Belk, Dillards, Dollar General, Family Dollar, Follett, Fry`s Electronics
Transcription
Belk, Dillards, Dollar General, Family Dollar, Follett, Fry`s Electronics
Belk, Dillards, Dollar 2011 Sustainability Reporting of the World’s General, Family Dollar, Largest General Merchandising Companies Follett, Fry's Electronics, JC Penney, Kohl's, Macy's, Michael's Stores, Neiman Marcus, N e w e g g . c o m , Nordstrom, PPR, Sears Holdings, Shopko Stores, Target, and Walmart Pacific Sustainability Index Scores: A benchmarking tool for online sustainability reporting Jaclyn D’Arcy, CMC ‘11 Contents Topics Company Rankings Executive Summary 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 Visual Cluster Analysis Average Overall, Environmental, and Social PSI Scores Performance by Country Relationships Between Overall PSI Score and Companies' Financial Indicators Company Rankings Based on the Number of Goals Reported Company Rankings Based on the Better Performance Reported Analyst’s Comments, alphabetically listed by company name PSI Questionnaire 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. Page 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Industrial Sector** Aerospace & Defense Airlines Banks, Insurance Chemicals Largest Companies in China Colleges/Universities Computer, Office Equipment, & Services Consumer Food, Food Production, & Beverages Electronics & Semiconductors Energy Entertainment Federal Agencies Food Services Forest & Paper Products General Merchandiser Homebuilders Industrial & Farm Equipment Mail, Freight, & Shipping Medical Products & Equipment Metals Mining, Crude Oil Motor Vehicle & Parts Municipalities Oil and Gas Equipment Petroleum & Refining Pharmaceuticals Scientific, Photo, & Control Equipment Telecommunications, Network, & Peripherals Utilities, Gas, & Electric 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 29 31 49 Questions should be addressed to: Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director ([email protected]) Roberts Environmental Center Claremont McKenna College 925 N. Mills Ave. Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA Direct line: (909) 621-8190 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 X 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 X X X X X X X X X 1 X X X X X X X * X X * X X X X X X X X X X X X X X * X * X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X * X * X * Multiple-sector category was separated in later years. **As of March 2011. 1 Top 50 Liberal Art Colleges. Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow: (909) 621-8698 ([email protected]) 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 2011 © by J. Emil Morhardt. All rights reserved. www.roberts.cmc.edu 2 General Merchandisers Sector General Merchandisers Sector Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Reporting Company Rankings W almart Overall Grade 36.63 JC Penney 35.88 Nordstrom 33.85 Sears Holdings 33.09 Macy's 33.09 PPR 32.44 T arget 29.83 Kohl's 23.78 Dollar General 14.50 Belk A+ Walmart (USA) A+ JC Penney (USA) A Nordstrom (USA) A Sears Holdings (USA) A Macy's (USA) A PPR (France) A- Target (USA) B Kohl's (USA) C Dollar General (USA) D+ Belk (USA) D Neiman Marcus (USA) D Shopko Stores (USA) D- Follett (USA) D- Family Dollar (USA) D- Dillards (USA) D- Newegg.com (USA) F Michael's Stores (USA) F Fry's Electronics (USA) 9.21 Neiman Marcus 6.87 Shopko Stores 4.88 Follett 3.57 Family Dollar 3.37 Dillards 1.75 Newegg.com 1.72 Michael's Stores 0.41 Fry's Electronics 0.00 0 25 50 75 100 This report is an analysis of voluntary environmental and social reporting of companies on the General Merchandisers sector listed on the 2010 Fortune list. Unlike other sector reports we publish, which are completed by a group of student analysts, this report is completed by one student analyst --Jaclyn D'Arcy --as partial completion of her undergraduate degree majoring in Environment, Economics, and Politics (EEP) from Claremont McKenna College. Companies' data were collected from corporate websites during spring of 2011 (January-March 2011.) After a draft sector report was made available online for companies' review, JC Penney's score increased due to the company's sustainability update. www.roberts.cmc.edu 3 General Merchandisers Sector Executive Summary Target, Kohl’s, Dollar General, Belk, Neiman Marcus, Shopko Stores, Follett, Family Dollar, Dillards, Newegg.com, Michael’s Stores, and Fry’s Electronics. These companies represent the most successful companies based on their strategies to reduce their environmental impact. By Jaclyn D'Arcy, CMC ‘11 [[email protected]] Climate change affects the health of people and the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published research that explains the danger of greenhouse gas emissions on humans, wildlife, and the planet. Initiatives and policies are enacted every day to counter the harm that is done to the environment. Many companies now publish environmental impact reports or Corporate Sustainability Reports (CSR) to promote industry transparency. Participating in environmental and social initiatives is also a competitive advantage for these Fortune 500 companies. Customers can support a company based on their environmental friendliness or social responsibility. Companies are then encouraged to promote social issues like workplace diversity, women in management, and community development; and environmental issues like habitat conservation, green building, and energy reduction. Extended Producer Responsibility, green building, and community initiatives are three categories that are imperative to discuss when addressing environmental and social reporting. Consumers expect institutions like local governments, manufacturers, and retailers to protect and improve the state of the planet. Because it is difficult to determine which party should be held responsible for managing and disposing waste, the burden has been placed on consumers to throw away their products and then the government to dispose of them. Local governments rely on taxpayers and federal grants for products and packaging disposal. Until recently, the disposal methods have consisted only of landfills and incinerators. Consequences of these disposal methods are relevant through scientific studies, and consumers are concerned that the products they rely on have no place to go once they are at the end of their life cycle. Extended Producer Responsibility is a program that offers solutions to the waste disposal system currently in place. By making the brandowner, or producer of the product, responsible for the disposal of the product at the end of its life, the program incentivizes companies to both design products with fewer environmental impacts and create take-back programs to assist consumers with the proper disposal of their purchased products. Claremont McKenna College’s Roberts Environmental Center has created an environmental and social grading system for corporations in different industries. For the general merchandising sector, the Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) is used to evaluate each of the 18 companies. Companies are graded on discussion, initiative, context, goals to improve, current performance, past performance improvement, and adoption of policy. Based on these results, companies will receive a score and be assigned a grade, A+ through F. The general merchandising sector companies scored from highest to lowest in the following order: Walmart, JC Penney, Nordstrom, Sears Holdings, Macy’s, PPR, www.roberts.cmc.edu In addition to dealing with product content and packaging, consumers along with environmental analysts are also wary about the manufacturing facilities themselves. Green building is a progressive and innovative system that ensures new buildings are built using sustainable resources, and implementing 4 General Merchandisers Sector standards. These retail companies have not only embraced these certification systems, but have implemented ways to cut their energy and water usage, and deal with waste in an environmentally responsible way. They have led the way by demonstrating social responsibility is their various community initiatives. Every year, these companies find new ways to support K-12 education and emergency relief funds. By working with communities, they understand the value of arts and culture, and donate resources and money to support festivals, libraries, and museums every year. energy and water saving, and applying waste reducing operations. These operations can include low flush toilets, movement light sensors, and recycling programs. Environmental impact reports are vital to understanding a company’s operation. The social reporting aspect of this PSI scoring system, however, is also important. Companies that have high scores have a clear code of ethics, human rights reporting system, and more importantly, social community investments. These companies understand the ethics of corporate giving and show their support by donating resources or funds to the communities in their demographics. Community education and development are the most common ways that corporations show their support. Some organizations also partner with organizations like United Way or donate time, resources, or money, to natural disaster relief funds like the American Red Cross. Employee volunteering is another way for a company to give back. Engaging employee volunteers is another way for a company to give back. In this way, the employee and the company provide resources to a community and put in the manpower and hours where they are best needed. While, these top Fortune 500 companies are prospering, the exact economic, environmental, or social benefits have not been formally calculated. It is difficult to assess what contributes to their success. Scientists and environmental analysts can only assume and suggest that these environmental and social initiatives are creating benefits to the consumers and their neighborhoods. Further research must be done to directly assess the impacts of these industry initiatives. Until research results are determined, these companies should continue reducing their individual carbon footprint and contribute to community sustainability and prosperity. Walmart, Nordstrom, Sears Holdings, Macy’s, PPR, Target, Kohl’s, and JC Penney represent the most successful Fortune 500 companies that were scored in this report. They are leading the general merchandising sector in both environmental and social reporting data. While most of these companies have not implemented EPR management programs, they are making efforts to promote recycling and reduce waste. In addition, these companies also represent how this industry is promoting innovative programs like green building. National certification organizations like Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and Energy Star have developed systems to encourage companies to use energy saving equipment that are suggested in green building www.roberts.cmc.edu 5 General Merchandisers Sector The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) Overview the PSI Scoring System The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) uses two systematic questionnaires to analyze the quality of the sustainability reporting—a base questionnaire for reports across sectors and a sector-specific questionnaire for companies within the same sector. The selection of questions is based on, and periodically adjusted to, the most frequently-mentioned topics in over 1,900 corporate sustainability reports analyzed from 2002 through 2009 at the Roberts Environmental Center. The Roberts Environmental Center The Roberts Environmental Center is an environmental research institute at Claremont McKenna College (CMC). Its mission is to provide students of all the Claremont Colleges with a comprehensive and realistic understanding of today’s environmental issues and the ways in which they are being and can be resolved-beyond the confines of traditional academic disciplines and curriculum--and to identify, publicize, and encourage policies and practices that achieve economic and social goals in the most environmentally benign and protective manner. The Center is partially funded by an endowment from George R. Roberts (Founding Partner of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and CMC alumnus), other grants and gifts, and is staffed by faculty and students from the Claremont Colleges. Methodology Student analysts download relevant English language web pages from the main corporate website for analysis. Our scoring excludes data independently stored outside the main corporate website or available only in hard copy. When a corporate subsidiary has its own sustainability reporting, partial credit is given to the parent company when a direct link is provided in the main corporate website. We archive these web pages as PDF files for future reference. Our analysts use a keyword search function to search reporting of specific topics, fill out a PSI scoring sheet (http://www.roberts.cmc.edu/PSI/scoringsheet.asp), and track the coverage and depths of different sustainability issues mentioned in all online materials. Scores and Ranks When they are finished scoring, the analysts enter their scoring results into the PSI database. The PSI database calculates scores and publishes them on the Center’s website. This sector report provides an 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 6 General Merchandisers Sector 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 7 General Merchandisers Sector General Merchandiser Environmental Intent Topics Percent of possible points for all companies combined. Two possible points for each topic: Accountability 44.44 41.67 45 40 4 19 35.1936.11 Environmental Performance Indicators 35 266 * Percentage of products sold that is reclaimed at the end of the products’ useful life by product category 30 25.00 Management 25 16 20 21 22 20 14.81 15 5.56 23 1899 Environmental Performance Indicators 10 Policy Vision Urban Environmental Accords Product Responsibility Policy Management Accountability 5 0 * Report contact person * Environmental management structure 9 10 11 12 13 14 259 * Environmental education * Environmental management system * Environmental accounting * Environmental initiatives (voluntary) including donations and grants * Stakeholder consultation * Environmental aspects and impacts of the industry * Environmental policy statement * Climate change/global warming * Habitat/ecosystem conservation * Biodiversity * Green purchasing * Environmental goals * Environmental labelling Urban Environmental Accords 306 * Green building Vision 5 6 10004 10005 * Environmental visionary statement * Environmental impediments and challenges * Commitment to minimize consumption * Commitment to minimize environmental impacts 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 General Merchandisers Sector General Merchandiser Environmental Reporting Topics Seven possible points for each topic: Emissions to Air Percent of possible points for all companies combined. 112 124 30 * Carbon dioxide (CO2) or equivalents (i e GHG) * Logistics emissions Energy 28.15 26 27 28 25 23.33 22.78 103 21.67 * Energy used (total) * Energy used (renewable) * Electricity consumption * Energy used: Logistics Management 20.12 38 20 39 40 14.07 15 133 163 14.67 164 190 3499 3799 10 * Notices of violation (environmental) * Environmental expenses and investments * Fines (environmental) * Green technologies research and development * Green transportation initiatives * Emulating best practices * Financing ecologically friendly projects * Geographic differences in environmental performance * Raw material reduction Materials Usage 146 147 4.07 5 148 * Green material used * Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) * Materials used: Non-returnable packaging Products 139 140 144 Water Waste Recycling Products Materials Usage Management Energy Emissions to Air 0 * Product stewardship or take-back * Product environmental performance * Eco-efficiency monitoring Recycling 30 32 107 * Waste recycled: solid waste * Waste (office) recycled * Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials Waste 33 34 35 37 109 * Waste produced * Waste (solid) disposed of * Waste (hazardous) produced * Waste (hazardous) released to the environment * Waste: Packaging materials Water 29 * Water used 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 General Merchandisers Sector General Merchandiser Social Intent Topics Two possible points for each topic: Percent of possible points for all companies combined. Accountability 51 66.67 70 54 60 * Health and safety, or social organizational * structure Third-party validation Management 55.56 17 18 50 52 53 55 40 33.80 82 30.56 * Workforce profile: ethnicities/race * Workforce profile: gender * Workforce profile: age * Emergency preparedness program * Social initiatives, including donations and grants * Employee training for career development Policy 30 25.00 45 47 20 49 * Social policy statement * Code of conduct or business ethics * Supplier screening based on social or environmental performance/ supplier management 10 Social Demographic * Employment for individuals with disabilities Vision Vision Social Demographic Policy Management 0 Accountability 80 42 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 10 General Merchandisers Sector General Merchandiser Social Reporting Topics Seven possible points for each topic: GRI Social Performance Indicators Percent of possible points for all companies combined. 278 * Strikes and lockouts Human Rights 50 45.69 1 45 7 8 40 58 59 35 60 30 * Sexual harassment * Political contributions * Bribery * Anti-corruption practices * Degrading treatment or punishment of employees * Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and occupation 61 25 * Free association and collective bargaining of employees 20.56 62 20 63 14.65 * Fair compensation of employees * Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor 15 64 7.78 10 65 * Reasonable working hours * Effective abolition of child labor Management 5 2 149 Quantitative Social Qualitative Social Management GRI Social Performance Indicators 0 Human Rights 0.00 * Women in management * Customer Emergency Support Qualitative Social 66 67 68 70 72 169 185 196 * Community development * Employee satisfaction surveys * Community education * Occupational health and safety protection * Employee volunteerism * Customer health and safety * Access to health care for employees * Customer wellness and nutrition Quantitative Social 3 71 74 75 * Employee turnover rate * Customer satisfaction * Recordable incident/accident rate * Lost workday case rate 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 11 General Merchandisers Sector General Merchandiser Environmental Intent Elements of the PSI Scores Environmental visionary statement 55.6% 55.6% Environmental policy statement 55.6% 55.6% Commitment to minimize environmental impacts 50.0% 50.0% Green purchasing 50.0% 50.0% Environmental labelling 44.4% 36.1% Commitment to minimize consumption 44.4% 44.4% Green building 44.4% 44.4% Climate change/global warming 38.9% 36.1% Environmental education 38.9% 33.3% Environmental management structure 33.3% 30.6% Environmental goals 27.8% 27.8% Report contact person 27.8% 19.4% Environmental initiatives (voluntary) including donations and grants 27.8% 25.0% Biodiversity 22.2% 19.4% Habitat/ecosystem conservation 22.2% 22.2% Stakeholder consultation 16.7% 11.1% Environmental impediments and challenges 16.7% 16.7% Environmental aspects and impacts of the industry 11.1% 8.3% Environmental management system 5.6% 5.6% Environmental accounting 5.6% 5.6% Percentage of products sold that is reclaimed at the end of the products’ useful life by product category 5.6% 5.6% 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 General Merchandisers Sector General Merchandiser Environmental Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores 50.0% 46.0% Green transportation initiatives Waste (office) recycled Carbon dioxide (CO2) or equivalents (i e GHG) 50.0% 19 . 0 % 44.4% 33.3% Green technologies research and development Waste recycled: solid waste 19 . 0 % Electricity consumption 19 . 0 % 44.4% 44.4% 38.9% 23.8% Financing ecologically friendly projects Waste: Packaging materials 38.9% 15 . 9 % Waste produced 38.9% 11. 9 % 38.9% 11. 1% Energy used (renewable) 13 . 5 % Water used 16 . 7 % Materials used: Non-returnable packaging 8.7% Energy used: Logistics 7 . 1% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 27.8% 11. 1% 27.8% 27.8% 16 . 7 % Raw material reduction Waste (hazardous) produced 22.2% 8.7% Logistics emissions 22.2% 7.9% Product environmental performance 16 . 7 % 5.6% Emulating best practices 16 . 7 % 7 . 1% Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) 16 . 7 % 10 . 3 % Waste (hazardous) released to the environment 11. 1% 4.8% Product stewardship or take-back 11. 1% 3.2% Environmental expenses and investments 50.0% 22.2% Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials Waste (solid) disposed of 50.0% 24.6% Energy used (total) Green material used 50.0% 22.2% 5.6% 2.4% 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 13 General Merchandisers Sector General Merchandiser Social Intent Elements of the PSI Scores Social policy statement 83.3% 83.3% Social visionary statement 83.3% 83.3% 66.7% 66.7% Social initiatives, including donations and grants Code of conduct or business ethics 61.1% 55.6% Supplier screening based on social or environmental performance/ supplier management 61.1% 61.1% 50.0% 47.2% Employee training for career development Workforce profile: ethnicities/race 44.4% 38.9% Workforce profile: gender 44.4% 36.1% 38.9% 36.1% Health and safety, or social organizational structure Employment for individuals with disabilities 33.3% 25.0% Third-party validation 33.3% 25.0% 27.8% 27.8% Social impediments and challenges Workforce profile: age Emergency preparedness program 11.1% 8.3% 5.6% 5.6% 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 14 General Merchandisers Sector General Merchandiser Social Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores Community development 52.4% Social community investment 66.7% 29.4% 66.7% 54.8% Community education 55.6% 43.7% Employee volunteerism 50.0% 42.1% Occupational health and safety protection Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and occupation Customer health and safety 50.0% 16.7% 21.4% 44.4% 44.4% 27.8% Access to health care for employees Bribery 38.9% 11.9% 38.9% 29.4% Women in management Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor 12.7% Reasonable working hours 11.9% Effective abolition of child labor 11.9% Political contributions 10.3% 38.9% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 18.3% Sexual harassment Fair compensation of employees 27.8% 11.1% Customer wellness and nutrition 22.2% 11.9% Free association and collective bargaining of employees 77.8% 16.7% 7.1% Employee satisfaction surveys 11.1% 7.1% Customer satisfaction 11.1% 3.2% Anti-corruption practices 11.1% 2.4% Degrading treatment or punishment of employees 5.6% 0.8% Recordable incident/accident rate 5.6% 3.2% Employee turnover rate 5.6% 3.2% Health and safety citations 0.0% 0.0% Health and safety fines 0.0% 0.0% Lost workday case rate 0.0% 0.0% Customer Emergency Support 0.0% 0.0% Strikes and lockouts 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 15 General Merchandisers Sector EI Score Rankings Environmental Intent Scores 71.4 W almart 66.7 Sears Holdings 61.9 JC Penney 59.5 PPR 57.1 Nordstrom 54.8 T arget 52.4 Macy's 47.6 Kohl's 31.0 Dollar General 11.9 Neiman Marcus A+ Walmart A Sears Holdings A- JC Penney AA- PPR Nordstrom B+ Target B+ B Macy's Kohl's C Dollar General D Neiman Marcus F F Belk Newegg.com F Shopko Stores F F Fry's Electronics Follett F Michael's Stores F Family Dollar F Dillards Belk 2.4 Newegg.com 0.0 Shopko Stores 0.0 Fry's Electronics 0.0 Follett 0.0 Michael's Stores 0.0 Family Dollar 0.0 Dillards 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 16 General Merchandisers Sector ER Score Rankings Environmental Reporting Scores 38.00 JC Penney Sears Holdings 31.56 PPR 30.89 30.67 W almart Macy's 27.56 T arget 27.11 Kohl's 26.67 23.33 Nordstrom 15.11 Dollar General Newegg.com 0.00 A+ A- JC Penney Sears Holdings A- PPR AB+ Walmart Macy's B+ Target B Kohl's BC Nordstrom Dollar General F Newegg.com F F Shopko Stores Fry's Electronics F Follett F Michael's Stores F F Belk Neiman Marcus F Family Dollar F Dillards Shopko Stores 0.00 Fry's Electronics 0.00 Follett 0.00 Michael's Stores 0.00 Belk 0.00 Neiman Marcus 0.00 Family Dollar 0.00 Dillards 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 17 General Merchandisers Sector EP Score Rankings Environmental Performance Scores A+ PPR A A JC Penney Walmart 26.67 B+ Nordstrom 26.67 B+ B+ Kohl's Sears Holdings B Macy's B- Target 30.00 PPR JC Penney W almart 23.33 Nordstrom Kohl's 21.67 CF Dollar General Newegg.com Sears Holdings 21.67 F Shopko Stores 20.00 F F Fry's Electronics Follett F Michael's Stores F Belk Dollar General 10.00 F F Neiman Marcus Family Dollar Newegg.com 0.00 F Dillards Macy's 16.67 T arget Shopko Stores 0.00 Fry's Electronics 0.00 Follett 0.00 Michael's Stores 0.00 Belk 0.00 Neiman Marcus 0.00 Family Dollar 0.00 Dillards 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 18 General Merchandisers Sector SI Score Rankings Social Intent Scores 92.86 PPR Nordstrom 75.00 Macy's 75.00 75.00 W almart 71.43 JC Penney 64.29 T arget 53.57 Belk 50.00 Sears Holdings 42.86 Dollar General 39.29 Neiman Marcus A+ A- PPR Nordstrom A- Macy's AB+ Walmart JC Penney B Target B- Belk C+ C+ Sears Holdings Dollar General C Neiman Marcus C D+ Kohl's Shopko Stores D+ Family Dollar D+ Dillards D D Newegg.com Follett F Michael's Stores F Fry's Electronics 35.71 Kohl's Shopko Stores 21.43 Family Dollar 21.43 Dillards 21.43 Newegg.com 14.29 Follett 14.29 Michael's Stores 3.57 Fry's Electronics 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 19 General Merchandisers Sector SR Score Rankings Social Reporting Scores 35.29 Nordstrom Macy's 32.53 Sears Holdings 31.15 30.34 JC Penney 29.42 W almart 22.76 T arget 20.00 PPR 17.47 Kohl's 17.01 Belk Shopko Stores 9.42 Dollar General 9.42 Neiman Marcus 9.20 A+ A Nordstrom Macy's A Sears Holdings AA- JC Penney Walmart B Target B- PPR C+ C+ Kohl's Belk D+ Shopko Stores D+ D+ Dollar General Neiman Marcus D Follett D Family Dollar DD- Newegg.com Dillards F Fry's Electronics F Michael's Stores Follett 7.13 Family Dollar 5.75 Newegg.com 2.30 Dillards 1.72 Fry's Electronics 0.00 Michael's Stores 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 20 General Merchandisers Sector SP Score Rankings Social Performance Scores 37.93 W almart T arget 34.48 Nordstrom 32.76 29.31 Macy's 22.41 PPR 22.41 Sears Holdings 18.97 JC Penney 12.07 Kohl's Shopko Stores 6.90 Belk 6.90 A+ Walmart A Target A- Nordstrom B+ B- Macy's PPR B- Sears Holdings C+ C- JC Penney Kohl's D Shopko Stores D Belk D D Neiman Marcus Follett D Dollar General DD- Family Dollar Newegg.com D- Michael's Stores F Fry's Electronics F Dillards Neiman Marcus 6.90 Follett 5.17 Dollar General 5.17 Family Dollar 3.45 Newegg.com 1.72 Michael's Stores 1.72 Fry's Electronics 0.00 Dillards 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 21 General Merchandisers Sector General Merchandiser Human Rights Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores Percent of companies reporting* Human Rights Topics adoption reinforcement monitoring 5.6% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 22.2% 27.8% 0.0% 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 0.0% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 38.9% 0.0% 0.0% 22.2% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 27.8% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 27.8% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 27.8% 33.3% 5.6% 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 22 General Merchandisers Sector 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 50 EP EI EP 50 EI 50 EP EI 50 25 25 25 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 SP SI SR SP SI SR SP SI SR JC Penney ER SI SR Nordstrom ER SP SR Sears Holdings ER Macy's ER ER 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 SP SI SR SP SI SR PPR SI SR Target ER SP ER SP SI SR Kohl's SP Belk 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 Neiman Marcus SR Shopko Stores ER SP 100 100 75 75 75 EP EI 25 EP EI 25 0 SI 50 SR Newegg.com www.roberts.cmc.edu SI SP SR Dillards EP 50 25 0 SP Family Dollar SI EP ER 100 50 SP SR Follett ER SI EP SR Dollar General ER EP SP 100 SI EI ER 100 75 Walmart EI ER 100 75 SI EI ER 100 0 SP SR Michael's Stores SI SP SR Fry's Electronics 23 General Merchandisers Sector General Merchandiser 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 Overall France Country N France 1 USA 17 USA Environmental France USA Social France 0 www.roberts.cmc.edu 5 10 15 20 25 24 30 35 40 General Merchandisers Sector 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 9.21 1.75 3500 0.54 6988 0.84 14.50 11460 1.06 330 -0.48 9130 0.96 8200 0.91 3.37 3.57 7470 0.87 300 -0.52 2760 0.44 4530 0.66 2660 0.42 Fry's Electronics JC Penney 0.00 35.88 2400 0.38 17560 1.24 250 -0.60 12580 1.10 6590 0.82 Kohl's 23.78 17180 1.24 990 0.00 13160 1.12 16540 1.22 Macy's Michael's Stores 33.09 0.41 23490 1.37 350 -0.46 21300 1.33 8330 0.92 3820 0.58 Neiman Marcus 6.87 3640 0.56 1.72 33.85 2100 0.32 8630 0.94 440 -0.36 6580 0.82 8180 0.91 PPR 32.44 23710 1.37 1410 0.15 34300 1.54 14670 1.17 Sears Holdings Shopko Stores 33.09 4.88 44040 1.64 240 -0.62 24810 1.39 11010 1.04 2220 0.35 Target Walmart 29.83 36.63 65360 1.82 2490 0.40 44530 1.65 38900 1.59 408210 2.61 14340 1.16 170710 2.23 205370 2.31 Belk Dillards Dollar General Family Dollar Follett Newegg.com Nordstrom Source: www.roberts.cmc.edu 25 2010 Forbes List General Merchandisers Sector 60 Overall PSI Scores 50 40 3 6 .6 3 3 5 .8 8 3 3 .8 5 33 32 .0 .4 94 3 3 .0 9 30 2 9 .8 3 2 3 .7 8 20 2 R = 0.6679 14 .5 0 10 9 .2 1 6 .8 7 4 .8 8 3 .5 7 1.7 2 0 .0 0 0 0 0 .4 1 0.5 3 .3 7 1.7 5 1 1. 5 2 2.5 3 Revenue Log10 $M 40 36.63 35.88 33.09 33.85 33.09 35 32.44 Overall PSI Scores 30 29.83 25 2 23.78 R = 0.1053 20 15 14 . 5 0 10 5 3.37 0 - 0.8 - 0.6 - 0.4 - 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Profits Log10 $M www.roberts.cmc.edu 26 General Merchandisers Sector 45 40 Overall PSI Scores 36.63 35.88 35 33.85 3 3 .30 39 . 0 9 30 32.44 29.83 25 2 R = 0.4524 23.78 20 15 14 . 5 0 10 5 3.37 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Asset Log10 $M 45 40 35.88 33.85 3 3 . 0 93 3 . 0 9 Overall PSI Scores 35 36.63 32.44 30 29.83 2 25 R = 0.1881 23.78 20 15 14 . 5 0 10 5 3.37 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Market Value Log10 $M www.roberts.cmc.edu 27 General Merchandisers Sector Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported Macy's 4 Nordstrom 3 Walmart 2 JC Penney 1 Kohl's 1 PPR 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 Explicit Goals Most Frequently Reported 1 Waste: Packaging materials 2 2 Social community investment 2 3 Energy used (total) 2 4 Green material used 1 5 Carbon dioxide (CO2) or equivalents (i e GHG) 1 6 Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials 1 7 Waste (office) recycled 1 www.roberts.cmc.edu 28 General Merchandisers Sector Number of Topics Showing Performance Improvement over Previous Year Data JC Penney 22 Walmart 20 PPR 18 Nordstrom 17 Target 15 Macy's 14 Kohl's 13 Sears Holdings 12 Dollar General 4 Belk 2 Shopko Stores 2 Family Dollar 1 Follett 1 Michael's Stores 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 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 Energy used (total) Community development Employee volunteerism Electricity consumption Community education Occupational health and safety protection Social community investment Carbon dioxide (CO2) or equivalents (i e GHG) Green transportation initiatives Waste (office) recycled Water used Waste: Packaging materials Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials Green technologies research and development Waste (solid) disposed of Waste recycled: solid waste www.roberts.cmc.edu 29 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 General Merchandisers Sector 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Energy used (renewable) Access to health care for employees Waste (hazardous) produced Waste produced Women in management Raw material reduction Materials used: Non-returnable packaging Energy used: Logistics Green material used Financing ecologically friendly projects Waste (hazardous) released to the environment Logistics emissions Customer wellness and nutrition Employee turnover rate Recordable incident/accident rate Employee satisfaction surveys Customer health and safety Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) Product stewardship or take-back Environmental expenses and investments www.roberts.cmc.edu 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30 General Merchandisers Sector D+ Belk 2011 Web pages Belk Belk has no environmental reporting on its 2011 web pages. Its social visionary statements regard the Women’s Leadership Network. Belk is committed to career advancement for women and diversifying its workforce. Education and community involvement is an important part of Belk’s values. Belk supports many neighborhood community initiatives through United Way and Good Neighbor. It also gives money to support education through Classroom Central. There are no human rights reporting or environmental visionary statements. 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 Source of points Distribution of points E 2% E ES A 54 17 S S 98% SSA 0 25 50 75 2 0 0 EI ER EP 7 SI SR Belk SP Environmental Intent Question Category Accountability Score Max Score % General Comment 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Performance Indicators 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 1 12 8 Needs substantial improvement Policy 0 12 0 Needs substantial improvement Product Responsibility 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Urban Environmental Accords 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 0 8 0 Needs substantial improvement Score Max Score % General Comment 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Emissions to Air Energy 0 28 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 63 0 Needs substantial improvement Materials Usage 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Products 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Waste 0 35 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 8 12 67 Good Policy 4 6 67 Good Social Demographic 1 2 50 Good Vision 2 4 50 Good Social Reporting Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment GRI Social Performance Indicators 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement Human Rights 1 77 1 Needs substantial improvement Management 3 14 21 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 20 56 36 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 4 49 8 Needs substantial improvement www.roberts.cmc.edu 31 General Merchandisers Sector D- Dillards 2011 Web pages Dillards Dillards is committed to providing its employees with the basic rules of corporate governance. It did not report any environmental initiatives or socialcommunity investments. 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 Source of points Distribution of points E 0% E ES A 21 S S 100% SSA 0 25 50 75 0 0 0 EI ER EP SI 2 0 SR SP Dillards Environmental Intent Question Category Accountability Score Max Score % General Comment 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Performance Indicators 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 12 0 Needs substantial improvement Policy 0 12 0 Needs substantial improvement Product Responsibility 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Urban Environmental Accords 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 0 8 0 Needs substantial improvement Score Max Score % General Comment 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Emissions to Air Energy 0 28 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 63 0 Needs substantial improvement Materials Usage 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Products 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Waste 0 35 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 12 0 Needs substantial 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 GRI Social Performance Indicators 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement Human Rights 2 77 3 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 0 56 0 Needs substantial improvement Quantitative Social 0 49 0 Needs substantial improvement www.roberts.cmc.edu 32 General Merchandisers Sector C Dollar General 2011 Web pages Dollar General Dollar General has implemented many changes to address the current environmental concerns. In 2008 and 2009, it installed energy management systems in stores. Energy efficient lighting, heating, and air conditioning are currently used in the stores. These changes conserve energy and keep energy costs low. Dollar General encourages its customers to make green choices; supplying reusable shopping bags and green household cleaning products educate customers about options that are better for the environment. Recycling efforts prevent waste from going into landfills. Recycling cardboard at Dollar General alone is expected to save the equivalent of 2.4 million trees per year. This new cardboard recycling program accepts collected cardboard from post-customer used products. Greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 8% due to expansion in operations. However, efficiency has also increased by 10%, avoiding 113,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. Green transportation initiatives have been created as well. Dollar General has reduced the total miles through improved routing. By implementing operational and systemic improvements, the amount of cartons per load has been increased, decreasing the amount of trips and trucks necessary for delivery. A more explicit portrayal of the emissions and energy usage is necessary. Furthermore, despite reporting on policies against forced labor and child labor, there are no human rights reporting. 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 Source of points Distribution of points E ES A 43 S 43% E 57% S 31 15 10 ER EP 9 5 SR SP Dollar General SSA 0 25 50 EI 75 SI Environmental Intent Question Category Accountability Score Max Score % General Comment 2 4 50 Good Environmental Performance Indicators 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 12 0 Needs substantial improvement Policy 6 12 50 Good Product Responsibility 1 2 50 Good Urban Environmental Accords 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 4 8 50 Good Score Max Score % General Comment 3 14 21 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Emissions to Air Energy 4 28 14 Needs substantial improvement Management 9 63 14 Needs substantial improvement Materials Usage 2 21 10 Needs substantial improvement Products 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 8 21 38 Needs improvement Waste 3 35 9 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 12 17 Needs substantial improvement Policy 5 6 83 Excellent Social Demographic 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 4 4 100 Excellent Social Reporting Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment GRI Social Performance Indicators 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement Human Rights 2 77 3 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 13 56 23 Needs substantial improvement Quantitative Social 2 49 4 Needs substantial improvement www.roberts.cmc.edu 33 General Merchandisers Sector D- Family Dollar 2011 Web pages Family Dollar Family Dollar had no environmental or social responsibility reporting. There was no human rights reporting. 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 Source of points Distribution of points E 0% E ES A 21 S S 100% SSA 0 25 50 75 0 0 0 EI ER EP SI 6 3 SR SP Family Dollar Environmental Intent Question Category Accountability Score Max Score % General Comment 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Performance Indicators 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 12 0 Needs substantial improvement Policy 0 12 0 Needs substantial improvement Product Responsibility 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Urban Environmental Accords 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 0 8 0 Needs substantial improvement Score Max Score % General Comment 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Emissions to Air Energy 0 28 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 63 0 Needs substantial improvement Materials Usage 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Products 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Waste 0 35 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 2 12 17 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 GRI Social Performance Indicators 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement Human Rights 0 77 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 10 56 18 Needs substantial improvement Quantitative Social 0 49 0 Needs substantial improvement www.roberts.cmc.edu 34 General Merchandisers Sector D- Follett 2011 Web pages Follett Follett has no environmental responsibility reporting. Its social visionary statement outlines its support and contributions for community involvement and workforce diversity. It has instituted a Reading is Fundamental program for underprivileged youth. Follett has a gift matching program with their associates to encourage social community investment. There are no human rights reporting. 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 Source of points Distribution of points E 0% E ES A 14 7 S S 100% SSA 0 25 50 75 0 0 0 EI ER EP 5 Follett SI SR SP Environmental Intent Question Category Accountability Score Max Score % General Comment 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Performance Indicators 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 12 0 Needs substantial improvement Policy 0 12 0 Needs substantial improvement Product Responsibility 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Urban Environmental Accords 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 0 8 0 Needs substantial improvement Score Max Score % General Comment 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Emissions to Air Energy 0 28 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 63 0 Needs substantial improvement Materials Usage 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Products 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Waste 0 35 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 12 0 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 GRI Social Performance Indicators 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement Human Rights 1 77 1 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 11 56 20 Needs substantial improvement Quantitative Social 2 49 4 Needs substantial improvement www.roberts.cmc.edu 35 General Merchandisers Sector F Fry's Electronics 2011 Web pages Fry's Electronics Fry’s Electronics has no environmental or social responsibility reporting on its 2011 web pages. Furthermore, there is no information regarding community investment or human rights reporting. 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 Source of points Distribution of points E S 1% E 1% ES A S 0 0 0 0 0 0 EI ER EP SI SR SP Fry's Electronics SSA 0 25 50 75 Environmental Intent Question Category Accountability Score Max Score % General Comment 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Performance Indicators 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 12 0 Needs substantial improvement Policy 0 12 0 Needs substantial improvement Product Responsibility 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Urban Environmental Accords 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 0 8 0 Needs substantial improvement Score Max Score % General Comment 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Emissions to Air Energy 0 28 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 63 0 Needs substantial improvement Materials Usage 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Products 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Waste 0 35 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 12 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 GRI Social Performance Indicators 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement Human Rights 0 77 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 0 56 0 Needs substantial improvement Quantitative Social 0 49 0 Needs substantial improvement www.roberts.cmc.edu 36 General Merchandisers Sector A+ JC Penney 2011 Web pages JC Penney JC Penney is exemplary in its environmental education and recycling initiatives. JC Penney has installed solar panels and wind turbines to increase its renewable energy usage at stores nationwide. Recycling initiatives have increased the amount of cardboard and plastic hangers JC Penney recycles, decreasing its overall waste produced. Simply Green is JC Penney’s designation to assist customers in making environmentally conscious purchases. Through its green products suppliers, JC Penney educates its consumers and associates by choosing the best products that have the least negative environmental impacts. Reusable shopping bags are offered as an alternative to paper and plastic bags at JC Penney stores. It focuses its corporate responsibility on its community and associates. Its social investment activities include an after-school fund, associate giving, corporate giving, and aligning with community advocates. JC Penney has endorsed the United Nation Global Compact, but none of the principles are discussed in the sustainability report, which is reflected in the missing PSI scores on human rights topics. The company is also a signatory company to Carbon Disclosure Project, partner of Energy Start program, and founding member of the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, and participation in such highly esteemed environmental programs are indicative of the company's commitment to sustainability. It would be helpful if the reports cover the type of involvements and issues that are being worked on in the report in specifics. 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 Source of points Distribution of points E ES A S SSA 0 25 50 71 62 S 45% E 55% 38 EI 75 ER 30 27 EP SI SR 19 JC Penney SP Environmental Intent Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment Accountability 2 4 50 Good Environmental Performance Indicators 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 6 12 50 Good Policy 6 12 50 Good Product Responsibility 2 2 100 Excellent Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent Vision 8 8 100 Excellent Score Max Score % General Comment 7 14 50 Good Environmental Reporting Question Category Emissions to Air Energy 10 28 36 Needs improvement Management 18 63 29 Needs improvement Materials Usage 7 21 33 Needs improvement Products 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 10 21 48 Needs improvement Waste 16 35 46 Needs improvement Water 4 7 57 Good Score Max Score % General Comment 2 4 50 Good Management 8 12 67 Good Policy 6 6 100 Social Demographic 0 2 0 Vision 4 4 100 Social Intent Question Category Accountability Excellent Needs substantial improvement Excellent Social Reporting Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment GRI Social Performance Indicators 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement Needs substantial improvement Human Rights 10 77 13 Management 4 14 29 Needs improvement Qualitative Social 34 56 61 Good Quantitative Social 5 49 10 Needs substantial improvement www.roberts.cmc.edu 37 General Merchandisers Sector B Kohl's 2011 Web pages Kohl's Kohl’s dedication to environmental conservation is evident through its recycling initiatives and conservation efforts. Gift boxes and restroom tissues are made from 100% recycled paper, and carpet recycling and high efficiency lighting has been installed at Kohl’s. It has asked vendor partners to eliminate or reduce packaging on merchandise shipped to its stores. Solar panels and other renewable energy sources have been purchased to increase energy efficiency and Kohl’s is a member of the ENERGY STAR Program. Green building materials and green power are at the forefront of Kohl’s green initiatives. These green building requirements include green materials, recycled building materials, and air quality and ventilation that enhance the environment. Alternative transportation initiatives and construction activity pollution prevention demonstrate Kohl’s dedication to environmental protection. Kohl’s social responsibility is evident through its Kids Who Care scholarship program to encourage community education. Its fundraising gift card program allows youthserving non profits or schools to keep the profits from selling Kohl’s gift cards. Kohl’s did a great job reporting its emissions, waste, and energy use. Although its community involvement and environmental initiatives are exemplar, it didn’t provide information on human rights or a code of ethics. 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 Source of points Distribution of points E E 6 1% S SSA 0 25 50 48 S 39% ES A 27 36 22 17 12 Kohl's EI 75 ER EP SI SR SP Environmental Intent Question Category Accountability Score Max Score % General Comment 4 4 100 Excellent Environmental Performance Indicators 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 2 12 17 Needs substantial improvement Policy 6 12 50 Good Product Responsibility 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent Vision 6 8 75 Excellent Score Max Score % General Comment 4 14 29 Needs improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Emissions to Air Energy 10 28 36 Needs improvement Management 14 63 22 Needs substantial improvement Materials Usage 3 21 14 Needs substantial improvement Products 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 10 21 48 Needs improvement Waste 9 35 26 Needs improvement Water 3 7 43 Needs improvement Social Intent Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment Accountability 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 4 12 33 Needs improvement Policy 4 6 67 Good Social Demographic 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 2 4 50 Good Score Max Score % General Comment 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement Social Reporting Question Category GRI Social Performance Indicators Human Rights 0 77 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 6 14 43 Needs improvement Qualitative Social 23 56 41 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 3 49 6 Needs substantial improvement www.roberts.cmc.edu 38 General Merchandisers Sector A Macy's 2011 Web Pages Macy's Macy’s has made significant progress in the past two years to reduce its impact on the environment. It has installed solar power systems and implemented energy projects to reduce overall energy use. Office paper use has decreased by 34% and credit card statements can now be checked online instead of sent using paper in the mail. Waste programs have diverted up to 60% of the waste from landfills and biodegradable packaging materials have replaced Styrofoam peanuts. Macy’s has launched its Green Living website so that associates can interact with the company about sustainability-related topics at work and home. It also accepts and recycles fluorescent bulbs, cell phones, and batteries. To contribute to neighborhood communities where retail stores are located, Macy’s also encourages its employees to volunteer, and partnered with United Way. Macy’s created a gift matching program and an earning for living program. Although Macy’s has made progress on its social and environmental initiatives, the company needs to report more information about its direct emissions. 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 Source of points Distribution of points E 75 E 45% ES A S 52 S 55% SSA 0 25 50 28 20 ER EP 33 29 SR SP Macy's EI 75 SI Environmental Intent Question Category Accountability Score Max Score % General Comment 1 4 25 Needs improvement Environmental Performance Indicators 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 2 12 17 Needs substantial improvement Policy 10 12 83 Excellent Product Responsibility 1 2 50 Good Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent Vision 6 8 75 Excellent Score Max Score % General Comment 1 14 7 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Emissions to Air Energy 11 28 39 Needs improvement Management 22 63 35 Needs improvement Materials Usage 6 21 29 Needs improvement Products 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 7 21 33 Needs improvement Waste 6 35 17 Needs substantial improvement Water 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement Score Max Score % General Comment 2 4 50 Good Management 9 12 75 Excellent Policy 6 6 100 Excellent Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent Vision 2 4 50 Good Social Intent Question Category Accountability Social Reporting Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment GRI Social Performance Indicators 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement Human Rights 27 77 35 Needs improvement Management 6 14 43 Needs improvement Qualitative Social 30 56 54 Good Quantitative Social 4 49 8 Needs substantial improvement www.roberts.cmc.edu 39 General Merchandisers Sector F Michael's Stores 2011 Web pages Michael's Stores Michael’s Stores has no environmental or social responsibility reporting. It briefly discusses its code of conduct on the 2011 web pages. 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 Source of points Distribution of points E 0% E ES A 4 2 S S 100% SSA 0 25 50 75 0 0 0 EI ER EP Michael's Stores 0 SI SR SP Environmental Intent Question Category Accountability Score Max Score % General Comment 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Performance Indicators 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 12 0 Needs substantial improvement Policy 0 12 0 Needs substantial improvement Product Responsibility 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Urban Environmental Accords 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 0 8 0 Needs substantial improvement Score Max Score % General Comment 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Emissions to Air Energy 0 28 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 63 0 Needs substantial improvement Materials Usage 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Products 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Waste 0 35 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 12 0 Needs substantial improvement Policy 1 6 17 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 GRI Social Performance Indicators 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement Human Rights 0 77 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 1 56 2 Needs substantial improvement Quantitative Social 0 49 0 Needs substantial improvement www.roberts.cmc.edu 40 General Merchandisers Sector D Neimen Marcus 2011 Web pages Neiman Marcus Neimen Marcus has no environmental or social reporting. In its 2011 web pages, it states that employees are expected to comply with all environmental laws and regulations and that a compliance committee will regulate its commitment to social responsibility as well. More information about the company’s community involvement, environmental initiatives, and human rights reporting is necessary. 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 Source of points Distribution of points E 14 % E ES A 39 12 S S 86% SSA 0 25 50 EI 75 9 0 0 ER EP SI SR 7 Neiman Marcus SP Environmental Intent Question Category Accountability Score Max Score % General Comment 1 4 25 Needs improvement Environmental Performance Indicators 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 12 0 Needs substantial improvement Policy 2 12 17 Needs substantial improvement Product Responsibility 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Urban Environmental Accords 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 2 8 25 Needs improvement Score Max Score % General Comment 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Emissions to Air Energy 0 28 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 63 0 Needs substantial improvement Materials Usage 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Products 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Waste 0 35 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 12 0 Policy 6 6 100 Excellent Social Demographic 1 2 50 Good Vision 2 4 50 Good Social Reporting Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment GRI Social Performance Indicators 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement Human Rights 16 77 21 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 4 56 7 Needs substantial improvement Quantitative Social 0 49 0 Needs substantial improvement www.roberts.cmc.edu 41 General Merchandisers Sector D- Newegg.com 2011 Web pages Newegg.com There is no information on environmental and social responsibility or human rights reporting. 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 Source of points Distribution of points E 0% E ES A 14 S S 100% SSA 0 25 50 75 0 0 0 EI ER EP SI 2 2 SR SP Newegg.com Environmental Intent Question Category Accountability Score Max Score % General Comment 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Performance Indicators 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 12 0 Needs substantial improvement Policy 0 12 0 Needs substantial improvement Product Responsibility 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Urban Environmental Accords 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 0 8 0 Needs substantial improvement Score Max Score % General Comment 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Emissions to Air Energy 0 28 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 63 0 Needs substantial improvement Materials Usage 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Products 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Waste 0 35 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 12 0 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 GRI Social Performance Indicators 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement Human Rights 0 77 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 4 56 7 Needs substantial improvement Quantitative Social 0 49 0 Needs substantial improvement www.roberts.cmc.edu 42 General Merchandisers Sector A Nordstrom 2011 Web pages Nordstrom Nordstrom values environmental protection, workforce diversity, supplier diversity, and community investment. It has invested in organic farmers who limit the amount of pesticides and fertilizer to make organic cotton. By installing efficient spotlight technology and heating and cooling systems, Nordstrom has reduced its energy usage and increased lighting efficiency. To save forests and educate customers about its environmental initiatives, Nordstrom uses paper that conserves natural forests for its mailings and catalogs. It also uses recycled materials to package products and reduce waste. Nordstrom has implemented a water-saving initiative in its landscapes and protects water source quality by installing regulated water flow toilets and urinals. It participates in the Carbon Disclosure Project to track and share information about greenhouse-gas emissions. Besides its environmental initiatives, Nordstrom also takes care of its employees and customers. It has created a wellness program designed to offer employees the information and resources to live healthy and happy lives. Through this program, employees can learn to build better living habits and behaviors every year. To help fellow citizens, employees volunteer in this wellness program and with a partner of Nordstrom: United Way. Although Nordstrom is a leader in environmental initiatives, the company would benefit from disclosing more information on its human rights reporting. 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 Source of points Distribution of points E 75 E 42% ES A S 57 S 58% SSA 0 25 50 23 23 ER EP 35 33 SR SP Nordstrom EI 75 SI Environmental Intent Question Category Accountability Score Max Score % General Comment 1 4 25 Needs improvement Needs substantial improvement Environmental Performance Indicators 0 2 0 Management 3 12 25 Needs improvement Policy 8 12 67 Good Product Responsibility 2 2 100 Excellent Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent Vision 8 8 100 Excellent Score Max Score % General Comment 3 14 21 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Emissions to Air Energy 7 28 25 Needs improvement Management 21 63 33 Needs improvement Materials Usage 3 21 14 Needs substantial improvement Products 1 21 5 Needs substantial improvement Needs improvement Recycling 10 21 48 Waste 0 35 0 Needs substantial improvement Water 4 7 57 Good Social Intent Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent Management 8 12 67 Good Policy 6 6 100 Social Demographic 0 2 0 Vision 4 4 100 Excellent Needs substantial improvement Excellent Social Reporting Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment GRI Social Performance Indicators 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement Human Rights 28 77 36 Needs improvement Management 4 14 29 Needs improvement Qualitative Social 38 56 68 Good Quantitative Social 3 49 6 Needs substantial improvement www.roberts.cmc.edu 43 General Merchandisers Sector A PPR 2011 Web pages PPR PPR has a corporate sustainability report, which outlines its commitment to environmental labeling, environmental education, community partnerships, and diversity. Their supplier selection is based on the company’s environmental concern and explicit report of its greenhouse gas emissions, waste produced, electricity consumed, energy used and water used. PPR implemented programs to decrease paper usage and purchase recycled paper. It also created The Green Toolbox, which is a program that integrates environmental criteria for equipping, operating and maintaining its buildings. This Green Toolbox reduces the overall environmental impacts of each store and has a positive economic impact. It recently started initiatives to support women’s rights and development in the workforce, and has recorded information regarding its workforce turnover and recordable incident rates. PPR’s human rights reporting is affirmatively represented by its support for the United Nations Global Compact. 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 Source of points Distribution of points E 93 ES A S 45% E 55% S SSA 0 25 50 60 31 30 20 22 PPR EI 75 ER EP SI SR SP Environmental Intent Question Category Accountability Score Max Score % General Comment 4 4 100 Excellent Environmental Performance Indicators 0 2 0 Management 5 12 42 Needs substantial improvement Needs improvement Policy 6 12 50 Good Product Responsibility 2 2 100 Excellent Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent Vision 6 8 75 Excellent Score Max Score % General Comment 8 14 57 Good Environmental Reporting Question Category Emissions to Air Energy 10 28 36 Needs improvement Management 23 63 37 Needs improvement Materials Usage 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Products 2 21 10 Needs substantial improvement Needs improvement Recycling 7 21 33 Waste 11 35 31 Needs improvement Water 4 7 57 Good Social Intent Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment Accountability 4 4 100 Excellent Management 10 12 83 Excellent Policy 6 6 100 Excellent Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent Vision 4 4 100 Excellent Score Max Score % General Comment 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement Social Reporting Question Category GRI Social Performance Indicators Human Rights 7 77 9 Needs substantial improvement Management 7 14 50 Good Qualitative Social 16 56 29 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 11 49 22 Needs substantial improvement www.roberts.cmc.edu 44 General Merchandisers Sector A Sears Holdings 2011 Web pages Sears Holdings Sears Holdings has implemented many environmental initiatives to address the growing emissions and habitat issues. In 2010, Sears earned the Energy Star Retail Partner of the Year award. It created the Responsible Appliance Disposal Program, which makes it easy for customers to properly dispose of old refrigerators, freezers, and air conditioners at the end of the product life cycle. It also has established the Sustainable Paper Procurement Policy ensuring that the paper used by Sears is made from a sustainable combination of resources and processes. It now offers reusable bags to its customers and offers green home-improvement products that are well labeled to educate its customers. In 2008, Sears recycled 2,250 tons of hangers and 2,058 tons of plastic. It has installed energy efficient lighting and reclaims and recycles precious metals, antifreeze, and batteries. Sears sells green products and encourages customers to purchase those items that can be recycled; it carries energy-efficient televisions and recyclable electronics. Sears has also implemented oil recycling initiatives to conserve oil; 8.8 million gallons of oil were recycled in 2004. In an effort to remove tires from waste streams, Sears created a group to do just that. The Sears Logistic Team promotes clean air through its Smartway Transport Partner initiative. Partnered with the EPA, this team works to reduce carbon emissions and environmental impacts caused by the trucking industry. While Sears has initiated several environmental programs, social responsibility was lightly discussed in the Sears report; it only mentioned that flexible hours and telecommuting were viable work options for employees to reduce transportation emissions and create a better work environment. Although Sears’ human rights reporting is sufficient, more information about workforce diversity and women in management would be beneficial. 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 Source of points Distribution of points E 67 ES A E 53% S SSA 0 25 50 50 S 47% 32 31 22 22 Sears Holdings EI 75 ER EP SI SR SP Environmental Intent Question Category Accountability Score Max Score % General Comment 2 4 50 Good Excellent Environmental Performance Indicators 2 2 100 Management 4 12 33 Needs improvement Policy 10 12 83 Excellent Product Responsibility 2 2 100 Excellent Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent Vision 6 8 75 Excellent Score Max Score % General Comment 5 14 36 Needs improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Emissions to Air Energy 8 28 29 Needs improvement Management 17 63 27 Needs improvement Materials Usage 4 21 19 Needs substantial improvement Products 5 21 24 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 9 21 43 Needs improvement Waste 9 35 26 Needs improvement Water 3 7 43 Needs improvement Score Max Score % General Comment 3 4 75 Excellent Social Intent Question Category Accountability Management 4 12 33 Needs improvement Policy 6 6 100 Excellent Social Demographic 1 2 50 Good Vision 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement Social Reporting Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment GRI Social Performance Indicators 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement Human Rights 36 77 47 Needs improvement Management 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 25 56 45 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 1 49 2 Needs substantial improvement www.roberts.cmc.edu 45 General Merchandisers Sector D Shopko Stores 2011 Web pages Shopko Stores Shopko has a community giving program. The Shopko Foundations sponsors charitable causes and created a gift matching program for its employees. There is no environmental or social responsibility reporting, nor is there information on human rights. 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 Source of points Distribution of points E 0% E ES A 21 9 S S 100% SSA 0 25 50 75 0 0 0 EI ER EP 7 Shopko Stores SI SR SP Environmental Intent Question Category Accountability Score Max Score % General Comment 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Performance Indicators 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 12 0 Needs substantial improvement Policy 0 12 0 Needs substantial improvement Product Responsibility 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Urban Environmental Accords 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 0 8 0 Needs substantial improvement Score Max Score % General Comment 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Emissions to Air Energy 0 28 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 63 0 Needs substantial improvement Materials Usage 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Products 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Waste 0 35 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 4 12 33 Needs improvement Policy 0 6 0 Needs substantial improvement Social Demographic 0 2 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 2 4 50 Good Social Reporting Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment GRI Social Performance Indicators 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement Human Rights 0 77 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 16 56 29 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 2 49 4 Needs substantial improvement www.roberts.cmc.edu 46 General Merchandisers Sector A- Target 2011 Web pages Target Target has honorable environmental visions and has implemented many of its goals into everyday routines at stores around the world. It has implemented a recycling program that specializes in recycling shopping carts; 90 percent of hangers are also now recycled and reused. To decrease transportation emissions, Target employees use Segways. LED lights installed in Target stores have decreased the amount of energy used in retail stores. To cope with the growing destruction of environmental habitats and ecosystems, Target has begun redeveloping brownfield sites. Target reports a vast variety of social community initiatives around the world. Their philanthropic initiatives include reading and education, arts and culture, and social services. In 2009 alone, employees volunteered 450,000 hours of community service to work towards community goals. Target gives $3 million weekly for community development and education; it gives five percent of its income to the communities in which it operates. It also donates overstocked groceries to communities in need. Target’s environmental reporting, however, is flawed. More emission reporting is necessary to assess the actual carbon footprint of the whole company. Target also needs to report human rights issues: sexual harassment, bribery, and free association. 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 Source of points Distribution of points E ES A E 49% S SSA 0 25 50 64 55 S 51% 27 EI 75 ER 23 17 EP 34 Target SI SR SP Environmental Intent Question Category Accountability Score Max Score % General Comment 0 4 0 Needs substantial improvement Needs substantial improvement Environmental Performance Indicators 0 2 0 Management 4 12 33 Needs improvement Policy 10 12 83 Excellent Product Responsibility 1 2 50 Good Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent Vision 6 8 75 Excellent Score Max Score % General Comment 4 14 29 Needs improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Emissions to Air Energy 10 28 36 Needs improvement Management 19 63 30 Needs improvement Materials Usage 3 21 14 Needs substantial improvement Products 3 21 14 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 8 21 38 Needs improvement Waste 3 35 9 Needs substantial improvement Water 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement Score Max Score % General Comment 2 4 50 Good Management 6 12 50 Good Policy 6 6 100 Excellent Social Demographic 2 2 100 Excellent Vision 2 4 50 Good Social Intent Question Category Accountability Social Reporting Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment GRI Social Performance Indicators 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement Human Rights 7 77 9 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 14 0 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 42 56 75 Excellent Quantitative Social 4 49 8 Needs substantial improvement www.roberts.cmc.edu 47 General Merchandisers Sector A+ Walmart 2011 Webpages Walmart Walmart Corporate exemplifies how a major corporation can take action towards improving environmental sustainability around the world. Its environmental management team has developed the Sustainability 360 approach, which gives Walmart a more comprehensive view of its company and engage suppliers and customers around the world to join them in improving the environment. In 2009, Walmart decreased plastic bag waste by 6.5 million pounds. To cope with its industrial carbon footprint, it has eliminated 20 million metric tons of greenhouse gases from its global supply chain. GreenWERCS, a Walmart organization, focuses on improving chemical-based products so that they are less environmentally harmful than existing products. Walmart Corporate also believes in social responsibility and human rights reporting. Through social community investments, Walmart supports fighting hunger, veteran communities, environmental education, and children’s hospitals. For example, Walmart stores donate excess food to the Feeding America Program and has joined with the government to work towards reforming the health care system in America. Walmart also offers employees a benefit and support program. Its workplace development program supports upward career development and eliminates discrimination in the workplace. Walmart has set the highest standard for corporate environmental responsibility and continues to be a national leader in reducing greenhouse gases, supplier responsibility and diversity, and human rights. 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 Source of points Distribution of points E 75 71 ES A E 50% S S 50% SSA 0 25 50 31 29 27 38 W almart EI 75 ER EP SI SR SP Environmental Intent Question Category Accountability Score Max Score % General Comment 1 4 25 Needs improvement Needs substantial improvement Environmental Performance Indicators 0 2 0 Management 5 12 42 Needs improvement Policy 12 12 100 Excellent Product Responsibility 2 2 100 Excellent Urban Environmental Accords 2 2 100 Excellent Vision 8 8 100 Excellent Score Max Score % General Comment 6 14 43 Needs improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Emissions to Air Energy 8 28 29 Needs improvement Management 20 63 32 Needs improvement Materials Usage 10 21 48 Needs improvement Products 0 21 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 7 21 33 Needs improvement Waste 9 35 26 Needs improvement Water 3 7 43 Needs improvement Social Intent Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment Accountability 3 4 75 Excellent Management 8 12 67 Good Policy 6 6 100 Social Demographic 0 2 0 Vision 4 4 100 Excellent Needs substantial improvement Excellent Social Reporting Question Category Score Max Score % General Comment GRI Social Performance Indicators 0 7 0 Needs substantial improvement Human Rights 8 77 10 Needs substantial improvement Management 7 14 50 Good Qualitative Social 42 56 75 Excellent Quantitative Social 8 49 16 Needs substantial improvement www.roberts.cmc.edu 48 General Merchandisers Sector General Merchandisers Environmental visionary statement Report contact person 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 14 Initiatives/actions Specific targets and goals for improved environmental performance. Discussion Pg# Discussion Initiatives/actions 42 Initiatives/actions 43 Initiatives/actions 10004 Initiatives/actions 10005 Initiatives/actions Initiatives Pg# Environmental policy statement Initiatives/actions Initiatives Pg# Environmental accounting 21 -Discussion: of environmental expenditures. -Initiatives/actions: include detailed accounting of such expenditures. Discussion Pg# Discussion 45 -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 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 Initiatives Pg# Social policy statement Initiatives Pg# Environmental education 9 -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/actions Initiatives Pg# Initiatives Pg# www.roberts.cmc.edu 1899 Does the report describe the environmental aspects and impacts characteristic of its industry? Discussion Pg# Discussion Pledge to minimize general environmental impacts. Discussion Pg# Discussion Initiatives/actions Initiatives Pg# Environmental aspects and impacts of the industry Initiatives Pg# Commitment to minimize environmental impacts 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 Pledge to minimize consumption of resources. May include commitments to minimize energy, water, and materials consumption, to use recycled materials, and to recycle internally. Discussion Pg# Discussion Initiatives/actions Initiatives Pg# Stakeholder consultation Initiatives Pg# Commitment to minimize consumption 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 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 Initiatives Pg# Health and safety, or social organizational structure Initiatives Pg# Social impediments and challenges 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 -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 Initiatives Pg# Environmental management system Initiatives Pg# Social visionary statement 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 Initiatives Pg# Environmental goals Initiatives Pg# Environmental management structure -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 4 -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 49 General Merchandisers Sector General Merchandisers Third-party validation Percentage of products sold that is reclaimed at the end of the products’ useful life by product category 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 259 Initiatives/actions 11 Initiatives/actions Initiatives/actions Initiatives/actions 49 Initiatives/actions 55 Corporate giving and social initiatives. Commonly includes community programs, donations, grants, and scholarships. Discussion Pg# Discussion Initiatives/actions 306 Initiatives Pg# Code of conduct or business ethics -Discussion: includes a formal organizational code of conduct or of ethical behavior. -Initiatives/actions: include measures to assure that the code of conduct is followed. Discussion Pg# Discussion Initiatives Pg# Initiatives/actions www.roberts.cmc.edu Initiatives Pg# Social initiatives, including donations and grants Adopt a policy that mandates a green building rating system standard that applies to all new buildings. 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 Initiatives Pg# Green building Initiatives Pg# Employee training for career development Initiatives Pg# -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 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 13 Supplier screening based on social or environmental performance/ supplier management Initiatives Pg# Emergency preparedness program Initiatives Pg# -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 80 -Discussion: of appropriate actions to accommodate employees with disabilities. -Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such accommodations. Discussion Pg# Discussion 12 Green purchasing Initiatives Pg# Employment for individuals with disabilities -Discussion: of the organization's position on biodiversity. -Initiatives/actions: taken by to the organization to foster biodiversity. Discussion Pg# Discussion Initiatives/actions 52 -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 Initiatives Pg# Biodiversity Initiatives Pg# Workforce profile: age -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 18 -Discussion: of gender distribution of workforce. -Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid gender discrimination and achieve appropriate balance Discussion Pg# Discussion Initiatives Pg# Habitat/ecosystem conservation 17 Initiatives Pg# Workforce profile: gender 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 Initiatives Pg# Initiatives/actions Initiatives Pg# Climate change/global warming Initiatives/actions -Discussion: of racial or ethnic distribution of workforce. -Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid racial or ethnic discrimination. Discussion Pg# Discussion Efforts to label products that are environmentally-friendly. Discussion Pg# Discussion Initiatives/actions Discussion Pg# Workforce profile: ethnicities/race Initiatives Pg# Environmental labelling Discussion 266 50 Initiatives Pg# General Merchandisers Sector 47 General Merchandisers Environmental initiatives (voluntary) including donations and grants Energy used: Logistics 22 Any unrequired activity beneficial to the environment by the company or by its employees. Discussion Pg# Discussion Initiatives/actions Discussion Context Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous Initiatives Pg# Energy used (total) 26 Sum of the energy used by the organization in all different forms, including electricity, fuel, natural gas and others. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Context Pg#: Context Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous Year Data Values Year Improve Pg# Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Improve Pg# Units Waste recycled: solid waste 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 27 Year Energy used from renewable sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, or other renewable sources. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Data Values Context Pg#: Goal Pg#: Goal Pg#: Energy used (renewable) Year Data Values Discussion Pg#: Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Units Context Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous 103 Amount of fuel consumed for logistics purposes Data Values Context Pg#: Goal Pg#: Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Improve Pg# Units Context Pg#: Goal Pg#: Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Waste (office) recycled Improve Pg# 32 Office recycling of paper, cardboard, metal, or plastic. Units Discussion Context Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous Electricity consumption 28 Year Data Values Discussion Pg#: Context Pg#: Goal Pg#: Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Improve Pg# Units Total amount of electricity consumed by a company during operations. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Context Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous Year Data Values Context Pg#: Goal Pg#: Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Improve Pg# Units www.roberts.cmc.edu 51 General Merchandisers Sector General Merchandisers Waste produced Waste (hazardous) released to the environment 33 Sum of all waste produced from company operations. Discussion Context Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous Year Data Values Discussion Pg#: Context Pg#: Goal Pg#: Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Context Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg# Units Year Waste (solid) disposed of Context Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous Data Values Units 107 The recycling of materials such as cardboard, plastics, or wood, used to package any goods received from a supplier or delivered to a distributor. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Goal Pg#: Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Context Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg# Units Waste (hazardous) produced Data Values Context Pg#: Goal Pg#: Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Improve Pg# Units 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 Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous Data Values Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Improve Pg# Materials reused or recycled: Packaging materials Context Pg#: Year Year Data Values Context Pg#: Goal Pg#: 34 Includes solid hazardous and non-hazardous waste landfilled, incinerated, or transferred. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Year 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 Waste: Packaging materials The amount of waste materials specified as packaging materials by the organization, and not reused or recycled. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Context Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous Goal Pg#: Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Improve Pg# Units www.roberts.cmc.edu 109 Year 52 Data Values Context Pg#: Goal Pg#: Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Improve Pg# Units General Merchandisers Sector General Merchandisers Green material used Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total 146 Materials used in production generated from recycled materials or easily recyclable or reusable after product life. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Context Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous Year Data Values Context Pg#: Goal Pg#: Context Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Improve Pg# Units Year Materials used: Non-returnable packaging Year Data Values Goal Pg#: Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Improve Pg# Units Logistics emissions Context Pg#: Goal Pg#: Context Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Improve Pg# Units Water used 124 Emissions as a result of input and output transport of materials. Some companies report their CO2 logistics emissions while some only report logistics emission in general terms. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Year Data Values Context Pg#: Goal Pg#: Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Improve Pg# Units 29 Sum of all water used during operations. Discussion Context Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous Year Data Values Context Pg#: 148 Materials such as cardboard, plastics, or wood, used to package any goods sold or delivered to a disributor or an end user. Likely to be specifically referred to as "packaging materials". Discussion Pg#: Discussion Context Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous 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). The report should label this indicator as "greenhouse gases released", "CO2 Equivalents", or similar. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Data Values Employee turnover rate Discussion Pg#: Annual employee turnover rate. Context Pg#: Goal Pg#: Discussion Context Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Improve Pg# Units Year www.roberts.cmc.edu 3 53 Data Values Discussion Pg#: Context Pg#: Goal Pg#: Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Improve Pg# Units General Merchandisers Sector General Merchandisers Recordable incident/accident rate Customer satisfaction 74 Number of employee incidents or accidents, such as: “total case incident rate,” “incident rate,” or "accident rate." 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 Context Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous Units 81 Context Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Improve Pg# Year Data Values Context Pg#: Goal Pg#: Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Improve Pg# Units Units Notices of violation (environmental) 278 Context Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous 38 Notices of violation (NOVs) for environmental infractions. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Number of strikes and lockouts exceeding one week's duration, by country Discussion Pg#: Discussion Data Values Improve Pg# Amount of money spent on community outreach, including education grants, donations, and relief effort funds. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Context Pg#: Goal Pg#: Strikes and lockouts Year Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Social community investment 75 Number of employee injuries or illnesses that resulted in one or more lost workdays. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Data Values Data Values Context Pg#: Goal Pg#: Units Lost workday case rate Year 71 Efforts to compile, validate, track, and analyze customer complaints. 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 54 General Merchandisers Sector General Merchandisers 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 Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous Goal Pg#: Units Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Improve Pg# Units Health and safety citations 76 Goal Current Period Quantitative Data Previous Quantitative Data Improvement Over Previous 139 Data Values Goal Pg#: Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Improve Pg# Units Emulating best practices 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 Pg#: Context Data Values Improve Pg# Inclusion of maintenance, recycling or disposal services in the sales price of a product. The car battery industry, for example, recycles nearly 100% of returned batteries. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Context Pg#: Context Year Year Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Product stewardship or take-back 40 Government imposed fines for environmental infractions. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Context Pg#: Context Data Values Data Values Context Pg#: Goal Pg#: Units Fines (environmental) Year 77 Fines levied against a company for health and safety violations. Discussion Pg#: Discussion 164 Organization looks for industry "best practices" or performance of peer organizations as a guide to its reporting. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Initiative Pg#: Initiatives/Action Goal Pg#: Context Pg#: Context Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#: Quant Pg#: Prev Quan Pg#: Improve Pg# Geographic differences in environmental performance Units 3499 Does the report describe the company’s comparative environmental performance based on geographic location? Discussion Pg#: Discussion Initiative Pg#: Initiatives/Action Context Pg#: Context Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#: Financing ecologically friendly projects 190 To finance environmentally benefical project such as reforestation or renewable energy generation. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Initiative Pg#: Initiatives/Action Context Pg#: Context Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#: www.roberts.cmc.edu 55 General Merchandisers Sector General Merchandisers Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) Community development 147 Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is a formal procedure that examines the environmental aspects and impacts of a process or product from "cradle to grave". To get credit here, it must be referred to as life cycle analyses or planning. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Initiative Pg#: Initiatives/Action Context Pg#: Context Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#: Initiative Pg#: Initiatives/Action Context Pg#: Context Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#: Raw material reduction Community education 3799 Initiative Pg#: Initiatives/Action Context Pg#: Context Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#: Context Pg#: Context Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#: Customer health and safety 2 Discussion Pg#: Initiative Pg#: Initiative Pg#: Initiatives/Action Context Pg#: Context Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#: Context Pg#: Improve Pg#: Employee satisfaction surveys 67 Customer wellness and nutrition Surveys to monitor employee satisfaction. Discussion Initiatives/Action Context Improvement Over Previous Initiative Pg#: Context Pg#: Context Pg#: Context Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#: Improve Pg#: 70 Green technologies research and development Efforts to provide a safe and healthy working environment at all sites. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Context Pg#: Context Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#: 72 Product environmental performance Efforts to promote employee volunteerism in social or environmental projects. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Initiative Pg#: Initiatives/Action Context Pg#: Context Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#: 163 Eco-efficiency monitoring Programs to encourage carpooling, mass transit or other reductions in total commuting. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Initiative Pg#: Initiatives/Action Initiative Pg#: Initiatives/Action Context Pg#: Context Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#: 185 Customer Emergency Support Efforts to provide access to employees, especially those who are working off-shores Discussion Pg#: Discussion 149 Effort to help customers with medical emergencies involving the company's product. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Initiative Pg#: Initiatives/Action Initiative Pg#: Initiatives/Action Context Pg#: Context Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#: www.roberts.cmc.edu 144 Eco-efficiency is a numerical indicator to measure the degree of environmental impact caused relative to the scale of business activities. Many such indicators exist. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Context Pg#: Context Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#: Access to health care for employees 140 Analysis of the environmental impacts and aspects of the organization's products. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Initiative Pg#: Initiatives/Action Context Pg#: Context Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#: Green transportation initiatives 133 Research and development on green technologies Discussion Pg#: Discussion Initiative Pg#: Initiatives/Action Initiative Pg#: Initiatives/Action Context Pg#: Context Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#: Employee volunteerism 196 Efforts to help improve the user's wellness and nutrition, including food safety. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Initiative Pg#: Initiatives/Action Discussion Pg#: Occupational health and safety protection 169 Efforts to help improve the user's health and safety in using the products or service provided by the company. Some companies provide Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) with health and safety information about each product. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Relative numbers of women in management. Discussion Initiatives/Action Context Improvement Over Previous 68 Efforts to support education in the communities where the company is located. Discussion Pg#: Discussion Does the report describe effort to reduce the company’s usage of raw materials? Discussion Pg#: Discussion Initiative Pg#: Initiatives/Action Women in management 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 Context Pg#: Context Improvement Over Previous Improve Pg#: 56 General Merchandisers Sector General Merchandisers Sexual harassment Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and occupation 1 Rejection of any form of sexual harassment. Adoption of Policy Action to Reinforce Policy Monitoring Quant. Indication of Compliance 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. Policy Adopt Pg#: Initiative Pg#: Monitoring Pg#: Adoption of Policy Action to Reinforce Policy Monitoring Quant. Indication of Compliance Qty Perf Pg#: Political contributions 7 Policy about political contributions. Adoption of Policy Action to Reinforce Policy Monitoring Quant. Indication of Compliance Qty Perf Pg#: Free association and collective bargaining of employees Efforts to respect the right of employees to form and join trade unions of their choice and to bargain collectively. Monitoring 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#: Qty Perf Pg#: Qty Perf Pg#: Adoption of Policy Action to Reinforce Policy Monitoring Quant. Indication of Compliance 58 Efforts to uphold the highest standards of business ethics and integrity. May be found under a Code of Conduct. Policy Adopt Pg#: Policy Adopt Pg#: Initiative Pg#: Monitoring Pg#: Qty Perf Pg#: Effective abolition of child labor Initiative Pg#: Monitoring Pg#: 65 Rejection of illegal child labor by the company or its affiliates. Adoption of Policy Action to Reinforce Policy Monitoring Quant. Indication of Compliance Qty Perf Pg#: 62 Assurance that wages paid meet or exceed legal or industry minimum standard. Policy Adopt Pg#: Initiative Pg#: Monitoring Pg#: Qty Perf Pg#: Policy Adopt Pg#: Initiative 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 Policy Adopt Pg#: Initiative Pg#: Monitoring Pg#: Qty Perf Pg#: Degrading treatment or punishment of employees 59 Commitment to oppose any corporal/hard labor punishment, mental/physical coercion, or verbal abuse. Adoption of Policy Action to Reinforce Policy Monitoring Quant. Indication of Compliance www.roberts.cmc.edu 63 Assurance that all employees enter employment with the company of their own free will, not by compulsion. Monitoring Pg#: Fair compensation of employees 61 Policy Adopt Pg#: Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor Initiative Pg#: Anti-corruption practices Adoption of Policy Action to Reinforce Policy Monitoring Quant. Indication of Compliance Monitoring Pg#: Initiative Pg#: 8 Adoption of Policy Action to Reinforce Policy Monitoring Quant. Indication of Compliance Policy Adopt Pg#: Initiative Pg#: Policy Adopt Pg#: Bribery Adoption of Policy Action to Reinforce Policy Monitoring Quant. Indication of Compliance 60 Policy Adopt Pg#: Initiative Pg#: Monitoring Pg#: Qty Perf Pg#: 57 General Merchandisers Sector Belk, Dillards, Dollar General, Family Dollar, Follett, Fry's Electronics, JC Penney, Kohl's, Macy's, Michael's Stores, Neiman Marcus, N e w e g g . c o m , Nordstrom, PPR, Sears Holdings, Shopko Stores, Target, and Walmart 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
A.P. Moller-Maersk, ABN AMRO Holding, Air France
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
More information