the report, discussing its difficulty across the company’s 220 countries.
However, DHL does do a commendable job in reporting greenhouse gas emissions, breaking them up by scope one, two and three to differentiate their
sources. Aside from missing quantitative data, DHL has a very complete corporate responsibility report.
Analyst 1: Whitney Ellen Dawson
Analyst 2: Karina Gomez
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
88
E
37%
ES A
S
S
63%
SSA
0
25
50
88
75
46
33
8
EI
ER
EP
Deutsche Post DHL
SI
SR
SP
75
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
10
10
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
7
57
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
9
14
64
Good
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Waste
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Water
1
7
14
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
8
10
80
Excellent
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
48
77
62
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
6
7
86
Excellent
Qualitative Social
35
35
100
Excellent
Quantitative Social
18
42
43
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
39
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
B+
East Japan Railway: 2011 and 2012 JR East Group
Sustainability Report and 2012 Web Pages
East Japan Railway
East Japan Railway’s sustainability report provides a detailed account of the corporation’s environmental reporting. The corporate sustainability report
discusses the numerous efforts East Japan Railway has made to combat global climate change and preserve biodiversity. In the past year, EJR has reduced
their CO2 emissions from 2.54 million tons to 2.15 million tons, and plans to reduce their annual emissions by an additional 0.37 million tons by 2018. The
company has also undertaken numerous projects to improve the quality of the overall health of the environment. For example, EJR promoted the planting of
greenery on their station and office building rooftops. EJR also began the Hometown Forestation Programs to plant trees native to each region and to
revitalize forests. Despite the company’s descriptive environmental reporting, the sustainability report lacks a substantial amount of information regarding
its social policy. EJR does not report any official policy discussing sexual harassment, child labor, reasonable working hours, and bribery and anticorruption practices. EJR would improve its overall score if it provided this information. However, the company does emphasize its safety protocols for its
employees and its customers. Recently, EJR has imposed new regulations that address earthquake safety protocol.
Analyst 1: Megan Smith
Analyst 2: Erin Franks
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
S
E
65%
SSA
96
S
35%
ES A
25
50
30
21
EI
0
77
65
ER
EP
SI
SR
17
East Japan Railway
SP
75
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
8
8
100
Excellent
Policy
10
10
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
6
7
86
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
8
14
57
Good
Management
11
21
52
Good
Recycling
7
14
50
Good
Waste
9
21
43
Needs improvement
Water
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
7
10
70
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
14
77
18
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
19
35
54
Good
Quantitative Social
6
42
14
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
40
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
B
Fedex 2010 Global Citizenship Report, Code of
Business Conduct and Ethics, and 2012 Web Pages
FedEx
In its 2010 Global Citizenship Report, Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and 2012 web pages, Fedex demonstrates a commitment to environmental
sustainability, the community, and the welfare of its workers. Although the company does not report much quantitative data to support its claims, Fedex still
demonstrates its corporate responsibility through its initiatives and actions, as well as improvement in its business practices. More information concerning
water usage and environmental expenses and investments should be included. For social responsibility, Fedex should elucidate its commitment to ethical
issues related to employee welfare and rights. Fedex’s most notable environmental initiative is its promotion and production of renewable energy. Many
facilities have installed solar power generation, an accomplishment that has saved 4,000 metric tons of carbon emissions per year. Furthermore, the
company purchases renewable energy credits to offset its power consumption. Fedex’s commitment to social responsibility is quantitatively evident
through its high retention rate of employees; however, there is little quantitative data for accident rates or lost workday cases Overall, Fedex demonstrates
its firm commitment to corporate sustainability. However, the company should more thoroughly report its policies and initiatives for some areas, as well as
provide more quantitative data to better demonstrate its efforts.
Analyst 1: Hilary Haskell
Analyst 2: Stephanie Oehler
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
ES A
62
E
48%
S
SSA
0
25
50
54
40
S
52%
44
30
13
EI
75
ER
EP
FedEx
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
4
8
50
Good
Policy
8
10
80
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
5
7
71
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
9
14
64
Good
Management
2
21
10
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Waste
5
21
24
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Good
Management
6
10
60
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
4
4
100
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
20
77
26
Needs improvement
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
4
7
57
Good
Qualitative Social
31
35
89
Excellent
Quantitative Social
9
42
21
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
41
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
C
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha 2011 Annual Report, 2010
FactBook, Charter of Conduct, and 2012 Web Pages
Kawasaki Kisen
Kaisha
The Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Annual Report, web site and Fact Book contain limited information concerning “K” Line’s CSR activities.“K” Line appears to be
devoted to becoming an environmentally and socially responsible company. The greatest evidence for this is an officially established management crew in
charge of CSR activities and even management personal to contact with CSR concerns. They have also secured ISO 14001 environmental management
certification.•Nevertheless, “K” Line has a huge amount to improve on. Most detrimental to the company’s score is the lack of quantitative data concerning
anything from greenhouse gas emissions to energy consumption to waste production. As a shipping company, “K” Line should keep very close tabs on its
greenhouse gas production in particular. In fact the only data provided by the company was water use in its office buildings. Socially, “K” Line needs
substantial development. To highlight one concerning example, there is no mention of women in management included in “K” Line’s report. In fact, “K” Line
is headed by an overwhelmingly male management crew. Other concerning topics are missing from the company’s CSR activities as well. Bribery, political
contributions, fair employee compensation, many more socially important issues are not discussed by “K” Line whatsoever. In a more positive light, there
are initiatives that “K” Line has taken to play a role in advancing society. For example, in the aftermath of the earthquake that devastated central Chile in
2010, “K” Line used its considerable logistical capacity to ensure victims had access to preserved food and clothing. Deliveries free of charge have been
the company’s contribution to relief efforts in the wake of many such natural disasters.
Analyst 1: Chad Redman
Analyst 2: Grant Yang
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
81
ES A
S
SSA
0
25
50
58
S
47%
E
53%
25
18
0
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
9
Kawasaki Kisen
Kaisha
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
8
10
80
Excellent
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
5
10
50
Good
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
18
77
23
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
14
35
40
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
42
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
C-
Kuehne and Nagel 2012 Sustainability Report, Code
of Conduct, and 2012 Web Pages
Kühne & Nagel Intl
While Kuehne and Nagel dedicate a majority of its report towards the discussion of environmental sustainability, the report falls short of depicting an
accurate portrait of the company’s environmental impact. Although the company attempts to communicate its impact with its suppliers and customers,
Kuehne and Nagel’s Code of Conduct, 2012 Sustainability Report, and 2012 web pages need to add more information. The company omits discussion of any
environmental or social impediments. In terms of the environment, the report overlooks issues such as climate change, the maintenance of biodiversity, and
ecosystem and habitat conservation. Not one social challenges is mentioned; the company only states its respect for cultural diversity. The Code of
Conduct emphasizes the company’s views on anti-corruption and bribery through the elaboration of policies, but little more is discussed. The company
never mentions a policy on sexual harassment, free association, or the elimination of forced labo and child labor. The company provides explanations for
carbon calculators, claiming the calculators provide accurate readings, yet does not validate this statement with quantitative evidence; Kuehne & Nagel
only reports current quantitative data for renewable energy used and notes the greenhouse gases emissions improvement. Similarly, the company
discusses the desire for the reduction of carbon emissions and energy usages. To improve the report, the company must disclose more information:
quantitative data to accurately demonstrate its environmental impact, policies for workers’ rights, greater discussion of environmental and social
challenges, and Kuehne and Nagel’s plans to combat these challenges.
Analyst 1: Sierra Gibson
Analyst 2: Erin Franks
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
46
ES A
E
50%
S
S
50%
SSA
0
25
50
46
17
25
13
2
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
Kühne & Nagel Intl
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
2
4
50
Good
Management
5
8
63
Good
Policy
3
10
30
Needs improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
7
57
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Management
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
20
77
26
Needs improvement
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
8
35
23
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
2
42
5
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
43
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
B-
Deutsche Lufthansa 2011 Corporate Sustainability
Report and 2012 Web Pages
Lufthansa Group
Deutsche Lufthansa’s corporate sustainability report demonstrates a clear commitment to sustainability, but needs improvement in certain areas. One of
the most lacking areas of the report is quantitative data reporting. While the report does include a great deal of information on the fuel consumption of the
company’s aircraft, it contains little to no information on energy use, waste produced, or water use. Also, the company does not include much quantitative
information on its responsibility to its employees or the communities it operates in. For example, the company gives no information on recordable accident
rate or fines that have been imposed on the company. The company does not do a very good job of expanding its scope of reporting. One of the most
noticeable examples of this problem is the dis-proportional amount of space the company devotes to fuel consumption and the development of bio-fuels.
While this section contains elements that make a sustainability report successful- company goals, their implementation, quantitative data- no other section
in the report comes close to being as informative as this aspect of the company’s operation. While fuel consumption may be a very pertinent issue for a
major airline, a company this large must have many other elements of its operation that affect the environment. The company, however, does a very good
job of organizing the data that is does provide. Many of the graphs and tables throughout the report make data understandable. An example is the table that
highlights the company’s demographic structure in the diversity section of the report. Furthermore, the tables at the end of each section sum up most of the
data that appeared in the section are very convenient and helpful reference points. The glossary at the end of the report is also very helpful in
understanding the technical terms that appear throughout the report.
Analyst 1: Sam Kahr
Analyst 2: Grant Yang
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
E
32%
ES A
73
54
S
S
68%
SSA
0
25
50
73
EI
75
8
0
ER
EP
9
SI
SR
Lufthansa Group
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
8
10
80
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
5
7
71
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
7
10
70
Good
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
37
77
48
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Qualitative Social
24
35
69
Good
Quantitative Social
1
42
2
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
44
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
A-
Mitsui OSK Lines Environmental and Social Report
2012, 2011 Annual Report, and 2012 Web Pages
Mitsui OSK Lines
The Mitsui O.S.K Lines’ (MOL’s) 2012 Environmental and Social Report comprehensive insight into the company’s environmental and social activities. The
voices from the front lines, really make the report come to life. The pictures illustrating the environmental protection strategies, such as one to prevent oil
spills by having the double-hull tankers, speaks volumes on the company’s seriousness in protecting the environment. This report is packed with a lot of
highly commendable sustainability initiatives, superior in the sector. Mr. CEO Koichi Muto’s vision on sustainability in the foreword is amplified by the many
stories and topics covered in the report. This report is well-designed and well-written and because of the many attractive graphics and illustrations, could
be used even by young children to study sustainability management in transportation business, but still sustains the significant depth of knowledge that
would be an interest of a typical scientist in academia. Well done!
Analyst 1: Chad Redman
Analyst 2: Grant Yang
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
96
ES A
E
47%
S
57
S
53%
SSA
0
25
50
81
36
33
18
EI
75
ER
EP
Mitsui OSK Lines
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
8
8
100
Excellent
Policy
9
10
90
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
6
7
86
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
9
14
64
Good
Management
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Waste
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
8
10
80
Excellent
Policy
3
6
50
Good
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
26
77
34
Needs improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
7
7
100
Excellent
Qualitative Social
27
35
77
Excellent
Quantitative Social
18
42
43
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
45
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
B-
Nippon Express Corporate Social Responsibility
2012, and 20012 Web Pages
Nippon Express
Nippon Express demonstrates its dedication to its social and environmental responsibilities through its 2012 Nippon Express Group Corporate Strategy. The
company’s new strategy focuses not only on its growth as a logistics company, but also on the steps it must take to improve its environmental and social
sustainability practices. After revision of its Environmental Charter in 2010, Nippon Express has introduced many new initiatives such as: the introduction of
environmentally-friendly vehicles such as CNG trucks, LPG trucks, bi-fuel trucks and hybrids to reduce its emissions. It also promotes green purchasing
and has a green purchasing rate of over 60%, however, the website lacks quantitative data in relation to its consumption and emissions of various forms of
energy. Nippon Express is dedicated to its employees and focuses heavily on their development. In order to foster human resource development, it
established NITTSU Group University to further enhance the skills and capabilities of its workers. Additionally, Nippon Express developed a three-year
Education and Training Policy that highlights the various steps Nippon Express needs to take in order to achieve its goals of human resource development.
However, the company fails to provide information on the rest of its social policies like its anti-corruption practices and the fair compensation of its
employees.
Analyst 1: Damini Marwaha
Analyst 2: Karina Gomez
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
92
ES A
S
81
S
44%
E
56%
30
30
4
4
Nippon Express
SSA
0
25
50
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
7
8
88
Excellent
Policy
10
10
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
7
57
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Management
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
7
21
33
Needs improvement
Water
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
7
10
70
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
14
77
18
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
15
35
43
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
5
42
12
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
46
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
A
NYK 2012 Web Pages
Nippon Yusen
Kaisha (NYK)
NYK receives a high score for environmental and social responsibility, a testament to the company’s value of “monohakobi that enriches lives and protects
the environment.” NYK demonstrates environmental innovation by including solar power generators and air-lubrication systems on their ships and module
vessels. NYK’s Super Eco Ship 2030 – an advanced ship that will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 69 percent using solar, wind, and other
renewable energies – looks like a particularly promising and forward-thinking technology. Moreover, the extensive training programs for both office
workers and seafarers are good indicators of the company’s work ethic. Lastly, NYK is commended on the range of worldwide CSR activities, such as
addressing energy consumption, global warming, pollution, earthquakes, floods, orphanages, and cancer. While NYK’s Corporate Social Responsibility
report holds lots of helpful graphs, charts, and diagrams, they are highly concentrated or are small in the margins and make the report appear confusing
and overwhelming. It would be helpful to reduce the amount of information on one page so as not to miss important information. NYK provides a wealth of
environmental performance data, but the breakdown between NYK, three NYK-owned container terminals in Japan, and NYK fleet is unclear at times. Data
on overall energy consumption, water consumption, waste production, and carbon dioxide emissions would be useful. Lastly, NYK does not provide a formal
code of conduct online. NYK should clearly lay out the company’s adoption, monitoring, and reinforcement of policies, in addition to the provided United
Nations Global Compact, which lacks a few important policies. However, in general, NYK appears as a safe and environmentally-friendly company through
its monohakobi.
Analyst 1: Taryn Akiyama
Analyst 2: Hilary Haskell
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
88
E
45%
ES A
S
S
55%
SSA
0
25
50
77
66
45
26
8
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
Nippon Yusen
Kaisha (NYK)
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
8
8
100
Excellent
Policy
10
10
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
5
7
71
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
9
14
64
Good
Management
5
21
24
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
7
10
70
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
35
77
45
Needs improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
5
7
71
Good
Qualitative Social
33
35
94
Excellent
Quantitative Social
15
42
36
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
47
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
B+
Qantas 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Web Pages
Qantas Airways
Qantas has an annual report covering sustainability topics such as environmental and social activities. The company participates in Carbon Disclosure
project the website outlines the dominant area of interests in regards to its sustainability development, such as sustainable fuel, sustainable tourism,
climate change, noise management, electricity, and water conservation. The company is active in the community and seems to be aware of the pressing
needs of the companies of improving some of the areas where it can still improve. Information are not all inclusive, however, it does cover the essential of
a typical global airline companies. There still some internal management issues that has yet not been reported, but overall, Qantas has done remarkable
sustainability efforts within its reach.
Analyst 1: Whitney Ellen Dawson
Analyst 2: Hilary Haskell
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
81
E
43%
ES A
S
50
S
57%
SSA
0
25
50
77
25
EI
75
ER
24
17
EP
Qantas Airways
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
4
8
50
Good
Policy
10
10
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
7
57
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Waste
5
21
24
Needs substantial improvement
Water
2
7
29
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
9
10
90
Excellent
Policy
6
6
100
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
22
77
29
Needs improvement
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
7
7
100
Excellent
Qualitative Social
28
35
80
Excellent
Quantitative Social
10
42
24
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
48
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
C-
Singapore Airlines 2010/2011 Annual Report,
2010/11 Environmental Report, and 2012 Web Pages
Singapore Airlines
Singapore Airlines’ Annual Report and 2010/2011 Environmental Report provide a clear demonstration of the company’s commitment to good environmental
performance. A formal environmental policy statement is presented, along with a statement of potential risks and challenges facing the company and its
plans to overcome these obstacles. Particularly notable is SIA’s commitment to reducing the effects of climate change by implementing initiatives to
improve the fuel efficiency of its aircraft. Although there was a slight increase in carbon dioxide emissions from 2009-2010 to 2010-2011, there has been a
“general decline [emission per unit of load-tonne-km flown] over the last 10 years in line with fuel efficiency improvement” (pg. 228). The company’s
Harapan Rainforest Preservation Project is commendable as well. ••Although SIA provides a detailed account of its environmental initiatives, it is lacking in
its reporting of social performance. The most concerning demonstration of this issue is the company’s failure to provide any sort of Code of Conduct. As a
result, fundamental issues such as employee rights and anti-corruption practices are not sufficiently addressed, although employee and customer safety is
briefly mentioned. Furthermore, there is no formal social policy statement or description of a social organizational structure. Singapore Airlines does stress
the importance of community development and employee volunteerism, however reporting of the internal social performance of the company is in need of
vast improvement.
Analyst 1: Helen Liu
Analyst 2: Simone Berkovitz
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
S
30%
ES A
S
62
SSA
0
25
50
35
32
14
8
E
70%
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
4
Singapore Airlines
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
2
4
50
Good
Management
2
8
25
Needs improvement
Policy
8
10
80
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Management
2
21
10
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
7
21
33
Needs improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Policy
3
6
50
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
12
35
34
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
5
42
12
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
49
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
F
STX Corp. 2012 Web Pages
STX Corp
STX Corp does not have an English website. As the Roberts Environmental Center only scores reports available in English, no score can be given to STX
Corp.
Analyst 1: Alan Hu
Analyst 2: Stephanie Oehler
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
S
1%
E
1%
ES A
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
EI
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
STX Corp
SSA
0
25
50
75
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
8
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
10
0
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
0
6
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
0
35
0
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
50
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
A
TNT 2011 CSR, Code of Conduct, and 2012 Webpages
TNT
TNT Express does not provide a dedicated CSR. Instead, its sustainability reporting is incorporated into the annual report. Its stated commitment to
environmental sustainability is framed in terms of economic sustainability and demand from stakeholders, and is not supported by an official environmental
policy. The company’s Plant Me initiative seeks to leverage its position in the transportation sector to create more fuel-efficient vehicles and optimize
delivery for reduced emissions where it is financially viable. An extension of this is the City Logistics project, which seeks to provide zero-emissions lastmile deliveries in city centers. This is accomplished through package bundling and electric vehicles. Unfortunately, TNT provides little quantitative
information on its environmental practices, and the sparse information it does provide is often only for the current year. It should strive to provide more
comprehensive environmental data with historical points for reference. Quantitative data is similarly lacking for social indicators. Where it is present, there
is sometimes conflicting data in different sections of the report (notably employee turnover and lost workday rate). However, TNT does have a strong
commitment to integrity and a robust code of conduct that provides extensive protections to employees and enforces proper conduct. Safety is an area of
focus for the company; it has implemented its own road safety management system to ensure an appropriate level of safe practices from all drivers that
exceed legal requirements. Further, TNT established the North Star Alliance in conjunction with the World Food Program to provide for the health and
safety needs of highly mobile populations such as truck drivers. The transmission of HIV/AIDS has become prevalent in the transportation sector, and the
Alliance hopes to curtail it and other infection diseases’ spread and provide adequate treatment to at-risk mobile populations.
Analyst 1: Lucas Van Houten
Analyst 2: Stephanie Oehler
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
E
39%
ES A
S
31
S
61%
SSA
0
25
50
77
73
EI
75
ER
69
35
18
EP
TNT
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
5
10
50
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
5
7
71
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Management
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
4
14
29
Needs improvement
Waste
2
21
10
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
8
10
80
Excellent
Policy
3
6
50
Good
Social Demographic
1
2
50
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
56
77
73
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
4
7
57
Good
Qualitative Social
19
35
54
Good
Quantitative Social
15
42
36
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
51
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
D
Tokyu 2012 Webpages, 2011 Annual Report, and 2012
Web Pages
Tokyu
The Tokyu Corporation does not publish its CSR or many of its webpages in English. Although it appears that it has an extensive Japanese CSR and
webpages on sustainability, there is little information available for English speakers. Most of the available information is financial. The company has a
stated commitment to protecting the environment and vows to follow all relevant laws and regulations. The only evidence they provide for this commitment
is mentioning a shift to newer, more energy-efficient vehicles and implementing natural ventilation and radiant cooling systems at one of their stations.
There is a similar lack of English information for social practices. Tokyu states its commitment to sustainable social practice and compliance with all
relevant laws and regulations, but provides little evidence that it does so. It does provide an English code of conduct, but its specifications are often vague.
The company is developing a comprehensive emergency response program in light of the Japan Earthquake. Tokyu should seek to provide more complete
environmental and social information in English so that it can be properly assessed.
Analyst 1: Lucas Van Houten
Analyst 2: Karina Gomez
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
E
25%
ES A
S
31
19
S
75%
SSA
0
25
50
EI
75
17
2
0
ER
EP
4
SI
SR
Tokyu
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
2
8
25
Needs improvement
Policy
1
10
10
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
1
14
7
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
2
10
20
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
3
6
50
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
12
77
16
Needs substantial improvement
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
7
0
Qualitative Social
9
35
26
Needs improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
52
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
C+
Union Pacific 2011 Sustainability and Citizenship
Report, and 2012 Web Pages
Union Pacific
Union Pacific publishes its 2011 Sustainability and Citizenship Report and the report conveys clear goals and descriptions on activities to achieve its goals.
Union Pacific strives to achieve is to reduce its locomotive fuel consumption by 1 percent. This gradual, one-step-at-a-time approach is highly
commendable, considering its significant cumulative impact to better the environment. There is a strong commitment on safety, "No injury is acceptable:
Zero employee injuries, zero trespasser incidents, zero vehicle grade crossing accidents, and zero train derailments." Just reading this, give a tremendous
level of comfort to an external stakeholder such as ourselves. The company has been active in the community, involved in its employees’ health and safety
programs, and strategic in its environmental plans. Union Pacific is absolutely on the right track of sustainability.
Analyst 1: Nicholas Hobbs
Analyst 2: Grant Yang
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
81
69
ES A
E
53%
S
S
47%
SSA
0
25
50
23
22
9
4
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
Union Pacific
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
5
8
63
Good
Policy
5
10
50
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
7
57
Good
Energy
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Management
6
21
29
Needs improvement
Recycling
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
10
10
100
Excellent
Policy
4
6
67
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
4
4
100
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
77
5
Needs substantial improvement
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
18
35
51
Good
Quantitative Social
6
42
14
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
53
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
A-
United Airlines 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 Corporate
Responsibility Report, CDP responses, Corporate
Governance Guidelines, Ethics and Compliance
Principles, 2010 Global Citizenship Report, and 2012
Web Pages
United Airlines
United Airlines is committed to environmentally sustainable and socially responsible business practices, and the company provides extensive information
regarding its operations and initiatives through its 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 Corporate Responsibility Report, CDP response, Global Citizenship Report and
Ethics and Compliance Principles Report. United prides itself as an industry leader in environmental innovation and has invested in several pioneering
programs including synthetic air-fuel development and extensive on-board and ground recycling. United provides extensive quantitative information
regarding its resource consumption, waste production, community investment and business performance. The company does hold back some information
regarding waste disposal and environmental and health citations. Its environmental approach involves investment in alternative fuels and fuel efficiency,
minimization and safe recycling of waste, improvement of operational efficiency (especially with regard to flight-paths), and dialogue with partners and
suppliers to improve environmental sustainability. Employee volunteerism is promoted and United supports several organizations that conduct
environmental and social work. United has adopted an environmental management system based on ISO 14001 and is part of the Carbon Disclosure Project.
United’s ‘Eco-skies’ program invests in alternative fuel development and the company works with the airline industry to maximize operational efficiency (its
green corridor flight CO2 emissions by 20,000 pounds). United’s social policies involve community partnership, youth and education development and health
and humanitarian aid. The company prides itself as a being great place to work and has an inclusive policy of both supplier and workforce diversity. United
conducts internal and third party audits through its CSR reports it clearly shares information regarding its performance. Although there are areas where
United can improve its social and environmental reporting, overall the company displays remarkable corporate responsibility reporting.
Analyst 1: Ratik Asokan
Analyst 2: Erin Franks
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
81
ES A
E
50%
S
S
50%
SSA
0
25
50
77
48
49
35
17
EI
75
ER
EP
United Airlines
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
7
8
88
Excellent
Policy
7
10
70
Good
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Emissions to Air
5
7
71
Good
Energy
10
14
71
Good
Management
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Waste
5
21
24
Needs substantial improvement
Water
4
7
57
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
7
10
70
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Vision
4
4
100
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
32
77
42
Needs improvement
Excellent
Needs substantial improvement
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
4
7
57
Good
Qualitative Social
31
35
89
Excellent
Quantitative Social
7
42
17
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
54
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
A+
UPS 2010 CSR, Code of Conduct, and 2012 Web Pages
United Parcel
Service
UPS prides itself on being a leader in sustainability, particularly in the emissions-heavy transportation and logistics sector. Fortune magazine recognized
UPS as the #1 most admired company in social responsibility in 2010. The company sets forth clear environmental and social visions, and has a host of
initiatives to see these visions through. The company incorporates technological solutions in every facet of its business to optimize efficiency and reduce
environmental impact. It has outfitted 40% of its US ground fleet with telematics systems that report driving information; that data is then used to advise
driver behavior to reduce driving time and consequently reduce emissions. UPS has also implemented carbon neutral shipping options for all customers:
they can opt to have emissions created by their shipments offset by UPS for a small fee. The weakest point of UPS’ CSR is its lack of historical quantitative
data – although it provides quantitative indicators in many areas, it often only lists the most current data and no previous years for comparison. It should
strive to include more comprehensive historic data in addition to its current period. UPS also performs well socially. Important for any transportation or
Logistics Company is the safety of its drivers; of UPS’ training expenditures in 2010, nearly 50% was spent on safety programs. The injury rate for employees
and accident frequency for drivers both dropped. UPS publishes and enforces a robust code of conduct to protect the human rights of its workers and those
with whom it does business.
Analyst 1: Lucas Van Houten
Analyst 2: Hilary Haskell
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
85
E
44%
ES A
S
25
50
72
39
S
56%
SSA
0
85
50
United Parcel
Service
17
EI
75
ER
EP
SI
SR
SP
Environmental Intent
Question Category
Accountability
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
6
8
75
Excellent
Policy
8
10
80
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
5
7
71
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
6
14
43
Needs improvement
Management
5
21
24
Needs substantial improvement
Needs improvement
Recycling
6
14
43
Waste
7
21
33
Needs improvement
Water
5
7
71
Good
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
4
4
100
Excellent
Management
6
10
60
Good
Policy
6
6
100
Excellent
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
4
4
100
Excellent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
50
77
65
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Human Rights
Management
6
7
86
Excellent
Qualitative Social
26
35
74
Good
Quantitative Social
18
42
43
Needs improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
55
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
D
US Airways Group 2010 Corporate Responsibility
Report and 2012 Web Pages
US Airways Group
US Airways’ 2012 web pages and 2011 corporate responsibility report presents a limited view of its sustainability practices with some notable gaps in its
reporting. The airline company has a clear environmental and social visionary statement and reports initiatives such as Flights for 50, which is an employee
volunteering program. US Airways’ reporting has significant room for improvement. Also lacking is any form of data that measures employee satisfaction,
turnover rate, or accident rate. For a better score, we recommend that US Airways publish updated figures for its quantitative figures and report more
social sustainability metrics.
Analyst 1: Alan Hu
Analyst 2: Grant Yang
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
S
34%
ES A
S
E
66%
SSA
0
25
50
31
31
20
8
0
EI
75
ER
EP
0
SI
SR
US Airways Group
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
1
8
13
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
4
10
40
Needs improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
7
57
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
3
7
43
Needs improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
2
10
20
Needs substantial improvement
Policy
3
6
50
Good
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
2
77
3
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
7
35
20
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
0
42
0
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
56
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
C-
West Japan Railways 2011 Annual Report, and 2012
Web Pages
West Japan Railway
West Japan Railways receives a low score because it fails to demonstrate responsible social and environmental practices. The web site pages and the
Annual Report are well-organized and easy to navigate, but they rely heavily on financial statements, and scarcely include sustainability information. West
Japan Railways should be commended on its installment of garbage reciprocals and recycling rates of 95%. However, while West Japan Railways provided
some data on carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption, the graphs and values were difficult to interpret. The company states that it aims to
“invigorate local communities through tourism in order to enrich the lives of the people,” but it does not contribute to social community investment activities
such as community development, community education, and employee volunteerism. West Japan Railways claims to “contribute to the preservation of the
natural environment and the realization of a sustainable society,” yet it lacks an environmental management system and environmental education, and
disregards habitat conservation and biodiversity. Finally, it is concerning that West Japan Railways mentions no human rights reporting so the treatment of
their employees is unclear.
Analyst 1: Hilary Haskell
Analyst 2: Taryn Akiyama
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
S
31%
ES A
S
E
69%
SSA
50
0
EI
0
25
50
46
30
ER
EP
SI
9
2
SR
SP
W est Japan Railway
75
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
3
4
75
Excellent
Management
2
8
25
Needs improvement
Policy
6
10
60
Good
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
4
7
57
Good
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
5
14
36
Needs improvement
Management
3
21
14
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
2
14
14
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
4
21
19
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
1
4
25
Needs improvement
Management
3
10
30
Needs improvement
Policy
5
6
83
Excellent
Social Demographic
0
2
0
Needs substantial improvement
Vision
3
4
75
Excellent
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
8
35
23
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
4
42
10
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
57
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
D
Yamato Holdings 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Web
Pages
Yamato Holdings
Yamato Holdings’ corporate social responsibility activities involve issues of safety, environment, society and economy. The company believes in running
sustainable operations that reflect sound ideals and social responsibility. However, the company’s CSR report however, is only 2 pages long and provides
almost no quantitative data. Yamato Holdings stresses the importance of safety and runs traffic safety workshops for students. To improve environmental
efficiency, Yamato has introduced several low-emission and hybrid vehicles in their transportation business. Its social programs include employment for
disabled people and earthquake relief. Yet, the company’s CSR initiatives are very narrow. No information is provided regarding any large environmental
investment or community activities. No operational data is provided and the company is not involved in any environmental programs or initiatives. The
company would greatly benefit from promoting employee volunteerism, conducting a large-scale project to improve environmental efficiency or being
involved in social programs.
Analyst 1: Ratik Asokan
Analyst 2: Simone Berkovitz
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
Comparison with sector averages
Distribution of points
Source of points
E
ES A
S
50%
SSA
0
25
50
31
27
E
50%
S
EI
75
3
4
ER
EP
7
SI
SR
2
Yamato Holdings
SP
Environmental Intent
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
Question Category
0
4
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
2
8
25
Needs improvement
Policy
3
10
30
Needs improvement
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Environmental Reporting
Question Category
Emissions to Air
Energy
3
14
21
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Recycling
0
14
0
Needs substantial improvement
Waste
0
21
0
Needs substantial improvement
Water
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Social Intent
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Accountability
2
4
50
Good
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
10
0
Policy
2
6
33
Needs improvement
Social Demographic
2
2
100
Excellent
Vision
2
4
50
Good
Social Reporting
Question Category
Score
Max Score
%
General Comment
Human Rights
0
77
0
Needs substantial improvement
Management
0
7
0
Needs substantial improvement
Qualitative Social
6
35
17
Needs substantial improvement
Quantitative Social
3
42
7
Needs substantial improvement
www.roberts.cmc.edu
58
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Transportation and Logistics
Environmental visionary statement
Environmental management structure
5
-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational
commitment to good environmental performance.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures to fulfill that commitment.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental impediments and challenges
Initiatives/actions
6
Initiatives/actions
42
43
Initiatives/actions
Discussion: 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.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
9
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives/actions
45
21
-Discussion: of environmental expenditures.
-Initiatives/actions: include detailed accounting of such expenditures.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
4
Initiatives Pg#
Third-party validation
-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.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental accounting
Initiatives Pg#
Report contact person
16
-Discussion: of efforts to promote environmental education and awareness of
employees, the general public, or children.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to provide such education.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
-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.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental education
Initiatives Pg#
Social policy statement
23
-Discussion: of consultation and dialogue with stakeholders about the
organization's environmental aspects or impacts.
-Initiatives/actions: include identification of specific consultation activities.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
-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.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Stakeholder consultation
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental policy statement
51
-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.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives Pg#
Social impediments and challenges
Initiatives Pg#
Health and safety, or social organizational structure
-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational
commitment to good social performance.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to fulfill that commitment.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
20
-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.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives Pg#
Social visionary statement
Initiatives Pg#
Environmental management system
-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.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
19
-Discussion: of the organization's environmental management structure or
staffing.
-Initiatives/actions: include identification of individuals currently holding the
staff positions.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
54
-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.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Initiatives Pg#
Climate change/global warming
10
-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.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
www.roberts.cmc.edu
59
Initiatives Pg#
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Transportation and Logistics
Habitat/ecosystem conservation
Emergency preparedness program
11
-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.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
Biodiversity
Initiatives Pg#
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives/actions
49
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
17
Year
-Discussion: of racial or ethnic distribution of workforce.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid racial or ethnic discrimination.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
18
-Discussion: of gender distribution of workforce.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid gender discrimination and achieve
appropriate balance
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Renewable energy used
52
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
-Discussion: of age distribution of workforce.
-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to avoid age discrimination or to
encourage a balanced age structure.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Year
Initiatives Pg#
Employment for individuals with disabilities
27
Energy used from renewable sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, or
other renewable sources.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Initiatives Pg#
Workforce profile: age
Initiatives/actions
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Initiatives Pg#
Workforce profile: gender
Initiatives/actions
26
Sum of the energy used by the organization in all different forms, including
electricity, fuel, natural gas and others.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiatives Pg#
Workforce profile: ethnicities/race
Initiatives Pg#
Energy used (total)
-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.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
47
-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.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives Pg#
Supplier screening based on social or environmental
performance/ supplier management
Initiatives Pg#
Code of conduct or business ethics
13
-Discussion: about preferential purchasing of eco-friendly (non-polluting,
recycled, recyclable, etc.) products.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such purchasing.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
82
-Discussion: of training, skills and learning programs appropriate to support
employees' upward mobility.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such training.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
-Discussion: of the organization's position on biodiversity.
-Initiatives/actions: taken by to the organization to foster biodiversity.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Green purchasing
Initiatives Pg#
Employee training for career development
12
Initiatives/actions
53
-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.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Data Values
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
80
-Discussion: of appropriate actions to accommodate employees with disabilities.
-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such accommodations.
Discussion Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/actions
Initiatives Pg#
www.roberts.cmc.edu
60
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Transportation and Logistics
Waste recycled: solid waste
Waste (hazardous) produced
30
Sum of all solid waste recycled, including hazardous waste.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
35
Sum 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.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context Pg#:
Context
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Units
Year
Waste (office) recycled
Data Values
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
32
Office recycling of paper, cardboard, metal, or plastic.
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Waste (hazardous) released to the environment
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Waste (solid) disposed of
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
34
Year
Includes solid hazardous and non-hazardous waste landfilled, incinerated, or
transferred.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Water used
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
29
Sum of all water used during operations.
Units
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
www.roberts.cmc.edu
37
Amounts 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.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
61
Data Values
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Transportation and Logistics
Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total
Lost workday case rate
83
The sum of all greenhouse gases released, which could include CO2, CH4
(methane), N2O (nitrous oxide), SF6 (Sulphur hexafluoride), PFCs
(Perfluorocarbons) and HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons).
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Year
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Year
Units
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
81
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Goal Pg#:
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Notices of violation (environmental)
74
Number of employee incidents or accidents, such as: “total case incident
rate,” “incident rate,” or "accident rate."
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Data Values
Units
Amount of money spent on community outreach, including education grants,
donations, and relief effort funds.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Discussion Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Recordable incident/accident rate
Year
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Social community investment
3
Annual employee turnover rate.
Data Values
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Units
Employee turnover rate
Year
75
Number of employee injuries or illnesses that resulted in one or more lost
workdays.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
38
Notices of violation (NOVs) for environmental infractions.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Year
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Units
www.roberts.cmc.edu
62
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Transportation and Logistics
Environmental expenses and investments
Health and safety fines
39
An accounting of money spent or invested specifically to decrease
environmental damage or to benefit the environment.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Year
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Prev Quan Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Women in management
40
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
2
Relative numbers of women in management.
Government imposed fines for environmental infractions.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Data Values
Data Values
Context Pg#:
Units
Fines (environmental)
Year
77
Fines levied against a company for health and safety violations.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Discussion
Initiatives/Action
Context
Improvement Over Previous
Context Pg#:
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
Discussion Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Improve Pg#:
Employee satisfaction surveys
Prev Quan Pg#:
67
Surveys to monitor employee satisfaction.
Improve Pg#
Discussion
Initiatives/Action
Context
Improvement Over Previous
Units
Discussion Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Context Pg#:
Improve Pg#:
Occupational health and safety protection
Health and safety citations
Efforts to provide a safe and healthy working environment at all sites.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
76
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Number 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.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Context
Goal
Current Period Quantitative Data
Previous Quantitative Data
Improvement Over Previous
Year
Data Values
70
Context Pg#:
Employee volunteerism
Goal Pg#:
Quant Pg#:
72
Efforts to promote employee volunteerism in social or environmental projects.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Prev Quan Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Improve Pg#
Units
Community development
66
Efforts to participate in social activities that improve the quality of life of
communities including that of indigenous people, where the organization operates.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
www.roberts.cmc.edu
63
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
Transportation and Logistics
Community education
Degrading treatment or punishment of employees
68
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Initiative Pg#:
Initiatives/Action
Context Pg#:
Context
Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#:
Sexual harassment
1
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
7
Policy about political contributions.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Rejection of bribery
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
58
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
61
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
63
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Effective abolition of child labor
Qty Perf Pg#:
Rejection of illegal child labor by the company or its affiliates.
Fair compensation of employees
65
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
62
Assurance that wages paid meet or exceed legal or industry minimum standard.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Assurance that all employees enter employment with the company of their own free
will, not by compulsion.
Efforts to uphold the highest standards of business ethics and integrity. May be found
under a Code of Conduct.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor
Qty Perf Pg#:
Anti-corruption practices
60
Efforts to respect the right of employees to form and join trade unions of their choice
and to bargain collectively.
8
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Free association and collective bargaining of employees
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Bribery
Initiative Pg#:
Commitment 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.
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Political contributions
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and
occupation
Rejection of any form of sexual harassment.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
59
Commitment to oppose any corporal/hard labor punishment, mental/physical
coercion, or verbal abuse.
Efforts to support education in the communities where the company is located.
Discussion Pg#:
Discussion
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
Reasonable working hours
64
Compliance with applicable laws and industry standards on working hours, including
overtime.
Adoption of Policy
Action to Reinforce Policy
Monitoring
Quant. Indication of Compliance
www.roberts.cmc.edu
Policy Adopt Pg#:
Initiative Pg#:
Monitoring Pg#:
Qty Perf Pg#:
64
Transportation and Logistics Sectors
A.P. Moller-Maersk, ABN AMRO
Holding, Air France-KLM, All Nippon
Airways, British Airways, Cathay
Pacific Airways, Central Japan Railway,
China Cosco Holdings, Continental
Airlines, Delta Airlines, Deutsche Post
DHL, East Japan Railway, FedEx,
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Kühne & Nagel
Intl, Lufthansa Group, Mitsui OSK
Lines, Nippon Express, Nippon Yusen
Kaisha (NYK), Qantas Airways,
Singapore Airlines, STX Corp, TNT,
Tokyu, Union Pacific, United Airlines,
United Parcel Service, US Airways
Group, West Japan Railway, and
Y a m a t o
H o l d i n g s .
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 staff, and its research,
including the material in this report, is done by students at the Claremont Colleges.
Claremont McKenna College
Claremont McKenna College, a member of the Claremont Colleges, is a highly selective, independent, coeducational,
residential, undergraduate liberal arts college with a curricular emphasis on economics, government, and public
affairs.
The Claremont Colleges
The Claremont Colleges form a consortium of five undergraduate liberal arts colleges and two graduate institutions
based on the Oxford/Cambridge model. The consortium offers students diverse opportunities and resources typically
found only at much larger universities. The consortium members include Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd
College, Pitzer College, Pomona College, Scripps College, Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences, and the
Clremont Graduate University which—includes the Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of
Management.
Contact Information
Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director, Phone: 909-621-8190, email: [email protected]
Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow, Phone: 909-621-8698, email: [email protected]
Roberts Environmental Center, Claremont McKenna College, 925 N. Mills Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA.

Similar documents

Belk, Dillards, Dollar General, Family Dollar, Follett, Fry`s Electronics

Belk, Dillards, Dollar General, Family Dollar, Follett, Fry`s Electronics 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 pro...

More information